Sitting of 26 January 1972

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

    Gipsy Sites
    Mr. Laurance Reedasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many gipsy sites have been provided up to September, 1971.
    Mr. Madelasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities have not prepared sites for gipsies.
    The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): I would refer my hon. Friends to the reply given in answer to a Question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith) on 21st January.—[Vol. 829, c. 284–5.]
    Mr. Reed: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that local authorities are acting with sufficient speed to provide areas for gipsy encampments? Is he satisfied, too, that the Gipsy Council is doing all that it might to promote closer co-operation with local authorities to try to avoid the difficulties that arise?
    Mr. Page: I cannot be satisfied that this matter is being dealt with as speedily as I should like it to be, but I realise the difficulties with which local authorities are faced because of objections from local residents in the neighbourhood of the sites. So far 42 sites have been established, and I think that good progress is being made.
    Mr. Madel: Does my hon. Friend agree that when gipsy sites are constructed they make for better relations between gipsies and the local community,
    1366
    as gipsies then have a definite place of residence, rather than having to wander around? Will my hon. Friend therefore push local authorities to construct sites as soon as possible?
    Mr. Page: I am doing that by as much persuasion as I can. Well-equipped, controlled sites are the only practical alternative to the squalid, unauthorised encampments which cause such a nuisance.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the feeling is still abroad that insufficient speed is being shown in the provision of sites? One does not wish to discriminate against gipsies, but the fact has to be faced that they cause considerable annoyance and inconvenience to residents in the area.
    Mr. Page: I hope that local authorities will take note of these Questions and the answers and will proceed as quickly as possible with the provision of sites. The great advantage to a county borough if it sets up 15 sites is that it can take all the necessary powers to clear unauthorised sites.
    Mr. Tom Boardman: Is my hon. Friend aware that many ratepayers object to paying for parking space for itinerant scrap merchants, who are distinct from genuine gipsies?
    Mr. Page: We are having consultations on the question of possible grants in respect of genuine gipsies.

    Housing (United Kingdom and France)
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many dewellings there are per 1,000 inhabitants in Great Britain and France, respectively; and what further action he proposes to take to increase the British figure.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Paul Channon): Crude figures of this kind do not provide a reliable way of comparing housing in the two countries. In 1968, the latest date for which figures are available for both countries, France had rather more houses per 1,000 population than Great Britain—342 as against 336—but ours provided better standards of accommodation.
    Mr. Jenkins: While recognising that what the hon. Gentleman says is true, that the quality of British houses is better than that of French houses, may I ask him to recognise that much private house building is the building of a second house, with a publicly subsidised mortgage, for someone who already has one house? Will he reverse the present trend and encourage the building of council houses, which is the building of houses for people who have no house?
    Mr. Channon: My right hon. Friend has made it clear that we wish to see a substantial increase in housing of all kinds.

    Box-Girder Bridges (Birkenhead)
    Mr. Cockeramasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in the examination of box-girder bridges on the Mersey Tunnel fly-overs at Birkenhead; and when he expects them to be available for use for the purpose for which they were designed.
    Mr. Graham Page: The steel box-girder flyovers on the Birkenhead side of the Mersey Tunnel are the responsibility of the County Borough of Birkenhead, with whom I suggest my hon. Friend should get in touch.
    Mr. Cockeram: In view of the fiasco of box-girder bridges, will my hon. Friend ensure that those responsible for their design are not employed on further building—bridges, motorways or otherwise—in future?
    Mr. Page: That is another question, which I shall consider. I should not have said that it was disastrous all over the country. My Department is helping those local authorities responsible—such as Birkenhead—with advice, and it is doing all it can to see that the bridges are thoroughly examined as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Ogden: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that box-girder bridges are on both sides of the Mersey? No box-girder bridge has ever failed once it has been put on site. Is the Minister's Department, and the Departments of his colleagues, not being a little overcautious in the length of time that is being taken on tests?
    Mr. Page: It is perfectly true that none has failed, once completed. However, I would not regard it as an abundance of caution to examine them all to make certain that on collapse will occur.
    Mr. Tilney: Does not the cost fall, at least partially, on the ratepayers on both sides of the Mersey? Is that not wrong?
    Mr. Page: No, because the roads were entirely the responsibility of the local highway authorities. No grant was made out of Government funds for the building of the roads.

    British Railways (Mineral-Carrying Branch Lines)
    Mr. Ellisasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will issue a general direction to British Railways to ensure the continued and efficient working of mineral-carrying branch lines when employment in industries served by such lines is immediately and directly affected by restriction of their working and in particular by their closure.
    The Minister for Transport Industries (Mr. John Peyton): No, Sir.
    Mr. Ellis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in my constituency, which has a male unemployment rate of over 7 per cent., a local quarry company was obliged to dismiss 25 of its workmen because of a decision by British Railways first to increase substantially their charges for the carrying of minerals and, secondly, to close within a few months the branch line serving the quarry?
    In view of the efforts which the Government claim they are making to improve the unemployment situation, may I ask the Minister to appreciate that a small but appropriate and simple remedy in this instance would be for him to have a word with British Railways and get them to agree, first, to keep; pen this branch line and, next, to reduce their exorbitant freight rates?
    Mr. Peyton: While I have every sympathy with the background which the hon. Gentleman has outlined, I nevertheless have no powers to direct British Railways on this subject. It must be a management decision whether to withdraw a freight service, which in the

    1369
    instance which the hon. Gentleman has in mind, I believe, is totally unprofitable.

    British Railways Board (Reorganisation of Headquarters)
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will give a general direction to the British Railways Board in considering the reorganisation of the headquarters of their various territories to have regard to social considerations and the needs of development areas.
    Mr. Peyton: No, Sir.
    Mr. Tilney: Is it not wrong for a nationalised industry to create unemployment in a development area and to produce jobs in an area such as Manchester, which is much more prosperous than Merseyside?
    Mr. Peyton: I would not wish to enter into the controversy between Liverpool and Manchester to which my hon. Friend referred. It is for British Railways or any other nationalised industry to conduct their business as efficiently as they can.
    Mr. Bradley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the entire proposal of British Railways for a new territorial organisation is an elaborate piece of nonsense that should be stopped forthwith? Does the proposal require the right hon. Gentleman's approval?
    Mr. Peyton: I think the hon. Gentleman will be aware that any major reorganisation requires my approval. I have not yet received any proposals.

    Regional Water Authorities (Appeals)
    Mr. Arthur Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek to ensure an adequate independent system of appeals against decisions of the future regional water authorities, relating to consent conditions and abstractions.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Walker): The existing system of appeals will continue.
    Mr. Jones: Would my right hon. Friend care to comment on the subject of public accountability in connection
    1370
    with his proposals for regional water authorities?
    Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend will appreciate that the paper is basically a consultative document. Thus, if any views are expressed about improving or obtaining public accountability, I shall of course consider them.
    Mr. Denis Howell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this aspect of his proposals is causing widespread concern, that it is thought generally to be an engineers' plan—it is conceded that this may have merit—and that there can be no case for nationalising these authorities while removing public control and accountability, which appears to be the purpose of the paper?
    Mr. Walker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking that supplementary question because it enables me to reply that there is no need for such public concern.
    Mr. Ron Lewis: When is the right hon. Gentleman likely to introduce the Bill dealing with this subject?
    Mr. Walker: I hope so to introduce the Bill that the new proposals can come in at the same time as the new authorities.

    Foulness Airport
    Mr. Moateasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made on the question of the siting of the runways and stacking areas and routes of flight paths for the proposed Foulness Airport; when he expects to be able to announce his decisions on these matters; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Walker: As promised, we will be consulting local authorities in Kent and Essex on runway siting and related problems before taking a decision. We hope to start discussions shortly.
    Mr. Moate: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the crucial importance of this decision to the people of Kent and the threat it represents to the environment of our county? Will he confirm that he intends to give full priority to the noise factor from the point of view of Kent and that even if extra cost is involved, the runways will be sited as far to the north east as is feasible?
    Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. I can guarantee that the siting of the runways will particularly take into account the noise factor. We shall be closely consulting the people of Kent on this subject.
    Mr. McCrindle: As at least one of the comprehensive development plans for Foulness shows the feasibility of placing the airport at least seven miles from the coast, with the minimum of noise to the inhabitants of Essex and Kent, may I ask my right hon. Friend to lay that down as a minimum condition for any plan he approves?
    Mr. Walker: I have assured the House that, in deciding the basis of the airport and its communications, we shall take as No. 1 priority the environmental considerations.
    Sir S. McAdden: May we have an assurance that my right hon. Friend will consult not only the local authorities but also the large number of other organisations, many of which have written to him, which wish to be consulted?
    Mr. Walker: I am aware of that and I have been in close consultation with the various organisations and hon. Members, and I shall continue to be so.

    Constitution Hill (Coach Parking)
    Mr. Prenticeasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many coach parking spaces have been made available by his Department along the Mall Horse Ride and along Constitution Hill for coach drivers bringing visitors to see the Changing of the Guard; and whether he will make additional spaces available next year.
    Mr. Channon: Forty spaces are provided on the Buckingham Palace side of Constitution Hill. Although parking had to be withdrawn last year from the Green Park side of Constitution Hill to provide safe passage for the Queen's Life Guard, 70 additional spaces were made available in the Mall Horse Ride for the entire tourist season for the first time. My right hon. Friend will continue to make these spaces available again during the 1972 tourist season, but it is impossible to provide more parking room without seriously impairing the amenities of the area.
    Mr. Prentice: Concerning the last part of that answer, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to agree that conditions for coach parking are becoming more desperate each summer in Central London? Will he have urgent consultations with the local authorities and the police to see whether, in this area of great tourist attraction, more coach parking facilities can be provided, for the sake of coach drivers and tourists?
    Mr. Channon: I note what the right hon. Gentleman says and I assure him that we are in constant touch with the Greater London Council, the Westminster City Council and the police about these matters. He will agree, however, that we do not want to ruin the amenities of the area.
    Mr. Jessel: Will my hon. Friend ensure that not so many coaches are parked in Constitution Hill that the traffic becomes so congested at Hyde Park Corner that it seizes up, which happened in the summer of 1970, with widespread effect on the West End? Will he see that that does not happen again?
    Mr. Channon: That is a relevant factor in considering this issue, but it is beyond any powers I may have to give such an absolute guarantee.

    Local Authority Tenants (Compensation on Compulsory Acquisition)
    Mr. Douglas-Mannasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many tenants of local authorities were required to forgo all or part of the compensation on the compulsory acquisition of their homes as a condition of the grant of their tenancy.
    The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Julian Amery): This information is not available.
    Mr. Douglas-Mann: Will the Minister endeavour to obtain this information? Does he agree that whether the figures are large or small, they are certainly substantial, and that those who have been required to forgo compensation in the expectation of receiving premises at the sort of rent which has hitherto been charged by local authorities will be effectively defrauded by being required to pay the fair rents required under the Bill which is at present in Standing Committee? Does the hon. Gentleman agree

    1373
    that this virtually amounts to obtaining money by false pretences?
    Mr. Amery: When an owner asks a council to buy his house and to rehouse him—where rehousing is part of the bargain—I regard that practice as acceptable. Otherwise I regard it as wholly deplorable and unacceptable.

    uilding Industry (Capital Investment)
    Mr. O'Halloranasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what further capital investment plans he will now bring forward in order to provide employment in the building industry; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Amery: I cannot anticipate what further measures the Government might take to stimulate employment to this end.
    Mr. O'Halloran: That is a disappointing answer. Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the suggestion that he should approach local authorities with a view to bringing forward council-house building programmes by six months in view of the fact that 147,000 building workers are unemployed, over 10,000 of them in the London area, where we have the greatest housing stress?
    Mr. Amery: I draw the attention of the hon. Gentleman to the statement made by the Chairman of the National Federation of Building Trades Employers in which he said:
    "Confidence is returning to the building industry not least because of the successive steps which have been taken by the Government to promote increased activity."
    Had the hon. Gentleman had time to read this morning's newspapers he would have read that building in public-sector housing is up by over 40 per cent. compared with November last year.
    Mr. Costain: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that more employment could be forthcoming in the building industry if there were a speeding up of planning consents and office development permission?
    Mr. Amery: I assure my hon. Friend that the Department of the Environment is very conscious of this problem and speeds things up as much as possible.
    Mr. Freeson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the statement of the
    1374
    Chairman of the National Federation of Building Trades Employers from which he quoted there was no reference to local authority house building, which is the subject of this Question? Is he aware of the major reduction in housing starts by local authorities and that he has powers under Section 91 of the Housing Act, 1957 to do what my hon. Friends have been asking him to do? Will he please use them?
    Mr. Amery: There is a Question a little later on the Order Paper, on which I shall be able to show the hon. Gentleman that public-sector housing is very much improving in comparison with last year.

    Barrow-Arnside Link Road
    Mr. Boothasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how long the Barrow-Arnside Link Road has been under consideration in his Department; and when he will make a decision on this matter.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): A link road to the A6 was first proposed to the Minister of Transport in 1963. The inquiry report reached my Department in February, 1971. My right hon. Friend will announce his decision as soon as possible but the proposals and alternative possibilities together with their environmental and economic effects are having to be considered.
    Mr. Booth: Will the Minister accept that all those in the area, who have waited for nine years for a decision on this matter, feel that they have been very shabbily treated, and that the Furness Area Development Committee, which has been seeking to retain industry and attract new industry into areas where it is badly needed, feels that unless it has an assurance of this major improvement in inland communications it is doomed to a very difficult task?
    Mr. Heseltine: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern to get a quick decision on this matter.

    M1 (Watford-Hemel Hempstead)
    Mr. Raphael Tuckasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make the stretch of the M1 between Watford and Hemel Hempstead, on

    1375
    which many deaths have occurred, into a six-lane carriageway.
    Mr. Michael Heseltine: My right hon. Friend hopes to make an announcement shortly about plans to improve this stretch of the M1.
    Mr. Tuck: Is the Minister aware that recent research by the Hertfordshire County Council has revealed that traffic on this stretch, known as the killer stretch, is 160 per cent. more than it ought to be? Why will the Minister not take action? Accidents will not wait. They are mounting and they will not wait while he jumps about like a cat on hot bricks.
    Mr. Heseltine: We are certainly aware of this, and we share the hon. Gentleman's concern about accidents. We hope to make a decision shortly.

    Building Land
    Mr. Tebbitasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now take further steps to secure the release of more land for private house building.
    Mr. Idris Owenasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the response to date of local authorities to his Circular 10/70; and if he will make a statement on land availability.
    Mr. Clinton Davisasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now make a further statement on the Government's policy to curtail rising land prices.
    Mr. Graham Page: I would refer the hon. Members to the Answer which I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) on 8th December last. I then outlined the many steps we are taking to meet the need for additional supplies of land, particularly in pressure areas where the upsurge of demand for housing has created shortages in land appropriate for development.—[Vol. 827, c. 1287–89.]
    Mr. Tebbit: Would my hon. Friend agree that although until recently the responsibility for the inflation of house prices has lain at the doors of those who crippled the building industry under the last Government, the new cause in future will arise from a shortage of building
    1376
    land? Would he take the opportunity today of pledging the Government to a programme under which the release of enough land to build, say, three or four million houses in the next decade is guaranteed?
    Mr. Page: I agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. I doubt whether a target of available land is purposeful. I suppose that Hyde Park could be called available land. It is a question of suitability as well as of availability. But, as my hon. Friend invites me, I take the opportunity to pledge that the Government will make every effort to meet the demand for the right land in the right place at the right time.
    Mr. Cant: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that certain authorities, such as Stoke-on-Trent, which are on the verge of releasing a considerable acreage of white land for housing purposes, are faced with the fact that, on the one hand, developers will make very substantial personal fortunes and, on the other hand, local authorities will be involved in enormous development costs? Could he offer a development subsidy to these local authorities which are falling in with the Government's plan?
    Mr. Page: There are appropriate grants and subsidies for that purpose. I am very pleased to see local authorities developing on a comprehensive development basis. This is what we want to bring forward.
    Mr. Arthur Jones: What has my hon. Friend to say on the subject of the lack of availability of residential land for development where there is clear reluctance on the part of county councils to approve planning applications?
    Mr. Page: I am not finding a reluctance at present. County councils are bringing forward schemes and considering partnerships with private enterprise and various ways of bringing forward comprehensive developments. It takes time to plan the services for the land.
    Mr. Denis Howell: Is not the Minister aware that, judged against the criteria of Government policy to make land available at prices that people can afford, Government policy is completely disastrous? Is

    1377
    he aware that the price of land is rocketing so much that it has been estimated by Birmingham builders, for instance, to have put £500 on the price of a house in the last three months? In London it is quite impossible for an ordinary working person to obtain a mortgage. For example, a clerk earning £25 a week in London can get a mortgage of only £3,900. What sort of slum will that buy in London? What will the Government do about this?
    Mr. Page: As the hon. Gentleman knows, mortgage rates have gone down. On average, land costs account for only the same proportion over the years, and the price of land has risen only as much as wages.
    Mr. Raphael Tuck: The hon. Gentleman must be joking.

    Country Parks
    Mr. Michael Shawasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many country parks were approved in the third quarter of 1971.
    Mr. Graham Page: Four country parks were approved for grant by my right hon. Friend during this period.
    Mr. Shaw: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that local authorities are doing enough to provide parks and other zones for amenity and recreational facilities?
    Mr. Page: A lot more can be done. After all, there is a 75 per cent. Exchequer grant for local authorities for approved schemes. Up to date, there are 43 local authority schemes, and I hope that they can go much faster. There are 135 projects under consideration by the Countryside Commission of my Department, and I think that we shall see quicker progress in future.
    Mr. David Clark: Does the Minister realise that this niggardly figure of four represents a slow down in the number of country parks created? For example, in the first quarter of 1971 10 country parks were created, but in the third quarter only four were created. What will the Minister do about this?
    Mr. Page: The figure of four is not representative. As I said, there are 135 under consideration. In 1971, the total number of country parks approved for
    1378
    grant by my right hon. Friend was 26, which compares well with 11 in 1970. I am disappointed with the figure of four but it is not representative of the whole system.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Can the Minister say how many of these proposals are concerned with reclaimed land, which offers an interesting possibility for development in this respect?
    Mr. Page: I should like the hon. Gentleman to put down a Question about that so that I may study it.

    Fluoridation
    Mr. Maddanasked the Secretary of State for the Environment, in the context of the reorganisation of water services, if he intends the regional water authorities to have responsibility for fluoridation.
    Mr. Peter Walker: Whether fluoride should be added to water in a particular area will be decided by the local health authorities.
    Mr. Maddan: Will my right hon. Friend encourage water authorities to encourage health authorities to fluoridate water? Would he agree that improvement in the water supply over the decades has helped to eliminate cholera, typhoid, polio and dysentery? Would he agree that it is impossible to draw a line between purification and improvement—lime is an example—and that therefore fluoridation should be encouraged.
    Mr. Walker: On the first half of the question, No. Sir. I do not believe that this is a task for the new water authorities to perform. On the second half of the question, it is up to the health authorities to decide.
    Mr. Pavitt: Will the Secretary of State do something urgently to cut through the red tape surrounding the situation of eight million Londoners? There are 32 county boroughs. Twenty-seven want to fluoridate, but because it is a metropolitan water authority, one council is sufficient to prevent this happening. Would the Secretary of State do something in order to get the will of the majority acceded to?
    Mr. Walker: I will pass this matter on to my right hon. Friend, who is responsible for health matters.
    Mr. John Hall: Would my right hon. Friend agree that it is rather dangerous to enforce medication of water? If we did that, should we not cater for the most prevalent of modern complaints and put Epsom salts in the water?
    Mr. Walker: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will take note of my hon. Friend's suggestion about Epsom salts. But it is not the task of the water authorities to decide on this point.
    Mr. Denis Howell: Would the Secretary of State think again about this matter? His answer that it was a matter for health authorities is correct at present, but when we get regional water authorities we shall not have regional health authorities. We shall certainly have a great deal of conflict, and we need some new thinking about this.
    Mr. Walker: I will certainly give consideration to any problems which may arise in this sphere. But it is a matter for health authorities, and not water authorities, to decide.

    London Green Belt
    Mr. William Sheltonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce additions to the London Green Belt.
    Mr. Peter Walker: I am very anxious to see that throughout the country more areas of Green Belt are approved; but so far as the London area is concerned, any further additions will depend on the outcome of current consultations with the county councils concerned.
    Mr. Shelton: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is he satisfied that the Green Belt around London is adequately protected at present?
    Mr. Walker: It is very well protected at present, but in the South-East in general there is a long-overdue need to review the whole Green Belt policy and to extend the amount of Green Belt.

    Housebuilding
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is now in a position to give the total num
    1380
    ber of houses built in the public sector for 1971 together with the comparative total for 1970 and 1969.
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many new houses were completed in the public sector in 1971; how many were started: and what steps he is taking to increase these numbers in the current year.
    Mr. Amery: No, Sir. The figures for 1971 will not be available until 31st January.
    Mr. Skinner: I can understand the Minister's reluctance to get the figures out. Does he realise that these figures, when published, will show that council-house building will be the lowest for a decade? Does not that make an utter farce of what the Prime Minister said on Monday about retraining to get the unemployment level down, when there are 147,000 trained, ready and able construction workers who, if given the chance, would be off the labour exchanges and building the houses which the country needs?
    Mr. Amery: I do not think the hon. Gentleman can have read the figures which were published this morning, showing that new orders for public-sector housing in November were 45·3 per cent. higher than in October, 1971 and 47·5 per cent. higher than in November, 1970. These are welcome statistics, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will join me in welcoming.
    Mr. Tebbit: Would my right hon Friend care to remind us all that one local authority in Surrey has recently had to postpone a council-house building programme because of a lack of building workers and that there are very few people who seriously believe this grossly inflated figure of unemployed persons in the building industry?
    Mr. Amery: My hon. Friend is perfectly right in the sense that both the employers and the trade unions tell me that there is a serious shortage of skilled men in many parts of the country and that our programme is in some danger of overheating the industry.
    Mr. Simon Mahon: Is the Minister aware that a very modest improvement in the employment figures could take

    1381
    place if society generally took advantage of the improvement grants which are available? Local authorities are becoming anxious and tenants who are eager to improve their property are becoming anxious. Is not the date for completion of June, 1973, completely artificial? Will the Minister take account of the views which I have expressed?
    Mr. Amery: Much more certainly could be done on the improvement side. However, the improvement figures are nearly 100 per cent. better than those for last year. Naturally I would welcome any additional support which the hon. Gentleman can give in his constituency and throughout the country.
    Mr. Simon Mahon: What about the date?
    Mr. Carterasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many houses were built in the period from November, 1970 to November, 1971.
    Mr. Amery: 375,500 were completed in Great Britain in the period of 13 months from 1st November, 1970, to 30th November, 1971.
    Mr. Carter: Are not those deplorably low figures when set against our desperate housing need? In view of the unemployment in the construtcion industry, is not the time ripe for the Government to present the House with a programme of massive urban renewal?
    Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in saying that the figures are disappointing. He will appreciate that completions up to the early months of 1971 depended on starts undertaken before the General Election, so I do not think there is a party issue between us. I have already said, in answer to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), that public-sector building is improving. Private-sector building is booming. I shall be able to make a further statement on 31st January when we have the final figures for the year. I do not think that those will be discouraging.
    Mr. Crosland: Even though the public-sector picture may look slightly brighter now, on the basis of the orders only, taking the number of starts, which is the most critical figure, is it not the case that in the third quarter of last year—the last quarter for which we have figures—starts
    1382
    were 18 per cent. below those for the third quarter of 1970 and, as far as I can trace, lower than in any quarter since 1961? Is not that deplorable?
    Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman seems determined to look a gift horse in the mouth. I hope that he will await the figures which are due to be published on 31st January. Meanwhile, I hope that he will join me in rejoicing at the improvement which is taking place in slum clearance.

    Petrol (Injection of Steam)
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what study he had made of apparatus for injecting steam into car petrol, which smooths the combustion process and enable engines to run on lower octane fuels; and what estimate he has made of carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxide in exhaust gases.
    Mr. Peyton: Independent tests have been arranged.
    Mr. Dalyell: If this has a future, can it expect any financial advantages in the fight against pollution?
    Mr. Peyton: Before I answer that question I should like to see the results of the tests, but the hon. Gentleman can be assured that this project is being taken seriously.

    European Economic Community (Transport Policy)
    Mr. J. H. Osbornasked the Secretary of State for the Environment in what main areas he proposes to seek to influence the formulation of European Economic Community transport policy; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peyton: In the economic regulation of transport and the environmental aspects of transport policy, including lorry weights.
    Mr. Osborn: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied, following the statement he gave in The Times recently, that adequate consideration will be given to high British standards in all these fields and that we shall make an impact on European policy?
    Mr. Peyton: Yes. I shall certainly do my best to ensure that this is so.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will the Minister confirm or deny that, come what may, the position is that none of the rules and regulations that have been agreed—the right hon. Gentleman will remember that I showed a parcel of them to the House the other day—is alterable or amendable by the Minister or by the House and that we must agree to them in toto?
    Mr. Peyton: We have agreed to the rules already existing in the Community. That does not mean that those rules are not subject to discussion in the future.
    Mr. Lewis: Discussion, but not amendment.
    Mr. J. T. Price: Before we start talking about influencing European policy, will the Minister say what is the present policy of his Department with regard to large vehicles in Britain, even before we join the E.E.C.? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that very large numbers of articulated vehicles, which greatly exceed in length, size and weight the limits permitted under the Motor Vehicle (Construction and Use) Act, are infesting British roads? Many of them originate from as far afield as Eastern Europe. They are constantly passing North into Manchester and other places and are a complete nuisance and an offence against laws passed by the House of Commons.
    Mr. Peyton: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding the House of this problem, which has existed for many years. A Bill which was recently introduced in another place has now reached this House and is designed to do precisely that for which the hon. Gentleman asks. I take it that that Bill will have the almost unanimous support of the House of Commons.
    Sir R. Cary: I assume that we shall be allowed to keep our existing axle weights and that they will not be increased in line with those existing in the Common Market.
    Mr. Peyton: The Community has not agreed on an axle weight. I believe that the retention of the 10-ton limit is very important indeed. There is no widespread agreement throughout the Continent of Europe on this important subject, but I think it essential that we should have in mind the strength of our roads and bridges and the vibration caused to ancient buildings by a heavy increase in the laden weights.
    Mr. Pavittasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the difference between permitted axleweight and size of lorries in the countries of the European Economic Community compared with Great Britain; and, on the basis that carriers are to have mutual access, what is his estimate of the cost of strengthening the bridges of Great Britain to stand the additional loads.
    Mr. Peyton: The European Economic Community has not yet agreed harmonised standards for vehicles weights and dimensions.
    Mr. Pavitt: Will the Minister use his influence to ensure that we do not agree to the increase? Will he pay heed to the views expressed on both sides of the House and realise that the large articulated lorries now travelling on our roads are an abomination from the point of view of the nuisance they create and the number of decibels of sound they emit? Will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the Government that this is likely to be one of the hidden costs of the bargain we have made and that there will be many others about which the House can only guess at the moment, as we are so short of information?
    Mr. Peyton: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I take this matter very seriously. However, I hope that he will not go too far down the road in regarding all heavy lorries, wherever they are, as a nuisance. They make a very useful and valuable contribution to our transport system.

    M1 (Tinsley Viaduct)
    Mr. Duffyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when the Tinsley Viaduct section of the Ml will be open to four-lane traffic.
    Mr. Michael Heseltine: The section of Ml carried by the top deck of Tinsley Viaduct is dual three lanes of which dual two lanes are open to traffic.
    As my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development stated in reply to a Question by the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley), proposals for strengthening the viaduct should be available by the end of April, 1972. Until these are received I cannot estimate how long it will take to put them into effect.
    Mr. Duffy: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this important viaduct has been restricted to two-lane traffic since June, 1971, and, in view of what he has just said, seems likely to be so restricted for a further six to 12 months? Does he think it good enough, in the face of current unemployment and surplus factory capacity, that there should be delays of up to a year before undertaking necessary modifications of this kind?
    Mr. Heseltine: Until I have the report, I cannot decide whether the modifications are necessary. But I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that public safety is paramount in such cases.
    Mr. J. H. Osborn: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the information which he conveyed to the Sheffield Chamber of Commerce in a letter has caused concern in Sheffield? While I accept that there are technical difficulties—the engineers recently had a meeting on standards and improvements—is there no way of improving the position and having normal traffic across the viaduct, which is in a steel city, as soon as possible?
    Mr. Heseltine: I cannot give any undertakings before seeing the report, which is due in April.

    Accidents (Lamp Standards)
    Mr. Montgomeryasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of collisions with standard lamp columns has resulted in fatal and serious accidents to car users and passengers in each of the last three years.
    Mr. Peyton: It is not possible to answer this Question in these terms. But of the accidents which resulted in personal injury, the percentages which resulted in serious or fatal injury were in 1971, 45 per cent.; in 1970, 41 per cent.; and in 1969, 46 per cent.
    Mr. Montgomery: In view of the number of bad accidents caused by cars crashing into standard lamp columns, will my right hon Friend consider issuing a circular to local authorities asking them whether they would consider the use of breakaway lamp standards, in the hope that this will help road safety?
    Mr. Peyton: Yes, Sir. Breakaway lamp standards are already under fairly active consideration and test. When
    1386
    any useful information is available I will consider circulating it to local authorities.

    Public Transport Investment
    Mr. Roger Whiteasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the major public transport investment projects approved for grants since 1968; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peyton: Since the inception of the infrastructure grant scheme in October, 1968, grants totalling £107 million have been approved. Of this sum about £100 million is accounted for by 11 major schemes, details of which I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. White: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in the South-East of England, and particularly Kent, we feel that a forward project with regard to the E.E.C. is required?
    Mr. Peyton: I will bear that in mind.
    Following is the information:

    Major Projects Approved for Infrastructure Grant Since 1968

    Cost of Project

    Grant Authorised

    £m

    £m

    Extension of Victoria Line from Victoria to Brixton

    23

    17

    Runcorn Busway

    3

    2

    Liverpool Terminal Loop

    12

    9

    Great Northern Suburban electrification and resignalling

    35

    26

    Fleet Line (Western Section)

    26

    20

    Bradford Interchange

    7

    2

    Redditch Busway

    4

    1*

    Improvement of south-east approaches to B.R. London termini

    14

    9

    London Transport rolling stock

    12

    9

    Feltham area resignalling

    6

    4

    Bond Street Station reconstruction

    4

    2

    *With prospect of further grant later.

    Thomas Cook and Son, Limited
    Mr. Foxasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made regarding the sale of Thomas Cook and Son, Limited; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peyton: A prospectus was published on 16th December.
    Mr. Fox: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Bearing in mind the intense interest in the matter on this side of the House, will he give an assurance that he will keep the House fully informed at all stages?
    Mr. Peyton: Yes, Sir, of course.
    Mr. Carter: Will B.O.A.C. or B.E.A. be permitted to make a bid for Thomas Cook?
    Mr. Peyton: I am not responsible for the actions of either of the nationalised air corporations, but no one has been inhibited from putting in a bid.
    Mr. Rost: Does not my right hon. Friend think that the general public, particularly the small investor, should also be allowed the opportunity to buy a stake in Thomas Cook? Would not a public offer for sale by subscription be a method to be considered?
    Mr. Peyton: My hon. Friend has raised that point on a number of occasions, including last night. The advice given to me was that the best way of securing the best price for the public interest was to proceed along the path we have taken.

    Docklands Study
    Mr. Mikardoasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many dwellings are involved in housing schemes which are being held back because of the Docklands Study.
    Mr. Peter Walker: I can well understand the hon. Member's concern on this topic. There is a Greater London Council development of 420 dwellings at Deptford Wharf and a few small schemes which are being delayed.
    We are already seeing whether some tens of acres can be released quickly in the London Docks and at Beckton.
    The study should result in substantial new areas being allocated for housing.
    Mr. Mikardo: I appreciate that the Docklands Study is very worthwhile, and I hope, as I am sure does the right hon. Gentleman, that some good will come out of it. But is the right hon. Gentleman aware—he has indicated that he is—that there is great urgency about the matter? I hope that he will do his best to push it along fast.
    Mr. Walker: We have seen the consultants and I have asked them to release such land as can definitely be released for housing as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: On behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones), may I say that he and I are very concerned about the right hon. Gentleman's reference to Beckton. The Newham Council is very anxious to get the project moving. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to use his undoubted knowledge and expertise to get those concerned in the Civil Service cracking, because West Ham—Newham, as it is now called—wants action on the Beckton site.
    Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and learned Friend will agree that it would be disastrous if this unique opportunity to develop 2,000 acres and to improve the environment of the East End were lost. Within that context, we must wait for the study. Apart from doing that, I shall certainly do everything I can to hurry up development.

    Easingwold (Street Lighting)
    Sir Robin Turtonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he has taken to bring to the attention of the highway authority responsible for street lighting on the A19 in the town of Easingwold his letter of 26th October, 1971, to local authorities on the subject of street lighting.
    Mr. Michael Heseltine: The Easingwold Parish Council is responsible for the existing street lighting, which is only footway lighting, and I asked rural district councils to bring my letter of 26th October to the attention of parish councils who are street lighting authorities.
    Sir Robin Turton: Is my hon. Friend aware that the town of Easingwold is the only stretch of the A 19 trunk road inadequately lit, and that elderly people are afraid to cross the street after dark? Surely, as a trunk road and street lighting authority, my hon. Friend has a responsibility and should not disregard his own circular?
    Mr. Heseltine: Additional funds are becoming available for trunk road lighting. A new scheme is under consideration, and we shall let my right hon. Friend know the results as soon as we have made up our mind on the matter.

    Motor Vehicle Exhaust Systems (Pollution)
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now introduce legislation governing pollution levels from motor vehicle exhaust systems.
    Mr. Peter Walker: I have almost completed my review of pollution from motor vehicles. I will be making an announcement in the near future.
    I did in fact yesterday have talks with the French Government and did agree with them an immediate exchange of information which should assist further consideration of this topic.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: Whilst I welcome my right lion. Friend's statement that the legislation will come forward very soon, may we have an assurance from him that he will make it binding on other-than-new vehicles, because other-than-new vehicles are always the worst offenders?
    Mr. Walker: There is a wide range of topics concerning emissions from motor vehicles. We are pushing research as quickly as possible on a filter that could be fitted to all vehicles, but it may not be possible to apply other regulations we might make, such as regulations about the future construction of an engine, to existing vehicles.
    Mr. Loughlin: While I appreciate further steps to deal with the pollution problem, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there are an enormous number of vehicles on the road, particularly heavy lorries, that are infringing the existing regulations? Therefore, will he take steps, possibly with the police authorities, to see that the existing regulations are observed?
    Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. I should warmly welcome far more enforcement than takes place in a whole range of activities. One is fumes from vehicles, another is noise from vehicles, and another is the dropping of litter.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Benyon.
    Mr. Benyon: Question No. 38.
    Mr. Idris Owen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that we have jumped from Question No. 36 to Question No. 38?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's Question, No. 37, was answered with No. 18.

    Office Development (Greater London)
    Mr. Benyonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has reached a decision concerning future office development in Greater London; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peyton: My aim is to continue to encourage those concerns which can do so to operate outside London, while ensuring that those who can best contribute to the economy by being in London are able to operate or develop there.
    Mr. Benyon: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that London of all the major capital cities of the Western world is in the best position to improve its environment because of its falling population? If the G.L.C. proposals to increase office employment by 75,000 in the next decade came to fruition, does he agree that there would be absolutely no possibility of reaching that goal?
    Mr. Peyton: I assure my hon. Friend that the considerations he has just expressed are not ignored. The important thing is to have some kind of balanced measure of control in the South-East, where there is great congestion, and at the same time to give reasonable opportunities in London.
    Mr. Crosland: May the House be informed whether the Minister responsible for transport has taken over planning responsibility from the Minister responsible for planning?
    Mr. Peyton: That was announced some months ago. I do my best to satisfy any questions which the right hon. Gentleman has to ask on the subject.

    Private Rent Assessments
    Mr. Ronald Brownasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the statutory provisions which govern the rights of private tenants to

    1391
    discuss rent proposals with the rent officer and the rent assessment committee, and their rights to expert representation before these persons.
    Mr. Amery: The tenant's rights to discuss with rent officers and, on appeal, with rent assessment committees the fair rent proposed are set out in Schedule 6 to the Rent Act, 1968. Where the landlord first applies for a Certificate of Fair Rent, the tenant's similar rights are set out in Schedule 7 to the Act. The specific rights to be represented by any person are provided in paragraphs 4(3) and 8 of Schedule 6 and paragraphs 4(2), 7(3) and 9(b) of Schedule 7.
    Mr. Brown: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Can he explain why he is refusing to give the same rights under the Housing Finance Bill to council tenants?
    Mr. Amery: Council tenants are being given for the first time the opportunity to appeal in writing against assessments. Under the present system they are given no choice of any kind.

    National Parks
    Mr. David Clarkasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations have been made to him expressing disapproval of his proposals for the reform of the administrative framework of the national parks.
    Mr. Peter Walker: Such representations have been received from voluntary amenity bodies and private individuals.
    Mr. Clark: Does the Secretary of State realise that there is a great disparity between the most effective and the least effective national parks and that there is considerable public concern that his proposals would reduce the national parks to the level of the least effective?
    Mr. Walker: That is not true. We have already announced a series of proposals recommended to us by the Countryside Commission to improve and strengthen the administration of national parks. I shall try to bring forward legislation to improve the present administrative set-up and to see that the national parks are better staffed than in the past and that the lessons from the best are applied to the worst.

    General Improvement Areas
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many general improvement areas have been declared since January, 1971.
    Mr. Channon:A total of 125 have been declared in England.
    Mr. Chapman: That is a very welcome answer. Does my hon. Friend agree that from every point of view—social, political and economic—renovation is far better than demolition, and will he expedite general improvement areas in the cities so that the near-slum areas of today become the modern, fashionable areas of tomorrow?
    Mr. Channon: I agree that we should do everything we can to stimulate general improvement areas. That is the general view on both sides of the House.
    Mr. Kaufman: Is the Minister aware that in the city of Manchester many more such areas could be declared, thus assisting us in our grave housing difficulties and alleviating the grave unemployment among construction workers? Will he at last relent and extend the provisions of the Housing Act, 1971 to the city?
    Mr. Channon: The provisions of the Act were limited to the development areas and other assisted areas, and the hon. Gentleman knows the reasons that prompted that decision.

    Water and Sewerage Services
    Mr. Spearingasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the comments he has received from public bodies on his consultative document on the proposed reorganisation of water and sewerage services in England and Wales.
    Mr. Peter Walker: No, Sir. Any publicity for any comments on this proposed reorganisation must be a matter for those making the comments.
    Mr. Spearing: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the consultative document left a great deal to consult about, that in this case the general principle of multi-purpose authorities has been agreed and that it would be a great help to the good will of everyone concerned if the Minister would publish

    1393
    these comments so that we know what the major bodies concerned are thinking?
    Mr. Walker: I do not think that there is any need to do so. I am perfectly willing to have the maximum dialogue and discussion with the major bodies concerned in this sphere. I am certain that there will be no complaint from them that they have not been fully consulted and have not had every opportunity to put their views.
    Mr. Montgomery: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that sailing clubs which use the canals are concerned about this reorganisation, and will he have consultations with them?
    Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Denis Howell: Is the Minister aware that when he announced his proposals he told the House that he had consulted the bodies in charge of canals and the water industry, but these responsible bodies have denied that they have been properly consulted? Is he further aware that the proposals for the canals have caused dismay throughout the country?
    Mr. Walker: That may be due to the completely inaccurate suggestions made by the hon. Gentleman, but I assure him that considerable consultation is going on and that there is no complaint about the degree of consultation which is taking place.

    Housing Finance Bill (Representations)
    Mr. Leonardasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many organisations representing council tenants requested meetings with him or his Ministerial colleagues to discuss the effects on tenants of the Housing Finance Bill.
    Mr. Amery: Six, Sir.
    Mr. Leonard: Does not that reply indicate that the excuse which Ministers have given that representatives of council tenants are asking for too many deputations to be received to discuss the Bill is utterly bogus, and does it not further indicate the contempt which Ministers are showing to council tenants in imposing this harsh and repressive Measure on them without any consultation whatever?
    Mr. Amery: On the contrary, I think the hon. Gentleman shows himself to be a bogus statistician. Others have not asked because we made it clear that we should not receive them.
    Mr. Tom Boardman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that hon. Gentlemen opposite are making grave misrepresentations and distortions about the effect of the Bill? Does he not consider it right to give the maximum publicity to the beneficial effects of the Bill and so to avoid groundless fears being caused to tenants?
    Mr. Amery: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend and I are doing everything we can to explain the Bill to the public. I have no doubt that events will fully justify our forecasts and show how bogus are the claims of the Opposition.
    Mr. Crosland: Is the Minister aware that by far the most serious misrepresentations about the Bill have been made by the Secretary of State for the Environment in a recent "Panorama" programme and when meeting a deputation of tenants from his constituency? If Ministers would stop giving totally untruthful accounts of the likely effects of the Bill, everyone would be much better off.
    Mr. Amery: Having listened to the right hon. Gentleman in Committee over many hours, I find it difficult to believe that anyone could make more misrepresentations than he has done.

    Local Government Reorganisation
    Mr. Laneasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on the proposed division of functions between county councils and district councils in the Local Government Bill; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Graham Page: There has been a wide welcome for those provisions in the Local Government Bill which allocate to district councils more functions than were originally proposed in the White Paper. Various further Amendments have been tabled for consideration by the Standing Committee now examining the Bill in detail.
    Mr. Lane: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the view of many people not enough of the functions most relevant to local life are assigned to the district councils? In his continuing efforts to get the balance absolutely right, will he look especially at traffic management, parks and libraries in cities?
    Mr. Page: These matters will come up for discussion in debates on the Bill. I am satisfied that we have generally achieved the right division of functions between the counties and the districts.
    Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Is the Minister aware that many county boroughs, for example Southampton, are extremely upset that, in addition to the functions mentioned by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane), education and social services are also to be taken away from them and passed to a rather abstract county authority?
    Mr. Page: It should not be overlooked that those county boroughs will now have representation within the counties, which they have never had before, and that the functions given to the districts will enable them to build up the character of their towns.
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Will my hon. Friend give special attention to the representation which has been made to him on behalf of parish councils to ensure that the parishes most likely to be affected by planning decisions are consulted before any decision is taken?
    Mr. Page: In answer to a Written Question I have already said that we shall provide for parishes to have notice of planning applications and, if necessary, this will be put into legislation later. Otherwise, there is much which we are bringing into the Local Government Bill to strengthen the parish system.
    Mr. Cant: I appreciate that much of the discussion on the Bill is taking place in Committee, but would not the Minister, as a matter of general principle, agree that authorities like Stoke-on-Trent, with a population of over 250,000, are, as future district councils, entitled to more powers? I ask him not to listen to the shrill cries of the Tory counties who seem anxious to take back again those small extra planning powers that, in his graciousness, the Secretary of State
    1396
    for the Environment has given to the district councils.
    Mr. Page: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am trying to hold the balance between the counties and the districts. I believe that we have the line of functions right. There may be a need for some tidying up on one side or other of the line, but I believe that in general we have the right line, and I will not give way in either direction.

    QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
    Mr. Crosland: On a point of order. The House understands that a Minister in answering supplementary questions may occasionally, quite unintentionally, mislead the House on a comparatively minor point. This afternoon the Minister for Local Government and Development, in answer to a supplementary question, said that wages had been going up as fast as land prices. Since wages are now going up at the rate of only about 7 per cent. a year, whereas land prices are going up by about double that amount and in some parts of the country by as much as four times that amount, may I give the Minister an opportunity to correct what was outrageously inaccurate?
    Mr. Speaker: I do not detect any point of order.

EDUCATION (JAMES COMMISSION'S REPORT)
Mr. Spearing: On a point of order. Yesterday I raised a matter of importance to back benchers concerning the availability of documents. The Report of the James Committee was not available in the Vote Office yesterday, although today there have been articles on it in the leading morning newspapers. Hon. Members have been unable to get a copy of this document. Had they gone to Her Majesty's Stationery Office in Holborn, they would have discovered that copies of the report had been sold out 20 minutes after the office opened yesterday. Copies have now arrived in the Vote Office 24 hours late, but some of my hon. Friends have been embarrassed by the Press having asked them for comments upon the James Report and being unable

1397
to make comments because copies of the report have not been available.
This is the second occasion on which this Department has been involved in controversy about the publication of a major report. I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on how this can be avoided in future.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): Further to that point of order. When the hon. Gentleman properly raised this matter yesterday I said that I would look into it. As a result, copies of the report are in the Vote Office today. I will look into the point about the future, which I appreciate.
Mr. Michael Foot: Further to that point of order. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House has replied to my hon. Friend who raised a matter about which the House is bound to be concerned. This appears to be a most flagrant example of the failure of the Department to deal with the matter properly. Will the right hon. Gentleman give a guarantee that the Minister responsible for the Department will make a statement to the House on the subject, so that we may be able to cross-examine to see how this occurred, and make sure that nothing of the sort shall ever occur in that Department again and that other Departments will learn from the example?
Mr. Whitelaw: Further to that point of order. I regard myself, as Leader of the House, as responsible to the House for matters of this kind. If anyone wishes to complain about how things have been done, they should complain to me. I am quite prepared to receive such a complaint.
Mr. Foot rose—
Hon. Members: Sit down.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We seem to be getting a long way from a point of order. Mr. Foot.
Mr. Foot: On a point of order. I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, whether I may put a further question to the right hon. Gentleman. You agreed that the right hon. Gentleman should reply to a question put by my hon. Friend. Had there been anything out of order on
1398
that point I am sure you would have intervened then. You agreed that he should make a reply—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not understand the hon. Member's preamble. I have called him.
Mr. Foot: I am trying to determine whether you called me on a point of order or to put a further question to the right hon. Gentleman. If you are calling me to put a further question to the right hon. Gentleman, as I wish to do, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give a firm undertaking to the House, not merely that he will inquire into this matter, because that is not sufficient, but that either he or the Minister directly responsible will make a further statement to the House so that the House itself shall be able to determine that we shall not have a recurrence of this event?
Mr. Speaker: I allowed the hon. Member to raise a point of order on the distribution of a particular document. Perhaps I was wrong, because it has led to this discussion. The proper time for this sort of discussion is at Business Question Time. It is not a point of order for me now.
Mr. Foot rose—
Hon. Members: Sit down.
Mr. Foot: On a point of order. If there is any bogus point of order, I am sure Mr. Speaker will raise the matter. It is apparent that Mr. Speaker does not say so. You permitted my hon. Friend to rise a matter which affected many hon. Members, that is to say, that documents which should have been available to the House were distributed to the Press in a way contrary to the arrangements that are understood to be proper in the House. It was perfectly proper that you should allow my hon. Friend to raise the matter and, if I may say so without disagreement from the Government side of the House, perfectly proper that the right hon. Gentleman should make a reply.
All I am saying is that, that procedure having been permitted according to the precedents of the House, I should now be able to ask the right hon. Gentleman to give an undertaking that the matter shall not be left merely on a statement that lie will inquire into it, but that he will give an undertaking to the House

1399
that he or another Minister will make a statement on the matter.
I submit that that is a perfectly proper suggestion to be made, and I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have been eager to say right away that he would give that undertaking.
Mr. Whitelaw: I did not want to delay the business of the House, which is of importance. I thought I was taking the proper action, immediately the matter had been raised yesterday, in making sure that the documents were provided for the House today. That is my job. I have also said that I will look into the whole circumstances, and I will. If any right hon. or hon. Gentleman wishes to question me during questions on business tomorrow on the result of the investigation and what will happen in the future, I shall be pleased to answer. If that is not satisfactory, hon. Members may question me at other times.
I have nothing I wish to hide. I only want to do what is right for the House. I think it is perfectly proper that I should answer questions at Business Question Time tomorrow rather than setting aside a special time for a statement. I do not want to make a business of this. I will do whatever is the wish of the House.
Mr. Foot: Further to that point of order. The opportunity that the House has to put questions on business tomorrow relates to the Business for next week and the weeks that follow. As has happened on previous occasions, a backbench Member who raised general questions about the publication of documents could be ruled out of order during discussion on the business for next week. It is not satisfactory either for you to rule or for the right hon. Gentleman to say
1400
that we will deal with the matter on Thursday as a matter of routine. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to satisfy the House, all he has to do is to say that the Minister will come to the House and explain why this state of affairs has arisen and how it is proposed to ensure that it shall not happen again.
Mr. Arthur Lewis rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is an Opposition half Supply day but I will allow the questions to continue.
Mr. Lewis: Further to that point of order. As the Leader of the House has been kind enough to see that the documents are now available, will he also carry out the promise he has made on the Treaty of Accession which has been published in the Press and which lion. Members have been unable to obtain?
Mr. Speaker: We must now move on.

EDUCATION (JAMES COMMISSION'S REPORT)
  BILL PRESENTED
    TRANSPORT (GRANTS) BILL
    Mr. Secretary Walker, supported by Mr. Secretary Campbell, Mr. Secretary Peter Thomas, Mr. John Peyton, Sir John Eden, Mr. Maurice MacMillan, and Mr. Eldon Griffiths, presented (under Standing Order No. 91 (Procedure upon Bills whose main object is to create a charge upon the public revenue)) a Bill to authorise the Secretary of State to make grants to the British Railways Board and to the National Bus Company, and to make contributions to expenditure by the British Railways Board or their subsidiaries intended to promote employment: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 73.]

RIGHTS OF PATIENTS
3.40 p.m.
Mrs. Joyce Butler: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to clarify the rights of patients to privacy when receiving hospital treatment under the National Health Service, and in regard to medical experiments on human beings.
The Bill which I seek leave to introduce enters a comparatively new area of consumer protection and underlines the rights of patients in one particular respect. Although the principle of the patient's right to unconditional treatment in any hospital is now well established, only a few hospitals completely respect that right in practice. Although successive Ministers responsible for the Health Service have confirmed that right and have stated that no teaching hospital makes treatment conditional, the Patients' Association which is very zealous on behalf of patients's rights continues to receive letters from patients and intending patients about hospitals which completely disregard that right.
I have received many letters expressing the shock which people have experienced when they have found themselves lying in a hospital bed, suddenly surrounded by a group of students accompanying the consultant. Many such patients had hardly realised they were in a teaching hospital and they were completely unprepared for the experience of being used for teaching purposes, including questioning and examination by students. For some patients that experience flatly been so traumatic that they have flatly refused to go back to hospital again whatever the need may be.
I had one very grave case reported to me of a patient who had recovered from breast cancer but her experience in being used for teaching purposes in the hospital, in addition to the suffering of her condition, made her determined not to go to see her doctor when fresh, alarming symptoms occurred. She still has not done so because she will not go back to hospital for the necessary treatment.
A young girl who was an out-patient for psychiatric treatment was so alarmed and concerned by the constant questioning and discussion about her case which was undertaken by students that she too
1402
has refused to continue with treatment. Another woman patient with a history of mental trouble, only two months after the death of her husband reported:
"In a very painful interview I was asked to describe my husband's death to the consultant and a group of student doctors. I felt that I was being used as an object lesson for the sake of the doctors and I received no help at all."
That case was apparently what is known as a "case conference" and there were nine people present including a ward sister, social workers and an occupational therapist. I appreciate that this case conference was probably quite necessary for the woman's condition and I realise the difficulty of this type of case, but surely some explanation could have been given to her which would have prevented the outrage to her feelings and susceptibilities which she experienced and which have had a lasting effect on her.
What can happen is illustrated by a maternity case which was reported at the end of last year. The patient's first baby had been damaged in delivery by a medical student and she was naturally particularly concerned about her second confinement. She attended the hospital clinic where it was the practice for two students, in this patient's words, " … to be let loose on the patients before the doctor came ". In her case the two students described the awful mistakes students can make, and she was naturally very upset.
On the advice of the Patients' Association she wrote to the consultant and the practice of having two students present was dropped. She was also assured that she would not be attended by a student at delivery. The hospital added these extraordinary words:
"This is open to all nervous mothers-to-be but, of course, not advertised."
I am sure that any mother and very many other people concerned would ask, "Why not? Why should the patient not be told that they do not need to have students present?" It is precisely because of this hospital attitude that I am convinced that the patients' rights need to be written into legislation.
As it is, one elderly lady categorically said that when she asked if she could be examined without students being present the consultant said, "No, that is the price one pays for the superior care given in

1403
teaching hospitals". The hospital has denied this, but the lady concerned sticks by her statement.
In contrast, and being quite fair, I must say that I have had a number of letters from people who were very proud to be used to help further the cause of medical science, and I have received reports from former patients of treatment by students in which they very happily co-operated because of the kind and courteous manner of both the students and consultants concerned. This is really the key to the whole problem. We cannot legislate for human behaviour, but what can be done is to write into the law the patient's right to refuse to be used as teaching material and the hospital's duty to inform him of that right.
That is the purpose of this Bill. It will then be incumbent upon all hospitals to follow the example of the best and to seek the co-operation of the patients with the same consideration as the practitioners of any other profession have to show in securing the confidence and the cooperation of their clients. In the process it would seem that hospitals will increasingly have to follow the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Medical Education, namely that students should observe only in very small numbers, that patients should be consulted first by the teacher and that no hospital should make treatment conditional on the patient's co-operation in teaching. If these rules are followed the majority of patients would agree to co-operate quite happily and the teaching services of the hospital would not suffer. They would rather be improved by the development of a more sensitive patient approach which would be beneficial to the students when they begin practising.
Because of the public concern that has been aroused by reports of human
1404
guinea pigs in hospitals, I have included a reference to this in the Bill. Hospitals have been asked to establish ethical committees, and the Department of Health and Social Security is at present making inquiries about how many hospitals have done this and how the committees are functioning.
I am sure that members of the public, and after all any member of the public is liable at any time through illness or injury to find himself in hospital, would be reassured if all clinical investigations on human beings in hospitals which are not of direct benefit to the patient concerned had to be referred to the hospital ethical committees for approval. I have written this provision into the Bill.
I do not think it is necessary to add that the sponsors of the Bill have the greatest respect for the work of the teaching hospitals and a deep appreciation of the need for students to have practical experience in them. We believe that the services and the teaching which these hospitals provide is perfectly compatible with respect for the rights and wishes of patients and that teaching services will be greatly improved if the provisions of this Bill become law.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Joyce Butler, Mr. Blenkinsop, Sir Bernard Braine, Mrs. Fenner, Mr. Kilfedder, Mr. Loughlin, Mr. Pardoe, Mr. Pavitt, Miss Pike, and Mr. Willey.

RIGHTS OF PATIENTS
  RIGHTS OF PATIENTS
  Bill to clarify the rights of patients to privacy when receiving hospital treatment under the National Health Service, and in regard to medical experiments on human beings: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 4th February and to be printed. [Bill 74.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [9TH ALLOTTED DAY] [First Part],—considered.
  SUPPLY

    RHODESIA
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pym.]
    3.50 p.m.
    Mr. Denis Healey: We have asked for this emergency debate on Rhodesia in order to express our disappointment and disgust at the Foreign Secretary's failure to make sure that the Smith régime kept the promise it had made to him to allow normal political activity during the test of acceptability, and also to seek answers to certain important questions on which the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers have promised us answers in the last few weeks.
    We on this side of the House have never disguised our view that the Foreign Secretary's proposals for Rhodesia represent a betrayal of the five principles and a sell-out of the African majority in that country, but we have always recognised, nevertheless, that if the Rhodesian people as a whole do find them acceptable then this fact must weigh heavily with us in taking our final decision in this House on the proposals, and I said this in the first debate after the Foreign Secretary's return. For this reason we attach the greatest possible importance to the nature of the machinery used for the test of acceptability and to the conditions in which this machinery is used to carry out the test.
    I think that any external observer who came to the problem for the first time would feel, as the Foreign Secretary himself did in 1964, that the only satisfactory test of acceptability would be a referendum, because there is no parliamentary democracy in Rhodesia, and there is no means other than a referendum for finding out with obsolute certainty what the views of the majority in Rhodesia are. I must say that I was rather surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, as
    1406
    Vice-Chairman of the Commission, described the idea of a referendum as ludicrous; particularly I was surprised as the Foreign Secretary himself supported this idea in 1964. Of course, we all know that Mr. Smith would not permit a referendum and that a referendum carried out under the Smith regime would have no guarantee of being carried out with total honesty—
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Oh!
    Mr. Healey: Oh, yes, certainly—and for this reason the Government, naturally enough, proposed to carry out their own test of acceptability through a commission.
    Again, the House is well aware that we on this side regard the composition of the Pearce Commission as quite unsatisfactory. It does not, as we proposed, contain an African of distinction who might be expected to carry the confidence of the majority of the population in Rhodesia itself, a man like Robert-Gardner or Mr. Adu, of Ghana; it does not contain a Churchman with knowledge of Africa, like Bishop Skelton or Bishop Reeves; it does not even contain a white man who is known to have the confidence of all races, like Mr. Lester Pearson or Mr. Malcolm Macdonald. We deeply deplore the fact that the Commission is unbalanced, as, in our view, it is.
    I must say that anyone who watched Sir Frederick Pedler, who was appointed as Vice-Chairman of the Commission by the Foreign Secretary—who watched him on Panorama on Monday attempting to answer questions on how the Commission prepared for its task must have the gravest doubts about the way in which the Foreign Secretary made his choice, and, indeed, about the way in which the Commission approached its task. I think that none of us can feel satisfied with the reason the Foreign Secretary gave for not attempting to replace Sir Frederick, when he found he had to resign from the Commisison, with a man who falls into one of the three categories I have mentioned. His only reason for not doing so was that there was not time, but a week later he appointed two new commissioners to carry out the onerous job of carrying out the test on the ground in the tribal areas.

    1407
    I think it was the view of most British newspaper correspondents who covered the first few days of the Pearce Commission's presence in Rhodesia that it had got off to a very bad start.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): The right hon. Gentleman is not, I hope, criticising the Commission? He does know that his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition on Monday said:
    "We want to get an honest answer out of this Commission and it wants to give one."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 24th January, 1972; Vol. 829, c. 985.]
    So apparently his own Leader has quite a high opinion of the Commission.
    Mr. Healey: No, what my right hon. Friend said was that the Commission wants to give one, and I do not for one moment dispute that, but the way in which the Commission set about its task was in many respects very unsatisfactory and was criticised as such in, for example, an impressive leading article in The Financial Times last week. One of the points of criticism I might well repeat since the Foreign Secretary appears to have none. The first point was that it appeared to acquiesce in Mr. Smith's refusal to interview Mr. Sithole.
    Secondly, the Commission having sensibly issued forms for the Africans to fill in to express their views, withdrew them after seeing Mr. Smith. Incidentally, the House will now know that the reason Lord Pearce gave for withdrawing the forms was quite different from the one which the Foreign Secretary gave on the very same day for withdrawing the forms.
    There is still dissatisfaction, I can tell him, on this side of the House that the Pearce Commission has chosen to shut its office in Salisbury during the only hours in which it is accessible to most Africans, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will look into this point and give us some assurance later in the debate.
    Finally, there have been cases, quoted in the newspapers, in which the Commissioners on one or two occasions have appeared to argue in favour of the settlement proposals rather than simply to explain what they mean.
    1408
    In other respects the Commission's action has been perfectly satisfactory, and, indeed, encouraging. A fortnight ago Lord Pearce asked Mr. Smith to explain and to comment on the complaints which had been made to him by the leaders of the African National Council as to the interference with its normal political activity in Rhodesia during the test. Bishop Muzorewa had pointed out that 200 meetings in tribal trust areas had been refused and that many meetings in the urban areas had been barred ostensibly for reasons connected with insurance. Since then the African National Council has complained that a hundred of its active members have been imprisoned without charge. We are told that Lord Pearce has asked Mr. Smith for an explanation of these facts but has at yet had no reply.
    Secondly, we are very satisfied that the Commission should have asked Mr. Smith to explain the arrest of Mr. Garfield Todd, an ex-Prime Minister of Rhodesia, and of his daughter, and of a number of leading African nationalists, particularly Mr. Chinamano and his wife. It has asked, moreover, why Mr. Todd is being kept in a cell like a common convicted criminal, although, as far as we are aware, no charge has been brought against him. We are told that Lord Pearce has also raised with Mr. Smith his refusal to allow Sir Dingle Foot to enter Rhodesia to advise the African National Council. Lord Pearce has now asked that the Commission should be allowed to interview Mr. Sithole in gaol. I hope we shall have some clarity from one of the Government speakers on this matter later in the debate. The complaint from this side of the House is that although Lord Pearce has asked these questions he has had no reply, and that the Foreign Secretary, so far as we know, has done nothing to help Lord Pearce to get replies to these questions.
    Moreover, Lord Pearce, on 21st January, issued a statement in which he pointed out that to gaol people simply to silence them was not to allow normal political activity. We have had no comment from the Government on this statement. Lord Pearce also pointed out in that statement that he was not satisfied that normal political activities were

    1409
    allowed in the tribal trust areas, although he admitted—the Foreign Secretary rightly made this point on Monday—that it was difficult to establish the facts as to whether any political activity at all had been permitted throughout the trust areas. It appears that some political activity has taken place.
    It was the clear duty of the Pearce Commission to raise these questions as soon as they were raised with the Commission by Rhodesians. It was the clear duty of the Foreign Secretary to ensure that they got satisfactory replies. But what has the Foreign Secretary done to support his own Commission? The Commission has charged the Smith régime with not permitting normal political activity, in violation of a direct promise made by the Smith régime to the Foreign Secretary and transmitted by the Foreign Secretary to this House.
    What the Foreign Secretary made completely clear on Monday was that he had not the slightest idea what was going on in Rhodesia and gave no evidence of the slightest desire to find out. Mr. Derek Marks, writing today in the Daily Express, a paper whose owner has played a leading rôle in helping to negotiate the settlement and which is totally committed to the settlement, had to point out:
    "The most extraordinary feature in the whole Rhodesia business at the present time is the apparent complete lack of communication between London and Salisbury."
    That is the Editor of the Daily Express writing in Sir Max Aitken's newspaper this morning.
    Can the Foreign Secretary explain to the House how it is that, when he had some 30 commissioners, appointed by himself, on the ground in Rhodesia, when he had a diplomatic representative permanently established in Salisbury, he had not the slightest idea what was going on, and then, when he sent out a Foreign Office Official last Wednesday to find out what was going on, he seemed, when he came to the House on Monday, to have no more information than he had five days earlier?
    Instead of facing Mr. Smith with the violation of his pledges, the right hon. Gentleman tried in this House to excuse Mr. Smith's behaviour. In answer to a question on Monday, he uttered the following extraordinary statement:
    1410
    "…I could not question Mr. Smith's right to maintain security provided the minimum of force was used."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th January, 1972; Vol. 829, c. 986.]
    The Foreign Secretary of Great Britain asserts the right of a rebel against the Queen to shoot British subjects in a British territory. He talks of "minimum force": 15 Africans have been killed in the last fortnight by the Rhodesian forces, about 50 have been wounded, not by rioters but by the security forces of the Smith régime, and hundreds have been gaoled. Does the Foreign Secretary regard this as "minimum force"? Would he regard this as a proper way for any colonial régime in Britain to have behaved in similar circumstances?
    Yet Lord Pearce told the country in a television interview last night that no threats of violence have at any time been made to the Commission in its work, that violence has not been used anywhere that the Commission itself was working, and we know from the Press—although not from the Foreign Secretary—that the first case in which violence appears to have occurred in a political context, rather than in an industrial dispute context, was in Gwelo, and that there violence was used by the Africans only after the Rhodesian police had fired tear gas against a peaceful demonstration of Africans who were seeking an interview with the commissioners.
    The Foreign Secretary went one worse than this. In seeking to excuse his inertia and complacency about what was going on, he said that he had no power in Rhodesia. That of course is true. And he cited the inability of the Labour Government to ensure that certain things that they wished to happen in Rhodesia actually happened.
    But the situation of the present Government vis-à-vis Rhodesia is one which has not previously existed since the unilateral declaration of independence. The Foreign Secretary has signed a formal agreement with the Smith regime in which each side undertook certain obligations to the other.
    It is interesting to quote what Mr. Smith himself said about this in his television broadcast last Friday in Rhodesia. Speaking of the proposals he said:
    "As you are all aware, we accept these proposals as part of a package deal in which

    1411
    we made certain concessions in our present constitution in return for recognition of our independence and the removal of sanctions."
    In other words, Mr. Smith regards the recognition of his independence by Britain and the removal of sanctions as something of great value to his régime, something in return for which he is prepared to make what he regards as certain concessions to the British Government.
    Of course the Foreign Secretary has power in this situation. He has the right and the ability to cancel our part of the agreement if Mr. Smith breaks his side of the agreement. The key to this situation is the maintenance of sanctions. The Minister of State told the House as recently as 10th November, when we were discussing the sanctions Order:
    "I therefore ask the House unhesitatingly to give its full support to the Order. To show a united front on this issue is the best way in which we can give my right hon. Friend the complete backing in this difficult task which I think he is entitled to expect…I should like to think that we shall have a unanimous view on this matter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1971; Vol. 825, c. 1188.]
    In other words, the Government's undertaking to maintain sanctions unless they get their way is an indispensable weapon in their negotiation with the rebel régime.
    No doubt this is the reason why on 25th November, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart) asked:
    "…is it understood that if the test of acceptability is not passed this agreement has no validity and that it will still be the duty of this country, with the help of the United Nations, to endeavour by sanctions or other means to restore the rule of law in Rhodesia?"—
    a very sensible question—the Foreign Secretary replied:
    "If the test of acceptability proves that the Rhodesians do not want this arrangement and this constitution, we revert to the position we were in before."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1971; Vol. 826, c. 1550.]
    That is a clear undertaking to maintain sanctions if the agreement proves unacceptable.
    Only last week, in another place, the Minister of State, Scottish Office, in reply to one of my right hon. Friends who had asked whether the Government were quite firm that they intended to keep sanctions, said:
    1412
    "If a settlement is arrived at…the White Paper makes it clear that it will be necessary for the Rhodesian Government to introduce certain legislation. Only when we are satisfied that that has been done, shall we commend to the House the termination of sanctions or of other economic measures."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 19th January, 1972; Vol. 327, c. 157.]
    One could not have a clearer pledge by the Foreign Secretary and his colleagues that the maintenance of sanctions, if the agreement is not accepted, remains part of Her Majesty's Government's policy. This is an indispensable tool for the Foreign Secretary in keeping the Smith regime up to its undertakings to him. Yet on Monday this week, when the Foreign Secretary was asked whether it was his policy to maintain sanctions, he refused to give that undertaking. He said:
    "As for the future, I shall not speculate far ahead."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th January, 1972; Vol. 829, c. 947.]
    Mr. John Biggs-Davison rose—
    Mr. Healey: I shall give way as soon as I have finished with this point. What the House, the country and the world will expect from the Foreign Secretary this afternoon is an unequivocal pledge that, if the agreement proves unacceptable or if the test of acceptability for any reason is not carried through and the fifth principle is not maintained, then it is for Her Majesty's Government to maintain sanctions against Rhodesia and to stick to the policy which the right hon. Gentleman himself has stated in the past remains Her Majesty's Government's policy and an indispensable element in their bargaining power with the Smith régime on the test of acceptability.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Apart from the breaking of sanctions over a long period of time by many Powers, has not the situation been considerably altered by the decision of the United States to buy Rhodesian chrome? This means that the situation will not be the same.
    Mr. Healey: In answer to that question I can only say that Mr. Smith as recently as last Friday, which was two months after the United States Senate voted to rescind the ban on the buying of chrome, stated that the possibility of the removal of sanctions was the reason he was prepared to make concessions. Therefore, unless the Government are

    1413
    prepared to maintain sanctions if Mr. Smith does not keep to his side of the bargain, they are throwing away their bargaining power and abdicating their responsibility to this House and to the Rhodesians.
    Mr. R. T. Paget rose—
    Mr. Healey: With respect to my hon. and learned Friend, this is a short debate. No doubt he will have an opportunity to make his comments later in the debate. I do not want to speak for too long and would like as many hon. Members as possible to be able to speak.
    We are asking the Foreign Secretary this afternoon to insist on immediate and satisfactory replies to questions, the answers to which the Foreign Secretary or other Ministers have already promised to the House. If necessary, we want him to send a senior Cabinet Minister to Rhodesia to get satisfactory answers.
    Among many questions, I believe that the four key questions—all of which the Foreign Secretary has previously promised to pursue—are as follows. First, what are the grounds for the imprisonment of Mr. Todd and Miss Todd, of Mr. and Mrs. Chinamano and of other African leaders? If they have been imprisoned, as Lord Pearce has suggested, simply in order to silence them, will he insist on their immediate release? [An HON, MEMBER: "HOW can he insist?"] I will explain how he can insist. He can threaten to break off the whole agreement unless Mr. Smith carries out his promises to the Foreign Secretary.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: This is very important for the rest of the debate. Is the right hon. Gentleman asking me to withdraw the provisional settlement and, with it, the Commission?
    Mr. Healey: I am asking the Foreign Secretary four questions—[An HON. MEMBER: "He has asked you one."] I am answering if hon. Members will listen. They may not like what I am going to say, but they will hear it. I am asking the Foreign Secretary four questions and am saying that, if he does not get satisfactory answers to those questions, it is clear that normal political activities are not being permitted and it is his plain duty to this House and to the Commission
    1414
    to withdraw the Commission and to declare that the proposals are at an end. I could not say clearer than that.
    The second question is: will he ensure that the African National Council gets permission to hold meetings in the tribal trust lands and elsewhere? The noble Lady, the Minister of State at the Scottish Office, in another place in a debate last Wednesday said that the Government were seeking an answer to this question, but we have not yet heard one.
    The third question is: will he ensure—and in answer to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in an intervention on Monday the Foreign Secretary promised to ask Mr. Smith this question—that there is freedom for the opponents of a settlement to use television and radio, as Mr. Smith himself has done?
    Finally, will he ensure that there is freedom for public figures in the United Kingdom, who have a legitimate interest in the test of acceptability, to enter Rhodesia in order to observe it? This applies not only to members of this House, but to persons like Sir Dingle Foot, an ex-Attorney-General, and members of Labour Party National Executive delegations, who are not members of this House, just as much as it applies to members of this House. Unless the Foreign Secretary gets satisfactory answers on these questions, he is betraying his assurance to the House and is committing collusion with a rebel.
    Mr. Peter Tapsell rose—
    Mr. Healey: I will give way later. If we look back at the Foreign Secretary's behaviour on this matter in the last three months we can see a miserable decline in his sense of responsibility. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] He was telling us as late as last September that he would not go to negotiate a settlement unless preliminary contacts had satisfied him that there would be a settlement which met the letter and the spirit of the five principles, but with an agreement which he could honestly recommend only on the grounds that it was better than nothing and the best he could get. Nobody argued this point more eloquently than the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, who was one of the Foreign Secretary's colleagues in this

    1415
    matter. But now, finally, when Mr. Smith apparently defaults on his side of the agreement, the Foreign Secretary still proposes to make concessions to the rebel régime which were strictly contingent on Mr. Smith carrying out his side of the bargain.
    Most of us on this side of the House, certainly I myself, like and respect the Foreign Secretary as a man—I find him one of the most agreeable occupants of the Conservative Front Bench. But we cannot admire his performance in the last few months on the Rhodesian question. He began as a champion of the African majority in a British colony. He is finishing up as a doormat to a dictator.
    Mr. Tapsell: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept that I am as concerned as he that this country should honourably discharge its obligations to the 5 million Africans in Rhodesia so far as it is in our power to do so. But does he not think that, in the present situation in Central Africa, the best ways we can do that is, first, by allowing the Pearce Commission, if it so chooses, to continue its work and report back to this House on the test of acceptability? Secondly, that he and his right hon. and hon. Friends should respond favourably to the Foreign Secretary's suggestion that both sides should join in sending an all-party delegation from this House to Rhodesia?
    Mr. Healey: I made it very clear on Monday that I very much hoped the Pearce Commission will be able to continue its work, but Lord Pearce himself made it clear that he could only honestly continue his work if he came to the view that the conditions he was promised for carrying out his work exist. Lord Pearce has pointed out in a statement on 21st January certain respects in which he fears that these conditions are not being met. I have gone over these points with the Foreign Secretary in this debate, and I am asking him to ensure they are met.
    If the future of the Africans in Rhodesia depended on the Foreign Secretary and Her Majesty's Government at present, it would be dismal, but that is not the end of the matter. I think that we are all becoming conscious that the historic irony of the present situation is that an agreement intended to put
    1416
    Rhodesia to sleep in fact has woken a sleeping giant. As a result of the Foreign Secretary's proposals, for the first time in the history of that unhappy country the African population, who outnumber the whites by 20 to 1, are being allowed a say in their own future, and they are responding to the opportunity in a manner which can only command the admiration of those who know anything of their history, not only in the towns but also in the villages and in the most remote rural areas. The answer that they are giving so far is, overwhelmingly, "No".
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: How does the right hon. Gentleman know?
    Mr. Healey: Because I have been following very carefully the reports of meetings which have been held and statements which have been made—
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles rose—
    Mr. Healey: The hon. and gallant Gentleman gives a very good imitation of a jack in the box, but his interventions add very little light to our proceedings—
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles rose—
    Hon. Members: Give way.
    Mr. Healey: No, I shall not give way. What is equally striking, quite apart from the answers that the Africans are giving to the Pearce Commission, is the questions that they are asking. They are questions which are extremely penetrating, and they are being put with typical African pith and wisdom. Alas, through no fault of theirs, the commissioners have found themselves totally incapable of answering them. Among other questions, the Africans are asking, "Why are not we allowed a referendum?"
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles rose—
    Mr. Healey: No, I shall not give way. "Why cannot we have majority rule now like all the other African territories round us?" "When shall we get majority rule if these proposals go through?" "What is the use of giving us more education if, when we have got the education, we cannot get the jobs either because of discrimination against us or because the Smith régime keeps importing white immigrants to fill every vacancy that arises?" "Why is the Land Tenure Act remaining?"

    1417
    No one can claim that these questions are by far the most important which could be asked. They show a deep understanding of the proposals and a deep insight into their own situation. It is a tragedy of the Government that the Commissioners are unable to give any answers to any of these questions.
    The Foreign Secretary has tried to persuade us that the choice in the test of acceptability is between a slide to apartheid and a real chance of democracy and majority rule. I believe that the Africans have clearly come to the same conclusion as we on this side of the House, namely, that the real question which they are being asked is, "Do you want the British people and the United Nations to abdicate the responsibility that they have so far accepted for human and political rights of the 5 million Africans in Rhodesia in return for insignificant changes in a racialist constitution which a racialist régime has the power to cancel at any moment, as it is at this very moment cancelling its undertaking to allow normal political activity?"
    What the Foreign Secretary and Mr. Smith have done, though I am sure that it was not their intention, is to put the problem of Rhodesia back on the agenda of the peoples of the world with a very high priority. The movement for African dignity and freedom which we have seen gathering strength in Rhodesia in the last few weeks is not confined to Rhodesia alone. Further south, we have seen the strike of the Ovambo people in Namibia, and we have seen the gallant struggles of Chief Buthulezi to establish the rights of the Zulu people in South Africa. The struggle to liquidate the remnants of racialism in southern Africa is now entering a new phase, and, in the course of this test of acceptability, the British people, no less than the Rhodesian people, are being asked to decide which side they are on. I believe that the British people and this House must decide for dignity and freedom and that to take that decision is not to betray the Europeans in southern Africa. It is the only way to save them.
    I hope that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite will listen to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Alport in a recent article—[Interruption.] I notice that right hon. and hon. Members oppo-
    1418
    site sneer at his name, but there is no question that he knows more about Rhodesia than any other Member of this or the other House. He is an ex-Conservative Commonwealth Minister and an ex-High Commissioner in Rhodesia itself. He said:
    "When Mr. Smith, and those who surround and support him, triumph over the statesmanship and will-power of the British Government and the British Foreign Secretary, I frankly fear the worst not so much for Britain, as for the future of all races in Southern Africa."
    I ask right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to bear those words in mind, because I fear for the future of the Europeans as a result of this settlement. I believe that Lord Alport was speaking for many who study the situation in southern Africa most closely.
    I appeal to the Foreign Secretary today to accept the evidence which is being collected by his commissioners in Rhodesia, to recognise the power and sincerity of the Africans' aspirations for freedom and equality, and to range himself and the country with these historic forces.
    The right hon. Gentleman can start today by fulfilling his own promises to Parliament by ensuring that the Smith régime fulfils its promises to him.
    4.26 p.m.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): From the start, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) has taken the strongest objection to the provisional settlement which I was able to make with the Smith régime. Of course, I do not object to that. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to his opinion. I think that he, too, wishes the Pearce Commission to stay in Rhodesia and do its job. The right hon. Gentleman asks me to accept his opinion on what the Africans are thinking in Africa today. I cannot accept his opinion. But I will accept the opinion of Lord Pearce and his Commission when they report.
    The right hon. Gentleman is apt always to spoil his case. He did so again today. He misquoted Lord Pearce. Lord Pearce did not charge the Smith regime with not allowing normal political activity. The right hon. Gentleman misconstrued Lord Pearce, who said very carefully that the facts were in dispute

    1419
    and that he himself suspended judgment—
    Mr. Healey: That is precisely what I said.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: It is within the recollection of the House that the right hon. Gentleman did not say anything of the sort. He implied—indeed, he said—that normal political activity was not being conducted and that the Commission could not continue its work in that case. But Lord Pearce did not say that. Lord Pearce said that the facts were in dispute and that he was suspending judgment.
    Mr. Healey: I know that the right hon. Gentleman does not want to be unfair. On Monday, I quoted Lord Pearce's statement verbatim, and the right hon. Gentleman admitted that my quotation was accurate. I made it clear that, with regard to political activities in the tribal trust areas, Lord Pearce suspended judgment until he knew all the facts. I asked the Foreign Secretary to ensure that Lord Pearce was able to discover the facts and to report them to this House.
    However, the right hon. Gentleman has not commented on the other statement which I made on Monday and repeated today, that, if people are detained simply to silence them, then, even in existing conditions, that is not allowing normal political activity. Will the Foreign Secretary comment on that?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Both on Monday and today the right hon. Gentleman misquoted Lord Pearce. The noble Lord is not prepared to come to a judgment whether the normal political activities are sufficient for him to continue his job as yet. He has suspended judgment. The right hon. Gentleman a few moments ago—it is within the recollection of the House—suggested quite the contrary.
    When the right hon. Gentleman again asks the rhetorical question, "Why not N.I.B.M.A.R. now?", he cannot carry any conviction. N.I.B.M.A.R. was the policy of the Labour Party before "Tiger". At "Tiger" it was dropped. It then became the policy of the Labour Party after "Tiger". At "Fearless" it was dropped. So again the right hon.
    1420
    Gentleman lacks conviction when he asks that kind of rhetorical question.
    I want to deal with these matters in a rather different tone from that which the right hon. Gentleman spoke this afternoon. I welcome the debate as a chance—I think that we should take it quietly and soberly—to define the Government's attitude on a matter which is of supreme concern to all the people of Rhodesia. We should remember that we are dealing with their lives, their country, their future, and the choice, which is of supreme importance, whether there is to be a racial or a non-racial society in Rhodesia. This is a sobering matter which we should be able to discuss without the kind of passion and distortion sometimes introduced into these debates. I will try to do that.
    Rhodesia is a country where a white European minority rules the African majority. For the present, all the power lies with the Europeans. If their present constitution—the 1969 constitution—is continued, nothing in the future, as far as anybody can foresee, will change that situation except for the worse. The Europeans are in physical command. Some refuse to face that conclusion. But that the Europeans have the power and the ability to use it to keep themselves in power in Rhodesia is a fact of life.
    Sanctions have been used to try to force a change and break that grip. They were to succeed, first, in weeks, then in months, and then in years. They have curbed investment in Rhodesia. As a result, there is extensive African unemployment, as I saw for myself lately. They have limited Rhodesia's ability to earn foreign exchange, but, as anyone can see the moment he visits Salisbury, they have not even scratched the surface of the standard of living of the European or his control of Rhodesian society. That, again, is a fact of life.
    During the last five years, which coincided with the Government of which the right hon. Member for Leeds, East was a distinguished Member—I am not blaming the Socialist Government for this—there is no doubt, as any hon. Member must agree, that, year after year, the situation of the Africans in Rhodesia has deteriorated and got worse.
    Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot contest that fact. But most

    1421
    of them have declared themselves totally against the terms of the provisional settlement agreed with Mr. Smith. They cannot, on principle, object to negotiating with him. Twice they did it, twice they very nearly succeeded in coming to an agreement with Mr. Smith, and twice, in the end, they failed. They cannot blame us for trying to achieve a result which they themselves tried so hard to win.
    Since they were prepared to negotiate, it must not be the act of negotiation to which they object. That cannot be so. But this afternoon I am going to ask the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to face the question arising from the terms: What is it that they are asking the Rhodesians, and particularly the Rhodesian Africans, to reject?
    At present, under the 1969 Constitution, there is no effective blocking mechanism whatever to prevent the parliamentary situation of the Africans from deteriorating. In the terms of the proposals which were negotiated an effective mechanism is introduced involving—[Interruption]—I think that the hon. Gentleman ought to listen to this, because it is very important that we should judge these matters right. In the terms of the proposals an effective mechanism is introduced involving not only a two-thirds majority in the Assembly, but a separate vote of each race in the Assembly. Is the ability to prevent amendment of the entrenched clauses and thus to block discriminatory legislation something which the Africans should be asked to reject?
    At present, again, the representation in Parliament for the African rests on a complicated income tax formula applied in accordance with the relationship between the aggregate earnings of the European and African communities. That is an iniquitous system. It can be varied at will. Any Finance Minister in any year can put paid effectively to African representation in Parliament.
    For that, the settlement substitutes a system whereby representation in Parliament depends on the number of voters who qualify on the same income tax, education and property qualifications as the Europeans.
    Are the Africans in Rhodesia to be asked by the Opposition to spurn that
    1422
    in favour of staying with the present arrangements?—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will follow me.
    Now the Africans in Rhodesia have no hope of returning to a common voting roll. Now they have no declaration of rights enforceable in the courts. There is an absolute bar to any progression beyond parity to majority rule. The settlement, which the right hon. Gentleman has a perfect right to dislike, removes all these disabilities which are now placed upon the Rhodesian Africans.
    When I was in Salisbury, the two elements of a settlement on which every African insisted were: first, progress to a common roll because, without it, they said that there would be no harmonious society, and, secondly, rights which could be protected in the courts.
    Under the terms of the settlement both these purposes are achieved. New discriminatory legislation, if ever it got through Parliament, could be disallowed by the courts, as could secondary legislation derived from previous legislation like the Land Tenure Act.
    Are the Opposition really ready to advise the Africans to throw away all those gains? That is what they would be doing. I know that they will argue that Mr. Smith will not carry out his side of the bargain. But they were prepared to negotiate with him. If they had been successful, as they very nearly were, they would have had to rely on Mr. Smith to carry out the bargain. They were prepared to accept a settlement—
    Mr. Philip Whitehead rose—
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home:—without the only possible cast-iron guarantee which one can get, which is the use of force to make sure that it is implemented.
    In this context of trust and mistrust, I ask right hon. and hon. Gentlemen to consider the political situation as it will be in Rhodesia if these proposals are accepted. Mr. Smith will have to pass through his Parliament all the legislation with his and his party's authority behind it. He has to engage his political reputation on these changes, and the changes are big. What is more, he will have to do so before this House is asked

    1423
    to pass any consequential legislation at all.
    Mr. Whitehead: Since Mr. Smith does not seem to be honouring the bargain regarding normal political activities, why should we trust him regarding the rest of the package?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I will come to that. I am deploring the opinion which has been expressed and asking right hon. and hon. Gentlemen to think seriously about what they are asking the Africans to reject. It is a fair question.
    Indeed, if the settlement were to go through—I am prepared to leave it to the African and not pre-judge his opinion—at least we should have created some hope for the future where at present, I underline this, there is none at all.
    If the African population vote "No" to the settlement, they will not be saying that they prefer the 1969 constitution. That is a dialectical distortion.
    Mr. Healey: By Mr. Smith.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes. I think that the right hon. Gentleman sometimes makes dialectical distortions.
    Let us face it. Although that is so, they will be left with the 1969 constitution. They will be saddled with it for as far as anybody can see into the future, by their own hand, if that is their decision. There will be nothing else, and the next instalment of repression of freedom—because the right wing will have won a victory if the settlement is rejected—will be harsher than that of today.
    When the right hon. Gentleman makes the kind of speech that he has made ever since this provisional settlement was proposed he really is, in effect, saying that there is no solution except fighting it out. That is a terrible thing to say, because, in the end, it will mean bloodshed, and more bloodshed, in Africa, and we have a chance to prevent it. No one has presented an alternative, except fighting it out. We shall be onlookers, 6,000 miles away. It will be the Africans who will bear the brunt of it, and for any foreseeable future they cannot win. The Opposition, at present, anyhow, are not offering them anything better than this kind of martyrdom. At least from this side of the House we have provided a plan which
    1424
    could give them a better political, social and economic future than anything they could otherwise enjoy.
    I now turn to answer, as far as I can, some of the right hon. Gentleman's questions today, and some which took up much of the time on Monday at Question Time.
    The main question raised by the Opposition—and I do not think we can blink the fact—is really whether Her Majesty's Government should intervene with Mr. Smith, over the head of the Commission, and insist on certain conditions for the continuance of the test of acceptability. I think that that is a fair way to put the problem which we face on both sides of the House.
    I can give the answer. The Government feel that the Commission should carry on so long as, in its view, political conditions are such that it can perform the task with which it is charged. It might be that the political conditions will change and the Commission will find it impossible to stay. I do not know whether that will happen, but for the moment that is not the Commission's position.
    As I reminded the right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition said that he wants to get an honest answer, and he added that the Commission wanted to get it, too. So do we. Therefore, I want to leave the Commission in the field so long as it considers that there are political conditions in which it can operate. I hope, therefore, it is agreed that the Commission should carry on.
    Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean by that that it is the judgment of the Government that the conditions which prevail in Rhodesia while the test of acceptability is being carried out is a matter of no concern to him? If that is so, why did the right hon. Gentleman send Mr. Philip Mansfield to Rhodesia, and what is he doing there? Is he not bringing back to the Government some indication of whether conditions are normal?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Of course we are concerned about the political conditions, but I think I should repeat the question at issue, because it is pertinent. The question is whether we should intervene over the head of the Commission. There may be circumstances in which I

    1425
    should feel it inevitable to do so, but I do not think that those circumstances have arisen, because, quite clearly, the Commission feels that it can carry on at present in the context of the present political activity in Rhodesia.
    Mr. Healey: The right hon. Gentleman has put his question very fairly. What we are asking is that he shall intervene in support of the Commission, because there are five or six issues on which the Commission itself has sought assurances from Mr. Smith and not received them. From what the right hon. Gentleman said, it seems that he would regard it as a tragedy if the Commission had to withdraw because normal political activities were not being permitted. What we are asking the right hon. Gentleman to do is to intervene in support of the Commission and get satisfactory answers from Mr. Smith to the very questions which, on the instructions of this House, and perhaps as a result of the Commission's own discussions, Lord Pearce has put to Mr. Smith and not had answers to.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: If Lord Pearce wishes me to intervene, I have no doubt that he will say so, but I can just imagine what the right hon. Gentleman would say if I were to try to intervene and interfere with the workings of the commission. I can just imagine the speech that he would make.
    Let me repeat this to the right hon. Gentleman, because I am trying to deal with this matter as carefully as I can. In the context of political activity, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are constantly exhorting me to act to compel Mr. Smith to do this or that, for example, in relation to internment. I accept that I have an obligation to press Mr. Smith to create conditions in which there can be the maximum political freedom of expression and in which, for example, persons such as Mr. Todd and Mr. Chinamano can express their views in public. I have the right to press him to do so, and I have done. But what effective sanction did the right hon. Gentleman have, not in a matter like this, but in a matter of life or death? None. When the hangings took place in Rhodesia—literally a matter of life or death—the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition had no sanction whatever.
    1426
    I shall use all the influence that I have, but what is the ultimate sanction that I have? It is to withdraw the settlement and therefore to withdraw the Commission. That is what the Leader of the Opposition asked me to do on Monday. The right hon. Gentleman has asked me to do something different. They had better co-ordinate their positions.
    I doubt whether the Opposition really want the settlement withdrawn. At any rate, I am not willing to do that, for two reasons. The first I have given. It is that the terms of the settlement for the Africans are as good as could be obtained in any circumstances. The second is that I am not prepared to deprive Mr. Todd, or Mr. Chinamano, or the 5 million Africans in Rhodesia of the option of constitutional reform, which in my view is the sole alternative to despair. I propose to keep the provisional settlement in being and to leave the Commission there unless it says that it wants to come home. If it says so, that will be the Commission's decision.
    If Lord Pearce and his Commission are to come home, it must be because he has decided that a combination of restrictions on freedom and of violence and intimidation has made it impossible for him to bring in a true verdict on the opinion of the Rhodesians on the settlement. He has not reached that decision. It must be left to him and his very experienced colleagues.
    I have already dealt with the fact that the statement by Lord Pearce has been misconstrued. There is really a danger in misconstruing his statement. He said:
    "To say that there has been no political activity in any of the Tribal Trust Lands would seem untenable…"
    but there is a danger, because constantly it is said that normal political activity must rule, and almost equally constantly from the other side of the House the rest of the sentence is not added, which is that it must be in conditions which lead to security and to the proper working of democracy in Rhodesia.
    The right hon. Gentleman confidently quotes one part of the sentence, but omits the proviso that politcial activities must be conducted in a peaceful and democratic manner. So far Lord Pearce has decided that the political conditions allow him to carry on. In other words,

    1427
    he is leaving the situation open and under review, and in my opinion that is right.
    Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: Six days ago the right hon. Gentleman sent Mr. Mansfield to Rhodesia. The Foreign Secretary is on record as having said that he had made representations about the detention of Mr. Todd. When questioned about this, the right hon. Gentleman said that he would not feel able to make a public statement until he had been supplied with the reasons why Mr. Todd had been detained. Are we to know those reasons? Has Mr. Smith told the right hon. Gentleman why Mr. Todd was detained? Are we to know whther Mr. Smith is mute of malice or by visitation of God?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Mr. Mansfield is returning tomorrow. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Mr. Smith has told me that he has detained Mr. Todd for reasons of security, but the evidence on which Mr. Smith made the decision is not available to me at the moment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Resign."] The Leader of the Liberal Party asked me if I was in a position to answer his question—[Interruption.]—and what I have said is a matter of fact.
    The right hon. Member for Leeds, East and others questioned me about visits by hon. Members of this House to Rhodesia, and I promised to give further information as soon as I could. Hon. Members will have noticed that a number have gone there lately without any fuss or hindrance. The Government naturally have no objection whatever to hon. Members going to Rhodesia, and we will certainly ask our liaison officer there, although he is a busy man, to offer any facilities to hon. Members when they are there.
    I do not disguise my view that it would be wrong for political parties in this House to go to Rhodesia—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I wish hon. Gentlemen opposite would for once wait to hear the end of a sentence before interrupting. In my view it would be wrong for us as political parties to go to Rhodesia and take the opportunity publicly in Rhodesia to support or object to the settlement. [Interruption.]
    No one ever contemplated, when the fifth principle was laid down, that we
    1428
    should transfer our political squabbles on to Rhodesian territory—[Interruption]—and the security situation in Rhodesia confirms me in my judgment that to have done so would have been totally wrong. However, for hon. Members to go there and observe is an entirely different matter, and I shall, within a day or so, be approaching the leaders of the parties with suggestions on these issues.
    In one country after another in Africa the Western pattern of democracy has been superseded by military rule or by one-party States. Here is an attempt to introduce, gradually it is true, but surely, a common roll and a parliamentary system which will make it possible for all races to co-exist and co-operate in the political affairs of their society.
    It surely cannot be an affront—I believe that this is at the back of a lot of the thinking of hon. Gentlemen opposite—to modern Africa to try to recover for Africans rights in Rhodesia which they have lost.
    I ask this House and all hon. Members to re-read the terms of the provisional settlement and each to ask himself in conscience whether he is justified in advising the Rhodesians, and particularly the African Rhodesians, to turn away this opportunity to start down a new road. [Interruption.] I have searched my conscience and I cannot bring myself to believe that I would be right to withdraw the provisional settlement, which gives such an opportunity. [Interruption.] I have no doubt whatever about this.
    I pray that extremists will not blind or divert the Rhodesians from a true appreciation of where their interests and the interests of their country lie.
    4.54 p.m.
    Mr. John Mendelson: The Foreign Secretary is right to invite the House to accept two of his propositions, first that this is a very serious situation and second that we should examine what he is doing and putting to the House.
    That means that hon. Members who, like myself, have always opposed the kind of settlement that the right hon. Gentleman has put before us, and have deeply deplored the fact that Lord Goodman should have had anything to do

    1429
    with this manoeuvre, must this afternoon start with the Foreign Secretary's remarks at the point at which he started, which is with the present situation.
    The right hon. Gentleman completely failed to reply to the cardinal point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), and referred to by the Leader of the Liberal Party, about the Foreign Secretary's responsibility in all this. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman deliberately confused the responsibilities of the Commission and those of himself.
    A deal is not being proposed between Lord Pearce and his Commission on the one hand and Mr. Smith on the other. In my view, the partners are Her Majesty's Government and Mr. Smith, and the responsibility for everything that has so far been agreed by Mr. Smith does not rest on the shoulders of the Commission but on those of the right hon. Gentleman, and this afternoon he once again tried to escape that responsibility.
    It is a shameful reply to offer to us, as he offered to the Leader of the Liberal Party, that he is satisfied with the reply he has received from Mr. Smith; that Mr. Smith alleges that he has arrested Mr. Todd, the former Prime Minister, not because he wants to silence him but on security grounds and that he, Mr. Smith, is not prepared to tell the Foreign Secretary what evidence he has for that allegation. The reasons why Her Majesty's Government are approaching the point when they must call off this settlement are reasons which hon. Gentlemen opposite must judge for themselves.
    It is not as though the Foreign Secretary fully represented the views that Lord Pearce has expressed. For example, Lord Pearce said on television last night—I believe the film in which he said it was made on Sunday—that he was calling back all his advisers for a weekend conference at headquarters and that only then, after consulting them, would he say whether he was prepared to make a first assessment about whether normal political activities were being permitted.
    The Foreign Secretary was less than fair when he largely repudiated what my right hon. Friend had said because Lord Pearce said, among other things, that he would regard it as very disturbing—there is beginning to be some evidence of
    1430
    this—if difficulty arose in the implementation of the pledge of normal political activities being permitted. He said that he would not go further than that. Nevertheless, he went that far, and anybody who watched the film and heard Lord Pearce must have concluded that there are already doubts in his mind.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I said that Lord Pearce had deliberately left the matter open.
    Mr. Mendelson: But the right hon. Gentleman did not say that there was already a clear expression of doubt in Lord Pearce's mind. The right hon. Gentleman made it appear as though my right hon. Friend had completely misrepresented the position. [Interruption.] I know that hon. Gentlemen opposite who support the racist régime in Rhodesia do not like to hear the truth about these matters. They want sanctions called off and the Commission to report, whether or not it is true, that the settlement should be implemented, but they do not count in this debate.
    Mr. Cranley Onslow rose—
    Mr. Mendelson: I will not give way. The Foreign Secretary is clearly avoiding his responsibility in this matter, particularly in view of his comments about Mr: Todd.
    We have had the moving experience of large numbers of African citizens making their opinions clear. Nobody with knowledge of Rhodesia and with contacts among the Africans there cannot but have been deeply moved by the way in which, after many years of political repression during which it has been made difficult for them to inform themselves politically, they have shown how well informed they are when they have made contact with the Commission.
    As my right hon. Friend pointed out, the cardinal question they have asked—a question which the Commission cannot answer but on which we must give our opinions—is, "How do we know that the money which is allegedly to be supplied for educational purposes by Mr. Smith will be supplied for those purposes?" That question is bound to be taken into account when they give their opinions to the Commission.
    It is clear, therefore, that we must receive certain assurances. One must

    1431
    be about the Chairman of the African National Council, who I understand is also threatened with arrest. He has previously been placed under restriction. Another must be about Mr. Todd. We must not only be told what will happen to him but be assured that the right hon. Gentleman will call the deal off if any further inroads are made into the opportunities for normal political activities. He is quite wrong to say rhetorically that he wishes to preserve the right of Mr. Garfield Todd and the right of the treasurer of the African National Council, though he be in prison, to take all the advantages of the agreement when the fifth test is being broken every day.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary misrepresented the views of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. My right hon. Friend said that he does not wish the Commission to be recalled at this moment. I agree with him. Nothing that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East said from the Front Bench contradicts that in any way. If the right hon. Gentleman wanted a serious debate, it was unworthy of him to play at politics and waste so much time on an alleged disagreement between two of my right hon. Friends. We have said that the Commission ought to continue its work but that the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary must see to it that normal political activities are allowed. The evidence is now overwhelming that people are being arrested and are not being put on trial. The evidence for the arrests and allegations is not being made public, or even being privately communicated to the British Government. The time is fast approaching when the settlement must be called off because Mr. Smith is not living up to his engagement.
    The matter goes further than that. From the threatening speech made by Mr. Smith last Friday, it has clearly emerged that he had a completely different idea about the proceedings that were to take place than what the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary said in the previous debate. It has become evident that Mr. Smith thought, "We are going to run these through, with white employers calling in their black employees"—which has already happened in some cases—"and telling them in the privacy of the general
    1432
    manager's office, 'look here, you say' yes 'to this, do you not?' "Mr. Smith thought that the employer would then report to the Pearce Commission saying that most of his employees were in favour of the settlement. One of those white employers appeared on television last night. He was bitterly disappointed. He appeared to be astonished at the human spirit and courage of some Africans. This has surprised them. Some hon. Gentlemen opposite are deeply disappointed, because they shared Mr. Smith's expectation. I do not say all hon. Gentlemen opposite, but some are disappointed. What is now happening is clearly something that Mr. Smith did not bargain for but it is of the very essence of the contract that the British Government asked this House to enter into. Those are the things on which the debate must concentrate.
    On the subject of police violence, anyone who has been to Rhodesia will know that as soon as Africans assemble, the police are too ready to bring out the dogs and the guns. I remember being in Salisbury about six weeks before Mr. Joshua Nkomo was first interned. He has never been allowed free since then to meet his associates and engage in normal political activities.
    On that occasion, when there was already a ban on him holding public political meetings, it was announced one Sunday morning that he would be visiting Harari to see a friend whose daughter was celebrating her 21st birthday. Within about two hours, according to the police 60,000 African supporters of Mr. Nkomo assembled in the streets. According to the Africans I knew, it was only 20,000. But within another half an hour the police dogs were on the streets and Mr. Nkomo was forcibly prevented from even shaking hands with some of his supporters. That is the sort of background to remember when we hear that a group of Africans assembled somewhere. This would encourage any group to say "No". If our constituents were living in such conditions, they would find it advisable to gather in groups and not to go alone to the protected polling booths, which they have achieved for themselves over many years. There was a time in Britain, as Dickens well describes, when the British electors preferred to go in groups rather

    1433
    than alone. Under police state conditions—I am using the Prime Minister's words—in Rhodesia today nobody has to be surprised nor should they hold anything against people who prefer to go in groups. There was no violence near Salisbury until the police started attacking them, and that started very soon.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary is a guarantor for the honour of Britain and this House in the fulfilment of a settlement. He has a responsibility to both the people of Rhodesia and the people of Britain. It is no good him saying that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition might have entered into agreement. My right hon. Friend did not. Why not? If the right hon. Gentleman would question, for instance, my right hon. Friend who was then the Attorney-General and a member of the delegation which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition took out with him to this conference he would see why the negotiations broke down. They broke down precisely because the kind of guarantees on the fifth principle demanded by my right hon. Friend could not be pledged after Mr. Smith had returned to Salisbury having entered into this agreement in the first place. Mr. Smith was told by his party and the right wing, "You cannot allow this to happen because we might get the wrong result if we agreed to it."
    Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary has a duty to be as sober and serious in this debate as he asks us to be, and not to introduce this rhetorical political question to confuse the issue. He has a serious responsibility. If he finds that Mr. Smith is not living up to his part of the bargain, the right hon. Gentleman must honour his agreement with the House and call off the settlement, anti tell the world the truth.
    5.6 p.m.
    Mr. Christopher Brocklebank-Fowler: My concern in this matter is no less passionate than that so recently displayed by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) but I shall express myself a little more quietly, but with no less conviction.
    I maintain very strongly that it is right and proper that the Rhodesians of all ethnic backgrounds should have this opportunity to express in full and in the maximum possible freedom their feelings
    1434
    on the proposals for a settlement as negotiated by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I agree with the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and others that the fact that Africans are taking part in discussions is itself a major step forward and contrasts very strongly with the six years during which the Labour Government were in control, during those and years of U.D.I. when African expressions of opinion were seldom heard either inside or outside Rhodesia.
    I refer those who think that the debate on Rhodesia is one-sided, and those who think that the views put forward are only against these proposals, to a selection of the various documents which are at present circulating around Rhodesia giving different views and opinions on the merits and demerits of the settlement. One should look behind the rioting and the Press headlines, conscious as one is of the vast distances in the continent of Africa, to the serious consideration of the alternatives, which is taking place in Rhodesia today and is taking place only as a result of the initiative of my right hon. Friend—although it is undeniable that many of the documents being circulated press the Africans to refuse the terms of the settlement as proposed.
    Equally, many have not quite made up their minds. Many say that the settlement is a bad one. But I think that the House would be impressed by the views of Father R. H. Randolph, published in The Shield, which is the journal of the Roman Catholic Church in Rhodesia and reported in the Rhodesian Herald. Father Randolph is communications secretary for the Rhodesian Catholic Bishops' Conference.
    "The success of the proposals, even as they stand, will depend on the sincerity and goodwill of all people in observing the spirit of the proposals and upon the necessary change of heart of those who see them as a change in ideology."
    I shall refer again to that observation shortly. Father Randolph continued:
    "But if the proposals were accepted they would check the tendency for Rhodesia to go towards a South African apartheid system. Majority rule for civilised Africans is now in sight."
    It is up to the Pearce Commission to decide whether it can carry on with its task of gathering the opinion of the

    1435
    whole population of Rhodesia. But whatever the Commission's findings are, British public opinion will want to be assured that those findings were arrived at in the best possible manner. To put it no higher, many consider that the reason given for the detention of the Todds and Mr. Chinamano is less than adequate.
    My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has reminded us of the paragraph in the White Paper which calls for normal political activities
    "provided that they are conducted in a peaceful and democratic manner".
    Mr. Smith is quoted as showing his understanding of this paragraph. In an interview on 7th December he said this:
    "As you know, part of the agreement is that we shall allow as much freedom of discussion as possible and we will release as many detainees as possible. We would honestly hope to do this to try to stimulate fair and constructive discussion."
    Many of us would question whether the sentiments there expressed are consistent with the rather bald statement by the Rhodesian Minister of Justice recently on the arrest of the Todds and Mr. Chinamano. The Minister of Justice said:
    "The making of this order"—
    that is, the order to arrest them—
    "is based on the belief that you are likely to commit or incite the commission of acts in Rhodesia which would endanger the public safety or disturb or interfere with the maintenance of public order."
    I appreciate that my right hon. Friend has no writ, in the final analysis, to demand that the Department of Justice of the illegal régime provides all its secret documents. However, many people in Britain are extremely disappointed that Mr. Todd was not able to keep his engagement to speak in Britain this week and we would like my right hon. Friend to convey in the strongest possible terms our concern about this matter. The British public wants to see far greater evidence of Mr. Smith's "sincerity and good will", to quote Father Randolph again, and we believe that for the sake of public opinion alone Mr. Smith should be prepared to make a statement explaining in detail why these people have been detained.
    Mr. George Cunningham: Does the hon. Gentleman believe in Smith's sincerity?
    Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: Certainly, I speak for many people on both sides of the House, for many of my constituents, and for members of the British public elsewhere, when I say that we need reassurances as to Mr. Smith's intentions, his sincerity and his good will before we can take any action in this House to legalise his position.
    5.13 p.m.
    Mr. David Steel: I begin on at least one note of agreement with the Foreign Secretary. He knows that I and my party, like the members of the Labour Party, voted against the settlement proposals. We do not like the proposals. We do not believe that they are in the best interests of the African majority.
    However, I recognise that there is another point of view, which was perhaps best put by Lord Goodman in another place—namely, that these were the best terms that could be obtained and that they should be accepted.
    What is important is not what is the view of the different parties in the House, or what is the view of the House as a whole, or of the British people as a whole about the settlement, but whether the settlement proposals are acceptable to the African majority. I agree with that point of view. That was why, as soon as these proposals were made, it was the fifth principle—the test of acceptability—that became all-important and crucial.
    Although it may be our private opinions or our party opinions that this is a bad settlement and it does not do justice to the African cause, if the Africans were to take a different view it is they who would face the consequences. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Liberal Party said at a public meeting at Central Hall last night, it is easy for us in Britain to advise against acceptance of the settlement when we do not have to face the consequences. I start with the proposition that this is what the debate is about and that the test of acceptability and the proper carrying out of that test is of crucial importance to the whole deal.
    On that point of agreement I remind the Foreign Secretary of what he said on the afternoon after the arrest of the Todds. There was a genuine sense of

    1437
    shock in the House, shock which the right hon. Gentleman shared, because he said this to us:
    "On hearing the reports last night I immediately sent a personal message to Mr. Smith seeking to establish the facts behind these arrests."
    The right hon. Gentleman said later that he was sending Mr. Mansfield out. He concluded in this way:
    "In a matter of such importance I am sure that hon. Members will appreciate that it would not be right for me to say more about these arrests until I have received further full information from Rhodesia. I will keep the House informed.''—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th January, 1972; Vol. 829, c. 465.]
    The House has not yet been informed. The House is waiting to be informed. The comment by the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler) that the answer had been "less than adequate" was a masterpiece of understatement. The Foreign Secretary has had to return to the House and say, "In response to the assurance I gave you eight days ago, I have not been able to get an answer to my questions". That is totally unsatisfactory and cannot create confidence in the House or amongst the British public that the test of acceptability is being carried out properly.
    Mr. Chinamano is one of those whom I had intended to see when I go to Rhodesia. A few days before he was arrested I learned that he had been suffering from a very serious cardiac illness and that he had been advised, mainly on medical grounds, that he should give up his post as Treasurer of the A.N.C. and should come to London to get away from the political pressures of Rhodesia and receive the specialist medical treatment he requires. Knowing this, I was not surprise to read in the Press that Mr. Chinamano had fainted on the way to the police station. I understand that he is in hospital in Salisbury. I should like the Government to find out what his condition is and, if there is any danger to him, I trust that it will be possible for him to come to London and to receive adequate medical treatment.
    The right hon. Gentleman mentioned visits by Members of Parliament. As the right hon. Gentleman probably knows, I have already written to the Government Chief Whip saying that in principle we are perfectly happy to contribute a Member to an all-party delegation but it is
    1438
    a little late in the day. If the Government had been serious about an all-party delegation, it should have been proposed at the beginning. In the absence, still, of any firm dates or firm proposals for an all-party delegation, it is right that the Labour Party and the Liberal Party should press ahead with their plans for their own surveys of what is happening in Rhodesia. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and myself that clearance for our visit has been arranged.
    One of the crucial differences of opinion across the Floor of the House is on the basic question whether Mr. Smith's intentions are honourable. This is not the time to go through all the differences which have since arisen on the interpretation of the settlement. To take but one example, the White Paper "Proposals for a Settlement" contains a proposal for a commission to review existing legislation with a view to ending racial discrimination. Page 15 of the White Paper says this:
    "The Rhodesian Government recognise that the findings of the Commission will carry special authority and have given an assurance that they will commend to Parliament such changes in existing legislation as are required to give effect to its recommendations, subject only to considerations that any Government would be obliged to regard as of an overriding character."
    Many of us were suspicious of that phrase, and in the debate on 1st December the right hon. Gentleman was pressed to say what it meant. He said:
    "…the wording of the proposals clearly carries an obligation to act and to change the law in respect of those recommendations which are made in the context of improving and fostering racial harmony."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st December, 1971; Vol. 827, c. 468.]
    That was his interpretation of those words in the settlement, but let us see what Mr. Smith said in his Parliament on precisely the same point. In his speech commending the settlement to the Rhodesian Parliament on 25th November, he said:
    "The evidence of this Commission will be made public and in the event of the Rhodesian Government accepting their recommendations they will commend such changes to Parliament."
    In the phrase "in the event of the Rhodesian Government accepting their recommendations" the word "unlikely"

    1439
    is almost understood. It is Mr. Smith's interpretation of the proposals that matters and not the right hon. Gentleman's because it is Mr. Smith who will be left in charge under the settlement.
    The reason why we are so concerned about what has happened during the visit of the Pearce Commission is that we are being seriously asked to believe that Mr. Smith, once sanctions have been lifted, once the legality of his Government has been recognised through diplomatic channels right around the world, will be a changed man and will behave better than he does now under the pressure of sanctions, under the pressure of not being recognised by a single State.
    That is why we are entitled to say that the present conditions during the visit of the Pearce Commission are not the normal conditions that have prevailed since U.D.I. I hold no brief for the conduct and handling of the Rhodesian situation by the previous Administration, but it is not right to compare the position of the then Prime Minister, faced with the hangings in Rhodesia, with the present position, because now we have tried to restore some degree of normal relations between the two Governments. An agreed settlement is being discussed undertakings have been given to the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. An almost normal political situation is supposed to be created. It is in that new situation that the right hon. Gentleman must exercise his responsibility. I agree with the observation of a previous speaker that the right hon Gentleman has been inclined to shuffle off that responsibility on to Lord Pearce and the Commission. The undertakings about the test of acceptability were given—
    Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: That was not my contention. If the hon. Gentleman reads my speech in the OFFICIAL REPORT he will find that that is so.
    Mr. Steel: The hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. I said "a previous speaker". It was the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) who was making the point, so the hon. Gentleman need not be quite so sharp.
    The point I want to make is that the undertakings about the test of acceptability were given to the House by the right hon. Gentleman, and on that basis
    1440
    the House voted on 1st December on whether it accepted the proposals. I and my colleagues dissented. The House agreed, but on the conditions the right hon. Gentleman gave us. Therefore, we are entitled to demand that he, not Lord Pearce, satisfies himself that the conditions are being met.
    The scenes we have witnessed in Rhodesia in the past few days make it clear that the majority of the population, who have for the past five or six years been suppressed and politically quiescent, have accepted the quiesence on the understanding that the world community was still interested in their fate. Sanctions were operating, and not a single country was recognising the legality of the Smith régime. But now the majority are being asked to change the situation and accept a set of proposals that leave them fairly and squarely in the hands of the Rhodesian Front, with the hopes that the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary holds that progress will be made. That is their choice. They are being asked to take themselves off the agenda of world politics. That is why they are reacting in a very strong way.
    I am sorry to say to the right hon. Gentleman, because I think he knows of the high personal regard in which I hold him, that in his speech this afternoon he gave the impression yet again of being a very weak man being pushed around by a ruthless one.
    5.25 p.m.
    Mr. Hugh Fraser: I do not want to delay the House for long, because many hon. Members wish to speak, but I want to draw attention to the extraordinary position in which the shadow Foreign Secretary finds himself. I do not know why he asked for this debate. Is he against the Pearce Commission? Does he wish it to be withdrawn?
    In part of his speech the right hon. Gentleman seemed to lay down a number of conditions my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary should seek to have fulfilled. He wanted my right hon. Friend to insist on free use of radio, on the African National Congress having a full right of assembly, and that leading people should go out from here. But when, in the five or six years when the right hon. Gentleman's

    1441
    Government were in office, under any circumstances could any of those ideas have been put forward with any hope of success?
    If those conditions are not to be fulfilled, apparently, the Labour Opposition wishes the Pearce Commission to be brought home. I wish hon. Members opposite would read what Lord Goodman said. Lord Goodman said that it would be a matter of absolute folly to reject the terms, because the alternative is to go down the road to apartheid. That is clear beyond a peradventure of doubt.
    Doubtless in Penistone the elections are run the right way and the people have the right to a proper and free expression of opinion. But when the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) talks about the conditions of Penistone applying to Africa he is talking about the change from what is a police State to a State in which there is some chance for African advance. That is the whole point of the settlement. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman may point at me, but I, with Lord Goodman, was strong on matters like Biafra. I do not know how the hon. Gentleman felt about those Africans being massacred out there. There are people in the House who believe in advancing the rights of subject peoples and seeing that we get the best possible deal.
    I believe, with Lord Goodman, that the proposed settlement is the best deal that can be obtained. I am amazed that Labour right hon. and hon. Members should say that it is the duty of my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary to lay down this or that condition for the operation of the Pearce Commission. We have the Pearce Commission there, and it can judge whether the conditions are being properly met. Labour hon. Members say, "We have seen the police dogs out". They say that we have seen this out and that out. I agree, but it is for Pearce and not my right hon. Friend or even the House, least of all hon. Members going by Press reports, to judge whether the conditions are being properly met. That is why I believe not only that the Pearce Commission should not be withdrawn but that the House has a duty to see that the tone of debate here is kept at a proper level, and that there is a chance of the Afri
    1442
    cans having the proper question put to them.
    The question is not, "Do you wish to be removed from the African stage?", and it is not, "Do you wish the United Nations no longer to be thinking about you?" The United Nations long ago ceased to think about them. With the purchase of chrome and all those other things, the whole sanctions policy is dead. The question that should be asked, as Lord Goodman clearly said in another place, is, "Are the proposals better than your present state?" That is proved by the speech of the hon. Gentleman, when he talked about police dogs and a police State.
    The grapes of wrath we see on the other side of the House are of a bogus vintage, being merely the sour grapes resulting from six years of failure on the part of Labour right hon. and hon. Members.
    5.30 p.m.
    Mr. Guy Barnett: I will not try to comment in full on the speech of the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser), who recommended to us the speech of Lord Goodman in another place. From my reading of it it seemed to me to be a great speech. But the trouble with Lord Goodman's speech, and the trouble with Lord Goodman, is that when he went to Rhodesia to make his inquiries he was not instructed, and so far as I can make out made no attempt, to gauge likely African reactions to the settlement proposals he was negotiating. One of the most appalling mistakes made by the Government and the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary is that African opinion in Rhodesia has been caused to become highly suspicious of the whole exercise.
    Whatever the merits or otherwise of the settlement—and at present I am not going into those—we cannot imagine a means of making the African population more suspicious of the whole exercise than for Lord Goodman to go to Rhodesia several times to negotiate with the régime to work out some kind of agreement and attempt to foist it on the Africans. Therefore, I take less seriously than the right hon. Gentleman remarks Lord Goodman may have made in another place.

    1443
    I am not surprised that the Africans in Rhodesia are highly suspicious of the whole operation. They have had the experience of about six years of U.D.I. and they are faced with public statements by Ian Smith such as the following, which he is reported as having made in the Rhodesian Parliament:
    "It is our carefully considered assessment that in view of the expansion of the economy and the increase in immigration to which we can confidently look forward, no European need harbour any anxiety about the security of his future in Rhodesia."
    I cannot think that any African can interpret those words in any other way than to assume that Mr. Smith hopes—in fact, is certain—that if the settlement proposals are agreed the level of investment in Rhodesia from outside the country and the rate of immigration of into Rhodesia will be at such a level as to frustrate completely any hope of African advancement. If such suspicions are abroad in Rhodesia, I am not surprised, and I am not surprised by the degree of opposition that we have noticed.
    A point needs to be made during this debate about the course of events since Lord Pearce arrived. I was not the slightest bit surprised by the outbreak of violence. If, after six years in a police State, unable to express oneself, one finds people coming out from Britain, including a very learned and very old judge, who start asking what kind of political future one wants, if that is the first occasion for years and years anyone has even taken the trouble to ask what kind of régime one wishes to live in and what kind of political future one wants, it is bound to cause a considerable degree of excitement.
    What is most impressive is that, after the initial wave of excitement, all the evidence, confirmed by Lord Pearce on "24 Hours" last night, is that the Africans have settled down to a firm and careful consideration of the proposals and are indulging so far as they are permitted—and that is not very far—in perfectly reasonable political activity in an attempt to assess the terms, for what they are worth.
    It would be wrong for any of us to attempt to predict what the result of a settlement will be. But I shall not be surprised if they reject that settlement for
    1444
    a reason which must be obvious to every hon. Member, and that is, in the words of Mr. Harold Macmillan 10 years ago:
    "The winds of change are blowing through Africa."
    Although the African majority in Rhodesia has been gagged, I shall not be surprised to discover that the winds of change have been blowing through Rhodesia as well.
    One surprising piece of evidence which appears from the Press reports about the work of the Commission is the degree to which Africans in the trust lands as well as in the towns and townships are politically conscious, politically aware and politically interested in their future. I should not be surprised if they make a choice which involves the sacrifice of the small benefits which might accrue from a settlement, because they understand that their only hope may be self-determination for them and their children. If they make that choice, I hope that the people of Britain and throughout the world will have the courage to stand by it and do everything they can to ensure that the Africans get the thing they have asked for.
    5.36 p.m.
    Mr. Ronald Bell: The speeches of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) exemplified that attitude of total and almost splenetic hostility to the white man in Africa which has been one of the most significant elements of Socialist policy in the last 20 years and has done untold harm in many parts of Africa. It goes so far that, if there emerges, as, for example, in Malawi or Uganda, a ntive African leader who is not anti-European, he becomes one of their bogymen just as much as Mr. Smith or anyone else.
    The speech of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East showed the Jekyll and Hyde attitude of the Opposition to the Rhodesian question. Ministers of the Labour Government sought to get a settlement on terms which went miles beyond the 1961 constitution, because they thought that it was harmful on all sides and in every way for this dispute to continue. Now those Ministers are back in Opposition they become and begin to speak as the leaders of a party in which the left has filled a dominant rôle and is concerned with every country but its own.

    1445
    That produces the unrealistic nature of this debate. It was highlighted by a phrase used by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East when referring to the present activity in Rhodesia. He said:
    "for the first time in that unhappy country"
    the Africans are begining to play a part. That shows just how little he and other hon. Gentlemen know about Rhodesia and its development.
    The British ruled a quarter of the world, and ruled it very well, but as an imperial race. When we left we handed over power from an imperial race to an indigenous race. Nowhere ever did we create or form part of a multi-racial society, because to do so does not come natural to the Anglo-Saxons. In Rhodesia alone, which has never been ruled from London—which some people forget—British people began spontaneously to build a multi-racial society, the only one which has ever taken root in the British Commonwealth of Nations. They did it; we did not. By some quirk that odd example occurred. Before U.D.I. there were no rules of racial differentiation in Rhodesia. There was a limited electorate, but the qualification of property and education was the same for everyone—
    Mr. John Mendelson: What!
    Mr. Bell: It was the same for everyone. I do not think that hon. Members have done their homework on this subject.
    Mr. George Cunningham rose—
    Mr. Bell: I will not give way. if I am subjected to a good deal of interruption this will slow me up, and I have been asked to speak briefly. No doubt the hon. Gentleman may seek to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.
    This is the society against which we have chosen to take this repressive action. I put the proposition that all the trouble in Rhodesia has come from outside because we had not the common sense to let Rhodesia go on with that unique and hopeful experiment. By some extraordinary error of judgment the Central African Federation was broken up. We gave independence to Nyasaland—the most backward of them all—which became Malawi. We gave independence to Northern Rhodesia, which was quite backward. We refused indpendence to Southern Rhodesia which had enjoyed
    1446
    home rule since 1923 and had never been ruled from London.
    There is no point in going back to that moment of folly. This was done, and all the trouble has stemmed from that initial error of judgment. Let us not talk about Mr. Smith and the Rhodesian Front. We refused independence to Rhodesia, on the terms of the 1961 constitution, to Mr. Garfield Todd, and to his successor, Mr. Winston Field. There is nothing unique in the position of Mr. Smith.
    Many territories in Africa were British and we gave them independence. We devised constitutions for them on the Westminster model at Marlborough House or Lancaster House. With the exception of two enclaves in South Africa, they all went back and tore up those constitutions. I had a small hand in devising one of them on behalf of the Barotse tribe. That constitution was solemnly signed and delivered, guaranteed by a personal pledge and torn up within 14 months. That is the record.
    We mean well, but the Westminster system, which works well in Britain, is not suited for Africa—not yet anyway, it may be one day. Therefore, we have a record of total failure in Africa. We have not devised a single constitution suitable for the conditions of Africa. Totally unabashed by this unblemished record of failure, we impose sanctions on Rhodesia for not letting us think up a silly constitution for it. That is the basis of all this. We should approach this problem in a humble frame of mind, knowing that our judgment of what is good for Africans in Africa is practically worthless.
    Let us start from that. It is an immensely complicated subject. I doubt if there is anything which is good for Africa. There are East Africa, West Africa, Central Africa and many different tribes. I had the good fortune to get right inside the life of one highly organised tribe when I was their spokesman, but every tribe is different, and we cannot generalise about what would be the right dispositions and the right constitutional arrangements for Africa just like that.
    We have made this provisional agreement, which is wise and sensible. That agreement now is in danger because, unhappily, it was linked to a very slow

    1447
    method of implementation. It is a wise and bold stroke, but the method is so slow that it will be imperilled, because into Rhodesia are pouring the accomplished mischief-makers of the world. Trouble is being stirred up in a country where there has never been trouble since 1923, where the races have lived together in harmony and mutual respect.
    The hon. Member for Penistone plainly thinks that normal political activity is the same in Africa as it is in Chelsea and Westminster.
    Mr. John Mendelson: I said nothing of the kind.
    Mr. Bell: The hon. Gentleman said something which came extremely close to it.
    Mr. Mendelson: I did not say anything of the kind. The hon. and learned Gentleman, who has never misquoted me in the past, should not do so now. I said that the Foreign Secretary has engaged the House and the country to see to it that the fifth principle of normal political activities is fulfilled during the period when opinion is being tested.
    Mr. Bell: I was not quoting the hon. Gentleman. I said that he seemed to believe this, because the whole tenor of his speech and most of its content was how normal political activity was not being allowed in Rhodesia. That was the case he was making. It is extremely difficult to carry out this operation at all even with complete order and quiet in Rhodesia.
    How can one approach all those people, the African in the tribal lands where there is not much else but fish and the de-tribalised urban African? Does one say to him, "You know the terms which have been agreed between the British Foreign Secretary and Mr. Smith, are you in favour of them?". Of course, he has not read them. How many hon. Members of this House have read them? The African does not know, and he wonders why he is being asked. Let us be sensible about this. This is an operation which must be gone through because of what is called the world community, which tends to mean the people who hang around the corridors of the United Nations and have got it into their heads that this lunatic operation must be gone through.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the spokesman of the Batonka did not know that there was a dispute with Britain?
    Mr. Bell: I am not surprised. Once they were told that there was a dispute with Britain which started six and a half years ago and that there was now a proposed settlement, they would have to be told what the settlement was. They would be completely baffled at every stage of the proceedings. All we shall have is a froth, whipped up by South African Nationalist politicians and their supporters outside. How Mr. Smith will derive a conclusion from this, I do not know.
    For Heaven's sake, let this process be quick, because the longer it goes on the more will the rats get at this sensible settlement. Nobody making the broadest judgment and assessment, which is all we can do, can believe other than that the Africa population of Rhodesia was extremely happy before U.D.I. and would like to go back to that system of racial non-discrimination and gradual advance which they had then. If we can give them that, we shall have performed a notable service for them.
    5.50 p.m.
    Mr. R. T. Paget: I feel that the present events have had at least one good result and that is that they have brought those who criticise the settlement face to face with the consequences of its failures. Sanctions had considerably broken down, they have now broken down altogether. No one really believes that it is possible to re-impose them. The Foreign Secretary put the matter almost exactly right at Question Time the other day when he pointed out that we have never had power in Rhodesia and we have not the power now; that we had influence, that we still have some influence, but less, and that our duty is quite simply to use that influence to gain for our African wards a better settlement and a better future than they could otherwise get.
    That seems to be the whole question before us. The Government, having decided that the terms they got were the best obtainable, are under a duty to implement them. I am sorry that they were diverted by the five principles. Those were, it is true, produced by the right hon. Gentleman seven years ago, but

    1449
    they were produced in very different circumstances. It was a great mistake to try to revive them. It is almost always a mistake to go to a conference table with rigid remits or points or even rigid principles. Perhaps in this I find myself in agreement with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in feeling that principles are generally a mistake.
    In this context I remember well President Wilson's 14 points at Versailles. I remember that Prime Minister Clemenceau observed that God Almighty had found 10 sufficient. Certainly the Conference at Versailles could have done with less than 14, as Lord Goodman and the negotiators at Salisbury could have done with less than five. Frankly, acceptability was always a nonsense. I did not think it would be such a mischievous nonsense as it has turned out to be but a nonsense it always was.
    I am opposed to the Common Market but I believe that a referendum on an issue of that sort would be a nonsense, and I have always said so. If a referendum would be a nonsense with as sophisticated an electorate as we have, with all the vast experience of a hundred years of democratic institutions, what kind of a nonsense is it to pass these kind of proposals to people without any experience of this sort?
    Look what has happened. One of the most remarkable things has been the attitude of the M.P.s elected by voting and those appointed by the chiefs. The democratically-elected Africans—if that be the right word and perhaps it is not—are in favour of a settlement but the chiefs' M.P.s are against it. Why? Do they regard it as too democratic? Do they regard it as contrary to chiefly influence? To this nonsense my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) wishes to add four more points. Good heavens! Do we not have enough?
    The first of those points concerns Mr. Todd and his most charming daughter. I know Mr. Todd, I like him, I admire him, he is the most attractive of individuals and I think that any of us would be proud to have a daughter such as he has. For all of this, I am a great deal more sympathetic with the men of his own village of Shabani who died because of his silliness, just as I was deeply sorry for the men of Sharpeville who died because of Harold MacMillan's silliness.
    1450
    We heard that great speech about the wind of change, but its only real effect was a massacre in Sharpeville and the repression of African progress. This is the trouble with the liberals, they make the boldest assertions, but their martyrdom is always by proxy. [Interruption.] The other points which are being put forward and which we are asked to accept are the A.N.C. going into the tribal areas, television and Sir Dingle Foot. These are a nonsense in this situation and we all know it.
    Here we have a situation in which we have very little influence. What influence we have is disappearing. For Heaven's sake let us use what we have got while we have it to try to make things better instead of pandering to our own vanity and coddling our own consciences by producing principles which we know we cannot impose. As to the future, brilliant as I found Lord Goodman's negotiations, I do not think that the result is all that important. What is important is that Rhodesia should be released and allowed to go forward.
    It was only by repressing economic progress in Rhodesia that we could keep the African under domination. Let me make myself perfectly clear, when I talk of Rhodesia I am on the black man's side not the side of the white man. I have no doubt about that at all. I never have had; they are the vast majority. I have seen apartheid work in South Africa. It has worked there because the South Africans have succeeded in avoiding dependence on a black proletariat. In none of the industries of South Africa have the South Africans ever allowed an indigenous proletariat to develop.
    They have allowed only contract labour, to come for a short time. They have always had a white labour force sufficient to keep the industry going. When the figures are in the ratio of one to three, that is possible: when it is one to twenty it is not. The moment Rhodesian policy begins to advance there must be a trade union movement, development must depend on the black proletariat, a black labour force. That must mean African rule. It will not be because of the details of a constitution, because constitutions do not stand up in Africa. It will be, and I am enough of a Marxist to believe this, because the economic circumstances as they develop

    1451
    will force this kind of dominion—[Interruption.] The people sitting behind me who giggle do so from their ignorance of this situation, and their prejudices. They are in a fix now that they are up against the rejection of a settlement which they denounced. They funk that rejection because they know the consequences will be disastrous to the African. I urge the Government to have the courage to do what they know is right and not to be diverted by this nonsense about a principle of acceptability which they know means nothing and which was developed seven years ago in quite different circumstances.
    5.58 p.m.
    Mr. Edward du Cann: Not for the first time I find myself the spokesman by accident, following the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), of those who agree with his sturdy common sense. [Interruption.] It was refreshing to listen to him although I did not agree with everything he said. I returned from Central Africa two days before the House re-assembled after our short Christmas Recess. The chief purpose of my visit, which did not, alas, include Rhodesia, was commercial, and I declare that interest.
    I should report, incidentally, although perhaps not as incidentally as might he thought at first, that I am convinced, speaking as a practical man, that the potential for British trade in West, East and Central Africa is vast. Conditions certainly are not always easy. Sometimes they are almost intolerably frustrating and difficult, but given a flexible approach and the abandonment of certain older attitudes not fashionable today, and possibly partnership with local enterprises and with Governments, there is much there aching for us to go in and achieve.
    It is insufficient alone for us to talk in this House about improving living standards. The imperative is to do something about it, and I am quite certain that the advancement of commerce is an important, practical and constructive step which we in this country could increasingly take. Not only Dr. Johnson would remark
    "A man, Sir, should keep his friendship in constant repair."
    It was said that trade followed the flag in the old days. I believe that political
    1452
    liaisons can well follow trade, to the benefit of many countries, not least that of the Commonwealth countries where we still have many friends, and this applies to Rhodesia too.
    Having so recently met and talked with a number of Ministers in four countries, having met commercial figures and having had substantial conversations with three Heads of State, from that and other experiences I venture to express an opinion about the Rhodesian problem to to this House.
    Whatever the constitutional position, or indeed the practical position, to which my right hon. Friend the Foregin Secretary referred this afternoon, whatever it may or may not be, it is entirely clear what in Africa it is generally assumed to be. Our friends there, inside and outside Rhodesia, hold us, and no one else, responsible for the constitutional developments in that country. I believe we have a moral commitment which we cannot deny. We cannot opt out. Nor should we. We must accept the trust which others have put in us. The reason why others besides myself have accepted this settlement and support it most warmly, congratulating my right hon. Friend and his colleagues on what they have achieved, is that we believe that this provisional settlement really has marked a tremendous advance, as others have said so clearly in this debate.
    Having said that, let us recognise the facts behind it. The wish of the indigenous population is to rule themselves and is now more determined than it has ever been. The African may be young in terms of education, literacy even, sophistication, experience of command, commercial leadership or government, but he is no longer placid. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), in what, I thought, was a mischievous and unfortunate speech this afternoon, quoted the Ovambos. I think it right to quote them as an example of the pace of change of opinion. Who in this House would have suggested a year or two ago that the Ovambos would take this step by striking as they recently have? The African will have his way. Perhaps he is following the example of all of us who, as young men, wanted to set off on our own.
    The trouble with all of us who have children is that we know they will want

    1453
    to set off on their own too soon. We know and recognise this, but to stand in the face of this development and attempt to prevent it is to act like Canute. The trend is there and we must recognise it, and recognise that we cannot stop it. We may be impatient of it, but there it is and it is a fact. Our historical reaction to this scene has been honourable and realistic in the history of the British Empire, now the British Commonwealth. Indeed, it has been courageous and quite often ahead of popular opinion in this country.
    Looking today at contemporary Africa I find we get credit for our realism and sense less often than we should. Too often now, I suggest to this House, it is the Communists, the Russians, perhaps through the front of other nations, or the Chinese more directly, who are regarded as the apostles of freedom and self-rule in certain territories in Africa. Such is the irony, such is the falsehood, for it is those who cry anti-colonial slogans the loudest who are the modern slavers in the contemporary scene. It is, surely, an error to allow the position of the West in general, and of Britain in particular, to be represented as reactionary. This House should be jealous of its good name and sensitive particularly of it at present.
    If in the past we have been tolerant and patient, we need to show those qualities more than ever today. It is easy to laugh at the mistakes which some of these new States are making, to complain about them, to criticise them. There is plenty of wretched examples to put one's finger upon. But is it not romantic to visit a country like Zambia, where, at the time of independence, there were only a hundred graduates, to see today 1,500 young people in the university?
    We need to show sympathy and to remember that, especially in African political life, the moderates' part is not always an easy one to play. Extremism is so much more fashionable, so much easier than moderation, but if we do not encourage reasonableness, who will? Above all, we dare not forget the reality which, I think, was much in the mind of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, that behind all the talk, behind all the politicking, the risk of savage racial war in southern Africa is real, and the danger
    1454
    is not distant, amorphous: it is, I believe, almost imminent.
    I spoke to one Head of State of my visit to the Victoria Falls and looking out over the Zambesi River to Rhodesia. I shall not easily forget his reply: "All of us", he said to me, "are on the edge of a cataclysm. We have moved slowly. inexorably towards it. You and your colleagues in the British House of Commons have a duty, in the ways that are open to you, to attempt to throw us a lifeline."
    I make no comment on the circumstances in which the Pearce Commission is honourably attempting to make its inquiries. I have supported the attempt at a settlement. It is bold and rght, I believe, to attempt it. We all hope, of course, that the Report which the Commission will make in due course will be a positive one. If the attempted settlement is right, the further we can advance, and the more constructively we can advance, the better.
    There is one other thing which requires to be said, I believe, in this debate if we are to act responsibly. We in this House must face the fact that it is possible that the Pearce Commission will report adversely. It is equally possible that the Commission will report favourably. That report will be contentious, and in some places highly contentious. I do not know how long it will be before we can receive the report—perhaps a few weeks only—but at least we have time. I am not asking for an answer tonight from my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, who himself has played a great part in this provisional settlement and who is to answer the debate, but I want to say this to him. Our aim must continue to be to lead Rhodesia to an honourable, legal independence as a sovereign democratic State—and I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary empha-sised the word "democracy". Eventually the majority must rule, and it will do. I believe the only way now for us to avoid the possibilities of repression, at the least, and of bloodshed, at the worst, is to accept this and to be seen plainly to accept it, in honour and in truth. In line with British policy in regard to the Commonwealth over many years we have no alternative.

    1455
    One matter for consideration, is whether we should not announce at some stage our view of what the timetable should be. At least it would avoid the disappointment of the "sometime, never" suggestions which can be such a powerful influence on men's minds in Africa at the present time.
    With whatever reluctance, but with full awareness of the practical difficulties and their immensity, we can no longer rule out perhaps in extreme conditions, that we may need to take command of the situation in Rhodesia. I do not advocate that now; I merely say that we cannot rule it out. We may have to take command by direct or indirect methods. Be that as it may, I repeat: we have time to plan. I hope that it will not be wasted.
    6.10 p.m.
    Mr. Frank Judd: It is a real honour to follow the speech of the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) who has made one of the most serious contributions that we have heard for many months from the benches opposite to this whole debate. I should like to spotlight three issues to which he referred, in which I am in almost complete agreement with him.
    First, I too would commend to the House the opportunities for greatly strengthened trade with the majority of the African continent north of Zambesi—east, west and centre. Second, I would also draw attention to the real danger that, in the present context of African politics, it is the totalitarian Communists who too often take the opportunity to present themselves as the champions of progress and emancipation. Third, I agree that there is no reason whatever for us to be complacent about the time-scale within which savage racial warfare could develop within the southern part of Africa.
    It has not been a happy spectacle for anyone to watch the difficulties of the Foreign Secretary in recent weeks as he has become increasingly enmeshed in the pressures and counter-pressures of his hon. Friends as they affect this issue. I believe that he is a man with real sensitivities who feels acutely the embarrassment and the difficulty of his position.
    1456
    What I am most sad of all to see is the increasing tendency for the difficulties with which the right hon. Gentleman is confronted to distort quite seriously the objectivity of his assessment. On Monday he made what I think he himself may come to regard as a rather unfortunate statement, in which he suggested that the violence and disruption of order in Rhodesia at the moment was largely to be laid at the feet of the Africans who were taking the law into their own hands.
    Of course, the right hon. Gentleman said that it was a minority, but this was the overall impression conveyed in that statement. There was no attempt, as there should have been if he were being honest with the House, to look to the origins of that frustration and activity, as other hon. Members have tried to do today. The origins of that problem lie in the violence and in the techniques enshrined in the police state system of the régime as it stands.
    I believe also that the right hon. Gentleman may come to regret, when he reflects on it, the slant of his speech this afternoon. I would agree with others that we have very little power on the ground in Rhodesia, but the issue with which the right hon. Gentleman totally failed to grapple was why, if Smith had all the cards in his hand with the 1969 constitution, he ever got himself involved in negotiations for a settlement. It is, of course, because the pressure of sanctions, even if they may have hit the African majority worst, is being felt by the community of Rhodesia as a whole. He wanted to do his best to release himself from the pressures and the consequences of sanctions.
    Some cynics suggest that Smith now believes that things have gone so far that sanctions will not be reimposed, that it does not matter to him whether the agreement goes through or not. That is why it is all the more important for the Foreign Secretary to make it absolutely clear that, if the people of Rhodesia do not endorse this settlement and it is therefore impossible for the Government to sign an agreement with the existing régime, sanctions will be reintroduced with all the authority at our disposal.
    Mr. David Steel: Has the hon. Gentleman noticed that Mr. Smith has been somewhat clearer on this matter than the

    1457
    present Government and that, in his speech commending the settlement on 25th November, he said:
    "The alternative to accepting this agreement is to maintain the status quo which means retaining the present constitution without amendment and the continuation of sanctions"?
    Are we not entitled to expect as clear a statement from the Government today?
    Mr. Judd: I am deeply grateful to the hon. Member for his intervention. Not for the first time, in this debate, I agree with everything he has said.
    I am deeply disturbed by the increasing tendency of commentators who should know better to say that the agreement is so much in the interests of the African majority, if only they would understand it, that, even if they did not endorse it, it would be important for the Government to go ahead and implement it in any case. I hope we can have a clear assurance from the Government today that they are not contemplating any such folly.
    My concluding observation is very much in line with the thoughts of the right hon. Member for Taunton. Of course, many of us who recoil from the concept of violence would welcome any opportunity for evolutionary gradual change, but if that is to succeed in any political situation it is essential that the concessions available are always ahead of the aspirations of the relatively deprived section of the community.
    The reality of the situation in southern Africa is that, increasingly, a majority of the deprived section of the population, following its articulate leadership—it is always articulate leadership that matters initially in these situations—has aspirations which outstrip any available concessions. The aspirations of the majority are for majority rule. This is the one basic concession which the minority who hold the strings at the moment are not prepared to make.
    I therefore conclude sadly by saying that, since we have a responsibility to the white minority as well as to the black majority, that responsibility demands that we say clearly and without prevarication what we believe the reality to be. I am sad that so few have recognised, here and among the white community in southern Africa, that the only hope for a rightful place in southern Africa for the white community, who have genuine roots
    1458
    there, is to come to terms as rapidly as they possibly can with the inevitability and the justice of majority rule.
    6.18 p.m.
    Mr. Patrick Cormack: I am very glad to have the privilege of making a brief contribution at the end of what has been a very good and constructive debate. One of my hon. Friends said that he regretted, and indeed questioned, the necessity for it. To some extent I would agree with those sentiments, but I believe that we have seen the House at its best today. We have had some very forthright and constructive speeches from both sides. What is apparent to everyone is that there is deep feeling on this issue and great sadness, even though we might differ in our interpretations of some of the really contentious points.
    I shared the sadness and concern which was evident throughout the House when the news came through last week of the arrest of the Todds. This is an act which one finds it difficult to explain rationally. It certainly puts Mr. Smith's credibility on the line to some extent. On the other hand, it is only right to try to be fair to all parties in a debate like this. After all, twice in the past, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, negotiations have almost succeeded. Twice in the past Mr. Smith has been a very tough negotiator with a previous Administration and surely we should consider that he could have conceded all sorts of things. He could have reached a settlement with the previous Administration and then abrogated it immediately afterwards, having had his hands freed and being completely free to do so. Though it is difficult to rationalise what happened last week, we should bear in mind that we are dealing with a man who has great problems with his own extremist minority and who might well be utterly sincere in wanting the settlement which he says he wants.
    To me, the real issue is the future of the black people of Rhodesia. I hope the House will forgive me if I try to draw something of an analogy. I hope that nobody doubts my own deep concern for those in all parts of the world who are oppressed and the subject of difficult, and indeed savage, régimes. I have the honour to be chairman of an all-party group concerned with the lot of the Jewish citizens of the U.S.S.R. The thing

    1459
    that worries me more than anything is the fact that we are powerless to do anything to help those people. We can seek to influence, we can talk, we can send telegrams and letters which are not answered, but we are powerless to do anything.
    In the case of Rhodesia we have a little power, a little chance to influence the situation and to try to make sure that the lot of the black African in Rhodesia can be improved. It is either this settlement or the 1969 constitution and progress towards apartheid and possible union with South Africa. These are the realities we must face.
    The hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) feels deeply on these issues, as I do, and for the most honourable reasons reaches rather different conclusions. The reality of the situation is that in Rhodesia today the lot of the black African is not a happy one from a constitutional or political point of view. If this settlement is not implemented the lot of the black African in Rhodesia will not improve in the years ahead. It is easy for us to sit here in this House and to pontificate and talk glibly of what might or might not happen if the settlement is not implemented. It is very easy to be martyrs by proxy, which was a matter mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), although I did not agree with everything he said. It is the people of Rhodesia who should be our concern. It should be our prime purpose today to try to exercise a moderating influence so that the Pearce Commission can complete its task in an atmosphere of peace and tranquillity and can report back to my right hon. Friend what, so far as it can gauge, is the true opinion in Rhodesia.
    I hope that the balance of opinion in Rhodesia will be in favour of the settlement. I believe that it is not the most glorious moment in the history of the British Commonwealth but I believe that my right hon. Friend has made a very notable achievement. If the settlement succeeds, I believe that this House, this country and the people of Africa as a whole will in future have good cause to thank my right hon. Friend and Lord Goodman for what they have done. Therefore, it is my earnest hope
    1460
    that the Pearce Commission will be able to get on with the job in Rhodesia without feeling that this House is seeking to breathe down its neck. I also hope it will be able to get on with its job without feeling that the Africans are being intimidated in Rhodesia; I hope it will be able to come back and say to my right hon. Friend, "Yes, they believe that this offers the best solution for them". I hope the message can go out today that this is the only chance they have, short of fratricidal strife and terrible bloodshed, to make orderly and proper progress to the sort of constitution that hon. Members on both sides of the House would wish them to enjoy.
    6.25 p.m.
    Mr. Phillip Whitehead: I hope that the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) will forgive me if I follow his remarks only in brevity. I am sure he will agree that this debate has been an example of normal political activity at its best. This has been exemplified by the speeches of the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) and my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd). This is a debate about normal political activity and the meaning of that phrase, and about the extent to which the fifth principle enshrined in the agreements which have for so long been sought by Governments of both parties may be and can be carried out by the Pearce Commission in Rhodesia.
    How far is there a proper test of opinion in that unhappy country at the moment? I submit—and I shall confine my brief remarks to this one issue—that there is cause for concern which should be expressed to the Foreign Secretary in this House about the way in which the Pearce Commission has gone about its task, as well as about the sequence of events which followed the arrests and shootings at Shabani and elsewhere.
    First, it seems to me that in some ways the Pearce Commission set about its task in a somewhat tendentious manner and that there is throughout the doings of the Pearce Commission, as in the many statements which we have had from the Government both today and on previous occasions, an assumption that the only alternatives before the Rhodesians are, first, the 1969 constitution, with all that that implies and, secondly, the settlement which has been negotiated by Lord Goodman. We would argue that there

    1461
    are other alternatives which may have to be considered in the fullness of time if the Pearce Commission returns with a negative report.
    I am sorry that the Pearce Commission has underrated the value of radio as a medium for getting over its message to the mass of the African population, particularly in the tribal territories. Indeed Lord Harlech, who has been the most voluble member of the Commission, was asked a question about this matter a week before the Commission set out on its task. He replied that spouting about the Commission on the radio might not be the best means of putting things across. I would have thought that spouting on the radio was the best way of putting things across to the vast majority of Africans in the tribal territories.
    I should not repeat the sad catalogue of shootings and arrests which have taken place since then. However, we should like to hear from the Government in their reply tonight the reason that the free expression of written opinion by urban Africans to the Commission was stopped. We wish to hear more about why the expensive journey by a Foreign Office official, Mr. Mansfield, resulted in no more information to this House than we could have learned a week earlier from Mr. Lardner Burke—no more information about the reasons for the detention of Mr. and Mrs. Chinamano and of the Todds. In view of the somewhat flippant remarks of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), may I say that I have known Mr. Garfield Todd for a long time and his daughter Miss Judith Todd is one of my oldest friends. Nobody could say that they are leaders to darkness and death. Those who say that they would connive at terrorism must be out of their minds. Mr. Todd and his daughter Judith, as anybody who has shared a platform with them and who has been involved in putting the case against the present régime in Rhodesia must know, are the most careful and legalistic representatives of enlightened opinion against the present settlement. They are not people who have flirted with terrorism.
    We want a more sufficient answer by the Foreign Secretary on why these detentions have taken place. If we do not get answers and the Pearce Commission continues to be frustrated as in the past, hon.
    1462
    Members on both sides of the House would agree that it may be necessary at that stage for the Commission to come home. The Commission itself has been left in the position in which it is the only judge of whether its mission could be accomplished. It is responsible to the Government and to this House. This House is not a broker for the settlement negotiated by Lord Goodman. The House has to decide whether the agreement is acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole.
    The hon. Member for Cannock said that the settlement would be in the best interests of the Africans. There are two views about that, equally sincerely held. But if the Africans appear to be putting the contrary view and seem to be so frustrated that, in the opinion of this House, normal political activity is impossible, I fear we should say to Lord Pearce that he is entitled to receive the advice of Her Majesty's Government on whether the mission should continue.
    6.30 p.m.
    Miss Joan Lestor: I wish to make only two or three points. The first is that the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser), and to a lesser extent one or two other hon. Members opposite, made the point that Southern Rhodesia was a police State and, therefore, that the only hope of avoiding a deterioration in conditions in Southern Rhodesia and an inevitable drift towards apartheid was to get the proposed agreement signed. However, there is no evidence to suppose that the very men who are dedicated to apartheid and the enforcement of a police State will change their attitude overnight simply because they have signed a piece of paper. In fact, since the Pearce Commission began its work we have seen the endorsement of all that some of us feel about the Smith régime.
    The Foreign Secretary said that he has no power to do anything about what is taking place in Southern Rhodesia in relation to the settlement. He also quoted from a speech of the former Prime Minister in which my right hon. Friend said that we had no control over the hangings which took place in Southern Rhodesia. But the two are not synonymous. Arm in arm with the presentation of the settlement proposals to this House was the understanding that the Foreign Secretary

    1463
    had reached an agreement with Ian Smith, which would be upheld, that in a certain climate and with certain guarantees the settlement would be put before the people of Southern Rhodesia as a whole. If these guarantees are not met, the Foreign Secretary says that he has no power to do anything. We say that he should proclaim that the Smith régime has not fulfilled its commitments to him when the proposals were put to it.
    I was disturbed to hear the right hon. Gentleman say on Monday that he could not question Smith's right to maintain security, provided that the minimum amount of force was used. The minimum amount of force being used in Rhodesia is that which has locked up those who oppose the settlement. I asked the Foreign Secretary, and I ask him again, how many of those who have been detained, gassed, arrested, shot or murdered are people who were advocating acceptance of the settlement. That is the test.
    The Foreign Secretary's reply about the proposed Labour Party delegation filled me with foreboding. First, there was nothing in the exchanges between the General Secretary of the Labour Party and the Foreign Secretary or those between my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman to say that the delegation would go out to Southern Rhodesia advocating non-acceptance of the settlement. That was not the position. It was going to see what was taking place in Southern Rhodesia.
    The Foreign Secretary is behaving very much like Ian Smith. He is preventing people going to see what is happening in Southern Rhodesia because he knows them as individuals who disagree with the settlement. Smith has locked up the Todds not because of anything they have done but because of what they might do. That is why the Foreign Secretary is unhappy about a Labour Party delegation going to Southern Rhodesia.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Perhaps I might remind the hon. Lady that one member of the party opposite is in Rhodesia now, and there has been no trouble. I have said that I think that hon. Members should be able to go to Rhodesia to observe.
    Miss Lestor: The right hon. Gentleman did not say that. He said that he did not—[Interruption] The right hon. Gentleman should not quote himself out of context. He said that he did not see any point in a delegation made up of members of a political party going there when we were opposed to the settlement. That appears in HANSARD. That is why I am apprehensive about the whole conduct of the settlement and the attitude that the right hon. Gentleman has directed to it.
    What this House should be discussing and what it will have to face—some of us said this when we opposed the "Tiger" and the "Fearless" proposals—is what we do when the settlement fails and when Lord Pearce comes back and says that it is not on. What then will be the future of both the whites and the blacks in Southern Rhodesia?
    6.34 p.m.
    Mr. Roy Hattersley: This debate was initiated by the Opposition to consider one specific and urgent issue. The debate concerns the fifth of the five principles; that is, the acceptability to the Rhodesian people as a whole of the agreement negotiated by the Foreign Secretary in November. The debate concerns the promise of normal political activity while this test of acceptability is applied. I shall deal almost entirely in my speech with that specific and urgent point.
    But it is first necessary to record that the Foreign Secretary's response to our concern about the fifth principle during the last 14 days has made a number of general conclusions about the Rhodesian settlement inevitable. The first is that, since the Commission has been in Rhodesia, no one has seriously argued that Mr. Smith has kept his word about the test of acceptability. Since he has not kept his word about the fifth principle, we believe that this bodes ill for the prospect of his keeping his word about the other four.
    Secondly, the last 14 days have revealed a great deal about the relationship between the Foreign Secretary and Mr. Smith. It is clear, and it was made tragically evident today, that the right hon. Gentleman is continually willing

    1465
    to carry Mr. Smith's messages to this House. To us, that bodes a great deal of ill for the future if the future involves, as involve it may, new negotiations between Her Majesty's Government and the régime in Salisbury.
    The Foreign Secretary's defence of his attitude is that he has no power in Rhodesia and that he can do no more than repeat to this House the will of Mr. Smith. The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He claims that in November he struck a genuine bargain with the Smith régime. If it was a genuine bargain, he has the power and the ability to say to the Smith régime, "Break or change your side of the agreement, and we shall change or abandon ours." To be able to say that, the right hon. Gentleman has to retain power and influence by at least retaining the prospects of sanctions. But he has to tell us clearly what it was that happened in November and whether there was a bargain with concessions and promises made by both sides. If he made a genuine bargain he has power. If he has no power, it was capitulation.
    The judgment of the Opposition and of the country on the November agreement needs no repetition. The Foreign Secretary has never pretended that it was any better than the lesser of a series of evils. Today, the best that he could say about it was that it was "as good as could be obtained". If that is the best he can say about it, he will understand why we regard the test of acceptance on the part of the Rhodesian people as being crucially important.
    That is why we want the Pearce Commission to continue its work. It is why we need to be told something about the Commission's continuation which we might have hoped was self-evident, namely, that the work be continued according to the promise that Mr. Smith made to the Foreign Secretary and the promise that the right hon. Gentleman repeated to this House.
    I make no criticism of the Commission except, if it be a criticism, to express surprise at some of the comments by the Commission's deputy chairman on Saturday evening. On a number of specific issues the Commission has been a great deal more active in pursuit of the promise
    1466
    of normal political activity than has the Foreign Secretary.
    The Commission has made it clear that it wants to see the Rev. Sithole. We do not know whether the Government think that that is right and will press for it to happen. The Commission is concerned about the prospects of public meetings in the tribal trust areas. I do not know hether the Government will press for them. The Commission is specifically critical about the detention of Mr. Garfield Todd and his daughter and of Mr. Chinamano.
    We do not know any more about the detention of Mr. Todd, though we have been promised some sort of statement for the last six days, than the simple reiteration by the Foreign Secretary of this memorable phrase: "Mr. Todd was detained for reasons of internal security…The reason for that decision Mr. Smith was unwilling to reveal." I have to say to the Foreign Secretary, I hope calmly but after very great consideration, that I regard that as a shameful answer. It is shameful on the Foreign Secretary and vicariously shameful, I fear, on those Members of the House of Commons who had to listen to it.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I was asked, as I understood it, to ascertain from Mr. Smith why he had interned Mr. Todd. I repeated what Mr. Smith said to me. I thought that the House wanted that information.
    Mr. Hattersley: My original contention was that the Foreign Secretary had become nothing more than Mr. Smith's message-carrier. If he wants to reverse that reputation, I give way at once while he tells the House how much he deplores the message that he was given and how much he hopes for Mr. Todd's release. Mr. Smith did not give a reason for Mr. Todd's detention but many people in the country believe that they know what it is: Mr. Todd's impending departure to this country to put the case of some of his African colleagues.
    The detention of Mr. Chinamano is now causing similar fears in Rhodesia relating to a similar allegation. I discovered from a professional colleague this afternoon that, about two hours before he was arrested, Mr. Chinamano had agreed to do a broadcast for the British Broadcasting Corporation putting

    1467
    the African point of view. Those people who conclude that there was a relationship between Mr. Todd's arrest and his departure for England to put his case also conclude now that similar considerations affect the arrest of Mr. Chinamano.
    It seems detestable that while the Smith régime pretends to allow normal political activity, two of the spokesmen for the African majority, who are likely not only to advance the cause of the Africans but to advance it well and persuasively, are detained very shortly after arrangements are made for that cause to be advanced and certainly before the speeches or broadcasts can be made.
    I hope that we hear from the Attorney-General that he will find out whether that description of the situation from the people on the spot is the message which Mr. Smith would want to convey to this House. If he will convey that information, we will be grateful: and if he would comment on it, we would be even more grateful and slightly surprised.
    I turn to two other matters about which this House has to be concerned and about which something must be said by the Attorney-General when he replies to the debate. The first concerns violence. The Foreign Secretary is rightly swift to condemn violence, and to condemn violence in Rhodesia. All of us support him in that. But since Christmas the Foreign Secretary has been very selective in those condemnations. It is violent to fire on and to kill unarmed African demonstrators. It is violent to suppress normal political freedoms. It is certainly violent to detain without trial those who would speak on behalf of freedom. I hope that the debate will not be concluded without a word of condemnation from the Government for that sort of violence.
    I hope, too, that the debate will not be concluded without the Attorney-General at least assaying to answer some of the questions which were put to the Government last Wednesday, on Monday and again by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) this afternoon and to which there has not been the semblance of an answer.
    We want to know what possible justification there is for the detention of Miss Todd, Mr. Todd and Mr. Chinamano. We want to know about the prospects
    1468
    of public meetings in tribal trust areas. We want to know about broadcasting facilities for every point of view in Rhodesia. We want to know whether there is the prospect of the Pearce Commission carrying on its work in the way that this House was promised and in the way that Mr. Smith undertook. We are not, as the Foreign Secretary suggested, trying to go over the heads of the Commission. We want it to work in the appropriate atmosphere and to provide an accurate answer. Our fear is that that is not happening and that the Government are not pressing that it should happen.
    We understand very well the difficulties of extracting this kind of information from Mr. Smith. But we understood last Wednesday, when my right hon. Friend and the Leader of the Opposition were most patient in the face of the Foreign Secretary's explanations, that Mr. Mansfield had been sent to Rhodesia to obtain exactly those answers. We thought that Monday's statement was to provide the answers which Mr. Mansfield had helped to supply. It did not. And today's debate has supplied none of the answers to the crucial questions. If, as I read, Mr. Mansfield returns this evening, perhaps with some of the information about his person, we will expect a statement tomorrow from the Foreign Secretary giving us the answers to these questions.
    In the meantime I want to reiterate the Opposition's view. We are anxious that the Pearce Commission should continue its work. We want it to continue in an atmosphere, to quote the Foreign Secretary, of normal political activity. We do not see that situation in Rhodesia today. Perhaps more important, we do not see the Foreign Secretary struggling to achieve it. Because of that we will return to the subject time after time and tonight, to demonstrate our deep concern, we will divide the House.
    6.45 p.m.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Peter Rawlinson): Unlike the speeches by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), it was my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who reminded the House of the gravity of the matter which

    1469
    we are debating this afternoon, and that was echoed in a distinguished speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann).
    I say straight away to the House that, with limited personal knowledge of Africa and even more limited personal knowledge of Rhodesia, I can never approach a debate about Rhodesia or Africa save with a real sense of anxiety, particularly when dealing with Rhodesia, at the responsibilities which are borne by the House. I share that feeling which was expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack).
    I will not repeat my personal views on what I heard and saw in Rhodesia. I saw little but heard a lot—that is, a lot compared with other hon. Members. I still cannot get from my mind the hundred or so people who spoke about the need for a new initiative, the need for a new spirit and the need for some hope. I am not ashamed to say that I cannot get that from my mind.
    I know that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite do not accept these proposals. They demonstrated that in the Division on 1st December. Nevertheless, I and my right hon. and hon. Friends believe that the proposals are a step forward. But what we think at this stage does not matter. What matters is the opinion of the people of Rhodesia who at this time are being consulted by the Commission.
    I think that there was a certain inconsistency in what the hon. Member for Sparkbrook said in his winding-up speech for the Opposition, because his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East said that the Africans were responding to the present opportunity. He spoke of them responding in the towns, the villages and the most remote areas. They cannot at the same time complain about lack of political activity. Political activity is being demonstrated by those who are responding to the opportunity by coming to those meetings and taking part in those activities. [Interruption.] I am quoting the right hon. Gentleman's own words. He spoke about them responding to this particular opportunity.
    Mr. Healey: Of course I applaud the African response, but to claim that when the Africans respond and they are put
    1470
    into gaol, tear-gassed, shot and wounded is normal political activity is a travesty of the facts.
    The Attorney-General: That is not what I said, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it. He was complaining that there was no normal political activity, yet in the same breath he was congratulating the Africans on taking this opportunity. The opportunity is given for them to make their views known to the Commission. The Commission has been sent by the Government to test the reaction of the people of Rhodesia as a whole.
    The only sanction which remains, as the right hon. Gentleman knows only too well, would be the removal of the Commission. If the conditions were not right, the removal of the Commission would lead inevitably to no settlement, and we believe that with no settlement there would be an inevitable move to a state of apartheid. In the absence of a report by the Commission asking that it be withdrawn, or in the absence of withdrawal by the Commission itself, that would be utterly irresponsible.
    It appears that the Commission is receiving reactions, and it is right that it should. It was always accepted by the previous Administration, as it has been by the present one, that the appropriate method of testing would be by a Commission. This is now the crucially important stage about which the hon. Member for Sparkbrook spoke. It is a British Commission appointed by the United Kingdom to report back to Her Majesty's Government. It must be independent. It must make an assessment of the true attitude, not the superficial, not the outward appearance, not the attitude of a few, but the true attitude and reaction of the people of Rhodesia as a whole.
    Of necessity, any agreement made in consequence of these proposals in 1971, or the proposals nearly successfully negotiated by the previous Administration, inevitably involves complex matters. These proposals involve the making of a constitution. They involve changes in the law. They involve providing for checks and balances. All these matters call for a Commission which, to do its task, must have patience and determination; and it must do its task thoroughly.

    1471
    The Commission, appointed by the British Government, has terms of reference which require it to ascertain directly from all sections of the population of Rhodesia whether the proposals are acceptable, and then to report to the British Government. The Commission must satisfy itself on whether the settlement is acceptable. It cannot do that—the settlement cannot be acceptable—if the people of Rhodesia have not had the terms explained to them. Moreover, according to its terms of reference, the Commission must be satisfied that normal political activities have been permitted, provided that they are conducted in a peaceful and democratic manner. That is a task which has been imposed upon the Commission in its terms of reference, and the judgment on the issue as to whether it is satisfied that normal political activities have been permitted has been placed fairly and squarely upon the Commission itself. It is up to the Commission, by its terms of reference, to make this judgment.
    The Commission is now in Rhodesia. It is in the best position to judge. The head of the Commission, Lord Pearce, has said that he does not think that the resulting situation as regards political activity is so serious that he and his colleagues should withdraw.
    I repeat that, with the Commission having those duties imposed upon it and having to make that judgment, it certainly would not be right for the British Government to interfere, as some right hon. and hon. Members have suggested. It is an independent Commission. It will not do anything which it does not require and it will do what it does require. Any other conduct would reflect upon the independence of the Commission itself.
    The Commission has not asked the British Government to take up any matters with Mr. Smith. If it does, the Government will. If it is prevented in its duty, if it is prevented from carrying out its task, the Commission will report to the Government. But it has not done so so far.
    Mr. George Cunningham: If the Government were so keen to have an independent Commission, why are many members of it Government servants?
    The Attorney-General: They are not Government servants. The hon. Gentle
    1472
    man ought to know that the Commission is wholly independent. They are not Government servants. They are honourable men sent out there to do a task. They have said that they will give, as they are required to give, an honest answer, as it has been said, to the questions which they have been asked to determine.
    Mr. Thorpe: If the matter of the conditions for normal political campaigning is to be left entirely to the Pearce Commission—if the Foreign Secretary was washing his hands of the matter—why was Mr. Mansfield sent out to report back to the Foreign Secretary?
    The Attorney-General: The right hon. Gentleman sounds naive and ingenuous but I know very well that he is not. Of course, my right hon. Friend sent out Mr. Mansfield. There are many matters which he wishes to know and to have reported directly hack to him. But the question whether the Commission can carry out its duties is a matter solely for the Commission on which to make up its mind and come to a judgment.
    I remind the right hon. Member for Leeds, East of what was said on 20th January, because he sometimes seemed so to telescope what he said the Commission had said as, perhaps, to change a little of the sense, though without any intention, I am sure. This is what Lord Pearce said on 20th January:
    "To say that there has been no political activity in any of the tribal trust lands would seem untenable in the light of what our Commissioners have told us so far"
    He went on to say:
    "The real question will be the degree to which freedom of political expression is permitted. If people are detained simply to silence them"—
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    The Attorney-General: Yes—
    "then even in existing conditions it is not allowing normal political activity."
    Lord Pearce added:
    "We are loth to make a premature judgment on allegations and counter-allegations which are in our present state of knowledge hard to evaluate, premature and possibly erroneous."
    The head of the Commission himself well knows and appreciates the importance of normal political activity, and he well knows the balance there has to

    1473
    be between normal political activity and other activity which might amount to intimidation.
    On 23rd January Lord Pearce said that a lot of good, constructive work had been done. He spoke of the need for a calm and peaceful atmosphere. About the matter of the detention of Mr. Garfield Todd and Miss Todd, he said:
    "I am not prepared at this moment to give any evaluation of the situation because we have not finished our considerations. We have already stated that we regard this as a matter of great importance to keep the balance, a fair balance, between expressions of political thought and the maintenance of peace and order…but it is a matter that we have very much in mind."
    By today, 26th January, in the opinion of the Commission the atmosphere has much improved.
    The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) asked me about the movement to parity. As I said in the debate on 1st December, this is what the United Kingdom will require to be enacted by the Rhodesian Parliament before the United Kingdom Parliament would ever be asked to legis
    late in the event of the test of acceptability showing that the proposals proved acceptable.
    When he was Prime Minister, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, as the right hon. Member for Leeds, East, who was Minister of Defence at the time, well knows, was unable to force the Rhodesian Government back into a state of legality. They were unable to prevent the creation of the 1969 constitution. They negotiated and they failed. No doubt it was to the bitter disappointment of the right hon. Gentleman. But the Commission is now in Rhodesia, and it is enjoined to discover whether the proposals are acceptable. We are many thousands of miles away, and we cannot do the Commission's task. I am certain that the Commission will not be driven away or run away until it has done its task. Above all, we owe it to the people of Rhodesia to let the Commission judge, and to await its report.
    Question put, That this House do now adjourn:—
    The House divided: Ayes 266, Noes 294.

    Division No. 45.]

    AYES

    [7.0 p.m.

    Abse, Leo

    Concannon, J. D.

    Fisher, Mrs. Doris(B'ham, Ladywood)

    Albu, Austen

    Conlan, Bernard

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

    Allen, Scholefield

    Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Foot, Michael

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Cronin, John

    Ford, Ben

    Ashley, Jack

    Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Forrester, John

    Ashton, Joe

    Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)

    Fraser, John (Norwood)

    Atkinson, Norman

    Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

    Freeson, Reginald

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Dalyell, Tarn

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Barnes, Michael

    Davidson, Arthur

    Garrett, W. E.

    Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

    Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

    Gilbert, Dr. John

    Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

    Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Golding, John

    Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Davis, Clinton, (Hackney, C.)

    Gourlay, Harry

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    Bishop, E. S.

    Deakins, Eric

    Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

    Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

    Boardman, H. (Leigh)

    Delargy, H. J.

    Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

    Booth, Albert

    Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

    Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

    Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

    Dempsey, James

    Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

    Bradley, Tom

    Doig, Peter

    Hamling, William

    Broughton, Sir Alfred

    Dormand, J. D.

    Hardy, Peter

    Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)

    Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

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

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

    Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

    Driberg, Tom

    Hattersley, Roy

    Buchan, Norman

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Dunn, James A.

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

    Dunnett, Jack

    Hilton, W. S.

    Cant, R. B.

    Eadie, Alex

    Hooson, Emlyn

    Carmichael, Neil

    Edelman, Maurice

    Horam, John

    Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Houghton, Rt. Hon. Douglas

    Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

    Edwards, William (Merioneth)

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

    Ellis, Tom

    Huckfield, Leslie

    Clark, David (Colne Valley)

    English, Michael

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

    Evans, Fred

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

    Cohen, Stanley

    Ewing, Henry

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

    Hunter, Adam

    Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

    Mikardo, Ian

    Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

    Janner, Greville

    Millan, Bruce

    Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

    Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Milne, Edward

    Sillars, James

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)

    Silverman, Julius

    John, Brynmor

    Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Small, William

    Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

    Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

    Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

    Spearing, Nigel

    Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

    Moyle, Roland

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Stallard, A. W.

    Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)

    Oakes, Gordon

    Steel, David

    Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

    Ogden, Eric

    Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

    Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Stoddart, David (Swindon)

    Judd, Frank

    O'Malley, Brian

    Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

    Kaufman, Gerald

    Oram, Bert

    Strang, Gavin

    Kelly, Richard

    Orbach, Maurice

    Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

    Kerr, Russell

    Orme, Stanley

    Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

    KinnocK, Neil

    Oswald, Thomas

    Swain, Thomas

    Lambie, David

    Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Taverne, Dick

    Lamond, James

    Padley, Walter

    Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)

    Latham, Arthur

    Paget, R. T.

    Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

    Lawson, George

    Palmer, Arthur

    Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

    Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

    Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Parker, John (Dagenham)

    Tinn, James

    Leonard, Dick

    Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Tomney, Frank

    Lestor, Miss Joan

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Torney, Tom

    Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    Tuck, Raphael

    Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

    Pendry, Tom

    Urwin, T. W.

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Pentland, Norman

    Varley, Eric G.

    Lipton, Marcus

    Perry, Ernest G.

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Lomas, Kenneth

    Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

    Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)

    Loughlin, Charles

    Prescott, John

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Wallace, George

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Watkins, David

    McBride, Neil

    Probert, Arthur

    Weitzman, David

    McCann, John

    Rankin, John

    Wellbeloved, James

    McCartney, Hugh

    Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    McElhone, Frank

    Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

    White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

    McGuire, Michael

    Rhodes, Geoffrey

    Whitehead, Phillip

    Mackenzie, Gregor

    Richard, Ivor

    Whitlock, William

    Mackie, John

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Maclennan, Robert

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

    Roderick, Caerwyn (Br'c'n & R'dnor)

    Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

    Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

    Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

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

    Roper, John

    Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

    Marks, Kenneth

    Rose, Paul B.

    Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

    Marquand, David

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    Marsden, F.

    Sandelson, Neville

    Woof, Robert

    Marshall, Dr. Edmund

    Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

    Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)

    Mr. Joseph Harper and

    Mayhew, Christopher

    Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)

    Mr. James Hamilton.

    Meacher, Michael

    Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Mendelson, John

    NOES

    Adley, Robert

    Braine, Sir Bernard

    Cooper, A. E.

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Bray, Ronald

    Cordle, John

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Brewis, John

    Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

    Brinton, Sir Tatton

    Cormack, Patrick

    Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

    Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

    Costain, A. P.

    Astor, John

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Critchley, Julian

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Bruce-Gardyne, J.

    Crouch, David

    Awdry, Daniel

    Bryan, Paul

    Crowder, F. P.

    Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

    Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N & M)

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord

    Buck, Antony

    Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

    Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Batsford, Brian

    Burden, F. A.

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid.Maj. -Gen. James

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

    Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

    Dean, Paul

    Bell, Ronald

    Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray & Nairn)

    Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

    Carlisle, Mark

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Benyon, W.

    Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Dixon, Piers

    Berry, Hn. Anthony

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

    Biffen, John

    Channon, Paul

    Drayson, G. B.

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Chapman, Sydney

    du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Blaker, Peter

    Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

    Dykes, Hugh

    Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Eden, Sir John

    Body, Richard

    Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

    Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Boscawen, Robert

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Bossom, Sir Clive

    Clegg, Walter

    Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)

    Bowden, Andrew

    Cockeram, Eric

    Farr, John

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

    Cooke, Robert

    Fell, Anthony

    Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

    Knox, David

    Redmond, Robert

    Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

    Lambton, Antony

    Reed, Laurence (Bolton, E.)

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Lane, David

    Rees, Peter (Dover)

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Fortescue, Tim

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

    Foster, Sir John

    Le Marchant, Spencer

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Fowler, Norman

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)

    Longden, Sir Gilbert

    Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

    Fry, Peter

    Loveridge, John

    Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

    Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

    McAddon, Sir Stephen

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Gibson-Watt, David

    MacArthur, Ian

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

    McCrindle, R. A.

    Rost, Peter

    Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

    McLaren, Martin

    Royle, Anthony

    Glyn, Dr. Alan

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Goodhart, Philip

    McMaster, Stanley

    St. John-Stevas, Norman

    Goodhew, Victor

    Macmillan. Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)

    Scott, Nicholas

    Gorst, John

    McNair-Wilson, Michael

    Sharples, Richard

    Gower, Raymond

    McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

    Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

    Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

    Maddan, Martin

    Shelton, William (Clapham)

    Gray, Hamish

    Madel, David

    Simeons, Charles

    Green, Alan

    Maginnis, John E.

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Grylls, Michael

    Marten, Neil

    Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)

    Gummer, J. Selwyn

    Mather, Carol

    Soref, Harold

    Gurden, Harold

    Maude, Angus

    Speed, Keith

    Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

    Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

    Spence, John

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Mawby, Ray

    Sproat, Iain

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

    Hannam, John (Exeter)

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Stokes, John

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C.(Aberdeenshire, W)

    Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

    Hastings, Stephen

    Moate, Roger

    Sutcliffe, John

    Havers, Michael

    Molyneaux, James

    Tapsell, Peter

    Hawkins, Paul

    Money, Ernie

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Hay, John

    Monks, Mrs. Connie

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

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Monro, Hector

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

    Heseltine. Michael

    More, Jasper

    Tebbit, Norman

    Hicks, Robert

    Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

    Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Morrison, Charles

    Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

    Hiley, Joseph

    Mudd, David

    Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)

    Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

    Murton, Oscar

    Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Holland, Philip

    Nabarro, Sir Gerald

    Tilney, John

    Holt, Miss Mary

    Neave, Airey

    Trafford, Dr. Anthony

    Hordern, Peter

    Nicholls, Sir Harmar

    Trew, Peter

    Hornby, Richard

    Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Tugendhat, Christopher

    Hornsby-Smith. Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

    Normanton, Tom

    Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

    Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

    Nott, John

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Onslow, Cranley

    Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

    Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

    Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

    Vickers, Dame Joan

    Hunt, John

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Waddington, David

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

    Walder, David (Clitheroe)

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

    James, David

    Parkinson, Cecil

    Walters, Dennis

    Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

    Peel, John

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Percival, Ian

    Warren, Kenneth

    Jessel, Toby

    Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    White, Roger (Gravesend)

    Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

    Jopling, Michael

    Pounder, Rafton

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Wilkinson, John

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

    Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Worsley, Marcus

    Kilfedder, James

    Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

    Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

    Kimball, Marcus

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Younger, Hn. George

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Raison, Timothy

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    King, Tom (Bridgwater)

    Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

    Mr. Reginald Eyre and Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

    Kinsey, J. R.

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    Kirk, Peter

    Kitson, Timothy

    Knight, Mrs. Jill

    TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords]
    Order for Second Reading read.
    7.11 p.m.
    The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
    The title of this Measure has in brackets the word "Amendment". Perhaps we might better have used the words "miscellaneous provisions", because the Bill deals with a number of important matters relating to town planing which we have collected together in one Measure.
    It may be for the convenience of the House if I endeavour to deal with the provisions of the Bill in four parts—first, the examination in public of structure plans; second, the structure plan areas; third, office development control; and, fourth, demolition in conservation areas. The Bill conveniently divides into these subjects, although that is not the order in which they appear in the Measure. Perhaps I have chosen them to some extent in order of importance.
    I will start with Clause 3, which deals with the new procedure for the examination of structure plans. I shall probably shock those to whom all planning is anathema—those who I might call members of the lillies of the field school—when I say that town planning is now on a three-tier system with a mezzanine floor.
    At the top is the regional strategy, prepared in the regions by an expert team provided by my Department and local authorities, sponsored by the Regional Economic Planning Council and standing conference of local planning authorities in each region. That is at the top of the planning pyramid.
    One next comes to the structure plans, which will be prepared by the local planning authorities; under local government reform these will be prepared by county planning authorities. These are the plans which were introduced under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1968.
    It is perhaps wrong to call them plans in this context in that they consist of a statement of strategy, rather than a design on a map, setting out the policy and prin
    1480
    ciples on which a whole planning area is to be planned, but not drawing lines on a map or getting into those sort of details.
    One next comes down to the basic grass roots planning of an area; that is the drawing of lines on an Ordnance Survey map to show in detail how it will affect the citizen in the street or the plot of land.
    I said that there was in this three-tier system of planning a mezzanine floor. Here we find the industrial development control and office development permit systems. I do not think we should leave these out in thinking of planning. More and more they will come into the planning scheme rather than be remote from it. Indeed, in this Bill we deal with the O.D.P. system.
    The Town and Country Planning Act, 1968, introduced a new development plan system. That sought to remedy the problems which had become apparent in the system originally introduced in 1947. I do not say that they were problems inherent in the 1947 system, but that is the way it worked out, and I am shocked to have to tell the House that I have found development plans in my Department which we have been conscientiously studying—there is nothing wrong in this under the present law—for 10 years or more. and we are still studying them.
    This is happening because they are development plans which were detailed as "land use plans" and the responsibility of the Minister under the 1947 legislation had become involved in a mass of detail. Consequently, long delays ensued while the plans awaited the Minister's approval.
    The new 1968 system, if I may call it that as a form of verbal shorthand, replaces the old development plan by two separate plans. The first is the structure plan, setting out broad strategic policies and proposals—it is eventually submitted to the Secretary of State—and the second stage is the local plan, which sets out in detail the way in which the structure plan proposals will be implemented at the local level. The local plan will not come before the Secretary of State unless he considers it needs his approval.
    These new structure plans are not, as were the old plans, limited to land use. The planning authority must now cover transportation and take account of the

    1481
    economic implications of its proposals, and particularly of their relationship to regional policy. In the new system there is to be, for the first time in the history of development plans, a statutory process of public participation for both the structure and local plans so that people may have adequate opportunities to know about the choice of strategies and the proposals of their local planning authority and make their influence felt at this formative stage.
    Thus, the new development plan system under the 1968 Act is different in three respects from its predecessors. First, it is a two-tier system of structure and local plans. Second, it is what I would call "whole planning"—not just land use but economic and regional planning. Third, we have public participation.
    If my tone of voice is complimentary to this system, I admit at once that it was introduced by the Labour Government. I had pleasure in being a Member of the Committee which examined the Measure which introduced the system and I hope that I gave it all the support it deserved, because it is a system which I think we can make work.
    However, those far-reaching changes were not accompanied by changes in the provisions for public local inquiries into objections. That is what we missed in dealing with the system. The Act just provided for an inquiriy into structure and local plans on the sort of litigation basis on which inquiries are held at present. I go as far as saying that that omission to devise an appropriate kind of inquiry for a structure plan could be fatal to the whole system we set up under the 1968 Act. The delay, the blight, the failure to probe and decide the real issues, the loss of sight of the wood for the trees, would frustrate planning and bring chaos to both development and conservation, which we want to achieve under the new planning system.
    In the Bill we are not proposing to alter the well-established arrangements for public local inquiries into local plans. These are the ones in which we deal with the detail of the individual's property and his interests. It is clearly right that there should continue to be not only the right to object but for objections which are not withdrawn to be heard at a normal type of inquiry as we know it; no matter how minor the objections may be, from
    1482
    a financial or area point of view, they should be thoroughly considered. But the House will appreciate that if an inquiry in that traditional form had to be held on the basis of detailed objections to the new structure plan, there would be an unnecessary and unacceptable overlap, and consequently delay. Above all, we should have frustrated what has all along been seen as the prime object of the structure plan—the need for a plan which would enable the local planning authority to present, and the Secretary of State to consider matters of policy and general proposals, and which would secure the implementation of regional plans such as that which the Secretary of State has already approved for the South-East.
    What the Government are therefore seeking to evolve from this new form of plan is a more relevant means of publicly examining the key issues which are raised by that plan. There will be a wide range of material from which to identify those issues—from the statement which the planning authority has to make on the outcome of the public participation which it has carried out, to the Secretary of State's own examination of the plan and the objections to it received. From all those we shall be able to identify the major issues raised by that plan.
    As for the examination itself, which will be held in public, we need to provide a panel with a suitably independent chairman to discuss matters with the planning authority and with other participants on the inquiry, to probe aspects which have been seriously contested or give rise to objections, to assess worthwhile alternatives and finally to make a report to the Secretary of State. That report would he published, providing him with a basis for a decision on the plan far more relevant to the structural issues than could ever be the case if the examination had been concerned with detailed objections.
    The Bill does not itself make any detailed provisions relating to the public examination. The new procedure will be evolved in consultation with those concerned, particularly with the Council on Tribunals, with which I have already had discussions, and we shall find the best procedure to put into regulations eventually. Some criticism of these ideas has naturally been put forward. The criticism has been focused mainly on what is

    1483
    thought of as the loss of the objector's right to be heard. In this connection I emphasise again that there will already have been ample opportunity for public participation.
    It is a prerequisite of the procedure under this Bill that the public participation shall have been very thorough in depth even if perhaps restricted in time. There is no restriction to the right to object to the structure plan, and all objectors will still have their written objections considered. That remains an entrenched right for the individual. The statutory duty on the Secretary of State to consider their objections remains. The duty which we now impose on the Secretary of State, a mandatory duty, is to decide what are the main issues of this structure plan and see that they are thoroughly considered at the examination in public. That means a choice of not only the issues but of the participants as well. This will be difficult and we shall endeavour to provide a procedure at which the Secretary of State's choice, both of issues and of participants, can be questioned and discussed. If we can devise a procedure for discussion of the agenda first without causing too much delay or making it a cumbersome procedure, we shall have achieved the aim of this part of the Bill.
    Again, those points in particular will be the subject of further discussions with all the interested organisations—the local authority associations, the professional bodies, and the Council on Tribunals. Provision has alrady been made in the Bill for ensuring that examinations are subject to the general oversight of the Council.
    I hope that the House will forgive me for spending a little time on this matter. I can move fairly rapidly over the rest of the Bill. Going back from Clause 3 to Clauses 1 and 2, these deal merely with the mechanics of structure planning. As we left the 1968 Act, we had directed each local planning authority to prepare a structure plan. Some of them have wished to prepare the plan in conjunction with their neighbours and, by law, if they did so they could go on with their surveys over a wider area—South Hampshire, for example—but when they came to present that structure plan to the Secretary of State they had to take a pair
    1484
    of scissors and cut it up, which is just nonsense. So in the Bill we are providing that the local planning authorities can join together to make a structure plan over any area which is convenient. That is not mandatory. It is purely legalising a voluntary arrangement between local planning authorities. The Bill also provides that, if they change their minds at any time during that process, they can come out of the joint process and prepare their own plan, and whatever has been done in the joint process can be used in preparing any structure plan they choose to do on their own.
    The other point on structure plans relates to London, and Clause 4 and Schedule I are important provisions for streamlining the planning system of Greater London. Existing legislation under the 1968 Act provides for the Greater London Council to prepare a structure plan, and each of the London boroughs to prepare structure plans—some 33 plans. Looking at the inquiry which is now proceeding into the Greater London development plan, the mind boggles at the time it might take not only to complete that inquiry but then possibly to have 33 more of these inquiries throughout the London boroughs.
    In the Bill we are seeking to say that once we have got the Greater London structure plan, the London boroughs can go straight to the stage of preparing their local plans. This is not demoting them in any way; rather, it is promoting them, because they can prepare those local plans for the whole of the area if they choose, or for part of it, and they do not have to bring a local plan to the Secretary of State for approval. So they can get on with the job right away once they can fit their local plans into the Greater London Development plan. Again, these provisions will also enable the London boroughs to prepare such joint local plans as they consider appropriate.
    I come now to the third part of the Bill, relating to office development control. Clauses 5 and 6 relate to the extension of the present powers in respect of office control beyond August of this year. The area of control has been successively reduced since 1969. The control itself dates back to 1965, and at present it is applied only to the South-East planning region and for developments over

    1485
    10,000 square feet. When control was first introduced, it was seen by its authors as a temporary measure to control what was believed to be excessive office employment growth in London. Its life span was seven years. This means that, unless provision is made for continuance of its powers, it will lapse on 5th August of this year. Some hon. Members will doubtless say, "Good riddance", but there is still a purpose in it. The Government have carefully considered what they should do about office control. Few controls are without their enemies and the very powerful voices which have been raised for the abolition of these types of control have been raised on the grounds—to some extent, justified—that they have led only to a shortage of office accommodation in central London, with the result that they have contributed to a quite unprecedented rise in rents.
    I have said that there is some justification of that criticism of the controls. The Government are not keen on interfering with the normal operations of commercial and professional development and would like to remove this additional irksome step in the planning process and leave it, perhaps, entirely to the planning process in due course. We have concluded that an intelligent use can be made of the control for a limited period to further the objectives of the Strategic Plan for the South-East.
    Hon. Members will remember that in October of last year my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the Government's decision to accept the main recommendations of the Strategic Plan for the South-East. We think that we can mould this control into a positive form. We propose in future to use the O.D.P. system positively in London so that we can meet on good planning lines the demand for office accommodation in London. There should be no restriction on the provision of modern office space in London to replace obsolete or outworn premises or to satisfy the requirements of businesses which can function properly only from London.
    More than that, there needs to be a supply of new and modernised space available for developing concerns and to take advantage of new stimuli such as the entry into Europe, because we are seeing the demand even now at this early
    1486
    stage, in the City of London particularly—it may be a prestige demand, but it is there—from Europe.
    In the near future a balanced policy of office development for London and for the region as a whole can be best brought about by the operation, principally by the local planning authorities themselves, of the new system of development planning of which I have spoken earlier.
    Mr. A. P. Costain: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that there is something of the chicken and the egg analogy in this? He knows from his experience that developers who want to develop in a city generally go in the first place to the local authority to get general planning agreement. Many town halls are now telling such intending developers, "Until you get an office development permit we cannot talk to you". Can he cut those lines?
    Mr. Page: I was coming to that. There must be more co-operation between the O.D.P. system and planning, eventually to lead, I hope, to the abolition of the system and the building of it into the planning system entirely, but I do not think that the planning system is quite ready for it yet. When we get the structure plans and the local plans I am sure that we can bring the O.D.P. system into the planning system. In the meantime, we see a value in the more direct powers of control that we have under the O.D.P. system. Therefore, we propose in Clause 5(1) that the existing power should be extended for a further five years, but because we are determined not to keep the control a moment longer than is necessary we have included provisions to bring it to an end by Order in Council before 1977. I say again that in its administration we will ensure that it is an aid and not a hindrance to commercial development.
    I come finally on what I call "part 4" to demolition in conservation areas. Section 1 of the Civic Amenities Act, 1967, requires local planning authorities to determine which parts of their area or areas
    "are areas of special architectural or historic interest the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance"
    and to designate such areas as conservation areas.

    1487
    More than 1,500 of those areas have already been designated in England. They will normally include some buildings which are of special architectural or historic interest and which can be statutorily listed as such, with all the protection which listing as of architectural or historic value gives them. They will also include buildings which, although they can contribute to the character of the conservation area, are not such as could be listed. For example, a fine row of Victorian villas built around the middle of the last century gives a character to that conservation area, yet one would not dream of listing that row of villas as of great architectural or historic value. Anyone who knocks down the row of villas destroys the whole character of the conservation area; yet at present that can be done.
    The Bill seeks to put restrictions on that, treating the demolition of a building of that sort in the same way as something which requires listed building consent would be treated. In future, if the House accepts the provisions of the Bill, conservation areas as they are designated will include certain areas—it may be a block; it may be a terrace—which the local planning authority thinks are of such a character that they should be protected from demolition and the planning authority will issue directions to that effect. Those directions will not be effective until confirmed by the Secretary of State, except in cases of emergency, when they will become effective immediately but will lapse unless confirmed by the Secretary of State within six months.
    Once a direction becomes effective in respect of a building it will not be possible lawfully to demolish it without the consent of the local planning authority or the Secretary of State, and the normal rights of appeal will apply.
    I should with some temerity mention that the provisions apply also to Scotland in a separate Clause—Clause 8—and in Schedule 3. It is necessary to do it in that way because of slight variations in the legislation in Scotland and because of reference to Acts not yet consolidated.
    I have dealt, perhaps sketchily, with the four parts of the Bill. I said at the beginning that we have collected these miscellaneous items together in the Bill. They are urgent. There are no doubt
    1488
    many other matters in planning which it is desirable should be dealt with and which we might have included in the Bill, but they might have been controversial. We think that these four points are so important and so urgent to the proper administration of both development planning and planning control that we have collected them together in the Bill, and I hope that the House will accept them and give the Bill a Second Reading.
    7.40 p.m.
    Mr. John Silkin: The whole House will want me to congratulate the Minister on a very clear exposition, which those who do not normally earn their living in planning or are not specialists in planning will have understood as well as the rest of us. If I may add a personal congratulation I thought it was a tour de force, especially as the hon. Gentleman was engaged in Committee the whole of yesterday on one of the most complicated Bills in the history of Parliament.
    Mr. Graham Page: So was the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Silkin: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not think me a little churlish if I start with one complaint. On 18th October, on Second Reading of the Town and Country Planning Bill [Lords], which was a consolidation Measure, I told the Solicitor-General, who was in charge of the Second Reading:
    "I should be grateful if we could be told how the Government propose to deal with any amending legislation and whether they have any in mind at the moment."
    He said in reply:
    "The right hon. Member asked how we would proceed with any further amendment of this legislation, when and if we were to wish to do so. I am not in a position to say on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Environment what legislation may or may not be in prospect—save only to say that there must never have been a time in the last 25 years when there have not been legislative proposals about town and country planning in prospect somewhere, because a constant stream of suggestions are made."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th October, 1971; Vol. 823, c. 506–8.]
    So far so good, but let us look at the dates again. On 18th October we had the Second Reading of that Bill and on 3rd November, which was within three weeks, the Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Bill. We wonder why it

    1489
    was necessary to hasten the consolidation Measure ahead of this Amendment Bill. Was it really necessary? The Government having decided to consolidate planning law—and most of those who practise this welcome it and regard it as very desirable—to come along with a new series of amendments almost immediately is, as I think Sir Desmond Heap pointed out in the Journal of Planning Law, rather like the situation when one shuts one door and another closes. I hope that we can do something to see that that does not recur. I believe it to be totally unnecessary. But I hope that the Minister will not take that personally, except perhaps as a guide to the future.
    There are really four new provisions in the Bill, and perhaps another minor one. The minor one is contained in Clauses 1 and 2, the provision for general surveys, reports and structure plans and, if necessary, their withdrawal. I only mention it because my noble Friend Lord Greenwood, who was the architect of the 1968 Act, questioned in another place whether it was necessary. He felt that there could have been something like an avoidance-of-doubt Clause in the Bill. It may not have been necessary. His argument was that authorities had been perfectly able to combine in the past. But whether or not it was necessary, it is probably desirable to state it explicitly and I do not see that it can do much harm.
    I turn to the question of the structure plan and the local plan. One must never draw an analogy too far, but the provision is almost like a White Paper as regards the structure plan and committee procedure as regards the local plan. I fully appreciate that changes had to be made, because the Minister was involved in far too much detail. Public inquiries tended to drag on and on. We have the awful warning of the Greater London Development Plan as a monument to how long they can go on. Perhaps I may differ with my noble Friend my father in saying that it may well be that development plans in the old sense were causing considerable time-lags. The Minister referred to matters still being considered 10 years afterwards. I could probably find examples of their being considered 20 years after. The provision is an evolution and we must understand it.
    1490
    In general, the new proposals have been very much welcomed, particularly among my hon. Friends, on the basis that the Minister can select the key areas for examination. Not everyone is quite so convinced that time will be saved. There are some arguments; the National Federation of Building Trades Employers has some reservations, expressed in a note which it has circulated. Its reservations appear to be slightly mutually contradictory though that does not necessarily disqualify them. I understand that its argument is that the right to deny locus standi to all and sundry in structure plan inquiries may lengthen the local plan inquiries. We can see the force of that. It also says that structure plan inquiries are
    "likely to be carefully rehearsed arguments between counsel appearing for powerful interested parties"
    and that that would seem to lengthen the discussions about the structure plan.
    One thing is certain: that we do not know. We shall just have to see how the provision works out, but for that reason it will need to be watched very carefully. I hope that the Minister will keep it constantly under review, because the aim is one that we are all seeking to achieve. However, we may not have the best possible answer. I am not being critical of the Minister's solution. I think that it probably is right, but we tend as the years go by to approach all matters concerned with the speeding-up of planning with a certain amount of caution. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman is aware that it will have to be watched very carefully.
    There is no doubt that Clause 4, dealing with London, will help enormously in the saving of time. On previous form, the grand show in London, the G.L.D.P., looked like beating "The Mousetrap" as the longest-running show in London. The removal of the horrifying prospect of a further 33 structure plans is something which all of us can only view with considerable relief.
    The hon. Gentleman mentioned office development control. I do not know what all the fuss is about. The hon. Gentleman's proposal is neither so laissez-faire as some of my hon. Friends may think nor so wildly revolutionary as some of the hon. Gentleman's hon.

    1491
    Friends may think. It is a wait-and-see policy—I nearly said a standstill policy. Clearly, something must be done this year, and the Minister has said "We shall give ourselves the right to go on for another five years if we want, but we could give it up after five days if we wanted to". So he is not committed to anything at this point.
    I was impressed by the hon. Gentleman's arguments about the part the O.D.P. can play in the immediate future in the good planning and development of London. I was not as impressed with his arguments about Europe as perhaps he was, but there are other reasons why I should not have been quite so impressed with them. By the same token, since a large number of American enterprises have also taken up office accommodation in London, we are liable to join the North American Free Trade Area as well.
    The final point of the hon. Gentleman's four points concerned buildings in the conservation areas. Here something is being achieved of great value. To say that it is long overdue is to say that neither administration was fully seized, at the moment when it considered conservation generally, with what could happen. I am very glad that what is basically a very necessary assimilation with the control of purely listed buildings has been entered into, but two points need to be considered.
    First, as far as I can see there is nothing to prevent an owner from allowing his property to fall into decay, listed or not:
    "Thou shalt not kill; but need'st not strive Officiously to keep alive."
    It is possible—I do not say that it is generally done—to assist the effect of nature so that a building becomes so difficult of reconstruction that it literally falls to pieces.
    Mr. Peter Mills: The right hon. Gentleman is making an interesting point. What he says is particularly true of some areas of the South-West, which have many thatched cottages that look very nice but are very expensive to maintain. One of the methods to see that they are rebuilt is to allow them to get into a terrible state of disrepair.
    Mr. Silkin: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me. It is a
    1492
    matter to which the Minister's mind should be directed and to which there might be relatively easy answers.
    Sir Derek Walker-Smith: Whereas what the right hon. Gentleman says is true, looking simply at the corpus of town planning law, there are other statutory provisions that may be relevant in this context. If people allow their premises to get into disrepair, under other statutory codes they may be liable to pains and penalties.
    Mr. Silkin: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is correct with regard to a number of cases but not, alas, every case, as he will appreciate.
    Mr. Robert Cooke: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again. This seems to be developing into a Committee debate. Does not he agree that the real trouble is that the preservation legislation is very largely negative and that positive inducements—probably tax inducements—are the answer to make it worthwhile for people to preserve and enhance the properties we want to see preserved? At present we are far too negative.
    Mr. Silkin: I think that in part the hon. Gentleman's suggestion is the answer, but there are other methods to deal with the problem as well. It is a question that we need to examine fairly closely. Fortunately, there is now an ambience of preservation and conservation in the country. There is perhaps a sudden realisation that we have a considerable heritage to preserve and conserve, and that the more we can do about it now the better it will be for our descendants.
    Having had a certain amount of agreement from Conservative hon. Members, may I go on to another point on which they may not be quite as unanimous? Why should not demolition of unlisted buildings also be subject to control outside the conservation areas? The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) said there are a number of pains and penalties in relation to that but we agree that they do not cover every property, whether in a conservation area or not It is always an easy answer to say, not that the Minister would necessarily say it, "This is not the time or the place. We can deal with that in some other

    1493
    Bill at some other time", if indeed the hon. Gentleman has any sympathy with the point. I hope that he has. I take heart from the fact that he himself called the Bill almost a miscellaneous provisions Bill, and indeed it is. It consists of a number of different provisions not allied to one another, not linked with one another. Therefore, it would be quite possible to do it.
    Although, hopefully, the general effect of the earlier Clauses will be to speed up planning inquiries and cut down the period of blight, which is what we are all after, the effect of the Bill itself is complex and somewhat unpredictable. The Town and Country Planning Association is very concerned about the administrative and functional problems that will be created by the simultaneous passage of this Bill and the Local Government Bill. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop), who is the Chairman of the Town and Country Planning Association will have something to say on this matter, should be catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. For myself, I wonder whether the Government have given proper consideration to what may happen should the Local Government Bill become law and the number of planning authorities thereby increase from 140 to about 420.
    On a number of occasions I have asked the Minister whether he is confident that sufficient qualified staff are available to deal with local plans. I wish I could be as confident as he has sometimes appeared to be. What I regard as a terrible difficulty will be aggravated, not lessened, by the Bill. It is no good setting up totally new procedures if the qualified staff to deal with the local plans are simply not there. At the risk of otiose repetition on my part, I should like once more to be reassured that the Minister is aware of the problem and feels that it is not as grievous as I have said.
    In general, we on this side of the House are sympathetic with the aims of the Bill. Naturally, we do not propose to divide against it. I have raised a number of points, and hon. Members on both sides will raise other points. For that reason the Committee stage will probably be a long and searching one. If at the end of that a really good Bill emerges, it can
    1494
    only do good in the general history of our planning law.
    7.56 p.m.
    Sir Derek Walker-Smith: When I first looked at the Bill, ranking the provisions for the joint survey with the general provisions of structure plans, I concluded that, like all Gaul, it was divided into three parts. I respectfully associate myself with the compliment paid by the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) to my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development on the lucidity and precision with which he moved the Second Reading of the Bill. With a characteristically conscientious refinement of sub-division, my hon. Friend made it four parts. The right hon. Gentleman, yielding to the natural and irresistible urge of Oppositions to go one better, extended it to five parts. I will not enter into any further mathematical calculations, but will confine my observations to that part which my hon. Friend classified as the most important.
    I do not propose to comment on the provisions relating to the office development permits, nor yet on conservation areas. This is not because they are not important—obviously they are. Indeed, the provision to extend beyond the initial seven years of the Control of Offices Act the office development permit system, although not controversial in this House, may to some extent be controversial outside it. The provision of Clause 7 extending some protection against the demolition of unlisted buildings in conservation areas should, I hope, be non-controversial everywhere. It will at any rate be sure of a cordial welcome from those concerned with the visual aesthetics of environment.
    I want to deal with the provisions making changes in the planning procedures. This matter goes to the heart of town and country planning. The central provision is Clause 3, which substitutes new procedures in the structure plans for those contained in Section 9 of the Act of 1971, provisions which are better known to most of us in their pre-consolidated form as Section 4 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1968. The 1968 Act provisions contained in the case of structure plans a new device in town planning at the time, the traditional procedure of the right

    1495
    of objection and public inquiry of a quasi-judicial nature, long familiar under the 1962 Act and indeed the 1947 Act before that.
    Clause 3 retains a duty to consider the relevant objections and to hold a form of public examination into material matters, but gives the Secretary of State a wider discretion. This is the fundamental change which transforms the procedure from its traditionally forensic character to a deliberative character, transforms it from the quasi-lis, to use the jargon, to the seminar.
    The question which those interested in town planning have to ask is: is this change an improvement: is it worth trying? We start from the position that there are no planning procedures as yet universally established and necessarily accepted as optimum procedures. Most modern societies have their problems of land use and planning, but their methods of dealing with them differ. In the United States these problems are resolved by a mixture of public relations exercises and judicial decision. In this country we seek to resolve them by a mixture of quasi-judicial consideration and executive action. If we have not as yet arrived at a perfect solution, that is not unexpected, reflecting as it does the difficulties of the matter which are inherent in the nature of town planning, because all town planning is in essence an attempted reconciliation of conflicting considerations.
    If must be over 20 years since in cross-examination of Lord Holford—Professor Holford as he then was—I put to him the definition of town planning as being an effort to achieve the highest common factor of what is both economically practicable and aesthetically and socially desirable. He was good enough to say that it was an admirable definition, but of course it masks in a sense the real difficulty, which is what is meant by "socially desirable". I venture to suggest that it means not only reaching the right results but reaching them by the right methods, that is to say, methods acceptable in a democratic society and in a reasonable time. This introduces further conflict, the conflict between a full opportunity for participation and representation on the one hand and the necessity for speed on the other. That, like most of the
    1496
    more difficult conflicts in life, is a conflict not of a bad thing against a good thing but of two things each good in themselves.
    Public participation is a matter of the first importance and one which has been widely canvassed. It is the subject of anxious debate, not only in this country. In July I had the privilege of addressing, together with Judge Kaufman of the Federal Court of Appeal, those sections of the American Bar Association then visiting this country on the question of public participation in these matters. A little later, my hon. Friend, the right hon. Gentleman and I met at a stimulating weekend conference of the London School of Economics on these same matters at Oxford. It is a very good sign that there is this broad-based and wide-ranging interest in the subject of public participation in planning, and I am sure it will continue.
    I come to the other possibly conflicting consideration and that is the time factor, which also is very important. If reasonable expedition in planning processes is not achieved, there is the clear danger that, for all the expenditure of time and energy in giving everybody their say, the right result will not in the end be achieved. What will be achieved is a result which might have looked right in earlier circumstances but has been overtaken by events.
    Everyone concerned with town and country planning knows how great is the danger that plans, be they development plans, structure plans or regional strategies, could be out-dated in most respects by the time they reach the end of their long Odyssey and secure formal approval. This danger is as old as the 1947 Act. Development plans under that Act were delayed, not only by democratic and bureaucratic processes, but by the sheer slog of chronicling the existing and permitted land use. When those plans finally staggered or stumbled to approval it was found that the 1961 census had invalidated most of the underlying population estimates on which they were based. The statistics are somewhat alarming—seven years, I believe, for the original development plans to be prepared and submitted, and another eight years for the completion of the approvals. That is looking up the train in last year's Bradshaw with a vengeance.

    1497
    Such delays inevitably derogate from the purpose and standing of planning, and make it understandably unpopular with the ordinary property-owning citizen who is not concerned with the philosophy of planning but is uneasily and sometimes painfully aware that planning delays mean protracted blight and financial loss.
    Here we see what appears to be an irony but is in fact a logical outcome of the 1968 Act, which introduced welcome improvements into planning procedures but at the same time increased the possibility of delay. The basic concept of separating the formulation of strategic planning from its detailed application was a sensible one but, in so far as it necessarily involved two plans—the strategic and the local—instead of one development plan, it meant that more time was required in the planning processes, in that it duplicated the opportunity for objection and inquiry.
    The main innovation and the great advance of the 1968 Act was its conscious effort to extend public participation by providing the right to participate in decision-making rather than participation only at the stage of comments on plans already put forward which, if not technically res judicata may pardonably be thought in practice difficult to upset and reverse. Along with this valuable new right of participation, the 1968 Act kept the old form of objection and inquiry. In other words, it poured new wine into old bottles.
    The philosophy behind the changes which we are asked to approve today is to maintain public participation but to create a pattern more meaningful and less time-consuming. In that it is surely to be commended. It may not in all respects turn out to be the right answer. Certainly, it is unlikely to be the final solution, but, after nearly 40 years in the world of planning, I do not expect finality, I only hope for advance.
    There is an augury of success in that the solutions have been fashioned to meet the situation and the problems as experience has defined them. Those who have some expertise or distinctive contribution can make their contribution in the preparation of the structure plan. For such people and such purposes the seminar type of examination proposed in Clause 3(b) may well be the most suitable, more so than the traditional procedure by
    1498
    quasi-lis. For individual citizens the desire for public participation is mainly for specific, local and individual rather than general, regional and social. They are less interested in the formulation of structure plans and regional strategies than in local plans and probably they are most interested in the rights of individuals affected by specified planning applications.
    Indeed, the most popular form of participation which the Government could give would probably be to grant a right of representation or participation at the application stage instead of only, as now, on an inquiry into a refusal of planning permission. In current practice if a permission is granted there is no right of representation for the aggrieved adjacent resident or owner or other interested person. From my experience in constituency representation that is the subject on which most people would like some greater right of participation in the planning processes.
    The proposals mark an advance, not a revolutionary one but radical in their own way. Success is never certain in the evolution of planning procedures as experience shows, but I feel that we can view the prospects of the success of these new provisions at any rate with sober confidence, made the more probable because the matter is in the hands of my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development whose extensive knowledge, long experience and indefatigable industry in planning matters have been known to me and most of us over the years and which I am happy to salute today.
    8.11 p.m.
    Mr. Kenneth Marks: We have recently had a number of large and complicated Bils and it is a pleasant change to get a small, complicated Bill. I am grateful to the Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silk in) and the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) for their clear exposition of a subject upon which I confess to having a limited knowledge. Four years ago the right hon. and learned Gentleman followed me when I made my maiden speech and made some kind remarks. I can only say that if ever I make the kind of speech that he makes I will be more than happy.

    1499
    In the period before the 1947 Town Planning Act a great many of us were enthusiastic about new concept of town planning. Now some of us are worried that town planning legislation has multiplied and is getting too complicated. Nowadays we have two sets of objections and two sets of inquiries where formerly there was one. I am not sure whether people are not becoming a little scared of town planning and whether our legislation is not making public participation less likely rather than more likely. If our attendance tonight is anything to go by then it has made it less likely.
    The public tend to participate later, often when it is too late, and the public participation we have seen, such as sitting down in the middle of a motorway, should make us pause to consider whether, even at the early stages of dealing with structure plans we could not get more participation than we do. I know that it is difficult. I have tried in extremely small areas which might have become clearance areas to get people to form community councils to talk to the planning officer about the redevelopment of the area. I realise that it is an extremely difficult thing to do, and to do it at structure plan stage is even more difficult.
    Manchester has done a great deal through exhibitions, getting people interested and asking for their comments. Much more needs to be done. One example of how this has worked concerned some cottages in a heavily industrialised area which have now been listed as historic buildings. They are only 200 years old, and in some of our conservation areas this would be a mere nothing. These are the only cottages we have that are 200 years old. It was as a result of exhibitions and public participation that the cottages were listed and saved from demolition.
    One of the problems about participation, especially with redevelopment, is that people living in the area at the time the redevelopment is planned will not be the people who will live in the new development. Many planning officers are taking participation much more seriously than before. Public participation starts with enthusiastic officers backed by enthusiastic councillors, and we do not
    1500
    always get that combination. There are some who regard this as something of a closed shop.
    There was provision in the 1962 Act for the co-option of members of the public to planning committees but little seems to have been done. The Skeffington Committee frowned on having representatives of local organisations on planning committees but thought that, where a local area was being discussed, even at the formative stage of the structure plan, people from that area, or with interests in the area, might well be co-opted on to planning committees for a temporary period.
    Can Parliament help with this participation? There is no doubt that if publicity is to be brought to bear on a planning situation Parliament is much more capable of providing that publicity than the county councils. Too often the county council headquarters, 30 or 40 miles away, is more remote than Parliament. If the matter is discussed in Parliament, even after 10 o'clock at night, it would help to bring publicity to the issue.
    Clause 1 mentions joint structure plans, but in the new metropolitan areas there may well be need for joint local plans. At present it often happens that a local authority provides a park near to the edge of its boundary and the park is used more by people on the other side of the boundary than by those within the boundary. There may be a possibility of joint local plans. We are repeatedly concerned about the need to conserve beautiful developments of the past. I have my doubt whether we are creating conservation areas for the future.
    8.19 p.m.
    Mr. Peter Mills: I am grateful for the opportunity of taking part in the debate because as an ordinary constituency Member I find that planning problems crop up more frequently than any other problems which come to me. I also find that this is an area in which I can have least effect. Out of the dozens of cases I have been concerned with I have won only about twice. There are real problems here. Another reason why I am grateful for this opportunity to speak is because the industry which I seek to represent and which I love very much, agriculture, is so much affected by town and country planning.

    1501
    The bulk of the land taken for other users comes from agriculture. It is a sobering thought that every week 1,100 acres of good farm land are taken away for other purposes such as roads, hospitals, schools and the building of all the other things which the community needs. While this is necessary, it is very important to see and to plan that we do not use good agricultural land where we could use poorer land. To think of 1,100 acres a week disappearing! After all, we do not make land. Perhaps we may in the future, with the Wash and other barrages. The Dutch are more on the ball on this than we are. However, it is important that the agriculture industry should be consulted all along the way because planning affects us probably more than it affects any other industry.
    I welcome the joint survey and joint structure plan provisions. This proposal is right and proper and practical. We in the South-West are particularly concerned about this, because planning authorities should work together to consider not just the area of one planning authority alone but the needs of a much wider area, and they should form large joint structure plans.
    The reason I say this is that unless the planning authorities in the South-West get together and think in terms of the South-West, we in that part of the country will be in considerable difficulty, particularly since we are to have a new motorway in our area, with all the planning which will have to be done for meeting the needs of tourists. We shall have to think of such mundane things as toilets on the motorway and other roads, and of all the facilities which will have to be provided for the tourists as they pour into the South-West. After all, it is a day trip now—or it will be—from Birmingham to Dartmoor, Exmoor, Bodmin and so on: down and back in a day. All this will require very careful planning. I do not think that just one small planning authority can think in the terms of what is needed and of what the Bill seeks to do through joint structure plans. I welcome that provision very much.
    We on this side of the House have a standing joke amongst ourselves, saying that my hon. Friend the Minister is doing a very good job. I think he is doing a very good job, but I think he
    1502
    must turn his attention and that of his Department to the needs of agriculture, particularly to future planning for such major planning decisions as those for milk factories, because a milk factory affects a very large area. We have had a case just recently when he turned down an application. This is not just a matter for the local planning authority, for a decision such as this affects a very much larger area. I believe that through this Bill mistakes—I go even so far as to say "mistakes"—made in the past can be rectified.
    Another important matter is the need for explanations. A planning officer once said to me "Planning is a matter of opinion" and he said that his opinion was so-and-so. It is difficult for people who are making planning applications to understand that, or to accept it for that matter; but they do. It could be made much easier for them if there were fuller and better explanation of a decision. The public, certainly my constituents, have a right to it.
    Not only should better explanations of decisions be made but more warning should be given of decisions and of planning. The advertising of them should be explored so as to give people an understanding of what is going on. It is ridiculous to say, "Go to see the plans in your town hall". People just do not do that, but they do read the local papers and they listen to the radio. Far more effort ought to be made to tell people what is going on. After all, they have a right to know about things which will affect their lives and businesses.
    My hon Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) made a very good point in discussion when he said that it is important to put up notices of what is going on. If a great sewage farm, a milk factory or a caravan park is planned and decided upon, a large notice on the site of the proposed development should be put up showing what is to take place.
    Mr. Jerry Wiggin: Is my hon. Friend aware that he has a great deal of support on this important point? Even a small notice would be of immense help, even in comparatively elementary planning changes such as a proposal to change a front room into a hairdressing saloon. There

    1503
    should be notices to draw to the attention of the passer-by the change that is to take place.
    Mr. Mills: I am sure that is right. This is a miscellaneous Bill, and perhaps the Minister would consider having a Clause to deal with this important point about notification by notice boards or something of that sort. That would be of benefit to the planning authorities and to all concerned, because if proposals are hidden, and then people suddenly discover what is to be done, there can be very serious trouble.
    I do not intend to speak long but I want to deal with a brief from the National Farmers' Union. As usual, it is a very good brief. The N.F.U. mentions about this Bill one or two things which it is right I should bring to the attention of the House. It says that the Bill
    "substitute some vague examination in public and gives the Secretary of State power to determine which issues shall be examined at the examination in public and to decide who shall be allowed to make representations at it."
    That seems to me rather dangerous, that the Minister shall have power to say who shall make representations. I would think that in Committee that ought to be looked at very carefully.
    The N.F.U. also says:
    "Unless very much firmer assurances are given by the Government than, in the Union's view, have been previously given this clause constitutes a considerable erosion of the rights of the individual which could have serious consequences for the farming community."
    It further states:
    "The N.F.U. believes that the public inquiry system is still the best safeguard for public participation. If, however, the Government is convinced that the procedure can be streamlined without eroding the rights of the individual it is hoped that it will be able to give a firm assurance to this effect and elaborate on what the nebulous examination in public will mean in practice."
    What does that proposal really mean? Will it mean that things will be speeded up? That is another important point.
    The N.F.U. also says:
    "In particular the Union would strongly urge that the Government should make it clear beyond doubt that there will be adequate opportunity for meaningful objection at the structure plan examination stage wherever agriculture is a relevant factor."
    I ask the Minister to take this on board very seriously because, as I have said,
    1504
    agriculture is probably affected by these decisions more than any other industry. Therefore, it is important that agriculture should understand what is at stake and have some say in it.
    In this Bill—this is probably out of order, which is why I left it to the last—I have seen no mention of something which I at least feel very strongly about—that local parish councils should have a bigger say in planning, and particularly that they should be notified. I cannot understand why this is such a major obstacle or why the previous Government refused it.
    Mr. Graham Page: I can cut this short. In answer to a Written Question only a couple of days ago, I said that we were arranging for all parish councils to have notice of applications.
    Mr. Mills: That is marvellous. It confirms what I said in my opening remarks, that the Minister is doing a very good job. I need say no more.
    8.30 p.m.
    Mr. John D. Grant: I cannot recall having spoken before in support of any Government Measure, but I support this Bill. I will address myself entirely to Clause 7, dealing with the power of local authorities to control the demolition of unlisted buildings in conservation areas where they consider that they will preserve the character of the areas. This arises from a situation in my constituency which has been regarded as a test case. In citing it, I can illustrate vividly how necessary this legislation is.
    I pursued the matter over a long period and I was promised legislation by the Secretary of State to cover the situation. I am happy to see that this is one of those rare promises which the Government have kept.
    The case involves a group of streets in Canonbury known as the Alwynes. Probably the representations which I and other people have made on this issue have influenced the Minister in framing this legislation. The Times and the Sunday Times on Saturday and Sunday both devoted special articles to this case. The architectural correspondent of the Sunday Times suggested that there would be no housing gain in this scheme, and that it would

    1505
    involve a distinct disruption of the neighbourhood.
    The architectural correspondent's first point was the obvious one that they are in a conservation area and that their present unlisted status is a loophole which the Bill is designed to correct. He went on to say:
    … well-known architects should surely be prepared to obey a self-denying ordinance, especially in their back yards."
    He was referring to Sir Basil Spence, who is the architect for this scheme and who lives nearby. He continued:
    "I would like to hear just once of an architect publicly refusing a commission because of possible environmental damage. In isolation, it is a perfectly good scheme; the point is that such isolation has long gone from inner London, It must be considered as part of an environmental balance sheet of profit-and-loss—and the time can't be far off when this becomes a statutory requirement for any planning application."
    That article highlights the issue of whose profit and loss is under discussion.
    It is probably a very clever move to hire such an eminent architect as Sir Basil to design this scheme, but it has certainly not over-awed the residents in the area. They do not think very much of Sir Basil or his plans or of Lord Compton and the Northampton Estate, who are the owners. My postbag has bulged with protests about this scheme. They were pushing at an open door in my case. I have had more letters on this subject than on any other local issue and probably as many as on any national issue in which I have been involved.
    Property speculation is involved here, whatever aura of respectability may be given to it in this case. There will be some pretty rich pickings for the speculators if the scheme is allowed to go through. It would be interesting to have a complete breakdown of the estimated costs and sale prices of the long leases proposed for the houses which will be built. I should like an examination of this. Also, since they own the area and will not have to buy the land, I wonder whether this saving will be reflected in the prices or whether purchasers will have to pay the competitive market rate.
    Whatever the answer to those questions, it seems clear that many of the local residents will be priced right out of that area of Islington. There cannot be any housing gain to the borough—rather the
    1506
    reverse, since the new properties are bound to go largely to newcomers, upper-class immigrants, who can afford the inflated prices at which these houses will inevitably be offered; they will be far from the reach of the many thousands of Islington people who are desperately in need of homes.
    To return to the conservation aspect, the residents believe that this conservation area should remain intact and whole. So did the G.L.C. Historic Buildings Board. So did the former Islington Council, but it found that it lacked the power to preserve them, and this has been the experience of the present Islington Council. There is no doubt that the present council would like the Minister to call in the Alwynes case for a proper public inquiry. I hope he will do so because there is some doubt that this Bill will be in time to rescue the situation. I hope it will.
    I have already referred to my postbag. Every letter I have had has opposed the scheme. I will not read all the letters, but I will mention one or two of the adjectives used by my constituents. They have described this scheme as disastrous, disreputable, destructive, harsh, monotonous, appalling, ruinous, greedy, outrageous on æsthetic and social grounds, and sheer money-making vandalism. Perhaps I should quote a sentence or two:
    "Too much in London has disappeared under the bulldozer. Please do all in your power to prevent any more vandalism.'"
    The word "vandalism" has run like a common thread through so many of the letters I have received on the subject. Another letter said:
    "Can we not tight this, not only for the sake of the Alwynes but for the sake of London?"
    The Secretary of State originally decided against the Islington Council preservation order. This was a decision taken in June, 1970, and I appreciate the reasons for it. I am not sure whether at that time the Minister had come to grips with environment matters. Perhaps he has done so since. I have been fighting on this issue ever since, as the Minister will know. I am not a conservationist at all costs. It depends what one is conserving, and even Conservatives will agree to that. There are many areas of Islington where the bulldozer is long

    1507
    overdue and where the vandalism has been the existence of slums which would have been better razed many years ago—and would have been if the landlords had not got in the way.
    However, there is no social gain in this case. Quite the contrary. Once the decision is taken, it is irreversible. I hope that the Minister will act directly to save the Alwynes. If he cannot do so directly and immediately, I hope the Bill will become law rapidly. It may just be in the nick of time so that the local authority can use the powers which the Minister has described.
    8.38 p.m.
    Mr. Sydney Chapman: As an architect, I am tempted to comment on some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. John D. Grant), particularly in relation to Sir Basil Spence; but, because of the time element, I shall not do so and I hope that my profession will forgive me.
    I welcome this Bill not only as a town planning consultant but also because some small part of it bears great similarity to a Clause in a Private Member's Bill I had the privilege to introduce last Session. This was the Urban and Rural Environment Bill. It passed its Committee stage unamended, but it got no further because of the lack of parliamentary time. Whether it would have passed the Committee stage unamended if hon. Members had not realised it would not reach the Statute Book I do not know, but mention of it gives me the opportunity to pay a small tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) for the great help he gave me on that Bill and his criticisms on that and other matters.
    I should like particularly to comment on Clauses 7, and 8 relating to Scotland. This applies to the power of local planning authorities to direct that a building in a conservation area should be the subject of permission before demolition and this very much resembles Clause 3 of my Private Member's Bill.
    I wish to take up one point made by the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) who pointed out how, despite legislation, so many buildings of historic and architectural interest are being demolished. The Civic Amenities Act
    1508
    gave the power to local authorities to enter premises with a view to effecting repairs, but that power was rarely implemented simply because the money to do so would have fallen on the rates. Clause 5 of my own modest Bill would have removed this obstacle had it reached the Statute Book.
    In Britain, there are no fewer than 1,742 conservation areas, some of them small, others of them comprising the whole of the medieval parts of towns like York and Chester. The total number of buildings represented in those areas, is only a fraction of the total in Britain. Much as I welcome Clauses 7 and 8, I question whether this Bill will be sufficient to deal with the problem that we face.
    If I may pose a rhetorical question, how many local planning authorities will see that most of the buildings which should be preserved in their conservation areas will be made subject to the need to have permission before demolition? For some years, our local planning authorities have had the power to put preservation orders on trees. Trees are needed most in our towns and cities, yet, since tree preservation orders first came into being many years ago, in Birmingham only 29 are subject to orders, in Liverpool 45, in Manchester 2, and in Leeds 10.
    Does not my hon. Friend think that the Clauses would be better if they were put the other way, so that all buildings in conservation areas automatically needed permission before they were demolished giving local planning authorities the power to make exemptions? Buildings are still coming down. The Americans have a much better sense of proportion, though obviously they are more wealthy. They are prepared to pay a million pounds to have a bridge taken down stone by stone, transported across the Atlantic and across thousands of miles of their continent, and re-assembled stone by stone in the Arizona desert. We shall live to rue the day that we allowed so many of our old buildings to be demolished, and I ask the Government to consider amending Clauses 7 and 8 to remedy the situation.
    Perhaps I might suggest in passing that Clause 10 should also be amended. It relates to when Clauses 7 and 8 should take effect. I believe that they should take effect immediately that the Bill goes

    1509
    on to the Statute Book, instead of having to wait for a month. There is a desperate need for immediate action to be taken.
    I wish to raise two further points. The first of them has been touched on already by one or two hon. Members, and it concerns the need for publicity to be given to planning applications. My hon. Friend said recently in reply to a Written Question that he accepted that parish councils that wished to have notice of planning applications relating to land within their parishes should be entitled to it. He went on to say that legislation would be needed to make it a statutory requirement, and that it was not appropriate for any current Bill. We are now considering a Miscellaneous Provisions Bill, and I suggest that this might be an opportunity for a short Clause to be inserted for the purpose. For want of better advice, my hon. Friend might adopt Clause 9 of my Urban and Rural Environment Bill, since that would do just this.
    I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) that it is important for more notice to be given to members of the public of planning applications in order to remove some of the bitterness which is often felt by people who believe that they have no say about what is to happen in their immediate environment. Again, I commend to my hon. Friend Clause 8 of my Private Member's Bill.
    Finally, I should like to touch on a matter of critical importance, particularly in the West Midlands. Recently there have been examples in the West Midlands of harmful substances being put on waste tips. I know that the hon. Members for Rugby (Mr. William Price) and Bromsgrove (Mr. Terry Davis) have had instances of this happening in their constituencies within the last week. As a town and country planning consultant, I was quite horrified to learn—I hope that I have the situation right—that at present it is legal to dump prussic acid, better known as cyanide, on rubbish clumps without any need for permission. That is a horrifying state of affairs if it is true. Again, the Bill provides an opportunity to remedy that situation.
    I welcome the Bill. I believe that it is a step in the right direction, and I congratulate the Government on introducing it. I hope that my hon. Friend will pay serious attention to the points
    1510
    which I have raised. If he is able to include them at the appropriate time, in Committee or on Report, I believe that, instead of being a step in the right direction, it could be a great stride forward which would have support from both sides of the House.
    8.47 p.m.
    Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I, too join, in welcoming the Bill. I thought the comment by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) about the importance of trying to encourage much wider public interest and understanding in the whole planning sphere was very interesting. He is absolutely right in saying that that is not present at the moment.
    It is only when we come to the local plans—the local action plans as they are to be called—where individuals feel themselves directly and personally involved that we are likely to get a wide measure of public participation in the sense of acute anxiety, pressure, and so on. But I do not give up hope that we may succeed in interesting a steadily wide range of people in the longer term strategic and structure plans with which the bill is concerned. I am encouraged in that view partly because of the efforts which are being made today to include this subject in school programmes. It is now understood that planning is not a matter purely for the highly-qualified specialist; it is a matter of direct and real concern for all who are concerned about living standards.
    There could be no more important decisions for us to make in common than the kind of priorities we choose for the way that we order our lives and organise the environment in which we live. This is essentially what these strategic and structure plans are about. Therefore, a great deal of our judgment on what success or failure the Bill is likely to achieve is on the question whether it is likely to help forward in any way, even in a modest way, the wider involvement of people in the whole problem.
    I repeat, I have some encouraging feelings about this matter, because large numbers of schools are beginning to take up issues and work out projects based not only upon purely local plans, but upon some of these wider longer-term schemes. I am glad that the association with which

    1511
    I am involved has been helping, with a great deal of interest, to develop some of these projects in schools.
    I congratulate the Minister on what he has done to try to encourage wide discussion of his proposals in a range of circles where there is obvious interest in the matter. Some of the consultative papers which his Department has issued have been well worth while and have prompted a lot of useful suggestions and recommendations. Plainly, this is of value.
    I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) that one cannot wholly divorce this Bill from the kind of structure which we are now working to set up which will have to implement a great deal of it. Many of us must inevitably have sincere anxieties on that score. I shall give an example to illustrate the point, though I shall not debate it now, since there are plenty of opportunities to do that, morning, afternoon, and night, on Tuesdays and Thursdays in that continuing performance—I can hardly call it entertainment—which is a feature of our lives here in the House now.
    One of the problems to be considered in this connection is that the new metropolitan authorities which will be responsible for preparing structure plans as distinct from local action plans will, in my view and the view of others concerned, cover only a relatively limited area, and there will have to be continuous consultation with outside authorities, consultation which it may be difficult to maintain in a full and effective way. This is but another example of the problem which I have seen all along, that is, the need for a wider authority than is proposed in the Local Government Bill for these major long-term strategic and structure plans.
    I come now to some of the details. Those of us who have had some experience of these matters welcome the attempt to put greater flexibility into the method of holding planning inquiries in the future. If we accept that representations should be made and discussions take place about the value of different alternative proposals for the long-term development of an area, how do we ensure that the various points of view can be expressed freely and effectively? I do not believe that it can be done if we rely upon a purely legal framework for this
    1512
    type of inquiry. I should much rather see—I think that this is in the Minister's mind—something more like an informal conference rather than the old type of legalistic inquiry.
    The Town and Country Planning Association has had some experience of this problem. The Greater London Plan as presented, for example, offered an opportunity—I am not complaining about what was done—for this kind of representation. We did not want to make objections as such in the narrow purely legalistic sense, but we wanted to challenge certain basic principles of that plan and open up ideas about other ways in which objectives could be achieved.
    We had the help and goodwill of many people who willingly gave of their time to put forward fresh ideas which we believe to be of importance for future discussion and the development of something that will be of value to all the citizens of London. But, inevitably, at that state at any rate, the proceeding was largely on a legalistic basis, with cross examination, no doubt very efficiently and effectively carried on, but not likely to encourage the more informal presentation of fresh ideas that we want.
    I hope that we shall get precisely that in the future. I hope that we shall get this more relaxed and somewhat more informal but nevertheless organised, presentation of alternative views. I do not see how one can do it other than by the Minister having the power to select a limited number of issues which can be discussed in that way. I can see the difficulty, I realise the criticism that may arise, but I do not see how else it can be done.
    I hope that if a number of issues are to be selected and if, as one hon. Member said, there is to be selection of those who are to appear, the issues presented will be put forward in the form of possible alternatives so that the matter does not appear to be finalised, or in any way near a final position. I hope that there will be the opportunity of some argument and discussion across the table as it were of broad alternatives which may be put before those who attend.
    If that is done, we may be surprised to find that rather more people are willing to come in and take part in that kind of inquiry, or conference as I would

    1513
    rather call it, than perhaps is the case now. I hope that that will prove to be so. I believe that even if that is not the case initially, it will prove to be later on as people get accustomed to the new type of inquiry or conference. I hope that the Minister will have the opportunity, at the end of this short debate, of saying something more in amplification of what he said about this procedure, but I think that I am interpreting correctly the broad lines of what it is hoped to achieve.
    If I am correct, I believe that instead of this whole area of presentation of broad plans being regarded by elected councillors and by everybody else as a restricted area for the professional planner, it will be seen to be an area of great importance for the general public as well, and one in which the general public and organisations representing various points of view have every right of expression; just as much, if not more right of expression than when it comes to the much more detailed local plans to which we are accustomed now.
    I welcome the Bill. I share with my right hon. Friend the view that this is by no means an unimportant Measure, and one that will require some examination in detail. There are a number of matters that we shall wish to raise in Committee. I welcome it as a step forward in participation in a real sense in our future planning processes. I am sure that such a step forward was in the mind of our late colleague, Arthur Skeffington, whose report prompted a good deal of the further consideration that this matter has received.
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr. Andrew Bowden: I appeal to the Minister to consider a major omission from the Bill. I refer to the need to provide additional safeguards for individual owner-occupiers when planning applications are being considered.
    The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) spoke of the more relaxed approach that we are having to planning consultation and the consideration of new schemes. I am afraid that at present in the minds of many people exactly the reverse is happening. More people are feeling helpless and remote when planning applications are being
    1514
    discussed, not only at county level but even in smaller units. The pace is going so fast that they feel that whatever they say or do they will not be able to make any real impression.
    One reason for the public having this feeling is the small amount of publicity that is given in advance of when and where applications will apply and be considered. My hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) hit the nail on the head when he spoke of the need for additional publicity when announcing applications for planning.
    This publicity must occur not just through local newspapers, which can be easily missed. My local newspapers handle these matters well, but there are invariably a large number of details printed on each occasion and they can easily be missed by people whose areas will be affected.
    Perhaps my hon. Friend will go a stage further and think in terms of making it compulsory for the local planning authority to inform established residents' organisations and similar bodies of forthcoming applications, and also inform residents who might be directly affected if the planning applications are granted.
    An important residents' and property-owners' association in my constituency has written to me saying:
    "The Association has on many occasions objected to applications for outline planning permission and has often been very dissatisfied with the decisions reached by the Local Planning Authority. We consider it wrong that the applicant should have the right to appeal to the Secretary of State against a refusal of permission by the Planning Authority, whereas those objecting to the granting of permission have no such right."
    I appreciate the difficulties which local planning committees face. I served on one in the London area for a number of years. But the fact remains that one can get areas of friction between bodies of local residents and their local planning authorities because they feel that they have not had a real opportunity of their case being heard by people who look at it from an entirely independent point of view.
    Some of the new planning authorities which will come into operation in 1973 will be even more remote from the people they are affecting than the present ones, particularly when we have, in terms of

    1515
    major roads, planning applications concerned with areas 220 ft. on each side of those roads. There will be many small individual applications, and it is bound to be feared that those who will discuss these matters will lose touch with the people they are affecting. My hon. Friend the Minister may try to argue that local planning authorities can revoke outline planning permission. But in practice they are very reluctant to do so because it can be extremely costly. Therefore, they tend to stick to the original decision. But if it was done on the basis that the outline planning grant was only outline planning grant, and that there could be no question of compensation if for some reason that was withdrawn at a later date, we could get over that problem.
    No planning authority is infallible in its wisdom. Not even this House would claim that. We have to remember that for many individuals the one major asset they ever acquire is the house in which they live. At times that can be placed at risk.
    Sir D. Walker-Smith: Up to the last 30 seconds I have been following my hon. Friend's argument not only with interest but with acquiescence. Indeed, his first point rather echoed a point I made earlier. On his suggestion about revocation of outline planning permission, without compensation, would he not agree that this would create a good deal of difficulty and possibly injustice? It has been clear law ever since the case of Hamilton and the West Sussex County Council that only the reserve matters can be varied without compensation when an outline permission is granted. If it were to be revoked without compensation it would, would it not, impose a good deal of injustice on those developers who, on the faith of the outline permission, had expended time and money? Perhaps my hon. Friend would care to illustrate that particular facet of his very interesting argument.
    Mr. Bowden: I appreciate my right hon. and learned Friend's point. I think that the reason he has taken that view is that I have not been able to explain to the House in any great detail what was on my mind. It was only that if the objectors were to have the same right
    1516
    as the applicants to appeal against the decision of the local planning authority, during that period of time in which that appeal may be registered, say, 28 days, and the time it is heard, it would be fair enough that no compensation should be paid. This would then become a standing risk that all applying for outline planning permission would have to face. But at present it is one-sided, because the applicant can appeal against the local planning authority's decision, but the objectors can not. Furthermore, many applicants are powerful bodies, powerful companies with large resources. They can afford, quite rightly, to employ able and distinguished consultants, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Chapman), and can present a foreful and effective case which often will not give the same chance to the individual objector who may be the owner-occupier whose one and only asset is seriously threatened.
    This is a chance for the Government to add to the Bill on the lines I have suggested, to show their concern for ordinary citizens. To quote a phrase anything but original: justice must not only be done but it must be seen to be done.
    9.9 p.m.
    Mr. Ted Leadbitter: During the debate it has been of considerable interest to note the number of hon. Members who have come in and out of the Chamber who are members of the Standing Committee on the Local Government Bill and who therefore share a positive interest in what we are discussing. Some of us are tempted tonight to remove ourselves from a detailed examination purely because of the number of hours we are spending currently examining line by line the Government's proposals in that Bill.
    This Bill enables us to speak more generally about its objectives, the first of which is to tackle the problem of structure planning, the second of which deals with inquiries and objections related thereto, the third of which is the extension of time for office building and the fourth of which is the very important matter of the control of demolition in conservation areas.
    I greatly doubt whether the proposed scheme will succeed in solving our great social problem. When I was a member

    1517
    of a municipal planning authority I tried hard to reconcile the interests of the authority with those of the general public which was affected by the authority's intentions. Since coming to Parliament I have found that parliamentary intentions are often confounded in practice when expressed in an Act. What authorities do, perhaps unwittingly, is often different from what the House intended, and that causes greater confusion amongst the public.
    For this reason, and because the Local Government Bill is now in Standing Committee, this Bill may have been introduced at the wrong time. To introduce this Bill at a time when the Standing Committee is considering a considerable number of Amendments to the Local Government Bill is to put the cart before the horse.
    In one respect the Bill takes a step backwards, not forwards. Under previous legislation one of the Minister's obligations when structure plans were submitted to him was to require that a consideration be made of objections to structure plans and to afford a hearing to the objectors. This is to be substituted by Clause 3(7):
    "On considering a structure plan the Secretary of State may consult with, or consider the views of, any local planning authority or other person, but shall not be under any obligation to do so."
    The machinery for public inquiry will to some extent protect objectors, but beyond that stage what will be the effect of the Minister's new rôle in that he is not obliged to receive objections?
    It has rightly been said that people generally are interested in how something specific affects them, how a plan in a local area affects them. The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) dealt with that with special care. He has considerable knowledge and many years' experience—I think he mentioned 40—and his judgment on these matters is always respected in the House. However, he added that a corollary was that the same personal interest was not involved in regional planning or structural plans at a regional level. I think that on reflection he will agree that that is not totally correct. It is a relative matter. There is no means to measure the extent of the interest. But I assure the right hon. and learned
    1518
    Gentleman that during our consideration of the Local Government Bill many of us have been surprised at the amount of interest in structural planning on both a regional and a national basis.
    One of the great features of this country is the totality of our national character as distinct from a definition of the State. Over many centuries the people have evolved into all manner of groups concerned with liberty, freedom, conservation, building, architecture, communications and the like. Through that grand design which I have described as the national character, immense, positive criticism of structural plans is made in a way which, quite different from the local expression, is nevertheless powerful.
    Sir D. Walker-Smith: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind reference to my speech and to me. What I intended to say was that individual citizens were less interested in the structure planning than in its more detailed manifestations. I wholly agree with the hon. Gentleman, of course, that groups, associations, amenity societies and other interests which are citizens in the aggregate are, fortunately, very interested in structure planning. But I think that their interests and participation may be better served in the examination form now suggested that the old forensic form of inquiry. I do not think there is anything between the hon. Gentleman and myself—at least, I hope not.
    Mr. Leadbitter: I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right. Our difference is merely one of emphasis. We are talking in relative terms of the way in which individuals view one aspect of planning as against another. I draw attention to the relative difference to try to deal with the point I want to bring before the House. With a different form of examining structural proposals and, in addition to the individual interest on the parochial or local scene, the more powerful and often more expressive interest through the organisations created by individuals in so many varied fields, we are bound to suggest that perhaps the Bill falls short of achieving the machinery that is desirable if structural proposals are to be examined at the right point in such a way that objections and people's concern can be felt effectively.
    In other words, those of us who have worked in Parliament, especially on

    1519
    Standing Committees of various kinds, those of us with legal, planning or local government experience, feel that one of our great dilemmas is how best to solve the conflict of the planning process and the social interest expressed by people who are not directly involved in the planning proposals. We are often concerned in local government in joint schemes with other local authorities, or with projects in the larger areas of water boards. For example, we are anxious to provide amenities in the Lake District and the like. We often find that the decision has been made at a point of no return and that the objection part of the process becomes ineffective.
    There is a need for a comprehensive study, since the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, was a consolidating Act and these amendments have come up only a short time later. There is genuine concern in the Department about the need to initiate a study to discover how the conflicting interests in planning can be reconciled and objections made more effective.
    I turn from the generality of that larger problem of structural planning to planning proposals at local authority level. It has been said that when a local planning proposal is made it would be nice if a notice could be put up to say that this or that is being done. In Parliament and local government there are some of the best people in the country, who are dedicated to pursuing the interests of the country, but in Parliament and local government there has always been a confounding element in how best to convey to the general public what they want to do and how and when to do it. To put up notices is not sufficient.
    I hope the Minister will take into account our debates on the Local Government Bill, in which we discussed the need to build up neighbourhood councils and to bring the neighbourhood into our local authority structure. The local authority would then be able to examine the interests of the neighbourhood and, if it had a statutory right to know of the planning proposals of the higher local authority, it would be able to bring to the attention of the people the likely consequences of those proposals.
    Mr. John Silkin: My hon. Friend has made a valuable point, on which my mind
    1520
    has been exercised for some time. Does he agree that the real answer is not only the establishment of neighbourhood communities, community councils, but also the provision of proper technical assistance to them, so that they may fully understand what otherwise begins to look like an ancient and forgotten script?
    Mr. Leadbitter: I agree with my right hon. Friend. No machinery should be set up unless consideration has been given to the type of technical know-how that is required to make it effective.
    Another matter on which local government can be criticised is the propensity of local planning authorities with plenary powers to have discussions which are unrecorded in the council minutes. Councils have nothing to lose by making known their discussions on matters affecting the general public. Many local authorities adopt the philosophy of protectionism and think it is better not to let the people know too much. Since Parliament is a barometer of public feeling, I hope it will be felt that problems which have been voiced in Parliament can be discussed in debate outside. The vast majority of councillors and local government officials would have everything to gain from widening opportunities for discussion.
    As has been said, there is little controversy on the Bill. It goes in the right direction although it might have been better timed. The direction is not always the most important thing; what matters is how far one can get.
    9.27 p.m.
    Mr. W. Benyon: I start by asking my hon. Friend to amplify his intervention during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) on the subject of parish councils. Is he proposing to make this a statutory requirement, or will it be advice to the councils concerned?
    I give a qualified welcome to the Bill as a whole and will concentrate my brief remarks on Clauses 3 and 5 as they affect the South-East region. I am sure that Clause 3 is a step in the right direction, but I am doubtful whether it goes far enough. There are three parts to structure plans—preparation, participation, and the inquiry. The Bill shortens only the inquiry part, and I question whether

    1521
    the Government will be able to hold the line on this when it comes to major representations.
    I have taken part in a major participation effort on the third London airport, and I can see that sort of operation coming again. I have been a member of a planning committee for the last nine years, and I am also a member of the London Regional Planning Conference. The Minister will know the representations that have been made to him by the Conference, and he will know of the Press statement issued just before Christmas which says that completion of a full cycle of plans for the region may well be 20 or more years away. This is much too gloomy. The general consensus, in my region at any rate, is that it will take something from seven to ten years on present estimates, that is five to seven years for the structure plan and two to three years for the local plan. In the meantime, planning in the regions is at a halt. The development plans are grossly out of date but still broadly adhered to. An authority tries to tread delicately between the out-of-date development plan on the one hand and the broad-brush strategy of "Strategic Plan for the South-East", which was approved by the Minister last autumn. on the other.
    The strategic plan is not a statutory plan and I commend the remarks in another place of Lord Nugent that perhaps the way out of this may be not to have the structure plan as a statutory requirement but simply as a guidance plan enabling an authority to get on quickly with the formation of the local plans which really affect people and with which they are much more concerned. We are dealing with a conflict between participation and efficiency, and in this instance I come down firmly on the side of efficiency.
    I was disappointed to hear the Minister's reply to a question at Question Time today about the proposals for the division of the planning function in the Local Government Bill. There just is not the skilled staff to do this if they are divided among a large number of authorities. I may be out of order in mentioning this, but I hope that it will be reconsidered. If the length of time and
    1522
    preparation of the plans affects planning itself and gives it an additionally bad name the effect on the release of land is even worse.
    The Minister must be aware that there is a lack of urgency in local authorities today which is easy to understand because on the one side they have the threat of local government reform and on the other side they have the excuse of the out-of-date development plans. The remedy lies firmly in the hands of the Government. They must require speedy implementation of broad-brush structure plans without the statutory requirement. They must make it clear that they are prepared, unless there are strong reasons to the contrary, to allow appeals on the housing front on land which is on the fringe of old development plans.
    Turning to Clause 5, I am glad that control of office development is being retained. I was somewhat surprised to read the speech of Lord Silkin in which he said that he did not think this was necessary and that the whole thing could go back to the planning process alone. I put a question to the Minister for Transport Industries, but I do not think that he understood the point I was trying to make. The G.L.C. proposes, over the next decade, to increase the number of office jobs in London by 75,000. I do not say this will happen. It is being talked about.
    The figure of 75,000 is almost exactly the total labour force envisaged for the new city of Milton Keynes when finally completed. It would be a tragedy if this wonderful opportunity London has—alone among capital cities—of being able to do something about its environment because of its falling population were to be lost. It is the high cost of office accommodation in central London that persuades firms to move. If the Minister accedes to the proposal of the G.L.C. he will at one and the same time destroy this chance of improving the environment of our capital city for good and all and he will exacerbate our housing difficulties, certainly in the inner London boroughs. He will also further overload commuting facilities to the outer metropolitan areas. Moreover, he will do grave injustice—and I admit that this is a constituency point—to the development of new towns

    1523
    like Milton Keynes, and, even more important, areas of high unemployment beyond the Metropolitan region.
    It is fair to say that both in the time of the Prince Regent and more recently, after the war and the destruction in the blitz, marvellous chances were missed for improving the environment of London. I hope that my hon. Friend will not miss the third chance.
    9.35 p.m.
    Mr. Graham Page: With your leave, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I would answer points which have been raised in the debate. Let me say first how pleased I am that the Bill has received support, on the whole, from both sides of the House.
    The right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) started with a complaint with which I have great sympathy. He said that we have just passed a consolidation Bill, the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, and then we bring in an amendment. Of course, the simple answer is that there is always a law which one might have included in a consolidation Bill if one had waited; there is never a right time to do consolidation. I think that perhaps on this occasion we could have looked ahead a little bit, and I accept the criticism.
    I find that I am thought of as being something of an expert on consolidation Bills, having toiled at them at late hours of the night. I recollect one occasion, Mr. Speaker, when, having made an impassioned speech on a consolidation Bill, and having been called to order six times by your predecessor and then sat down—there were only the Minister and myself in the House apart from the occupant of the Chair—I found that somehow I raised the temperature in the House so much that someone in the Gallery rose to his feet, yelled abusive language, jumped over the rail and landed with a thud on the floor by the Bar of the House. If I can raise that sort of heat in a speech on a consolidation Bill such as that one was. I hesitate to think what I could do with such an interesting Bill as we have before us tonight.
    The right hon. Member for Deptford asked whether I would keep that procedure suggested in the Bill for structure plans constantly under review. Well, of
    1524
    course; and the working out of the procedure is not a matter which I shall feel has been decided once and for all when we start these inquiries. This will be an experiment, there is no doubt about it; and we shall try to work it the best way we can.
    On the question of O.D.P.s, the right hon. Gentleman said that he did not think I had committed myself to anything. I must say that I thought I had committed myself quite a lot in saying what we intended to do with O.D.P.s in future. We intend to administer them from a positive angle, to assist the carrying out of the South-East Strategic Plan—that is to say, pinpointing growth areas as decided by that plan and deliberately using O.D.P.s for that purpose. So far as central London is concerned, we recognise that there must be adequate provision of modern office space in London to replace obsolete, outworn premises and that, more than that, we need a supply of new and modernised space available for developing concerns. I hope that we shall see in future a positive attitude to the use of this control. I think the control is still necessary, until the whole matter can be incorporated in the planning system, and we shall in the meantime use it positively.
    The right hon. Gentleman, in dealing with conservation areas, referred to houses which might be allowed to fall into decay.
    There is a procedure whereby the local authority can serve a repair notice on the owner of a listed building, and if those repairs are not carried out it gives rise to powers of compulsory purchase, so the local authority can take over the property and put it into repair. If a local authority takes that action, it may be doing so for a national purpose, for the public in general, and not necessarily for a local purpose. We have in mind assistance under those circumstances. I cannot go further than that at the moment except to say that it is under consideration, but I recognise the national importance, not merely the local importance, of saving historic buildings and places of architectural value.
    Mr. Leadbitter: On the question of the repair notice, is it not a fact that the procedural rights of an owner would allow him to counter that notice to the

    1525
    point at which a year or more could pass before the local authority could make the notice effective?
    Mr. Page: It depends on how expeditiously the local authority deals with the matter. There is the owner's right to protect himself on these occasions, because they lead towards compulsory purchase and we must give him the right to defend himself.
    Mr. Robert Cooke: Would not my hon. Friend concede that prevention is even better than cure? Although it is not in the Bill, so we probably cannot say much now, perhaps he could encourage some of his hon. Friends in other Departments to help provide incentives for owners not to let their buildings get into this! position. There are some incentives which can be given, not grants of taxes levied on individuals but concessions on the taxes they pay, to make it worth their while to keep these places in good repair.
    Mr. Page: So long as this comes within the Money Resolution, perhaps we can discuss it in Committee. I am not sure whether it does, but it is certainly an idea.
    The right hon. Member for Deptford mentioned the increase of staff required by planning authorities, as a result of what we are doing in the Bill, the general trend of the sophistication of planning and the reform of local government. He is convinced that there are not the qualified staff.
    Mr. John Silkin: With respect, I am not convinced either way. I simply want strong reassurance.
    Mr. Page: Perhaps I can convince the right hon. Gentleman. There are about 4,000 chartered planning officers in practice, with probably a substantial number not so qualified but fully qualified in experience. As against this approximate number of those in practice—I have had no complaints of current shortage; it is only anticipating future shortage—there are under training 1,100 in planning courses at the universities and 1,700 in colleges of further education. I cannot say how many of these will qualify. This training started back in 1967 or 1968 and it is now being stepped up again with the assistance of the University Grants Committee.
    1526
    So there are in training about three-quarters of the number of those in practice. Like any other profession, as they come out they will not be qualified by experience, but I hope that during the next two years, before we get into local government reform, we may be able to use some of these on research work to give them experience. I hope that local authorities will take up their services to give them the necessary experience.
    I feel that some existing local authorities may have a tendency to look down their noses at the man who is academically qualified and are not prepared to take them on as they should. I may be wrong, but this is the feeling I have. But these men who are academically qualified need experience and we should like to see them in jobs preparing for what is needed after local government reform.
    My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) made an absolute gem of a speech on planning. I shall read it again with great enjoyment. He mentioned that he had 40 years' experience on these matters and I must say that during those 40 years I have enjoyed periodically sitting behind him hearing the sort of things he said today. I am enjoying it just as much now that he is sitting behind me. He put forward my case today, as he has put forward my case on other occasions in other places, with great satisfaction to me. I do not think I need say any more. I will take into account all the things he said and the suggestions he made.
    The hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) asked that there should be more public participation. On this, the position is that I have already circulated to local planning authorities a document setting out to what extent we would wish them to carry out public participation on the lines of the report of the commission chaired by the late Arthur Skeffington. I pay my most sincere tribute to him for that work which he undertook with such great conscientiousness. Having received the comments of local authority associations and others on that document, I have amended and revised it and it will go out as a circular very soon.
    The hon. Gentleman also asked me about joint local plans. The local planning authorities drawing local plans in

    1527
    London will have the right to draw joint local plans under the Bill. Others will gain the right under Clauses of the Local Government Bill. Therefore, that will work as the hon. Member wishes.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) raised some interesting points based on his knowledge of agriculture. I assure him that whenever development is taking place on agricultural land the advice of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is sought and we do not move without that advice. From that we appreciate the value of agricultural land and try to set it against the value to the public of the developments which are taking place on it such as motorways, ordinary roads, reservoirs and so on.
    My hon. Friend asked one or two questions on the document issued by the National Farmers' Union. I assure him that the people who can make representations now will still be able to make them under the terms of the Bill if it becomes law. We are taking away no rights of representation. My hon. Friend asked whether the system of public examination would speed up public inquiries. I hope that it will, and this is half the object. The other half of the object is to see that we examine the important things. If we were to continue with the old system of public inquiry I do not think we would be able to examine all the right issues in structure plans.
    My hon. Friend also asked whether there could be meaningful agricultural objections. I would point out that there is already provision for this in the 1968 Act.
    Finally, my hon. Friend asked why parish councils should not have notice of planning applications. Perhaps I might read the Written Answer which I gave on this subject to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) on 24th January. I said:
    "I accept that parish councils that wish to have notice of planning applications relating to land within the parish should be entitled to do so. Legislation would be needed—and is not appropriate for any current Bill—to make this a statutory requirement. In the meantime, I shall commend, in a circular to local planning authorities on the wider question of local publicity for planning applications, the exten
    1528
    sion of the voluntary arrangements in operation in many parts of the country whereby some local planning authorities do give parish councils an opportunity to see and comment on applications, within a strict time limit"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th January, 1972; Vol. 829, c. 339.]
    Many local planning authorities have this arrangement with parish councils. But, in order to make it universal, I want to introduce it in convenient legislation. I am advised that, as it stands at present, the Long Title of the Bill precludes this, but we will see whether it may be possible to put down an Amendment to deal with this point.
    The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. John D. Grant) referred to a specific case in his constituency. Perhaps I might tell him that Clause 7 of the Blil was born in Alwyne Villas, in Islington, East. This is the case which gave rise to our thoughts about the demolition of buildings in conservation areas.
    If Clause 7 was born in Alwyne Villas, its father was my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Chapman), who first introduced it to this House in his Private Member's Bill last year. My hon. Friend has invited me to accept a lot more than was in that Bill, but these are matters which I am sure he will raise in Committee. My hon. Friend wanted this Bill to take effect immediately. But it is traditional and conventional that there should be one month after Royal Assent for a Bill of this sort to take effect.
    My hon. Friend also asked for publicity to be given to planning applications. My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden), asked the same question. We have something like 450,000 planning applications a year. If local planning authorities were required to give notice and to give time for the results from that notice on every occasion, I am afraid that the planning procedure would collapse. But I have in mind and hope to be able to put before the House very soon provisions for site notices in certain cases.
    At present, we have the procedure with the "bad neighbour" case where notice has to be given. I want to extend that not by newspaper advertisements but by site notices for those cases where ordinary persons will be affected by some substantial development near their homes and they should be told about it. The best

    1529
    way of telling them is to stick on the site a notice saying that it is to be developed, say, for a block of flats 24 storeys high. They will then be able to make their voices heard at a stage before the local planning authority deals with the matter.
    Mr. Chapman: That is one of the most heart-warming utterances in the whole debate and I congratulate my hon. Friend. Will he also agree that there need be no delay to the consideration of planning applications if it is done, since those who want the development can put notices on the site while they are drawing up plans and before submitting them to local planning authorities?
    Mr. Page: This is one of the main points. I do not want to create further delays in planning by this sort of procedure.
    I come now to one further point made by my hon. Friend. It concerned the harmful substance on waste tips. Everybody has been shocked over the past few days to realise that there is nothing, other than perhaps the laws of common nuisance or trespass, to stop anybody tipping these poisonous substances anywhere they choose. If local authorities and those owning tips carried out the codes of practice for both ordinary refuse disposal and the disposal of toxic waste, which have been promulgated by the Department, this could not happen. I propose to take the earliest opportunity of making those codes of practice statutorily enforceable.
    I have litle time to deal with the other interesting points which have been raised. I find that those hon. Members who have been sitting for long hours on the Local Government Bill are gluttons for punishment as several of them have spoken in this debate. I am grateful for their support both here and in Committee.
    The whole point of Clause 3 is to reconcile what the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) called the conflict between the local planning authority and the public. I do not call it a conflict. After all, the local planning authority is a democratically elected body to carry out the work which the majority of people in the area want. The conflict is between the public works which a local planning authority authorises—I am thinking more of roads and that type of planning—and the indivi
    1530
    dual who is interested in a particular site. Frequently, it is the individual who holds up some good planning work which is desired by the neighbourhood. Therefore, we have to try to strike a balance. The Bill will attempt to do just that.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) asked about the speed at which we could carry out the structure plan system. I have dealt with the question of staff. The comments of the standing conference of local planning authorities in the South-East were very exaggerated when they said that the completion of the full cycle would take 20 years. I am determined that it shall not take anywhere near that time. If it takes a quarter of that time, I shall be very disappointed.
    The preparation of the structure plans is not holding up the release of land. I take Southampton as an example where interim plans have been issued. The chief planning officer has already identified 35,000 sites for houses by issuing these interim plans before issuing the structure plans.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Will the Minister do me the courtesy of telling me whether my point about the form of the conference which he is proposing in place of the old type of legalistic inquiry is fair?
    Mr. Page: I am not sure that I should go as far as calling it the seminar—I gather that that is the impression which the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) had of it—which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East explained. Its function is to probe the issues, not merely to hear objections.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read a Second time.
    Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

    TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords]

      TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (AMENDMENT) [MONEY]
      Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
      Resolved,
      That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend certain enactments

      1531
      relating to development plans, to extend the duration of, and otherwise amend, certain enactments relating to the control of office development, to make further provision for controlling the demolition of buildings in conservation areas and for purposes connected
      1532
      with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the provisions of that Act in the sums so payable under that other enactment.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

    FAMILY INCOME SUPPLEMENT
    9.59 p.m.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean): I beg to move,
    That the Family Income Supplements (Computation) Regulations, 1972, a draft of which was laid before this House on 18th January, be approved.
    These regulations mark a further stage in the development of the family income supplement. They show our determination that the scheme shall not be static but be flexible and able to respond to changing circumstances. This is important in a scheme designed to help low-earning families and to relieve family poverty.
    I remind the House of what the scheme has achieved so far, though it is still early days yet, the scheme having started only last August. In spite of some efforts to strangle it at birth, and some criticism that it did not mature completely overnight, it has made rapid progress in the first six months. We can fairly claim that it is a new and effective attack on family poverty. Because it is new, there is still a great deal to learn from experience, and we intend to learn.
    The scheme is effective because all the money goes to those with children who badly need a boost in their income. It is working smoothly, there have been few complaints about it from those who are benefiting from it, and I am sure that the whole House will agree that this reflects great credit on the staff who have been operating the scheme and on all those throughout the country, in both local authorities and voluntary organisations, who have helped to bring F.I.S. to people, and families to F.I.S.
    About 100,000 families are benefiting from F.I.S.., and they include over 250,000 children. This is a good start, on which we are about to build. Take-up is improving all the time, and there are over 3,000 new claims still coming in weekly. Our estimate is that over three-quarters of those eligible to £2 a week F.I.S. or more are, in fact, receiving it. In other words, we are reaching the bulk of the poorest of those who are eligible. True, take-up falls as the amount to which people are entitled falls, but, as I say, for
    1534
    those on £2 a week or more the proportion is three-quarters; and it is rising all the time.
    It is important to bear in mind that these beneficiaries are not only receiving F.I.S. or benefit through a higher rate of supplementary benefit than they would otherwise be receiving; they have, in addition, the passport to the other benefits attached to F.I.S., namely, exemption from prescription charges—the certificate is in the F.I.S. order book—and availability of free welfare milk and foods and free school meals.
    It is impossible to give precise figures for the future. Inevitably, under a scheme of this kind, there are people coming in and going out. Moreover, the numbers will depend on variable factors which no one can precisely foresee. The most important variable factor is the level of earnings, but others are the prescribed amounts—which the present Regulations will increase—and the level of supplementary benefit; and the level of unemployment also is relevant because only those who are in full-time work are eligible for this benefit.
    However, within the general context of the 100,000 families to whom I referred. some firm figures can be given. The average F.I.S. award is £1·73. One-third of the awards go to single-parent families, nearly all the parents in this group being women. The average payment to these single-parent families is £2·17. I think the House will agree that that is a highly satisfactory figure to a group of people who, when the scheme was introduced, we were all anxious should benefit from it. Another one-third of the awards go to one-child families, in other words, to the families who do not, and cannot benefit from the family allowances. That, too, is a welcome feature of the arrangements. In this case the average award is £1·93.
    The best estimate that can be made is that the amount of money paid out in F.I.S. awards in the first year of the scheme will be more than £8 million. That compares with the original estimate of about £7 million, and I think that it adds point to the encouraging take-up figures which I have mentioned, particularly in the higher ranges, and it shows clearly, too, that the amount of money going to these families looks like

    1535
    being considerably greater than the original estimate which was put before the House when the Bill came forward.
    Mr. Brian O'Malley: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the estimated effect of this Statutory Instrument in the first year is an extra £1 million—from £7 million to £8 million?
    Mr. Dean: I am not quite saying that. I am saying that a combination of the take-up figures and this Statutory Instrument will give rise to that additional expenditure.
    Having mentioned those figures, may I go on to describe the Statutory Instrument in a little more detail. It up-rates the entitlement by £1 per family, and puts up the maximum payment from the existing £4 to £5. The regulations increase the prescribed amounts of £2 for each family size. Thus, the new prescribed amount for one-child families will be £20 a week, for two-child families £22, and so on. That is achieved by regulation 2.
    Regulation 3 increases the maximum weekly payment to £5. Regulation 4 revokes the 1971 Computation Regulations with effect from 4th April, 1972, which is the date on which the new regulations will take effect if the House approves them.
    Since F.I.S. is half the difference between gross family income and the appropriate prescribed amount, the effect of the regulations will be to increase F.I.S. entitlement by £1 a week for all families entitled to F.I.S. when the regulations take effect, or to bring into entitlement a number of other families who are at present excluded because their income is over existing limits, or who will be excluded when the current awards expire.
    That is the main effect of the regulations, but in addition there are the important arrangements for bringing F.I.S. to families, and for bringing families to F.I.S. Perhaps I might first remind the House of what are now the regular procedures for this. Information about the scheme is given to people in full time work claiming free welfare milk or exemption from prescription charges, persons returning to work after receiving supplementary benefit, new and addi
    1536
    tional family allowance beneficiaries, claimants for maternity benefit, and immigrants registering for national insurance. Leaflets are continually displayed at post offices, local offices of the Department, and elsewhere. Large employers in many areas, and all large Civil Service Departments, have been asked to display posters.
    In addition to those new regular procedures there are three new features which I should like to describe briefly to the House. The first concerns families who apply for free school meals. We are working with the Department of Education and Science on arrangements which we hope will lead to information about F.I.S. going automatically to parents who apply for free school meals.
    Some of these people are getting F.I.S. now, but not all of them and we believe that if we can work out suitable arrangements, this will prove an effective way of ensuring that all these families have direct and automatic knowledge about F.I.S. so that if they are eligible to receive it, they can apply.
    Mr. Ted Leadbitter: I take it that the Minister is anxious to go a step beyond what has been the practice hitherto, which has been to rely purely on the process of application. In other words, in the past we have had to rely on those who are eligible for F.I.S. or other benefits applying before they could be considered for such payments.
    If such a step forward can be made in respect of school dinners, does not the hon. Gentleman feel that it could be made in other spheres, such as free welfare milk? If an improved take-up can be achieved in respect of school meals, the Government should consider extending the new arrangements to other benefits.
    Mr. Dean: In a number of the spheres which the hon. Gentleman has in mind we already operate an automatic passport system. It certainly operates in respect of school meals for families who are already on F.I.S. In that case there is an automatic entitlement. No further action is required on the part of the F.I.S. beneficiary to receive free school meals. Equally, it follows automatically that such beneficiaries get free welfare milk and welfare food. There is built

    1537
    into the F.I.S. order book a certificate exempting them from prescription charges.
    The hon. Gentleman will appreciate, therefore, that this will be a development in respect of those families who have applied for free school meals but who are not already eligible for F.I.S. That is the first new step which we hope will prove practicable in the near future.
    The second is that in each of the English regions of the Department, as well as in Scotland and Wales, an officer of the Department will shortly be appointed with the specific task of reviewing the operation of the publicity arrangements, co-operating with the appropriate departments of local authorities and generally seeing that everything possible is done to ensure that people know about their F.I.S. entitlements. In other words, this will be a review of the arrangements with the object of seeing where they can most readily be improved and the way in which we can tighten up on any weak areas which now exist.
    The third aspect which I hope hon. Members agree will strengthen the arrangements is that as from April of this year a slip containing a prominent reminder about F.I.S. will appear in all the 4 million family allowance order books. These are all developments aimed at improving take-up and are designed to make it as easy as possible to bring those who are entitled to F.I.S. within the range of it and to apply for it.
    An aspect which I know concerns the House and which the Government are studying closely is the possible disincentive problem. This is a complex problem and there is no easy solution to it. However, it would be unthinkable to seek to solve it by withholding any of the benefits that we now provide for poor families, many of whom are not in a position to increase their earnings.
    But the problem should not be exaggerated. It has been suggested, for example, that thousands of families would be worse off if they got a pay rise. Frankly, this is nonsense. Such suggestions are based on hypothetical cases which, if they arise at all, are highly exceptional. To the extent that the
    1538
    difficulty arises from a particularly sharp reduction in the rent rebate, it will be considerably eased by the Government's national rent rebate scheme, under which the rebate will normally be reduced by only 17 per cent. of the increase in income, and never by more than 25 per cent. Moreover, the loss of F.I.S. will be taken into account, so that the earnings rise will not be counted twice over.
    It is important to remember too, that any disincentive effect will be considerably mitigated by the fact that income is tested over different periods for the various benefits, and there can be a considerable time lag before an increase in income affects each benefit. Thus F.I.S. is based on the income over the five weeks preceding the claim, and, once awarded, it continues for six months regardless of any subsequent rise in income. This important fact is sometimes overlooked by those who predict a serious disincentive effect. There is no evidence that such an effect arises in practice, although this is one of the areas in which we accept the need for further research and which we shall watch carefully.
    I have pleasure in commending these regulations to the House. They represent the first uprating of the scheme since it began. They certainly will not be the last uprating. I hope that the House will feel that the arrangements I have announced will lead to an improvement in the running of the scheme. My right hon. Friend is committed to a full review of the scheme after it has been running for 12 months—that is, later this year. Whatever detailed points there may be, I hope that the House will welcome these regulations as an advance in the battle against family poverty and as a practical step to improve the lot of hard pressed families.
    10.17 p.m.
    Mr. Charles Morris: It is not my wish to detain the House long. I was impressed with the point made by the Minister when he referred to entitlement to family income supplement. He quite rightly suggested that one should not exaggerate the difficulties of entitlement. He said that it was nonsense to suggest that thousands would be worse off if they got a pay increase. In this regard may I draw

    1539
    his attention to the dilemma which now faces a number of employees of the Post Office Corporation arising from the introduction of the corporation's new contributory superannuation scheme?
    As hon. Members will recall, that scheme was introduced on 1st December last year. One of the qualifications for entering the contributory scheme was that existing employees of the corporation would receive a salary or wage enhancement of 6·383 per cent., in order that they could pay that element of their salary or wages as a contribution to the scheme. In other words, they received a salary and wage increase that wasn't.
    As a consequence, a number of those employees in the lower salary and wage groups of the Post Office Corporation now find that their entitlements to F.I.S., to rate and rent rebates and, in Ipswich, their entitlement to be considered for the tenancy of a council house, are now in jeopardy. I am mindful that these difficulties may not as yet have received the Secretary of State's attention, but I ask him to consider the difficulties which have arisen for the lower salaried and wage groups of the Post Office Corporation and communicate with his ministerial colleague the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications about this matter.
    10.20 p.m.
    Mr. Martin McLaren: When the family income supplement was introduced it was criticised, but the progress report just given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary shows that that criticism was premature and ill-conceived. I know from experience in my constituency—I am sure that this is true of many families in other constituencies—that families have already benefited from this scheme and have good cause to thank the Government for recognising their needs and seeking to meet them in this novel way. I am sure that all hon. Members present will greatly welcome the uplift and the improvement brought about by these regulations.
    10.21 p.m.
    Mr. Hugh D. Brown: That sounded like a vote of thanks, and the first part of it was unnecessarily provocative. All of us should regret it if any Government, whether
    1540
    Conservative or Labour, had to introduce such a scheme. However, we are not discussing the principles of the scheme and I shall confine myself, in a non-controversial manner, to asking questions.
    The Under-Secretary said that use would be made of the information obtained through the school meals service. This is an important departure. At last one Department is willing to give information to another. I am in favour of this, although if some of the supporters of individual liberty hear about it there will doubtless be trouble. I hope that this includes the Scottish Office.
    Mr. Deanindicated assent.
    Mr. Brown: I welcome the increases. I presume that the books will not just contain a reminder to those who already receive F.I.S. but that there will be a leaflet explaining the availability of this benefit to all.
    What does the Department do with the information obtained? Obviously the fact that one-third of the awards go to single-parent families highlights a social problem, and the reasons for such families receiving F.I.S. are not necessarily connected.
    The Government could do themselves a good turn in their obvious efforts to discuss an incomes policy with the T.U.C. I have always personally been in favour of such a policy. I should lik to think that there were ways and means of using the information obtained. Who are the low-paid wage-earners? If this matter is not handled properly it could arouse many suspicions. Surely it should be possible in the Department to define areas of workers who are lowpaid—local authority employees, people who work in cemeteries, and so on. There must be areas which are becoming identified, but everybody is getting bogged down in administrative detail with unnecessary problems if people are receiving reasonable wages. I am not taking about miners or anything controversial.
    Sooner or later someone must initiate a pilot scheme to improve the administration. I have raised the question of the number of income-tested benefits before, and the reply has been, "They are not all our responsibility. The bulk of

    1541
    them are local authority income-tested benefits." That is true, but we are reaching the stage where it may be worth carrying out an experiment. Something like the social works department in Scotland might be an ideal set-up for liaison between Government Departments and local authorities with a view to providing trained clerical people, not necessarily social workers or civil servants but people with enough knowledge of all the benefits and the general income limits to be able to tell people, "You are near enough to apply for this or that benefit." A central point would be worth experimenting with, not just for F.I.S. but for all the other assistance available.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Order. The hon. Gentleman is going a little wide of the regulations. It would be better if he confined himself to the amounts in the regulations.
    Mr. Brown: One of the purposes of what I have suggested is to draw to the attention of more and more people the increased amount within the regulations. With that obvious attempt to keep within the rules of order, I conclude, and await with interest the Minister's reply.
    10.27 p.m.
    Mr. Charles Curran: I am sure that we all welcome the regulations. In the light of what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) said about the need for using the information we obtain, may I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to dwell a little further on the statistics we have already been given? We are told that roughly one-third of the families receiving F.I.S. are one-parent families. How many of them are families where there is a married mother and how many are families where there is a woman with an illegitimate child? My own observation—I do not pretend to have access to the statistics—is that the principal beneficiaries of F.I.S. are women with illegitimate children, who have formed a pocket of poverty and have largely been left out on a limb. Perhaps the most admirable aspect of F.I.S. is that it has reached that section of our society, which has been completely neglected.
    In our constituencies we all meet the woman with an illegitimate child, a
    1542
    woman who is perhaps not very bright. It is not her fault; it is the way God made her. She is trying to cope on her own. If she has a job she has hitherto been outside the range of the welfare services. F.I.S. does something at last for such women and their households. I should like my hon. Friend to give us any information he has about the number of women with illegitimate children who are benefiting from F.I.S.
    A great deal turns upon the take-up of this scheme. Would it not be possible to simplify the application process? The applicant has either to go to the social security office or to fill up a form and send it in. Is there any reason why an applicant for F.I.S. should not be able to obtain an application form from a post office?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The regulations are concerned with the raising of the amounts. I wish the hon. Member would try to keep to that.
    Mr. Curran: I appreciate that, and I want more people to get the increased amounts by making it easier for them to apply. I hope you will agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am strictly within the rules of order. I ask that an applicant should be able to walk into the nearest post office for a form, instead of having to go to the social security office.
    Many fears were expressed on the introduction of the scheme that it might act in restraint of wage rises. We were told that by subsidising the income of people in full employment we were going back to Speenhamland and holding out an incentive to employers to keep wages down. Has the Minister any evidence of this? Does he see any ghosts marching from Speenhamland? I do not offer an answer, I ask the question, and it would be of public interest if we could have an answer.
    10.32 p.m.
    Mr. Ted Leadbitter: The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran) may take personal satisfaction in digging deep into the recesses of his mind for the example of Speenhamland, but the answer to his question will not answer the question of the 1970s. There is something wrong with a country which has to introduce an incomes supplement and a means test to go with it. How can the Minister be proud of the increase when

    1543
    it is a measure of the Government's economic failure?
    Today two Questions were asked about the purchasing power of money. The one I tabled related to retired people and is therefore not relevant to this argument. The other Question asked about the fall in purchasing power taking the value of the £ as 100, and the answer was that the £ was now worth 88½p, a fall of 11½ per cent. In a year the purchasing power of the £ has fallen by approximately 10p. The increase we are debating tonight only partially restores the purchasing power of the original family income supplement. The Minister is not adding one iota to the well being of the people.
    The Minister has given us a progress report, which I have attacked, because it is nothing to shout about. He says we have succeeded in attracting 100,000 families. That is a new use of the word "succeeded". The figures include 250,000 children, and there is obviously some easement for people. If a person on the poverty line gets £1 it will go towards paying the £1 increase on the rent which will come about as a result of the operation of the Housing Finance Bill. The Minister may say these people will be excluded, but in practice any form of rebate scheme catches up with poorer people.
    The hon. Gentleman says that one-third of single-parent families have been attracted. The single-parent family is one of the most nauseating, undignified and disgraceful social conditions today. A man or woman, because of lack of enforcement of the maintenance system or the inability of the other spouse to meet the order, has to go to the clerk to the justices, is turfed out of there, and has to go to the local social security offices, maybe at the other side of the town. Then they have to be means-tested to get extra. Out of the thousands of people in this plight we have attracted this small number. Even in this controversial area little progress has been made. The average earnings in manufacturing industry are £28·50. The desperate circumstances of these families are not eased by making them submit themselves to bureaucratic means-testing. I make no comment on the levels of unemployment: the nation has already done that for me.
    1544
    The Minister says that slips will be put into the family allowance books in April. Before Government or local government start dealing with those in poverty, they should ask themselves how they would like it if every penny had to be justified on forms. We are doing this wrong—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is not on the point of the regulations. He is now dealing with the general principle.
    Mr. Leadbitter: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I quoted the Minister, and then indicated by disapproval of this system of slips in order books. Is it not time that the Minister stopped making a great mountain out of this molehill of a scheme, which cannot deal with poverty? No one has tried to deal with it in the right way. The party opposite look upon poverty and lack of privilege from the basis—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is now reverting to precisely the course of conduct that I asked him to stop.
    Mr. Leadbitter: I accept your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was then dealing with the problem of the regulations, so I submit that I am in order—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman now referring to the increase in the amount or to the general principle of the method?
    Mr. Leadbitter: I am dealing with the amount, which is a projection of the scheme. The regulations could not be before the House without the original scheme. The amount and the scheme itself are not the way to deal with this problem, because they conform with the normal Tory Party philosophy of dealing with these social problems.
    Mr. J. R. Kinsey: What an extraordinary speech we have just heard—a Socialist deprecating a Government who are trying to help the less well-off sectors of our community! I never thought I would hear such a speech from a Socialist. Surely my hon. Friend has moved with great speed in this matter to redress the position and to further his intentions as to when the regulations shall take effect. In comparison with my hon. Friend's speed in

    1545
    this matter, the efforts of the Labour Government during their term of office went at a mere snail's pace.
    The hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris) put his finger on an important matter in mentioning the marginal area of wages. My hon. Friend the Minister has expressed concern about this and has said that after a period of 12 months there will be a review of the situation to see how the regulations have operated.
    I also deplore the low wages that make provisions of this sort necessary. But, as well as deploring this situation, we on this side of the House are tackling it. These factors obtained during the Labour years of office and they did not tackle them. This is why the present Government should be congratulated on their swift action.
    These regulations will provide useful help for the deserted wife; in other words, for the one-parent family. I am pleased to see that the Minister has increased the figures to £20 and £5, and I believe that this will redress the balance. It is good news that the one-parent family will form such a large proportion of the people applying for help. I very much welcome these regulations and wish to take this opportunity of congratulating my hon. Friend on his expedition.
    10.48 p.m.
    Mr. Brian O'Malley: In introducing the Statutory Instrument the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State praised the scheme in the fulsome terms of an advertising practitioner in Madison Avenue. He was also supported by two of his back benchers, whose speeches revealed more enthusiasm than detailed knowledge of the operation of the scheme. The Under-Secretary and his back benchers having presented to the House a glossy prospectus which does not give the full facts, I know that the House will be grateful if I, in a completely unbiased way, try to add to the information the hon. Gentleman has given.
    Hon. Members on this side of the House continue to believe that the family incomes supplement is an unsatisfactory method of tackling the general problem of family poverty. It extends the jungle of the means test, with all the undesirable side effects inherent in the extensive use of such schemes. However, I will not
    1546
    repeat, nor would it be in order to repeat, the detailed objections to the scheme made during the passage of the substantive legislation in 1970. It is clearly right that before the provisions of this Statutory Instrument come into operation we should examine their implications.
    There has been a great deal of criticism during the whole period in which the F.I.S. has been in operation, and indeed earlier, about the disincentive effects of the scheme and the high marginal tax rates involved. So sensitive are the Government on this matter that, even before anybody stood up to criticise the regulations on those grounds, the Under-Secretary sought to come to the House with a pre-emptive strike. I hope to have a little to say later about his comments on this disincentive effect—
    Mr. Dean: It is sound tactics.
    Mr. O'Malley: It is if one has a weapon with which to make a pre-emptive strike. But the hon. Gentleman has not, and I shall show why.
    The Government have stressed the importance of increasing incentives to workers at all levels. The wealthier have been given priority in the provision of such incentives. But there has been no such overall help for the lower-paid and the recipients of the family income supplement, who have been defined by the Secretary of State as being the "poorest of the poor". They suffer extremely high marginal tax rates as a result of the F.I.S. scheme. There are no financial incentives for them to increase their earned income; in fact, the reverse is the case.
    I want to examine some of the effects of the family income supplement as it will operate from April, 1972, assuming that these regulations are passed. However, before doing that, it is important to ask one general question on the subject, because it is relevant to the rates which are set in the regulations.
    The following appeared in the Economist of 22nd January, 1972, on page 22:
    "F.I.S. has attracted a good deal of criticism for creating high marginal tax rates."
    That is precisely what it was meant to do, and perhaps we shall be told whether that is the case. Certainly that view was

    1547
    not expressed from the Treasury Bench when the substantive legislation was going through Parliament.
    In attempting to deal with the disincentive effect, obviously the Under-Secretary regarded the problem as almost incapable of solution. He said that the argument that the scheme produced disincentives was nonsense. He said that the argument was based on hypothetical cases. Then he admitted that there was a need for further research on the matter.
    One does not need research to see that these disincentives for higher wage earnings amongst recipients of F.I.S. will be markedly increased when the new benefit rates come into operation in April. If we ask ourselves whether this scheme provides serious disincentives for working overtime or obtaining higher overall earnings, we have only to remember one fact, and that is that any recipient loses 50 per cent. of every £1 increase in his wages in reduction of F.I.S. alone. Having moved over the tax threshold, he will lose another 35p income tax. He will suffer a lower rent rebate. He will probably lose other means-tested benefits. He will be faced with increased national insurance contributions.
    We are all perfectly capable of taking a family of any given size, with the head of the family with any given wage up to £24. The figures speak for themselves. There is a very high marginal rate of taxation. So large is it that the recipient of F.I.S. can find himself no better off and even worse off with a wage increase. He will need a massive wage increase in order to be any better off.
    There has been substantial comment in the Press on this matter which the Under-Secretary tried to shrug away by saying that it was nonsense. If he is to sustain this argument, he must take the figures as they will be in operation after 4th April, in accordance with these regulations, and say that all the examples which we can work out are not true. I suggest that he certainly cannot do that. In addition, family income supplement payments are included in the total income when calculating rate rebates under the Housing Finance Bill which is under consideration in this House. Families receiving family income supplement will, therefore, suffer reduced rent rebates.
    1548
    It remains the case that after 4th April, when these increases come into effect, the payments made to poorer families where the head of the family is still in full-time work will still be below the supplementary benefit level. Therefore, after 4th April the criticism which was made on Second Reading, that a second lower poverty line was being created by the Bill, will continue to operate.
    It is also the case that under the existing tax benefits structure of family allowance, child tax allowance and claw-back, standard rate taxpayers in some circumstances receive more, as much, or almost as much financial consideration from the State in respect of their dependent children as the recipients of the family income supplement who are, as the Secretary of State said, the poorest of the poor.
    In view of the notable defects of the scheme as revised by these regulations, will the Under-Secretary give us an indication of the Government's longer-term thinking on the existing tax benefits structure?
    The hon. Gentleman has already said that by August next year the Secretary of State will be reviewing the family income supplement scheme. By that time, I assume, the report on the problems of one-parent families will have been received. I hope that if a solution can be found for the financial problems of such families it will not depend on means testing.
    We are bound to ask the Under-Secretary, seeing how the family income supplement rates have moved and are moving as a result of these regulations, whether the Government see the F.I.S. scheme as a permanent feature, whether they are examining other ways, through family allowances, which we have been told for 18 months are still under review, or whether variants of the existing tax benefits structure are being examined as a substitute for the type of F.I.S. scheme which is amended by these regulations.
    The House is grateful to the Under-Secretary for the information that he has given on take-up. He mentioned that 100,000 families were now receiving family income supplement and thought that that was a good start. The hon. Gentleman then presented us with some

    1549
    figures, which put the best possible face on the Government's case, indicating that 75 per cent. or more of the poorest people entitled to F.I.S. are receiving it. Nevertheless, it remains the case, does it not, that probably one-third of the total number of families who are entitled to F.I.S. are receiving it and two-thirds, as yet, are not?
    Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will comment on the article which appeared in The Times of Wednesday of last week—
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): Not Meacher again?
    Mr. O'Malley: No, it was not by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). If the hon. Gentleman showed half as much detailed knowledge of the problems of poverty as my hon. Friend, he would be a far more effective Financial Secretary to the Treasury. But I am not criticising the hon. Gentleman tonight. It is merely that he put his nose into what was virtually a private quarrel between the Under-Secretary and myself.
    In The Times of last Wednesday there was a report of some comments by the Child Poverty Action Group on the operation of F.I.S. [Interruption.] If the Financial Secretary wishes to pour scorn on this group, perhaps he will do it publicly and not sotto voce. If he has a low opinion of the group, I will give way to him to enable him to say so publicly. Apparently he does not wish to avail himself of my offer. The article said:
    "In fact, looking at the benefit showing the largest increase, free welfare food, the Government has reached less than a third of the families eligible."
    I hope that the Under-Secretary will comment on that.
    It remains the case that the take-up is nowhere near the percentage which the Secretary of State thought would be satisfactory. Second, only a tiny proportion of families are receiving any help—100,000. The scheme is very small, indeed.
    The hon. Gentleman should give us some information about the average sums paid. I should be grateful if he would tell the House what he expects the aver
    1550
    age figure of £1·73 to be as a result of the up-rating contained in these regulations. Perhaps he could tell us, too, what is the extra estimated annual cost of these changes, what is the estimate for the additional numbers involved, and how many families who would not have been entitled to F.I.S. will be brought into eligibility as a result of the proposals in this Statutory Instrument.
    Is it the case that family income supplements that are being paid on 4th April, 1972, having been granted before that date, will automatically go up to the new rate?
    Mr. Dean: Yes.
    Mr. O'Malley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying that they will, because the regulations do not make that clear.
    Why it is that the figure of £2 has not been altered? Since the passing of the 1970 Act that prescribed sum has been increased from £15 to £18, and now to £20. The maximum F.I.S. payable has been increased from £3 through to £4, and now to £5, but the £2 in respect of additional children after the first child in estimating the prescribed sum has remained stationary at a time when general wage levels have been rising. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain why that figure of £2 has been left unchanged.
    I hope that the Under-Secretary will feel able not only to answer the specific and detailed questions which I have asked, but to say something further about the general comments which I have made on the incentive, or disincentive, policies of the Government, and about longer-term Government thinking and policy in this difficult matter of family poverty.
    I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to tell the House that the Government are engaged in a full-scale policy review which will obviate the need for a scheme which is riddled with anomalies and which suffers from major defects in trying to deal with family poverty.
    11.3 p.m.
    Mr. Dean: With the leave of the House, perhaps I may deal briefly with some of the points raised during the debate. I am grateful to the House for the general welcome which, I think, has

    1551
    been given to these regulations, particularly by my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, North-West (Mr. McLaren), Uxbridge (Mr. Curran) and Birmingham, Perry Bar (Mr. Kinsey). I am grateful, too, for the kind comments made by a number of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
    The hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) expressed regret that we needed this scheme. As my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr said, while we have the problem of low wages which are below the supplementary benefit level this is a practical way of dealing with the problem. That is really the main reason for a scheme of this kind.
    The hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris), asked me about the Post Office superannuation scheme increased contributions. I was not aware of any particular difficulty which is arising for this group of people, but I will gladly look at the point he raised, because it may well be that there is experience here which will guide us as to the future of the scheme.
    The hon. Member for Provan asked me a number of questions but first welcomed the co-operation which is growing up now between the various Departments not only so much for exchange of information but in ensuring that a group of people who get one benefit and are automaticaly entitled to another, or should get another, know about it.
    I mention this not only in respect of the Department of Education and Science, but also because it applies equally in Scotland and Wales. We expect to—and have undertaken to—provide the House with as much information as we can as soon as we have it available and it has been assessed as to whom the low earners are and what working groups they fall into.
    The hon. Gentleman mentioned also the multiplicity of means tests and asked what we were hoping to achieve, particularly with the test administered by local authorities. It is broadly the case that most means tests administered at the centre are within the automatic passport arrangements and are therefore linked to F.I.S. in this way, or will be fairly shortly. We are discussing with the local authority associations the possibility of extending the passport arrangement into other fields,
    1552
    but it is too early to say what the outcome of discussions will be.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge welcomed particularly the help to the one-parent family, the vast majority of which parents are women, and he asked me whether I could say how many of these women who are benefiting have illegitimate children. I cannot give him a precise figure for them, because we do not ask questions about the status of the mother. We are anxious not to cause embarrassment, and that is why I cannot give the information.
    My hon. Friend also asked about the forms available in Post Offices and other places and asked whether it would not be a good idea for the leaflet explaining the scheme and the form of application to be available together. We pride ourselves in the Department that we are fast workers, and I can tell him that the new leaflet incorporating the form is now ready and if the House passes the regulations tonight it will be available tomorrow. It will take a little time to get it to his post office but I hope he will agree that we have responded with admirable promptitude to his suggestion.
    The hon. Member for the Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) spoke about the one-parent family, and mentioned the Finer Committee, which will give us valuable guidance on what additional help can be given to the one-parent family, as soon as it reports.
    The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) made some points about the scheme, mentioning in particular the disincentive effect, and quoted the Economist. But he stopped in the middle of a sentence, and, in fairness to this excellent and balanced report, I should complete the sentence. It goes on, after a semi-colon:
    "the corollary to its ' disincentive' effect is that those who suffer a decline in earnings are cushioned from the blow, since F.I.S. is designed to make up half the difference between actual income and some prescribed figure".
    It goes on to deal with the disincentive point which the hon. Member raised. It adds:
    "But a man who earns more but does not only lose F.I.S., but other benefits as well, so that theoretically he may even be worse off than he was before. In practice, this is avoided because the different benefits are altered at different moments through the year and F.I.S., for example, is awarded for six months".

    1553
    This is a particularly effective way of putting the point, though it is not to say that we minimise the problem. There is a problem, and we are looking at it. We are simply saying that the wrong way to deal with it is to say, "We will not give these families any help at all." That would be a counsel of despair.
    Mr. Kinsey: Is it not a fact that as F.I.S. does the job it is intended to do—namely, to bring the total sum up to the desired level—there is less need for the cushion, as it were?
    Mr. Dean: Yes, and the scheme is not intended to carry people for ever, so to speak. It is designed to give them a lift while their earnings are low, and when their earnings rise the need for F.I.S. naturally diminishes. However, we must be careful not to get a sudden disincentive effect, and the spreading of the benefits and, above all, the award of F.I.S. over six months, irrespective of earnings, helps to deal with this problem. We must work to make these arrangements better than they are, but it is fair to say that we are aware of this problem and are dealing with it.
    The hon. Member for Rotherham went on to mention the tax structure. Considering the record of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Government of which he was a member, I was surprised at his comments. His right hon. Friend was responsible for seeing that in a tax structure in which one has a very small margin between the area where tax is paid and where supplementary benefit is available, the problem was greatly accentuated. My right hon. Friend has at least begun to tackle this problem, and the improvement in the child allowances has been a big step in that direction.
    Mr. O'Malley: I referred not to the tax structure but to the tax benefit structure, and it is the case that the poorest families who are not paying tax receive less financial consideration from the State through the child tax allowances and clawback system than the standard rate taxpayer, who gets the full advantages of the child tax allowance, in addition to family allowance.
    Mr. Dean: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not seek to deny that
    1554
    we have through F.I.S., whatever the effect of the tax arrangements, given substantial additional net help to these groups of people, who are some of the poorest in the land.
    The hon. Member for Rotherham then asked about take-up and mentioned the figure of one-third. I do not think he was speaking of the family income supplement. Be that as it may, I repeat that the take-up figures are improving all the time. Overall, they are about 50 per cent., but the important point is that for those families who are most in need of F.I.S. and who are getting £2 or more, the take-up figure is at least three-quarters and may be even higher.
    I gave the cost figures. The estimate of £8 million for the first full year takes into account the increase in the prescribed amounts in this Instrument. The hon. Gentleman asked whether those who are getting a payment now will automatically get the increase of £1 when the uprating comes into operation on 4th April. The answer to that is that they will. This will be automatically in their order books. We shall ensure that they get the increase.
    The hon. Gentleman also asked why we had not changed the £2. One could argue that the £2 could have been changed, but equally we felt that it was most appropriate on this occasion to improve the amount for the families and to improve the upper limit from the existing figure £4 to £5. That seemed to be the right order of priorities.
    I repeat that we are committed to review the whole scheme after 12 months. There is no doubt that we are learning from experience. In introducing a new scheme of this kind, one learns far more from the practical operation of the scheme about needy groups and where the scheme can be improved. With great respect to surveys, one learns far more from practical operations. When we review the scheme after 12 months' operation we shall be able to introduce improvements to it, both in its working and in its effectiveness in covering those groups of people that we all wish to see covered.
    I am grateful to the House for the remarks which have been made. I hope

    1555
    that this Statutory Instrument will be approved.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That the Family Income Supplements (Computation) Regulations 1972, a draft of which was laid before this House on 18th January, be approved.

    NORTHERN IRELAND LOANS ORDER
    11.16 p.m.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): I beg to move,
    That the Northern Ireland Loans (Increase of Limit) Order 1972, a draft of which was laid before this House on 20th December, be approved.
    The Order increases by a further £50 million the amount which is available for lending from the National Loans Fund to the Northern Ireland Government. The House will recollect that under the Finance Act, 1970, there was an original limit of £50 million on this lending, but the limit can be raised by the same amount on up to three occasions by order. Last April the House accepted the first of these orders which I moved, and during the debate on it, I indicated, in reply to a question from the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), that it might be necessary to come back for a second order within the twelve-month; and so it has proved.
    The Northern Ireland Government have not yet exhausted the whole of the £50 million made available under that order, but they are likely to do so fairly soon. In view of the uncertainties of the situation, we thought it desirable to seek Parliamentary approval for an increase in good time.
    Also last April I indicated to the House the broad purposes for which the money is to be available, and I explained how those purposes are broadly settled between the Westminster and Stormont Governments. Since then we have had the report of the Cairncross review body, which recommended, among other things, that a finance corporation should be set up in order to help the Northern Ireland economy. The legislation setting this up will fall to be introduced into the Northern Ireland Parliament and has not yet
    1556
    been so introduced. Therefore, it is not possible for me to go into any great detail as to what will be involved, but it is envisaged that some of the money which passes from the National Loans Fund to the Northern Ireland Government under this Order may be made available to that finance corporation if and when it is set up. It is right to point out to the House that the scope for the spending of the money passed by these orders may in future be somewhat wider than it was when I spoke to the House on the last order.
    The Order has been reported on by the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. I commend it to the House. If hon. Members have any queries to raise, perhaps, if I catch your eye at the end of the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I can deal with the questions in reply.
    11.20 p.m.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: The House will not wish to deny the passage of the Order, but I wish to raise a number of issues which, given the great interest in Northern Ireland, should form part of the wider discussion which is taking place. It is important that we know more about the machinery of government between Westminster and Northern Ireland in respect of the National Loans Fund expenditure involved in the Order. There is much talk about the wider relationship between Westminster and Northern Ireland. Solutions have been offered in many documents and newspaper articles. It would assist the discussion of this question if we knew more about the financial relationship between Westminster and Northern Ireland.
    On delving into the subject recently, I have been struck by the fact that, to obtain information about this relationship between the two Governments, it is necessary to look in many corners.
    The Financial Secretary explained again this year that under the Finance Act, 1970, the borrowing powers were 15 million units, so to speak, but could be increased by order. Last year we had £50 million. This year we have another £50 million. I presume the time is coming when we shall have to look at the whole matter again, because we can have only one more bite at the cherry, and I question, whether this is the appropriate way of setting about it.

    1557
    How is the required sum calculated? I know from experience that there is a direct line between the Home Department and Northern Ireland. Where does the Treasury come into it? Does the Treasury talk direct to Northern Ireland, or does it talk through the Home Office? In the Finance Acts, 1965 to 1969, the sum rose from £70 million to £120 million to £170 million. The figures are different as a result of the 1970 legislation. What bearing does an increase have on the macroneeds of United Kingdom finances, a major reason for establishing the National Loans Fund originally to finance the nationalised industries, local authorities, and even private bodies? Do the Government say that there are the overall needs of the United Kingdom but that, Northern Ireland being what it is, there shall be no relative limit?
    Last February's issue of the accounts of the National Loans Fund states merely—
    "Loan transactions appearing in the National Loans Fund account in respect of which no account is included in this volume."
    —and then it says "Northern Ireland" and gives the figure. In this form the accounts of the National Loans Fund do not tell one much about the finance of Northern Ireland. Why is there not a separate volume dealing with the finances of Northern Ireland?
    Keeping within the rules of order on the National Loans Fund, it is helpful to consider why the finance should be in the form of loans. One could judge how much should be in the form of loans if the same document contained details of the Joint Exchequer Board's decision on the share of the national taxes that are given to Northern Ireland and if one also knew how much went to Northern Ireland in the form of agricultural subsidies, R.E.P., social services and—I am hesitant on this point because it has not been possible for me to check it—the extra money given, at least by the previous Administration as I recall, which came under the heading of
    "Monies to relieve the present distress".
    If the finances of Northern Ireland were presented together we could consider, in particular, the question of loans from the National Loans Fund. Of course, it was right, as the previous Administration said, and as was reaffirmed by my
    1558
    right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. James Callaghan) in Command paper 4178, to cover the agreed capital requirements of Northern Ireland on a continual basis. It was difficult for Northern Ireland to raise these loans on the market.
    To which "on-lending" purposes—that was the expression used by the Financial Secretary last year—are we agreeing tonight in approving this Order? It used to be the Northern Ireland Housing Trust and it used to be, and maybe it still is, because they are in a transitory position, new towns and local government. The Northern Ireland Housing Executive is taking over all these responsibilities. We are providing money tonight for the Electricity Board for Northern Ireland and also money for the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Co. This intrigues me because last night we abolished the Transport Holding Co. in this country. Does the Westminster Government have no say in how this money should be spent? I have looked at the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company's accounts and its activities make most interesting reading. Do the Ulster Government simply ask for money for this company or do our Government refuse to provide it because we have abolished such a company here?
    There is also the Northern Ireland Finance Corporation, which is another title for the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation. Do the Westminster Government suggest that because they have abolished the I.R.C. here, it would be foolish to have a similar lender of last resort in Northern Ireland?
    Money is provided for education and rates and the Northern Ireland development programme. Do the Westminster Government get involved in any way in the development programme that has been announced? In arriving at the sum for which we are being asked, do they take into account, other than the monies "to relieve present distress", the amount of destruction that is taking place in Northern Ireland?
    Is industrial development taken into account through the National Loans Fund? If not, why not? I ask because in the Report of the Shipbuilding Industry Board, a Westminster document of 2nd August, I find that grants were given to

    1559
    Harland and Wolff under Sections 3 and 5 of the 1967 Act. The board was ended at the end of last year. I accept that grants are involved, but how will the Westminster Government now provide the money for Harland and Wolff, given the demise of the board? Will that have any bearing on the monies we are being asked to vote?
    Apparently the money we are to grant tonight must be spent on capital projects. I think I am using the words the Financial Secretary used last year. These projects are described in agreements between the two Governments. The hon. Gentleman also said last year that the Government do not specify but that the Northern Ireland Government specify certain broad categories. Where can we find out what those broad categories are? I have not been able to find them. They should be readily available.
    There is, quite properly, a great deal of discussion here and in Northern Ireland about changes in the representation of Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland. In the discussions, which I presume are conducted by the Home Office, though the Treasury provides the money, is anything said about such matters? For example, when money is provided for the Electricity Board for Northern Ireland, is anything said about the number and type of people on the board? I am seeking not to make the sort of speech now that becomes involved in the delicate problems of Northern Ireland, but it was brought to my notice that none of the five members was a Catholic. I do not know whether that position has altered.
    My last point has a bearing on the fact that we are providing money out of the National Loans Fund. By the signing during the past week of the Treaty of Accession in Brussels, both the United Kingdom and Eire—and, therefore, Northern Ireland and Eire—are in the same trading organisations. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury may not be able to explain the ramifications off the cuff, but do we have any comitment to report these sums of money from the National Loans Fund to Brussels? If so, as may well be the case in terms of macro decisions that I understood were under discussion, is there any question of co-ordination with other members of the Ten, as they will be, and in that case with Eire?
    1560
    It might be a good idea, because I have notice from the Press during the last couple of days that the Prime Minister has expressed the view that if we had been in the European Economic Community in 1961, the Northern Ireland conflict would not have arisen; economic developments would have taken place which would have muted it. I simply ask whether, in terms of loans and, therefore, capital infusion into Northern Ireland, there could be any discussions as a result of our going into Europe in which the Eire Government would be involved.
    There is much discussion about Northern Ireland. Financial support is vital. But why not let us have the information, by way of an annual report, over the whole spectrum so that we can come to a clearer decision about the need for this sort of money? I express the hope that before we meet again to discuss loans from the National Loans Fund to Northern Ireland—and at the present rate that might not be too far distant—we shall have heard news of major political steps which the Government have taken in that unhappy Province, because in discussing finance prosaically, as we are tonight, we cannot forget the major political problems that exist there.
    11.37 p.m.
    Mr. Rafton Pounder: I do not feel that this occasion can pass without saying two things. The first is to express sincere thanks and gratitude to Her Majesty's Government for increasing the borrowing powers of the Northern Ireland Government, particularly at this time. The Government have shown very considerable financial generosity to Northern Ireland, as the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) said. That financial assistance should be understood, acknowledged and appreciated.
    As I understand the position, the £50 million which is the subject of the Order is for capital expenditure projects and developments in the Province. It is in no way earmarked for repairing the ravages of terrorism. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will correct me if I read it wrongly. Nor do I assume that the £50 million which is suggested for the funding of the Cairn-cross Finance Corporation, if I may call it that, would necessarily automatically be the same amount as we are putting forward tonight, although anything that is

    1561
    left over from this £50 million may go to the funds of the new finance corporation when it is formed.
    My second point concerns the capital expenditure on development projects for which the funding envisaged in the order will be used because, despite what may be claimed in certain quarters—that over the past three years of terrorism Northern Ireland has been brought to its knees—Ulster is getting on with the job, as I hope to show, and this underscores the timeliness of the order at this juncture.
    When one thinks of Government funding in Northern Ireland, one inevitably thinks of the current tragic rate of unemployment of 8·9 per cent., or, to express it another way, 11 per cent. of the male population. Government finance can assist substantially in creating employment opportunities, and thereby reducing that awful figure of 8·9 per cent.
    The Northern Ireland Government succeed in attracting investment other than that which comes directly from the Treasury, as the statistics for the last quarter of 1971 show. We attracted more money in that period than in the corresponding period of 1970—£7½ million in the last quarter of 1971.
    I assume that some of the funding of this loan will go to the Local Economic Development Unit which was established this year under the aegis of the Ministry of Commerce. Its function is to promote small industrial projects in rural areas, and it has already created 800 jobs. On the job front, quoting statistics of the last quarter of 1971 against the last quarter of 1969, the number of jobs created in that three-month period was only 10 fewer in 1971 than in 1969.
    The Minister of Finance in Stormont last week outlined capital expenditure of £18½ million, which I assume in part to be the residue of the previous £50 million loan granted by Parliament and in part the sum which I hope will be granted tonight. I presume this will also be used for apprenticeship training, which has increased by 25 per cent. in the last year.
    Reference has been made to the Housing Trust, now the Housing Executive. In the last calendar year Northern Ireland built more houses than at any time in its history. A comparative figure for England would be a rate of 450,000
    1562
    houses a year, which I am told by English standards is a fairly substantial number.
    I apologise for having used more statistics in one speech than in any of the speeches I have made since I first came here. This being a financial order, it is important not only to get on the record the purposes for which one hopes the money will be used, but also to give some idea of the purposes for which previous loan funds have been used.
    When one looks at the five-year development programme for which the last £50 million was in part used, one finds that in its first year, 1971, school building, health and welfare and industrial training programmes are right on target. Whereas industrial production in the United Kingdom has increased by 2·6 per cent. in the last two years, in Northern Ireland the increase has been 11 per cent. and in manufacturing industry 14 per cent.
    This £50 million which we hope the House will grant is most welcome and timely, and will be of enormous assistance. It is well known that high unemployment inevitably contributes to community troubles. Despite the bombs and bullets of the terrorists and the drenching publicity which Northern Ireland has had to endure, it can be seen that the silent majority is getting on with the job of developing Ulster's economy, and this £50 million injection will be most welcome. I warmly and whole-heartedly support the Order.
    11.43 p.m.
    Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: Having listened to some passages of the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder), one might be forgiven for wondering why the House thinks it necessary to make available so much more money to Northern Ireland. I welcome the increase although, like my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees), since such a large sum of money is involved, I want to raise some questions on the use to which it will be put.
    I echo the question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) to the Financial Secretary last year about how the money is being spent and how it is being accounted for. The Financial

    1563
    Secretary has come to the House tonight no better equipped to answer that question than he was last year. He said last year—and this is more than he has said tonight:
    "… one must look to publications of the Northern Ireland Government to find out how the money has been spent. It is not detailed in this country. I am told that there are publications, in much the same way as we would have for our National Loans Fund, detailing the expenditure which the Northern Ireland Government have made drawing on the money they have borrowed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th April, 1971; Vol. 815, c. 408.]
    He said that he indicated the broad purposes last year. They were very broad and I hope that he will have more to say tonight, not merely about how the money is being spent but about the priorities. The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneux) in the discussion last year on a similar order spoke for less than a minute, and uttered fewer than 50 words. The only two objects of expenditure he thought necessary for the money then being made available were the motorway system and the development of Belfast Airport. This was given the state of affairs in Northern Ireland and the condition of the people there. This is not a condition to which they have been suddenly reduced but is a condition which for many has been a permanent state of affairs.
    Mr. Pounder: As I was present when my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneux) made that speech, I should tell the hon. Gentleman—and I know he is not trying to be unfair—that the two points my hon. Friend raised were both constituency matters.
    Mr. Duffy: It seems remarkable that his hon. Friend could not have gone on to say a further word about other purposes to which the money might be devoted. I cannot find in the speech of the hon. Gentleman a year ago much evidence of urgency. If last year's loan and its distribution is any guide, then half of the monies now being made available will go to local authorities. Is there not a case for a larger share to go to the housing authority? Given the reference of my hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition on Monday to the setting up of the I.R.C., I am tempted to ask whether some of this money will go to the I.R.C., and how much will
    1564
    go to the development programme. How much might yet go to investment grants, as we are led to understand there is a considerable attachment in Northern Ireland to the continued use of these?
    Does the Minister envisage some of this money being made available to Harland and Wolff'? I raise these matters for three reasons. First because it could mean that there will be less money available for local authorities and therefore for infrastructure and consequently less money to relieve the social conditions of the people; and, secondly, it could be that we are being asked to make money available for purposes which conflict with Government policy. Thirdly, it could be that we are being asked by the Government to support policies which will seem to be in conflict with those of the E.E.C.
    The 96th annual report of the Public Works Loan Board for 1970–71 seems to suggest that the recipient local authorities in Northern Ireland are in a highly favourable position compared with those in this country. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition on Monday had something to say on that. My right hon. Friend said:
    "We have hard-hit regions in England and Wales and Scotland which are entitled to the same remedies."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th January, 1972; Vol. 829, c. 1011.]
    That is certainly true of my own division. Attercliffe Common, which runs through the centre of the constituency, reminds me of the Falls Road, which I know very well. The whole of South Yorkshire has social and industrial problems which are every bit as urgent as those of any part of Northern Ireland outside the Falls Road area of Belfast and the Bogside area of Derry.
    When hon. Members talk about unemployment of just under 9 per cent. in Northern Ireland, I wonder whether they know that there are parts of South Yorkshire where unemployment is higher than that and has been for the last two or three years.
    The days of open-ended British financial commitment to Northern Ireland are over. The Finance Act, 1970, provides for a further order, similar to this, presumably for a bigger tranche next time. That order will be subject to much more scrutiny than it has been possible to give to this. It may not receive the same warm welcome. It may even come in

    1565
    for some opposition unless there is some evidence during the next few months that the purposes to which this money will be devoted are broadly consistent not only with the bringing about of peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland but also with the promotion of constructive policies of the kind described by the Leader of the Opposition two months ago.
    11.53 p.m.
    Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: I share the anxieties expressed by hon. Members opposite, particularly the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) about the extent to which we may, in this order, be abrogating our financial responsibilities in this matter. I do not want to be a "macro" like the hon. Member for Leeds, South: I shall be a "micro". I am concerned with a specific aspect of the order.
    It may seem strange that an hon. Member representing a Scottish constituency should be concerned about this, but my hon. Friend explained that one of the purposes for which these funds could be used was the establishment of the Northern Ireland Finance Corporation, which was announced after the publication of the Cairncross Report last year. I am by no means an enthusiast for the idea of this corporation. It was described at the time of its announcement as a Northern Ireland I.R.C.
    I was delighted that my right hon. Friends decided to enter that disreputable body on this side of St. George's Channel, and I believe it is a mistake to establish it on the other side. However, I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would become impatient with me if I were to go into the demerits of the establishment of this retrograde body on the other side of St. George's Channel, so I do not intend to do so.
    What I am concerned about is an aspect of the accountability of this body. I understand that the Northern Ireland Finance Corporation when set up will be answerable exclusively to the Northern Ireland Government. Therefore, once we vote funds to provide for the establishment of this body, we in this House will in effect disembarrass ourselves of responsibility for how these funds are spent.
    There is one aspect of this which concerns me not a little. It has been drawn
    1566
    to my attention that there is functioning in Northern Ireland at present a company which is in direct competition with a company operating in my own constituency. This is why I am participating in this debate. I am not mentioning names, though I think my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary has the name of the company concerned, for reasons which I think will become clear to the House and because my essential argument concerns not the point but the general point. I use this instance of the anxiety which arose in my constituency simply to illustrate a general point.
    The particular point is that a company in my constituency is in direct competition with a company in Northern Ireland—a company which, as I understand it, could be a recipient of funds from this new body which it is proposed to set up in whole or in part with funds which this House will vote tonight. I understand that this company in Northern Ireland has for several years quoted substantially lower prices for its products than all its competitors in the rest of the United Kingdom. I should be the last to complain about that. I would ask, "Why not?". But the company in Northern Ireland traded at a substantial loss in 1966, it has traded at a substantial loss in 1970, and again on the latest accounts in the first six months of 1971. I am advised—and this is one reason I do not quote the names concerned—that technically it may well have been in a position of bankruptcy. Last year I understand that it negotiated a loan from the Northern Ireland Government. It is obviously a potential recipient—and I emphasise the word "potential"—of loans from the new Northern Ireland Finance Corporation.
    We all realise the very real and special problems in Northern Ireland and, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) pointed out, there is a strong case for reducing levels of unemployment in Northern Ireland to assist with the problems in the Province. But I suggest that it would be intolerable if this finance corporation, set up with funds which we vote tonight, were to help finance a company which, in a technical sense at any rate, has been bankrupt and thereby enable it to undersell and even perhaps to induce the closure of a viable company in the same industry in my constituency

    1567
    which happens to operate in a burgh where the level of unemployment is at present higher than it is in Northern Ireland. It seems to me that that is not an acceptable possibility.
    When my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced the prospective establishment of a Northern Ireland Finance Corporation at the end of November, he said that it would be
    "…a finance corporation which will offer help over the next three years to undertakings which have reasonable long-term prospects but are faced with particular needs at present."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th November, 1971: Vol. 827, c. 50.]
    It is an entirely acceptable proposition that companies assisted by this finance corporation should be those which have particular needs resulting from the emergency situation in Northern Ireland but which also clearly have reasonable long-term prospects. All that I ask my hon. Friend is whether he can give us an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will make it their business to ensure that the funds that we vote tonight are not channelled into companies which do not have "reasonable long-term prospects", thereby undermining the viability of competitive firms in the United Kingdom which have reasonable long-term prospects.
    I believe that that is not an unreasonable undertaking to request from the Government at a time when we are voting funds for the purpose in part of establishing this corporation which, once established, will be essentially outwith the control of this House.
    12.3 a.m.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: This order has been generally welcomed on both sides of the House, perhaps with the exception of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy), who put to us a somewhat remarkable proposition when he said that the days of open-ended finance for Northern Ireland were over. I do not know when he thought that they ever existed.
    Mr. Duffy: I did not say that. I said that the days of open-ended British financial commitment to Northern Ireland were over. It is well known that that is the view of the Prime Minister.
    Mr. Jenkin: I took down the hon. Gentleman's words carefully because what he said struck me as being a very remarkable proposition. The financial commitment to Northern Ireland has never been open-ended. So far as we are discussing finance available under Section 35 of the Finance Act, 1970, passed when the previous Administration were in power, and by orders made under Section 35, it is most specifically limited to £50 million under the Act and no more than three subsequent tranches of £50 million each. I cannot see how anyone making a pretence to understand the English language can describe that as "open-ended".
    More serious is the fact that I believe that the hon. Gentleman is speaking only for himself when he challenges the sums that we are discussing tonight of capital spending in Northern Ireland. I wonder whether the view which he has expressed is shared by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) or, indeed, the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) who followed me earlier in the debate.
    The truth—it needs to be stated frequently—is that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, and the United Kingdom has a unified capital market. The inhabitants of Northern Ireland invest in British Government securities and in many of the National Savings media which feed the National Loans Fund. Therefore, it is wholly appropriate that the Northern Ireland Government should be able to borrow from the National Loans Fund.
    The hon. Member for Leeds, South asked a formidable number of questions arising from what is a very short order. However, I will try to answer his points. If there are any of the more technical matters which I do not answer tonight, I will study HANSARD the day after tomorrow and perhaps write to him further.
    The hon. Gentleman asked about the machinery of the financial relationship between Westminster and Stormont. This, as one might expect, is not to be found in a very clearly defined institutional framework. It goes on continuously. On financial matters, it is fair to say that the Treasury is in the lead, but naturally co-operating and consulting fully with my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Home Department.

    1569
    The hon. Gentleman asked how the global sum is decided and how the totals are worked out. I assure him that the Northern Ireland Government participate fully in the whole of the P.E.S.C. machinery, which is the basis for the determination of the aggregates of public spending in the whole of the United Kingdom. This system works with increasing sophistication, and it would obviously be important, where money is passing through the National Loans Fund to a provincial Administration like the Northern Ireland Government, that they should participate in the P.E.S.C. system, as they do.
    I can understand the request that the accounts of the National Loans Fund might show in more detail the outgoings relating to Northern Ireland. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will have this matter looked into. I cannot promise that anything will emerge, but we will certainly study the problem to see whether something might be done on that basis.
    A number of hon. Members asked the same question which was asked last April: for what purposes is the on-lending spent? Under the terms of the 1970 Act, this is for capital spending. It feeds what might be called the common stockpot of money available to the Northern Ireland Government for capital spending. There is no separate allocation of this money which would be separable and different from the allocation which the Northern Ireland Government can raise by Treasury bills, by short-term borrowing, or by the Northern Ireland savings certificates. However, there is broad agreement between the two Governments—the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe, referred to this point—on the main headings on which spending may be put. I can give the House an indication of what they are. They must be capital purposes, as required by the Act. The money which we would be voting tonight will be used for on-lending by the Northern Ireland Government. They expect about half of it to go for housing.
    I was asked about housing. The Housing Executive is in the course of taking over housing from the Northern Ireland local authorities. For the most part, on-lending in future will go to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. Nearly one-quarter will go to the North-
    1570
    ern Ireland Electricity Board for electricity investment, and the balance will be split about equally between the new finance corporation—I shall come to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne)—and general local authority services other than housing.
    Some indication of the breadth of the spending which might come in that last head was given in the statement by the Minister of Finance, Mr. Kirk, on 20th January—it was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder)—which gave a long list of spending. Some of it is revenue spending, and therefore not eligible to be financed by this money, but obviously some of it is capital spending—education, new nursery schools, industrial training and training schools. Those are included in the spending, and in so far as that is capital, it would be eligible to be financed by this money from the National Loans Fund.
    The reality of the position is that within the broad framework agreed with the Westminster Government, the Northern Ireland Administration are responsible and accountable for the spending of the money. This is money which is lent to them and then comes under their jurisdiction. I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus that the money passes out of the control of this House, but our control is exercised at this stage by the continuing agreement between Westminster and Stormont. It is inherent in the nature of the relationship between the Stormont Government and Westminster that once the money is in the hands of the Stormont Government they are responsible for deciding the priorities within the range of heads which I have indicated.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: This is obviously a difficult matter to assess in discussions between Governments in the way that has developed over the years, but from what the Financial Secretary said it appears that there could be money for training grants if it came under the heading of capital. I presume that it must be industrial training but it must come under the heading of capital. That is fair enough.
    The Northern Ireland Government provide investment grants. The investment grant system can be used for capital purposes. The Government at Westminster

    1571
    do not agree with investment grants. Have there been discussions about this, or is this entirely a matter for the Northern Ireland Government, bearing in mind that the Government here have strong views about these grants or they would not have ended them here?
    Mr. Jenkin: I am not sure how far I can go in answering that, because I must be careful, as all Ministers speaking from this Dispatch Box must be, not to trespass in any way on matters which are the prerogative of the Northern Ireland Government. But there was considerable discussion with the Northern Ireland Government, when the system of investment incentives was under review in this country, about what would be the consequences in Northern Ireland of the ending of investment grants, and what reasonable alternative measures they might take. Investment grants were provided in Northern Ireland long before they were introduced here by the Labour Party in 1966, and the system still operates there. It is justified on the grounds of the overall average higher level of unemployment and the economic difficulties which they have faced over a long period.
    I think that I must be cautious on the question of training grants. It is not covered by the terms of the agreement with the Treasury, and one would imagine that, overwhelmingly, money spent on industrial training would be of a revenue nature, and not capital. Perhaps I might, therefore, qualify what I said earlier by that statement.
    The hon. Gentleman asked about the money voted for the relief of distress. That is of an entirely different nature. That was a United Kingdom donation of £250,000 in 1969, up to £400,000 this year, and it goes partly for what may be described as charitable purposes. This in no sense finances the Northern Ireland Government. No doubt they have a considerable say in its administration but it is an entirely separate sum and nothing to do with what we are discussing tonight.
    It is clear that money under this order is not available for industrial development, except insofar as some of it will now pass through the Finance Corporation and come within the scope of its lending—and it will be lending and not grant-aiding. None of this money will
    1572
    go to Harland and Wolff. It would be extremely unlikely that the Finance Corporation would put money into Harland and Wolff, since the Northern Ireland Government have put a lot of money into the company and have a 49 per cent. equity stake in it. That is since the last order.
    Hon. Members asked where they could find the categories. Here, I fear I must give the answer that I gave to a similar question last year, that details of this spending are to be found in documents published by the Northern Ireland Government, not in documents which we publish here. The National Loans Fund Accounts show that the money moves from the Fund to the Northern Ireland Government, who are responsible for the spending of it, are accountable for it, and publish the details.
    The hon. Member for Leeds, South asked about what was said during discussions and took as an example the type of people who are members of the Electricity Board. That is perhaps a matter for my right hon. Friends at the Home Office, but I remind him that the Northern Ireland Government are pledged to non-discrimination and are pursuing that policy.
    He raised the question about reporting to Brussels on co-ordination with the Ten, but that is a matter on which I can give no help tonight. I will look into it, however, and if there seems to be a reply that I can give, I will write to the hon. Member.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South was right when he said that this money was not available for repairing, as he put it, "the ravages of terrorism", but is money for capital development under the broad headings I have described—although it will go to supply employment opportunities and reinforce the £18·5 million programme which Mr. Kirk announced on 20th January. I am sure the House was encouraged by the figures he gave of the astonishing growth in industrial production in Northern Ireland in the last few years—growth in spite of the trouble, growth which offers considerable hope for the future of that part of the United Kingdom.
    Finally, may I turn to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member

    1573
    for South Angus. I fully understand his anxieties. I am glad that he welcomed the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 29th November in which he said that the money available to the Northern Ireland Government will offer help
    "… over the next three years to undertakings which have reasonable long-term prospects but are faced with the particular needs at present."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th November, 1971; Vol. 827, c. 50.]
    Perhaps it will help my hon. Friend if I enlarge on that by quoting the Minister of Commerce in Northern Ireland, Mr. Robin Baillie, who said on 16th December, 1971, in the Northern Ireland Parliament—as reported at column 1358
    of their OFFICIAL REPORT:
    "The Corporation will offer assistance to firms which, because of the current situation in Northern Ireland, are suffering serious liquidity problems but which, in the words of the report, have reasonably good prospects of solvency in the longer term and have a useful contribution to make to the economic life of Northern Ireland".
    This in a sense tightens up still further the language used by the Home Secretary in the debate on 29th November.
    My hon. Friend the Member for South Angus asked for an assurance which I cannot give him and I do not want him to be under any illusions about that. I cannot conceive that it would be in the interests of the Northern Ireland Government, given that the Finance Corporation will have a finite sum of £50 million, to have any part of that amount spent on bolstering up a firm of the description which my hon. Friend gave. To do so would seem to be financial, economic and indeed social folly.
    I will not begin to comment on the individual case. I have seen my hon. Friend's letter. but it must be clear from the terms of the Cairncross Report, from what the Home Secretary said and from what Mr. Baillie said on 16th November, that this is aimed at helping companies which are facing short-term liquidity problems as a result of the disturbances but which could not possibly be made available to a firm such as that which my hon. Friend described, which was in serious difficulties long before the troubles arose in 1969 and which would have no long-term hope of solvency. That is as far as I can go tonight on this subject.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I appreciate that there are limits to what my hon. Friend can say in this matter. However, would he agree that the phrase
    "reasonably good prospects of solvency in the longer-term"
    is a good deal less satisfactory than the phrase used by the Home Secretary, about undertakings which have " reasonable long-term prospects? " I am particularly concerned about this in view of the undertaking that my right hon. Friend gave to the House, and my hon. Friend will agree that there is some obligation on Her Majesty's Government to see that that undertaking is fulfilled.
    Mr. Jenkin: I accept that during the setting up of the Fund and the provision of the money there must be close consultation. This is, in fact, part of the day-to-day consultation that goes on. As I said at the outset, when answering a question from the hon. Member for Leeds, South, it is not possible to look for a clearly defined institutional framework within which these things are done. The relationship is close, harmonious and continuing, and that often gives the best results when one is dealing with a sensitive relationship of this sort.
    I entirely understand my hon. Friend's concern about, for example, the position of the Scottish firm in his constituency, and also the concern which my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) has expressed to me on a similar point. My hon. Friend will agree that Northern Ireland is a special case. The civil disturbances are having and have had a serious effect on some firms and, therefore, on the economy. Other parts of the United Kingdom have, happily, been spared this turbulence.
    The Cairncross Committee recommended that funds should be made available to help with this difficulty. That recommendation has been accepted by the Westminster and Stormont Governments and we rely on those who will administer this money to see that it is put to the purposes for which it is intended.
    I have done my best to answer most of the questions that have been put to me and I hope that hon. Members will now feel that it would be right to accept this Instrument. I appreciate the warm

    1575
    welcome it has received, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder). I, too, believe that it will play a vital and necessary part in maintaining confidence in the Northern Ireland economy and will provide the wherewithal with which the people of Northern Ireland can continue to enjoy the parity of treatment to which they are entitled under long-standing financial arrangements between the two Governments.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That the Northern Ireland Loans (Increase of Limit) Order 1972, a draft of which was laid before this House on 20th December, be approved.

    IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES (MARITIME CONSULTATIVE ORGANISATION)
    12.25 a.m.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Kershaw): I beg to move,
    That the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 16th December, be approved.
    This order seeks to give relief from vehicle excise duty to some officials of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation, which has a headquarters in London. This relief has hitherto been given by administrative action, but it is undesirable that it should permanently be done in that way. It is therefore desired to do the same thing under Statutory authority. That is the sole purpose of the order. I hope that the House will approve it.
    Question put and agreed to.

    IMPORT DUTIES ORDER
    12.26 a.m.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): I beg to move,
    That the Import Duties (General) (No. 11) Order 1971 (SI, 1971, No. 2043) dated 16th December 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th December, be approved.
    1576
    The order raises from 10 per cent. to 16 per cent. ad valorem the full rate of import duty on what might for convenience be called low-density polyethylene and polystyrene. Imports from the European Free Trade Area and the Irish Republic which satisfy the requisite conditions will continue to be free of duty.
    The tariff application was widely advertised and interested parties were given the opportunity to make known their views to the Department of Trade and Industry.
    I shall be able to deal with any points the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Brian Walden) may wish to raise, but at this hour I think that all I need say is that, having regard to all the circumstances, I consider it reasonable to grant United Kingdom producers of low-density polyethylene and polystyrene tariff parity with E.E.C. producers. I therefore commend the order to the House.
    12.27 a.m.
    Mr. Brian Walden: In view of the lateness of the hour, the Under-Secretary has put forward the order with becoming brevity. As the Opposition have no objection to the order, I do not intend to waste the time of the House.
    The trade itself has pressed for this rise in tariff rates. In pressing for it last March, the trade gave a pledge that no price increases would be involved. I hope that that will not be simply a ritual pledge and that prices will not rise. I hope that the Government ensure that the trade knows that the House took note of what it said and expects the trade, therefore, as far as is humanly possible, to honour that agreement and to bear in mind that although from time to time circumstances arise which occasion price increases, the House would not be too pleased, and nor would the Government, if prices were suddenly sharply raised as a result of the passing of the order.
    Mr. Anthony Grant: As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the Government were pleased that the industry publicly indicated last March that it was not its intention to increase domestic prices as a result of any tariff increase but rather to increase its capacity utilisation by improving its share of the United Kingdom

    1577
    market. I have no doubt that the industry will take note of what the hon. Gentleman said.
    Question put and agreed to.

    IMPORT DUTIES ORDER
      ADJOURNMENT
      Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Clegg.]

    HOSPITALS (NOTTINGHAM)
    12.29 a.m.
    Mr. William Whitlock: The problems of the hospital services in Nottingham, as indeed elsewhere, are many and varied. Tonight I want to deal with a narrow but very important aspect of them, that of building maintenance.
    However dedicated the nursing and medical staff of a hospital may be, all their wonderful work may be made harder by the inadequacy of the buildings in which they work, and it may be threatened by the deterioration of those buildings. The Department of Health and Social Security has plans for existing hospital buildings. The great "in" word in the Department these days seems to be "scenario", which conjures up beautiful pictures about our hospital service as it develops under those plans.
    Although it is essential to have plans for the future, in dreaming its wonderful dreams about the future the Department fails to see clearly some of the existing problems which stare it in the face. A battle is going on to preserve the fabric of older hospitals and I have the feeling that the Department is only dimly aware of the intensity and importance of this battle.
    To fight battles, generals are necessary, I suppose, but not too many of them, for they do not have to bear the heat and burden of the day where the action takes place. One often hears the somewhat cynical comment that when the Government do not wish to recognise a problem or attempt to solve it immediately, they appoint a Royal Commission. Recently I heard someone say rather bitterly that the Department has a variant on that approach; it appoints a committee and when it can no longer
    1578
    postpone doing something about the committee's report and recommendations, it appoints more generals at headquarters.
    The Committee of Inquiry on Hospital Building Maintenance and the Work of Building Supervisors stated about 18 months ago, after two years' work, in what is known as the Woodbine Parish Report, that greater attention to hospital building maintenance is necessary. All the signs now are that the outcome of that Report will be no more than the appointment of more generals at regional hospital board level instead of at the level where the augmentation of staff is really necessary—namely, at the hospitals. Over the years the staff at regional level has been greatly increased and it can be shown that those increases have not led to commensurate improvements in the lot of patients.
    All hospital groups have their building maintenance problems but tonight I shall deal specifically with the problems of the Trent Vale Hospital Group. The Group's Management Committee covers nine hospitals which, apart from a total cubic capacity of buildings in excess of 16 million cubic feet of occupied space, contain within their grounds approximately eight miles of roads and paths. The maintenance of those buildings, roads and grounds presents formidable problems which must he tackled by a supervisory building staff which is far too few in numbers and whose salary scales are much too low.
    Two of the hospitals have developed since the 1930s but the other seven date from 1870 onwards. Internally what one might call the social modernisation of the older hospitals has produced in the last 20 years complete transformations. In place of dark and dreary corridors and of wards calculated to depress the blithest of spirits, there is now bright, attractive accommodation which has its therapeutic effect on patients.
    The story of external maintenance is somewhat different, for, although much work has been done externally, a grossly under-staffed building supervisory team is fighting hard against the encroachments of decay, eking out finances totally inadequate for the struggle.
    I have seen at these hospitals how great the maintenance demands are. They involve correcting faulty or non-existent

    1579
    damp courses and the brickwork decay which results from these defective damp courses; replacing obsolete and corroding eves guttering which has permitted rain to penetrate and extensively to rot the roof timbers; doing a thousand and one jobs which include repairing broken windows, sash cords, doors and locks, floors, plaster surfaces, blocked drains, sanitary ware and so on. To supervise all these things within a group of nine hospitals, to carry out surveys, to draw up plans and programmes, to make decisions on priorities within the financial limits set, to prepare documents for competitive tendering, to prepare accounts, and to do all the things which the group building supervisor has to do, means that this official is faced with an exceedingly demanding job.
    In addition to organising and controlling these tasks he acts as a member of the group management teams and attends meetings on future planning projects, site meetings on capital schemes and so on. When I learned of the salary he is paid I was amazed that we were served by a man as competent as this who obviously could command so much more in pay in the building industry elsewhere. I was even more amazed when I was told of the permitted level of supervisory staff supporting him. But even that low establishment is not reached, because the salaries offered are so inadequate that staff cannot be found. Some of those employed against the establishment are temporary and some have qualification below the standard required.
    Recruitment to this department, as indeed to so many other departments of the hospital service, is seriously affected by the low salaries offered. It will not improve until realistic salaries bring in people who are badly needed if the continued life of our vitally necessary hospital buildings is to be assured. Massive infusions of labour and materials must also be forthcoming if further deterioration in the structure of the older buildings is to be avoided. If the money is made available now for Nottingham's hospitals and for hospitals throughout the country with the same building maintenance programme, and if the hospital building programme is expedited, that will make a large dent in the unemployment figures.
    Expenditure per head of populace on the medical and hospital services in the
    1580
    Sheffield Region has repeatedly been below the national average figure, and it has, of course, long been obvious that before the National Health Service was brought into being there was in the South of England better provisions for hospital and medical services than in other parts of the country. It has naturally been necessary for each successive government to continue to maintain the services already in being, but elimination of the imbalance between regions has nevertheless taken far too long. It is time the Sheffield region, and particularly the Nottingham area, had its fair share of the national cake available for the hospital service. It is time, too, that a new region was created with Nottingham as its centre, or, failing that admirable change, at least that the regional board was moved to headquarters in Nottingham.
    While there may be differences in treatment as between one part of the country and another in the allocation of money for hospital building and maintenance programmes, the Minister will no doubt say that all salaries are at national rates and are determined by the appropriate Whitley Council. But I hope that he will not shelter behind that argument. What the management side of each Whitley Council can offer the staff side in salaries largely depends on the limits to which the hon. Gentleman's Department permits it to go, and behind his Department is the cold, clutching hand of the Treasury, which sees to it that the Whitley Council can offer such inadequate salaries to hospital supervisory building staff while permitting Whitehall Departments—even, perhaps, the hon. Gentleman's own Department—to employ from private agencies teenage copy typists who can earn 87½p an hour. That is £35 for a 40-hour week, and the payment to the agencies includes a fee over and above the salary paid to the typists.
    Will the Minister please do something urgently to change this ridiculous situation before greater troubles hit our hospitals? Will he badger the Treasury until adequate sums of money are available to ensure that proper maintenance arrangements for our hospitals are made? Will he hound the Treasury night and day until in the Nottingham area we have a right, fair and proper share of

    1581
    the money that is made available for our hospital service?
    12.42 a.m.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Whitlock) has expressed concern about the shortage of building maintenance staff at supervisory and working levels at the Trent Vale Hospital Management Committee. The H.M.C. has not drawn attention to any special difficulty in recruiting staff in these categories of which I am aware. My information is that it has in post a building supervisor—an officer responsible for the planning and supervision of the building maintenance work of the group of hospitals for which the H.M.C. is responsible—supported by two assistant building supervisors. In addition, there are three general foremen, one foreman painter, one chargehand painter, one chargehand carpenter. and one chargehand bricklayer, as well as 14 painters, 12 carpenters, five bricklayers and eight building labourers—quite a substantial tally of staff to cover admittedly a group with a substantial number of hospitals and a substantial area of fabric to maintain. Although I said that I am not aware of any special difficulties, I know that the H.M.C. would like to employ an additional assistant building supervisor.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his predecessors have been concerned about the general standards of hospital building maintenance. The former Secretary of State, along with the then Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales, set up in 1968 a committee of inquiry on hospital building maintenance and the work of building supervisors under the chairmanship of Mr. David Woodbine Parish. So the hon. Gentleman's own right hon. Friend was not immune from the disease to which he drew attention of setting up committees.
    As the hon. Member has reminded the House, the committee reported in 1970. In sending copies of its report to hospital authorities my Department made it clear that the Secretary of State was in agreement with the committee's view that sound estate management required greater attention to building maintenance and the way it was organised and
    1582
    managed in hospitals. A number of specific recommendations required detailed consideration and consultation, in the first instance at least, with representatives of the hospital authorities and the professional and staff interests concerned. These considerations and consultations were carried out last year and in August, 1971, my right hon. Friend was able to issue full guidance on the subject to hospital authorities. So the committee and its work had not been abortive.
    This guidance was to the effect that in general my right hon. Friend accepted the recommendations in the Woodbine Parish Report as indicating ways in which management at all levels might be improved. In particular the responsibility of the Department to provide policy guidance on building maintenance and a monitoring framework was recognised and hospital authorities were advised that the aim would be to make available to those concerned with building maintenance at hospital boards and hospital management committees the same degree of professional and technical leadership, guidance and support as is already available on engineering maintenance. Hospital boards were reminded of their responsibility for preparing a co-ordinated regional plan for maintenance and for ensuring that hospital management committees instituted an effective organisation for building maintenance, applying the principles of planning, programming and financial control already recommended by my Department. This would entail budgeting for maintenance to meet approved and control programmes which accord with the regional plan and have the support of the boards' professional staff.
    My right hon. Friend accepts the need for monitoring building maintenance but he does not wish to dictate to hospital authorities the manner in which it should be carried out. He takes the view that building maintenance is a function of general management some will handle it one way, some another. He intends to set objectives and review performance rather than tie management to particular organisational solutions. What is essential is that for each hospital group there should be an officer accountable for building maintenance, technically qualified or with technical competence at his

    1583
    command and with a duty to ensure that professional advice, guidance and information is obtained from the regional architect.
    Hospital boards were also reminded of their responsibility for monitoring the maintenance programmes of H.M.C.s and—through their regional architect and regional engineer and their staffs—for providing technical officers with advice, guidance and information.
    The guidance to which I have referred went on to make it clear that hospital management committees were responsible for ensuring that a proper level of maintenance is carried out, avoiding extravagance and false economy and according to a comprehensive, ordered programme that covered all the hospitals in the group and was compatible with the regional plan. Obviously, the organisation adopted by H.M.C.s for this purpose might take various forms: single or separate building and engineering services, arrangements for using the maintenance services of another H.M.C. or their sharing and pooling arrangements. Technical responsibility for building maintenance would normally rest with a building supervisor, supported professionally by the regional architect.
    Although the Woodbine Parish Report recommended the introduction of an improved career structure involving a new grade of deputy building supervisor and the recruitment of trainee technicians as well as a higher level of qualification for building supervisors, the guidance from my Department to which I have referred could not cover these items as, along with salaries and conditions of service, such matters are for the Whitley Council that has building supervisors within its purview. I shall say something about this as I move on.
    I am aware that the Whitley Council has had a number of meetings at which the implications of the Woodbine Parish Report have been discussed. The council has also had under consideration a claim by the staff side for improved salaries for building supervisors as well as the allocation of responsibility for technical and managerial matters, levels of qualifications, protection for staff who are displaced and so on. Although full agreement between the two sides of the council on all these aspects, including re
    1584
    vised salaries, has not yet been reached, I understand that a further meeting of the Whitley Council has been arranged for Friday, 28th January. I hope that at that meeting the outstanding differences will be resolved so that steps can be taken to begin implementing the sort of staffing structure advocated by the Woodbine Parish Committee. This will obviously have a bearing on the effectiveness of several of the other intended measures to improve hospital building maintenance.
    The hon. Member has criticised the salary levels of building supervisors. Their present scales have been in operation since 1st July 1970 and no one would dispute that they are in need of improvement. As I have said, part of the task upon which the Whitley Council is currently engaged is to agree upon new salary scales but the scales now need to be set in the context of the new grading structure recommended by the Woodbine Parish Committee and to take into account that in future a higher standard of qualification will be expected of new entrants to the hospital service than in the past. Our hope is that the new grading and salary structure to be agreed upon in the Whitley Council—and, I hope, agreed soon—will set the pattern for the development of more attractive careers for building supervisors in hospital building maintenance attracting into the service a higher proportion than exists at present of the fully qualified supervisor able to provide the expertise that will lead to a marked improvement in the general level of maintenance. We look, therefore, for the increase in staff to be not in the region, as the hon. Gentleman said but in connection with the plant and needs on the ground at hospital level.
    I would here draw attention to recent changes in the grading structure and pay of hospital maintenance workers up to foreman level. During the past year agreement has been reached with the trade unions to grade all hospital works maintenance staff up to foreman level within a five-banded common grading structure based on job evaluation. Grading is determined by a requirement to exercise differing ranges of skill and responsibility allied to qualifications gained by training and/or experience. New rates of pay applicable to this grading structure were negotiated and applied in

    1585
    two stages dating from October 1970 and March 1971, and negotiations for a revision of these rates are currently taking place.
    There is another means of improving maintenance, by making fuller use of the craftsmen already employed, mainly by the introduction of incentive bonus schemes. My Department is anxious to see more incentive bonus schemes introduced for maintenance work as soon as circumstances permit. Progress with their installation is at present severely restricted by the availability of work study officers. Such staff as are available must for the time being be concentrated on schemes for more lowly-paid ancillary workers but, as more staff are trained, we should like to see incentive bonus schemes developed much more widely than at present. While there is no scheme as yet in operation at the Trent Vale H.M.C., if this H.M.C. considers there is scope for such a scheme I have no doubt that the possibilities can in due course be looked into.
    I hope that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate from what I have said that we are very much alive to the need for
    1586
    general improvement in the attention given by all hospital authorities to building maintenance. My Department will gladly consider further, with the H.M.C. and the Sheffield Regional Hospital Board, as the hon. Gentleman has brought them into the picture, any specific local problems on which the group consider that special advice is required.
    We will, therefore, look carefully at what the hon. Gentleman has said in the light of what he has said, which will appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and see what further we can do.
    Mr. Whitlock: I thank the Minister for his encouraging remarks. I trust that some of the hopes he has expressed will be fulfilled in the not-too-distant future. Some of the supervisory building maintenance staff feel that the guidance about which he has talked consists of telling existing staff, "Keep watch on your maintenance programme and your maintenance problems." This is something they are already doing.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to One o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT
  Rate Rebates (Income Limits)
  Rate Rebates (Income Limits)
  Water Rate
  Water Rate
  Housing Land (London)
  Housing Land (London)
  Housing Finance Bill (Hammersmith)
  Housing Finance Bill (Hammersmith)
  Council Houses (Sale)
  Council Houses (Sale)
  Construction Agency
  Construction Agency
  One-Bedroom Accommodation
  One-Bedroom Accommodation
  Vehicle Headlamps (Compulsory Use)
  Vehicle Headlamps (Compulsory Use)
  Housing Subsidies
  Housing Subsidies
  Road Improvements (East Anglia)
  Road Improvements (East Anglia)
  Dutton v. Bognor Regis U.D.C.
  Dutton v. Bognor Regis U.D.C.
  Waltham Forest (Housing List)
  Waltham Forest (Housing List)
  Single-Decker Buses (Road and Rail)
  Single-Decker Buses (Road and Rail)
  A5111, Allestree
  A5111, Allestree
  Local Planning Staff
  Local Planning Staff
  Rent Regulation
  Rent Regulation
  Land Prices (South Hampshire)
  Land Prices (South Hampshire)
  Imported American Cars (Test Requirements)
  Imported American Cars (Test Requirements)
  Improvement Grants
  Improvement Grants
  Petrol (Lead Content)
  Petrol (Lead Content)
  Green Belt Policy
  Green Belt Policy
  Motorway Construction (Compensation)
  Motorway Construction (Compensation)
  London Housing (Boroughs' Powers)
  London Housing (Boroughs' Powers)
  Housing Finance Bill (Islington)
  Housing Finance Bill (Islington)
  Motorways
  Motorways
  Railways (Container Freight)
  Railways (Container Freight)
  Housing Commissioner
  Housing Commissioner
  Unsupported Mothers (Housing)
  Unsupported Mothers (Housing)
  Buses (Electric Retarding)
  Buses (Electric Retarding)
  Self-Drive Hire Cars (Safety)
  Self-Drive Hire Cars (Safety)
  Direct-Labour Building (Durham)
  Direct-Labour Building (Durham)
  Coastline (Countryside Commission)
  Coastline (Countryside Commission)
  New Kent Road (Speed Limit)
  New Kent Road (Speed Limit)
  Roadside Land (Cultivation)
  Roadside Land (Cultivation)
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act
  Death of Schoolboy
  Death of Schoolboy
  Motor Coaches (Dual Braking)
  Motor Coaches (Dual Braking)
  Vehicle Testing
  Vehicle Testing
  Rail Services Withdrawal (Oldham-Rochdale)
  Rail Services Withdrawal (Oldham-Rochdale)
  Concessionary Fares
  Concessionary Fares
  Cambridge Roundabout, Edmonton
  Cambridge Roundabout, Edmonton
  Heavy Vehicles (Lighting)
  Heavy Vehicles (Lighting)
  Toxic Waste (Disused Mines)
  Toxic Waste (Disused Mines)
  Motorways (Learner-drivers)
  Motorways (Learner-drivers)
  A617 (Pleasley Bypass)
  A617 (Pleasley Bypass)
  Handicapped Persons
  Handicapped Persons
  A419 (Stratton St. Margaret)
  A419 (Stratton St. Margaret)
  Roads (Rochester)
  Roads (Rochester)
  No. 4 Local Government Area
  No. 4 Local Government Area
  Local Government Reorganisation (Staff)
  Local Government Reorganisation (Staff)
  Barrow—Arnside Link Road
  Barrow—Arnside Link Road
  Water Supplies (Costing)
  Water Supplies (Costing)
  Foulness Airport
  Foulness Airport
  Urban Motorways
  Urban Motorways
  Water Supplies (Estuarial Pollution)
  Water Supplies (Estuarial Pollution)
  Commercial Waterways
  Commercial Waterways
  London Underground (Extension)
  London Underground (Extension)
  Box-girder Bridges (M6, Birmingham)
  Box-girder Bridges (M6, Birmingham)
  Council House Building (Labour Shortage)
  Council House Building (Labour Shortage)
  Derelict Land
  Derelict Land
  Council House Building (Hammersmith)
  Council House Building (Hammersmith)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Derelict Sites (Clearance)
  Derelict Sites (Clearance)
  Clearance Sites (Rehousing)
  Clearance Sites (Rehousing)
  Sand and Gravel Extraction
  Sand and Gravel Extraction
  General Improvement Areas
  General Improvement Areas
  Planning Procedures (Delay)
  Planning Procedures (Delay)
  Rented Properties (Fitness)
  Rented Properties (Fitness)
  Waterways (Amenity Use)
  Waterways (Amenity Use)
  Urban Housing Land (Cost)
  Urban Housing Land (Cost)
  Post Buses
  Post Buses
  Road Haulage (Continental Permits)
  Road Haulage (Continental Permits)
  Council Housing (Outer London)
  Council Housing (Outer London)
  Regional Public Investment
  Regional Public Investment
  Hoddesdon (Relief Road)
  Hoddesdon (Relief Road)
  National Parks
  National Parks
  Thomas Cook & Son
  Thomas Cook & Son
  Road Accidents (Statistics)
  Road Accidents (Statistics)
  Neighbourhood Councils (Representations)
  Neighbourhood Councils (Representations)
  Compensation Code
  Compensation Code
  Cyanide
  Cyanide
  North Cray Road (Speed Limit)
  North Cray Road (Speed Limit)
  Sewerage
  Sewerage
  Derelict Land (Dearne Valley)
  Derelict Land (Dearne Valley)
  Smoke Control Orders
  Smoke Control Orders
  Soil Pollution
  Soil Pollution
  Residential Land (Outer Metropolitan Counties)
  Residential Land (Outer Metropolitan Counties)
  Motor Vehicles (Write-offs)
  Motor Vehicles (Write-offs)
  Railways (Track Mileage)
  Railways (Track Mileage)
  Transport Users Consultative Committees
  Transport Users Consultative Committees
  Rent Charges and Chief Rents (Purchase Price)
  Rent Charges and Chief Rents (Purchase Price)
  Hypermarkets (Planning Permission)
  Hypermarkets (Planning Permission)
  Shipping Facilities (Norwich)
  Shipping Facilities (Norwich)
  Category D Towns and Villages
  Category D Towns and Villages
  Starlings
  Starlings
  Railways (Dorset)
  Railways (Dorset)
  Private Dwellings (Assessment Appeals)
  Private Dwellings (Assessment Appeals)
  Driving Licences
  Driving Licences
  A1, Newton-le-Moor (Mining Subsidence)
  A1, Newton-le-Moor (Mining Subsidence)
  Correspondence (Delay)
  Correspondence (Delay)
  Dock Dues and Unregistered Quays
  Dock Dues and Unregistered Quays
  Caravan Sites (London)
  Caravan Sites (London)
  Railway Land (London)
  Railway Land (London)
  Conservation Areas
  Conservation Areas
  Speed Limit (South Bedfordshire)
  Speed Limit (South Bedfordshire)
  Clean Air Act
  Clean Air Act
  Improvement Drive (London)
  Improvement Drive (London)
  Council Tenants (Rent Advice)
  Council Tenants (Rent Advice)
  Heavy Vehicles (Shoreditch)
  Heavy Vehicles (Shoreditch)
  Harassment Officers
  Harassment Officers
  Housing Advisory Centres
  Housing Advisory Centres
  Flats (Service Charges)
  Flats (Service Charges)
  Old People's Accommodation
  Old People's Accommodation
  Council Housing (Cost)
  Council Housing (Cost)
  Mr. Bert Reeves
  Mr. Bert Reeves
SCOTLAND
  Health Centres
  Health Centres
  Houses (Adult Residents)
  Houses (Adult Residents)
  Consultants (Merit Awards)
  Consultants (Merit Awards)
  Water Supply Services
  Water Supply Services
  Murder
  Murder
  District General Hospital, South Ayrshire
  District General Hospital, South Ayrshire
  Housing Completions
  Housing Completions
  Fishing Boats
  Fishing Boats
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  Telephone Exchanges (Manual Operation)
  Telephone Exchanges (Manual Operation)
  Palace of Westminster (Mail)
  Palace of Westminster (Mail)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  District Valuers (Cornwall)
  District Valuers (Cornwall)
  Republic of Ireland (Transmission of Funds)
  Republic of Ireland (Transmission of Funds)
  Private Wealth
  Private Wealth
WALES
  Housing Finance Bill
  Housing Finance Bill
  Llandovery Bypass
  Llandovery Bypass
  Bowen Committee on Road Signs
  Bowen Committee on Road Signs
DEFENCE
  Air-to-Air Missiles
  Air-to-Air Missiles
  Interrogation Techniques
  Interrogation Techniques
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Cost of Proceedings
  Cost of Proceedings
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Pre-employment and Refresher Courses (Women)
  Pre-employment and Refresher Courses (Women)
  University Expansion Programme
  University Expansion Programme
  London Museum
  London Museum
  School Meals (Huddersfield)
  School Meals (Huddersfield)
  Dyslexia (Report)
  Dyslexia (Report)
  Comprehensive Schools (Streaming)
  Comprehensive Schools (Streaming)
EMPLOYMENT
  Wales
  Wales
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Lanarkshire
  Lanarkshire
  Bradford
  Bradford
  In-Service Training (Grants)
  In-Service Training (Grants)
  Unemployment (Cymmer)
  Unemployment (Cymmer)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Nepal
  Nepal
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Licensing Hours
  Licensing Hours
  Public Boards (Qualifications of Women)
  Public Boards (Qualifications of Women)
  Offensive Weapons
  Offensive Weapons
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Disregards
  Disregards
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Concorde
  Concorde
  Industrial Development Certificates
  Industrial Development Certificates
  Origin Marking
  Origin Marking
  Pod Talbot (New Industry)
  Pod Talbot (New Industry)

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

LORD SALMON
The Right Honourable Sir Cyril Barnet Salmon, Knight, a Lord Justice of Appeal, having been appointed a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary and thereby created a Baron for life, by the style and title of Baron Salmon, of Sandwich in the County of Kent—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Cohen and the Lord Denning.
The Marquess of Anglesey—Took the Oath.

SEX EDUCATION IN SCHOOLS
2.41 p.m.
BARONESS MASHAM OF ILTON: 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 a policy on sex education in schools and whether they have given any directives or guidance to local education authorities on this subject.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD BELSTEAD): My Lords, responsibility for secular instruction in schools rests with local education authorities, the governing bodies of schools, and head teachers. While it is impossible to satisfy all sections of opinion, they have shown great responsibility in this matter. General advice on an approach to the subject is contained in the Chapter entitled "School and the Future Parent" in a Handbook of Health Education issued by the Department of Education and Science.
BARONESS MASHAM OF ILTON: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for his reply, may I ask him whether he thinks that this education should be combined with moral and spiritual teaching, or should be just straightforward biological sex? Further does he think that parents should have the right to know what their children are being taught in this subject, and should have the option of withdrawing their children from the showing of a film if they so wish?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, the noble Baroness may agree that teaching in this field involves a good deal more than education about sex. As it is a facet of human relations, it surely involves biological teaching, which I think experience has taught is generally best done in the primary school; moral, social and religious aspects of human relationships, which it is best to try to impart as children get older; and then there are always the questions to be dealt with which come up at all times and at any time. In answer to the noble Baroness's second and third questions it is my right honourable friend's view, and, I know, the view of the local education authorities, that parents certainly should have a right to know what is being taught to children in schools. Also, it is my right honourable friend's view, and, so far as I know, it is the practice of local education authorities, that parents should be consulted before films are shown to their children.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, as we have been told over the years that a greater degree of sex education would give our children a greater sense of responsibility, can the noble Lord explain why the illegitimate birth rate is going up, and the incidence of V.D. among our young people is higher than we have ever known it?
LORD BELSTEAD: Yes, my Lords. I, too, have the statistics for 1969–70 from the Department of Health and Social Security, and I am not aware that any conclusions have been drawn from them by that Department.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that he omitted one very important point, which is the simple phrase "self-control". There was not a single reference to that in all of the long answer that he gave.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I was not asked about self-control. I therefore had to contain myself.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, since I cannot contain myself where verbiage is concerned, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that one cannot just laugh off this very serious matter, and make no reference to self-control and morals? Is the noble Lord aware that the Government's job is also to support civilisation, and therefore the family; and will he give this matter much deeper and more serious consideration than he gave it in his answer?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I take to heart what the noble Earl said in his second question. To prepare for the Question this afternoon, I made inquiries in the Department of Education and Science as to whether the Handbook of Health Education which the Department of Education and Science publishes, and to which I referred when I was answering the original Question of the noble Baroness, is in your Lordships' Library. My advice is that it is in the Library, and I would ask the noble Earl to look at it. I think he may find that the views expressed, which are supposed to be imparted to those who are doing the teaching, run very much along the same lines as the noble Earl's views.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, may I ask what is wrong with teaching biology as biology?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I think I covered that point in my first Answer to the noble Baroness.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us how we have suffered from learning only biology?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am delighted to have my opinion asked on these various points. But the House is really interested only in the view of Her Majesty's Government, and perhaps your Lordships would now like to go on to the next Question.

ISRAELI/ARAB CONFLICT
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will take the initiative in proposing to the United Nations Security Council the convocation of a conference at Geneva of representatives of Middle East Governments and involved Powers with a view to securing a settlement of the Israeli-Arab confrontation.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, we remain ready to help in any way open to us to promote the search for a settlement. But we do not feel that it would be useful at this stage to propose a conference of the kind suggested by the noble Lord.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether she has seen the very impressive letter in The Times from the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, making this proposal? In view of the frightening way in which the danger of war is mounting, and the ineffectiveness of ordinary methods of pressure and negotiation, is it not desirable that the world now begins a new and much more decisive approach than it has adopted so far? Would not this proposal meet the Arab objection to direct negotiations? Has not Israel said that she would now be prepared for indirect negotiations, and does this not give the opportunity of making a breakthrough?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I am aware of the views of the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, on this subject, and of course it is a very serious situation in the Middle East. But as the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, will be aware, the objections so far to this kind of conference have been that Egypt has first asked for an assurance from the Israelis that they would withdraw their troops, and the Israeli Government has always felt that there should be a direct settlement between the two without any preconditions.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, is the noble Baroness not aware that within the last week or two, in reply to the mission from the Organisation of African Unity, Israel has agreed to the proposal for indirect negotiations? Is the noble Baroness not also aware that both sides have accepted the unanimous resolution of the United Nations of 4 years ago? Could this not be made the basis for such a conference?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I am of course aware that both sides have accepted Resolution 242 of the Security Council. But as regards General Dayan's recent remark, that Israel would accept something on the lines of a Geneva Conference, he also put in a caveat to the effect that he wanted to be sure that there would be no imposition of a settlement by the four major Powers.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, if instead of the United Nations passing resolutions, either in the Assembly or in the Security Council, which are never implemented—and we are familiar with these resolutions and with their nonimplementation—the nations associated with the United Nations, and, in particular those in the Security Council, gave a firm pledge of guarantees for both Israel and the Arab States against any possibility of aggression, plus providing the necessary finance for an adequate permanent, or possibly temporary, peacekeeping force in the Middle East, would that not be more likely to lead to a solution of the problem than having stupid conferences and passing stupid, although unanimous, resolutions?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, the United Kingdom has always said that she would play her part in helping to guarantee any settlement, if necessary by contributing forces. But of course such a settlement must be based primarily on agreement between the two main countries involved. The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, will remember that this resolution—which was, after all, initiated by the British Government—was the means whereby Dr. Jarring was sent as a mediator to see what common ground existed.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, is the noble Baroness not aware that there was an occasion some years ago when the
326
United Kingdom Government, in association with the Governments of France and the United States, decided on a tripartite agreement providing what was called a guarantee, but that never was any attempt made to implement it? What is the use of the British Government indulging in that sort of thing? Why do they not understand that we want a unanimous guarantee from the United Nations and the Security Council in order to prevent aggression?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, as I said earlier, the British Government were very much in favour of Resolution 242, which, among other things, sought to guarantee any frontiers that were agreed; but first of all they must be agreed between the parties concerned.

NORTH SEA GAS PROFITS AND PRICES
2.51 p.m.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the recent disclosure of exceptionally high rates of profit on natural North Sea gas, these profits have to be mainly transferred to America over the exchanges and thus largely burden our balance of payments; whether they will institute an inquiry under a competent impartial chairman and fortified by expert accountants, before negotiations begin in 1972 about the prices of gas to be paid by the Gas Council; and whether they will ensure that profits are reduced to more reasonable levels.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, in judging profitability it is necessary to take into account all concessions, including those on which oil has not been found. Foreign investment is welcomed provided that the company holding the concession is registered in this country. The profits are thus subject to United Kingdom taxation, and the balance, after deduction of tax, may of course be remitted abroad to foreign investors, though in practice such balances are often retained in this country for re-investment.

327
Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that the Gas Council have the necessary knowledge and expertise to handle their future price negotiations, and do not accept any need for an inquiry to establish what prices they should pay.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his repetition of an unresponsive reply which he gave on the last occasion on which I touched on this subject. May I ask now whether he thinks that 80 per cent. per annum is such a reasonable profit as he describes, and does he think that what God gave to us the Government ought to give to America?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I can only assume that the noble Lord reaches this 80 per cent. profit by basing it upon the estimate of profits possibly to be made in the future on the original subscribed capital, entirely ignoring the fact that a great deal more capital has to be put forward in order to earn those particular profits.
LORD RHODES: My Lords, can the Minister say that if and when we join the Common Market we shall adopt the same policy towards private profit from North Sea gas as that which the other countries which abut the North Sea now have?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think that is rather a different question from the one that is on the Order Paper, but I should be happy to answer it if the noble Lord would put it down.
LORD RHODES: My Lords, there is not a chance to put any Question down on this Paper: so many people put their names down one week after another.
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that had the companies which are carrying out the exploration not been allowed to retain a reasonable profit, future exploration would not take place? And we desperately need this oil.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I entirely agree with what my noble friend has said; and I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, if I may, that "reasonable" is a highly subjective word. "Reasonable" in this context must mean reasonable in line with the purpose—that
328
is, to get as much gas for this country as possible.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he thinks that the Americans were terribly handicapped when they fixed a maximum of 12 per cent., as against the 80 per cent. in this country? May I further ask the Minister whether the Communists were too capitalistic when they obtained the gas at about two-thirds of the price?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am sorry, but I did not quite catch the second part of that supplementary question.
LORD BALOGH: Then I will repeat it, if the noble Lord wants me to. I asked whether the Communists were too capitalistic when they obtained their gas from the Persians at two-thirds our price.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think the question of what price is reasonable has to be judged in a number of contexts. It is not just the question of the extraction of the gas itself, but also the question of the encouragement of exploration. On the first part of the supplementary question, experience showed that the Federal Power Commission in the U.S.A. had to increase its price in order to encourage exploration because exploration was not being carried out to the extent which was necessary to sustain the supply.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, does the Minister not realise that the Americans increased the price because there was a little inflation, but that they are still at 12 per cent. of original investment?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, obviously I cannot answer as to the particular figures that the noble Lord has given, but I think that what I have said is related to the conditions in this country, and that is what matters.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the Gas Council think they ought to be getting their gas cheaper; and, if so, has he any views on what the difference in price to the consumer would be? Furthermore, is he aware that questions from my noble friend invariably raise issues which the Government, within the terms of the Question, feel unable to answer, and will he give very careful

329
consideration to these comparative figures?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am always willing to give the closest consideration to everything which the noble Lord asks, and that is what I have done in this case. I only wish that his questions were in such a form that one could give a simple "Yes" or "No" to them, but they are not. So far as the question about the Gas Council is concerned, I have no information that the Gas Council think that the price they are paying is too high. It is a fact that the last price that was arranged was higher than the original price for the first round of negotiations. But, of course, one has to consider the other side of the picture also, and that is that some of the suppliers of gas were highly dissatisfied with the original price that was settled for the first supply, which is the supply that the noble Lord is talking about.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the general public are very disappointed at the price they have to pay for natural gas, having regard to all the promises which were made that gas would be cheaper? Will he see whether anything can be done about this question of profit, and so on, in order to bring the price down?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, people are always optimistic about the future, and it is a very good thing that they should be.
LORD RHODES: My Lords, is it not a fact that no other country in Europe which abuts the North Sea allows the exploitation of North Sea gas for private profit in the way that we are doing in this country? Can he answer that?
LORD SHACKLETON: "Yes" or "No".
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I answer for matters which are within the power of Her Majesty's Government and which are the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government. My Lords, I think the answer to that is, "No".
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: My Lords, is it not a fact that most of the prices agreed were fixed by the Labour Administration?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am afraid the answer to that is "No", because they were fixed by the Gas Council.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, is not this exchange of question and answer an example of the value of Unstarred Questions, and does my noble friend agree that we should not clutter up the Starred Question period if the noble Lord were to put down matters of this sort in such a way that they could be debated?
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, does the noble Lord realise that we did debate this subject, but that when I raised this question in a debate on international companies there was absolutely no answer forthcoming from the Minister responsible for answering?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord is aware that one of the reasons why there was no answer was that he was not present to hear it.

PARLIAMENTARY COUNSEL: RECRUITMENT AND TRAINING
3 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: 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 to whom the Parliamentary draftsmen are responsible and what proposals the Government have for instituting a proper system of recruiting additional draftsmen and for their training.]
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, the Prime Minister has responsibility for the Parliamentary Counsel Office; the legislative programme to which they work is under the supervision of the Lord President of the Council. There are no immediate proposals for changing the system of recruiting and training.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for that Answer, may I ask whether, if we are ever to get a simpler form of Parliamentary drafting, this would not be more likely to be achieved if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, rather than the First Lord of the Treasury, were

331
responsible for the Parliamentary draftsmen? Secondly, is the noble Earl aware that in the recent Report of the Select Committee on Procedure in another place there was disclosed the fact of a grave shortage of Parliamentary draftsmen? Does not the noble Earl think that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would perhaps be more likely than the Prime Minister to be able to recruit lawyers?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I have great admiration for the prose style of my noble and learned friend who sits on the Woolsack; but, without casting any aspersion on my colleague, I am not absolutely certain that I would go along completely with the noble and learned Lord in suggesting that we should necessarily get better drafting if it were the responsibility of my noble and learned friend. So far as recruiting is concerned, I am aware of the Report of the Select Committee. The noble and learned Lord will, of course, be aware that the staff of the Parliamentary Counsel Office has shown a distinct increase in numbers in the last ten years—from 15 to 22 or 24, depending upon how one looks at it. But the Select Committee in another place have recommended that there should be a deep inquiry into the form and drafting of legislation. The Government have accepted that recommendation and it may be that that could become a suitable forum for looking further into this matter should there be any general disposition to do so.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, may I put one further question? Is the noble Earl aware of the surprise with which the Select Committee learned that, while we hold training courses for Commonwealth Parliamentary draftsmen, we have never had any training courses for ourselves? Does not the noble Earl think that the Lord Chancellor is perhaps better suited than the Prime Minister to institute such training courses?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, again I find it difficult to choose between my two colleagues in this respect. I should like to draw the attention of the House
332
(because I am sure that the noble and learned Lord is aware of this) to the fact that it is hoped to start a course on legislation on the Statute Book at London University during the next academic year.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, is not the noble Earl the Leader of the House aware that, while the Prime Minister is technically responsible, it is the noble Earl himself who, as I did when I was in his position, carries the day-to-day responsibility? Is this not still so? Would he agree that we all owe an enormous debt to the Parliamentary draftsmen who, due to the inability of Governments of any kind to make up their minds about legislation, often carry a quite unreasonable burden; and that it is this which accounts frequently for the shortage of draftsmen? If he is considering training plans for Parliamentary draftsmen would he also consider what further training courses are necessary in the Lord Chancellor's Department?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am aware of my day-to-day responsibilities—only too well aware of them! What the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has said is correct in this respect. I should like to take this opportunity—and I remember saving the same thing a week ago—of echoing what the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has said about the debt we owe to our Parliamentary draftsmen. The good sense they make of the sometimes rather extraordinary instructions which they receive from Ministers from time to time is quite remarkable.
LORD MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the tribute that he and the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition have paid to the Parliamentary draftsmen is shared by the whole House? Their skill and patient work in a unique field of the process of law making should be admired by everybody in this country.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am aware of this. I am also aware that there is perhaps no one in this House who could speak with such authority on this matter as the noble Lord.

LATIN AMERICA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM
3.6 p.m.
EARL COWLEY EARL COWLEY rose to call attention to the opportunities for closer ties between the United Kingdom and the countries of Central and South America; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I should like first to thank my noble friend the Government Chief Whip for giving us the time to debate this subject, which I gather has not been debated in this House for a long time, if at all. It is a very important subject concerning 8 per cent. of the world's population and an area of the world nearly twice the size of Eastern and Western Europe. I am also pleased at the number of noble Lords who intend to speak this afternoon and that my noble friend Lady Northchurch and my noble friend Lord Vestey should have decided to make their maiden speeches on this subject.
When one looks at this country's interest in Latin America to-day it is difficult to conceive of the role Britain played in Central and South American countries a hundred years ago. In fact, Britain played a prominent part in the development of this area during the nineteenth century. This country was industrialising and needed primary products. Latin America could supply them—wheat and maize from Argentina, minerals from Chile and Mexico, rubber from Brazil and cotton from Peru. Following Britain's involvement in these countries' independence at the beginning of the last century, British technocrats and industrialists helped to set up their communications systems with the outside world; to construct railways, tramways, port and harbour facilities, and to expand their agriculture, especially in those countries from which we were drawing our primary products; namely, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico and Peru. So, by 1913, British investment in Central and South America formed about 20 per cent. of this country's total foreign investments abroad and about two-thirds of the total foreign investments in Latin American countries. But by the beginning of 1969 British investment in Latin America had fallen to about 3 per cent. of this country's total foreign investments abroad and about 4 per cent. of the total foreign
334
investments in Latin American countries. Also our trade with Latin America accounted for some 10 per cent. of our total world trade; whereas to-day the figure is about 3½ per cent.
But between 1914 and 1950 the picture changed completely. The United States and Germany began to supplant Britain in Latin America as that area's main source of trade and investment. The two world wars and the economic crisis of the 1930s all played their part in destroying this country's position in Latin America. Our enthusiasm for that area of the world was further reduced by three factors. First, many investments had come to nothing; secondly, endless devaluations had meant that what had looked like profits had become very meagre when they had finally been valued; and, lastly, during the 1940s many investments that had clone well were negated by nationalism on poor or nil terms. It must be remembered that similar concerns were also being nationalised in this country; for example, the railways after the last war.
In some cases compensation was paid. Argentina, for example, paid £150 million from sterling credits in compensation for the British-owned railways, which is fortunate considering the lease was due to run out two years after nationalisation, when Argentina would have got the railways for nothing. By the 1950s, compared with what had had 50 years before, Britain had very little left in Latin America, except immense good will.
Although in the mid-'fifties Britain slowly began to look once again at the countries of Central and South America to see what financial opportunities existed, to date comparatively little has been done. The Latin America of to-day is not the same as 30 years ago. It is more developed, more intricate and subject to perpetual change. It is an area of the world where European concepts and ideas do not really apply. It is an area full of opportunities, provided that one studies the countries carefully and individually and is not taken in by superficial similarities. If one hopes to understand these countries, and to appreciate the full potential inherent in them, it is their differences that are important. The opportunities for this country have improved with the growing disillusionment in Latin America with the United States. It is said, my

335
Lords, that Latin America is the graveyard of American foreign policy, a fact which the United States finally recognised after Nixon's disastrous tour of that area in 1958. President Kennedy tried to improve America's relationship with Latin America; for example, by the formation of the Alliance for Progress. But even this proved a failure, because it fell short of the aims of the Declaration to the Peoples of America, and the Charter of Punte del Este of 1961.
Latin American countries seem to resent the presence of the United States because they feel dominated and exploited by their Northern neighbour. The obvious preference that the United States has shown for Brazil over the other Latin American countries recently has not only further reduced the acceptance of the United States in the rest of Latin America, but also has increased the suspicion felt by the Spanish-speaking countries, especially Argentina, of their Portuguese-speaking neighbour. From Cuba to the Dominican crisis, to nationalisation of Standard Oil in Peru and the copper mines in Chile, America has become pre-occupied with the idea of possible Communist encroachment in her own private backyard. At this stage, my Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend Lord Eccles: to what extent do political considerations and the so-called Communist threat play a part in the formation of the Government's policy towards the countries of Central and South America? The net result of American foreign policy and President Nixon's recent economic measures towards Latin America is a group of countries looking to other areas of the world, including Britain, Japan and Western Europe. While trying to understand events in Latin America, the United States seems to have forgotten its own revolutionary heritage.
Despite the American Government's lack of success in this area of the world, Britain still has to compete with the 13,000 million dollars of American investment and the probability that within a few years Japan will be the second largest investor in these countries after the United States. As the countries of Latin America develop—for example, Brazil with its Proterra and Sudene schemes—so will their demand for British technology and
336
machinery; the latter accounting for some 55 per cent. of Britain's exports to Latin America. But in order to take advantage of the opportunities open in Latin America, one must understand the recent developments in these countries as both their politics and also their economics are high key.
My Lords, it is necessary to look at each country from every aspect if this country and the country concerned are to benefit from each other. Brazil and Argentina are cases in point. Not long ago the City would not consider Brazil, but now they continually talk about the economic boom in that country. It is being acclaimed as the Latin American country of the future. Brazil is doing well and Britain can play a large part in the development of that country to each country's advantage. But, according to the Bazilian stock markets, the boom is settling down to a more realistic pace. Both West Germany and also Japan have invested large amounts in Brazil with reasonable success over the long term. It is a pity that Britain has arrived so late on the scene. But the question which has never been satisfactorily answered is, will the economic success continue when Brazil's technocratic Government relaxes its very tight control over the country and allows the whole population to take part in the running of the State?
On the other hand, not long ago Argentina was considered by the City to be a country for sound investment; but now it is being held up as an example of a country suffering from economic and political upheavals. At the moment Argentina is suffering from adverse balance of payments, inflation of 50 per cent., a former dictator living in Madrid doing his best to wreck any political solution and a President desperately trying to find an answer to what seems to be insoluble. I sincerely hope that President Lanusse finds a solution that will unite Argentina politically, and will include the 30 per cent. of the population which has been excluded for so long from political activities for historical reasons. However, there is a glimmer of hope, and one should not forget the country's basic inherent wealth in minerals and primary products.
Over the last few years Britain's balance of trade with Argentina has improved in our favour mainly because of

337
that country's falling exports, especially of beef. This has been caused by falling beef production and rising domestic consumption. President Lanusse has tried to solve the country's economic problems by suspending imports for 90 days, banning the domestic sale of beef, devaluations, requesting a 1,000 million dollar loan and tax changes, but with little success. Perhaps the appointment of Carlos Brignone as President of the Central Bank might provide the answer, if only he is allowed to remain in office long enough, because the maxim "Too many cooks" et cetera seems to be rather applicable in Argentina at the present time.
If one hopes to understand the countries of Latin America of to-day, my Lords, one has to take account of the spread of economic nationalism in these countries; because if one does not then innumerable mistakes could be made. This nationalism has been felt mainly by foreign investments in key industries: the copper mines and banks in Chile, the meat packing business in Argentina and the oil companies in Venezuela, where the oil reversion law of last July, the raising of the oil prices and increased Governmental interference have all had the effect of reducing the enthusiasm which the oil companies feel for Venezuela. Every so often there are verbal outbursts against foreign companies and restrictive legislation is imposed; for example, the "Buy Argentine" law of January last year. At the moment Mexico feels protected against ideas current in South America by the countries in between, but there are signs that this may change.
It is said that Mexico's main problem is that it is so far from God and so close to the United States. But America's recent economic measures have encouraged Mexico to look elsewhere for its trade and investment to break its restrictive economic relations with the United States. Economic nationalism has, however, encouraged some countries to lay down guidelines for the treatment of foreign investment. Decision 24 of the Andean Pact in December, 1970, was the first attempt at formulating a comprehensive policy to rationalise foreign investment so that it can best be harnessed to the regional development policies of the countries concerned. These guidelines of the Andean Pact countries not only
338
announced the time limits for foreign investment but also the percentages that must be owned by nationals of the member State. The effect of Decision 24 depends on its implementation by each member country which as yet has not been completed.
Because of past experience and the recent economic situation in this country, British investors have classified Latin America as a high risk area, demanding short-term investment with large returns. This attitude is causing mistrust and ill-will on both sides. In fact, my Lords, if these countries are studied carefully and properly, and the investment rules are followed, then Latin America is no more a high risk area than the majority of other parts of the world. It would be better to concentrate on joint ventures and long-term low-key investment.
After the Declaration of Buenos Aires in 1970, providing the institutional backing for a united position on the part of the Latin American countries in relation to the European Common Market, Argentina recently signed a non-preferential trade agreement with the E.E.C. Also Brazil, Uruguay and the Andean Pact have opened negotiations with the Community. Britain's trade and investments with Central and South America look rather small when compared with those of West Germany, France and Italy. However, it is likely that our trade and investments will increase after we have joined the E.E.C. The trade and investment structure set up by the West Germans—for example, the D.E.G. and the D.H.G.—show that private enthusiasm is no longer enough on its own, and can play a useful role only if it is solidly guided and encouraged by the State.
I should like to ask my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn whether the Government have studied the Community's and West Germany's trade and investment structures, and what parts, if any, do they feel are applicable in this country. On December 8 last year, at Canning House, Mr. Godber announced his trip to South America next month and the seminar on Britain and Latin America next May. I sincerely hope that these two events do not turn out like our trade exihibitions in Latin America—a big splash at the time and then no follow-up. I hope that the Government can

339
assure your Lordships' House that Mr. Godber's obvious personal enthusiasm for Latin America is shared in full by the Government. Enthusiasm is a very good beginning, but what do the Government hope to gain from Mr. Godber's trip and the seminar? Furthermore, what are the Government's policies towards the countries of Central and South America, especially Argentina, the Andean countries, Brazil and Mexico? How do the Government review the spread of economic nationalism and the treatment of foreign investment in these countries? What improvements in Anglo Latin American trade do the Government think will be produced by the new British Export Board which the old B.N.E.C. could not produce? Lastly, and probably most important of all, what part do the Government think that Britain can play in the development, both economic and cultural, of the Latin-American countries?
Provided that Britain fully understands these countries and that there is mutual appreciation and respect for each other's aims and desires, then I fervently believe that the opportunities for closer links—economic, political and cultural—between this country and the Latin American countries of Central and South America are boundless. These countries are looking to Britain and Western Europe for increased trade and technical know-how so that their development may be speeded up. The opportunities are there. It would be regrettable for this country and Latin America if we passed these opportunities by. Due to the activities of the British Council, and the fact that in many of the countries English is taught as a second language, there is a better understanding of this country in Latin America, especially in Argentina, than there is of Latin America in this country. I believe that this is to our disadvantage and should be rectified. I am sorry, my Lords, for speaking for such a long time, but I feel that these countries will play an increasingly important role in world affairs and should not just be written off as an area of the world suffering from revolutions, guerrillas and inflation. I beg to move for Papers.
3.12 p.m.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am sure that I shall reflect the sentiments of your Lordships' House when I express thanks to the noble Earl for giving us the opportunity of this short debate this afternoon. He has talked—and I am sure we shall all talk a great deal this afternoon—about exports to Latin America. So far as the Argentine is concerned, at any rate, I think we can regard the noble Earl as a net importer, and he is to be congratulated on arranging for one of the most delightful imports in the long history of relations between Britain and Latin America. As I am speaking before the two maiden speakers, I can do no more than wish them well and congratulate them on choosing this most important debate in which to make their maiden speeches in your Lordships' House.
This is, I believe, a debate of great importance. When I had the good fortune to be the Minister of State in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office I was, ministerially speaking, responsible for our relations with Latin America, and one of the first things that I had to read when I took over those responsibilities was a report made by my right honourable friend Mr. Michael Stewart following a long tour which he had made of Latin America. In its tone and content it was notably like the kind of things that the noble Earl was saying in his opening speech this afternoon. He pointed out, in that report, made only a few months after the Labour Government came into office in 1964, the enormous importance of strengthening our political, economic and cultural links with Latin America.
I was fortunate enough to go as Minister in attendance with Her Majesty the Queen on the State Visit to Brazil and Chile; and some noble Lords may remember that I then went on by way of Montevideo and Argentina to the Falkland Islands. I recall while I was in Buenos Aires the immense courtesy with which I was received by the Foreign Minister of Argentina, even though at that time we were having some difficulty with them about the Falkland Islands. Their courtesy was such that while I was there they solved the problem of what to call those islands. We of course call them the Falkland Islands, and they call them the Malvinas. So that my feelings should not be hurt, and to preserve the

341
proprieties, throughout my visit they were referred to consistently as the Falklinas, which seemed to me to be a very happy diplomatic touch. While I was in the Falkland Islands, however, an Argentine aircraft, piloted by some journalist, crash-landed on the island, creating a great stir: the Home Guard turned out, I think for the first time in 25 years, believing that the Falkland Islands were about to be bombed into submission. However, all that happened when a rather dazed pilot crawled out of the cockpit and was faced with a number of people with extremely old but fierce-looking rifles, was that they asked him what he had come for, and he said he had come for an interview with Lord Chalfont. He was duly given one, and went back in one of Her Majesty's ships to his own country.
This gives me an opportunity to do something which I should have liked to do before, and that is to pay a tribute to the crew of the naval vessel, H.M.S. "Endurance", which took me from Argentina to the Falkland Islands and back to the mainland again. As your Lordships will know, "Endurance" was the name of the ship in which that great explorer, the father of my noble friend Lord Shackleton, sailed—the original ship that was crushed in the ice. The present H.M.S. "Endurance", which is the Antarctic ice ship of the Royal Navy—and which was, incidentally, named by my noble friend's daughter—was in all respects a marvellous home for me and my team of advisers in the short time that we were travelling from Argentina to the Falkland Islands and back. I should like to pay this tribute—a belated one, but nevertheless a sincere one—to the efficiency, patience and courtesy of the officers and ratings of H.M.S. "Endurance".
I wonder if, before I move on from the Falkland Islands, I may ask the noble Lord, when he comes to reply to the debate, to confirm that the discussions and arrangements between this country and Argentina with regard to the long-term future of the Falkland Islands are progressing satisfactorily. I make no deeper request than that. I am aware that some of these matters are confidential, but it would be interesting to know whether things are progressing satisfactorily.
342
Later on in my time at the Foreign Office I was able to pay official visits to other countries in Central and South America—Mexico, Costa Rica, Nicaragua and Salvador—and one of the main impressions that I brought back (it was new to me, and I think may be new to a great number of people) is of the extraordinary diversity and variety of the countries of Latin America. There is a tendency sometimes, especially if one has not been able to visit Latin America, to think of it as one country. It is of course a sub-continent of enormous diversity in culture, political systems, language, scenery and the appearance and attitudes of its people: from the relics of the Inca civilisation in Peru, which until the sudden arrival of the Conquistadores was, I believe, one of the truly great civilisations of history, to the Aztec civilisation which is side by side now, in Mexico—one of the most dynamic countries in the world—with the kind of modern vista that one gets, for example, in a town like Guadalajara, which could teach us some lessons in urban planning. They are now beginning to build in Guadalajara an underground system not designed to serve the Guadalajarans of to-day but designed to serve the Guadalajarans of the 21st century, when they calculate that Guadalajara will be a city bigger than Greater London. That seems to me to be the sort of imaginative and vivid town planning that we in this country could well imitate.
Political systems of course vary from one side of the continent to the other. Brazil, as the noble Earl has reminded us, thinks it well to have, for the present at any rate, a military regime to manage the details and strategy of the great industrial and technical revolution through which it is passing, while on the other side of the continent, in Chile, there is the great experiment of the only democratically elected Marxist Government in the world—an experiment as to which one can only express the fervent hope that it will work out well for Chile. I recall when I was in Santiago attending a dinner at which Signor Allende, who is now the Marxist President in Chile, was present. His political beliefs did not allow him to wear a black tie, but he was seen after dinner to smoke quite the largest cigar that I have ever seen in my life. He was asked by an illustrious guest at the dinner how he reconciled smoking this plutocratic weed with his

343
Communist ideals and he said, "It's quite simple, Sir: its a Cuban cigar."
It is difficult to say what lingers most in the memory of someone who has been fortunate enough. as I have, to tour most of the countries of Latin America: whether it is the breathtaking architecture of Brasilia, which is one of the greatest architectural experiments certainly that I have seen; whether it is the wilderness of the Mato Grosso, over which one can fly for hour after hour after hour and see nothing but a jungle canopy; the snow-covered volcanoes in the South of Chile; the incredible Museum of Modern Art in Mexico City, or the extraordinary grandeur and barranness of the Punta Arenas or the Tierra del Fuego. I think that for me, though perhaps not in itself a grand experience, the most memorable experience was to find on the coast of Argentina a community of Welsh people who were entirely bilingual, but curiously bilingual to a Welshman, because they spoke only Welsh and Spanish. I should have thought that here was a fruitful field for the Welsh Language Society to explore, and I offer it to them as a suggestion.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend? I should like to assure him that the Patagonian Welsh is some of the most beautiful Welsh that is spoken in the world, and when last year or the year before they had a celebration at Bangor University the beauty of the philology of the Welsh language was noted. I am glad that my noble friend has brought this to the notice of the House.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his not unexpected intervention. I was not of course referring to the purity of the Welsh that is spoken by the Patagonians, but simply to the fact that I imagined the Welsh Language Society would object to their speaking Spanish.
One characteristic that I found throughout the whole of Latin America was the enormous courtesy and kindness of the people of every country that I visited and the immense fund of goodwill that exists towards this country. It was really memorable that in every country to which one went there seemed to be a special regard, warmth and affection for the
344
British. Even during the times when we were having our difficulties with Argentina over the Falkland Islands and later over meat exports, there was a fund of warmth and goodwill towards the people of this country that had to be experienced to be believed. This is reflected, I think, in the diplomatic representation of the Latin American countries in London. I believe that as a whole the Diplomatic Corps in London is one of great distinction, and in my experience few are more distinguished or more able than the diplomats who represent the countries of Latin America. Perhaps it might be appropriate at this moment to express—and I am sure I do so on behalf of your Lordships' House—our sympathy towards the Corps on the recent sad and untimely death of the Colombian Ambassador.
This friendship, as the noble Earl has told us, dates back to the days when British trade with Latin America was extensive and our links close. One can still see relics of this in visiting South America in the railways of Argentina, for example; but perhaps for me, at any rate, this is even more vividly illustrated by the Chilean Navy, which I visited in Valparaiso, and found it very difficult to believe that I was not in Greenwich. The naval officers and ratings looked far more like those of the Royal Navy than the Royal Navy looks like itself. This, of course, is a relic of the days when we trained the Chilean Navy; and it is still noticeable that in their naval colleges, messes and wardrooms they still follow the customs and habits and carry out the drills they were originally taught by the Royal Navy. Unfortunately, as the noble Earl has said, they are now to a very great extent the only relics of our links with Latin America to be seen. As he also pointed out, there are various reasons for this—some good, some bad. The pattern of our trade and political influence in the world has changed. There was a move away from Latin America, for various reasons, towards Africa and South-East Asia, and our trade and political links with the countries of South and Central America stretched and snapped. In our place, as the noble Earl said, have come others who are only too willing to exploit the rich and growing economic potential of the sub-continent. The Americans, the Japanese and

345
the Germans are there in strength, exploiting this enormously rich subcontinent, with all its vast potential for international growth.
I believe, and I think the noble Earl would agree with me, that trade is the important aspect of our relations with Latin America. There is no need, nor would it be appropriate, to have any kind of political initiative there. It is not by any stretch of imagination our sphere of influence and, as the noble Earl has pointed out, the United States of America, which believed that it was within its sphere of influence, has suffered some humiliating reverses in its relations with the Latin American countries. What we need is not so much to improve our political attitudes towards the countries of Latin America—our friendship with most of them is strong—but to realise this enormous potential for economic growth. It really is necessary to study the economic potentials of countries like Brazil and Argentina to realise that at any time now they are going to take off, provided things go well for them, into an area of growth and prosperity which I believe will astonish the rest of the world. It is an area of enormous vigour, enterprise and imagination. It is, of course, the Latin American Free Trade Area that has set the pattern for free trade associations throughout the world. It is the only area in the world which has been able to get anywhere near signing a nuclear-free zone agreement. This is thanks largely to the tireless work of that distinguished Mexican diplomat, Ambassador Garcia Robles. They have come nearer than anyone else in the world to banishing from their lives the threat of nuclear weapons, and I believe that this is another example which the rest of us might follow and study with some profit.
These are not the volatile, politically unstable countries of common legend and myth. Many of them have a political stability which could serve as a model for some countries much nearer home. These are not the professional revolutionaries of the cinema and television films. These are countries with, for the most part, stable Governments, with imaginative plans for the future, and with this enormous potential—and I come back to it again and again—for growth, a potential which I believe we shall ignore at our
346
peril. I know that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is well aware of this, and indeed the American department in the Office is staffed by some of its ablest and most distinguished diplomats. But I do not think that it is enough for either Foreign Offices or for Governments to act in this matter, although without the impetus given by Governments and ambassadors nothing will succeed as easily. What is really needed is for the businessmen, exporters and industrialists of this country to begin to realise—some of them have, but more need to do so—the enormous potential and wealth that lies in Latin America ready to be exploited by people of vision and imagination.
It is, as the noble Earl said, the question of follow-up that is so important. I have seen, as he has, trade exhibitions and State visits which have taken place in an atmosphere of enormous excitement and good will, to be followed six months or a year later by apathy and disillusionment on the part of the countries of Latin America because the trade exhibitions and State visits have not been followed up in the vigorous way for which they had reason to hope. I hope that when the noble Lord comes to reply he can confirm that it is still the policy of Her Majesty's Government to encourage, so far as it lies in their power, trade with the countries of Latin America. I should also like to put a specific question to him about the policy of the B.B.C. towards Latin America. I believe that I am right in saying that in the retrenchment that took place recently the B.B.C. cut very severely—if it did not discontinue altogether—certain parts of its Latin American service. I believe that there is a great deal to be said for having another look at that question in the new circumstances; and I wonder whether the noble Lord can say that the Government will bear this in mind.
A great deal has happened not only since we were last in Latin America in a trade and political sense, but since we moved out to South-East Asia and Africa. We have now started, for good or ill, to move back again. We have come away from many of our commitments East of Suez; we have dismantled an Empire and lost a good deal of the trade that went with it. This may be an opportunity to re-examine our trade and

347
foreign policy towards the countries of South America and Central America. There is a great opportunity here, and that is why I am particularly grateful to the noble Earl for giving us the opportunity to have this short debate. I do not believe that there is much difference between us on this side of the House and those on the Benches opposite. I believe that we all want to see our friends in Latin America brought closer to us with closer trade ties and, if possible, closer cultural ties and ties of friendship. When we move into the Common Market it will be an opportunity for us to persuade our partners there also—some of them do not need much persuading—to make Latin America a target for European trade as well as for British trade. The Germans, as I have said, are already there in strength.
This is a great opportunity; it needs boldness and imagination on the part of Governments, on the part of diplomats and on the part of businessmen and industrialists. I believe that the people of Latin America and the Governments of the countries of Latin America are waiting for some sign from us. I believe that they are slightly disenchanted at our failure to follow up recent initiatives, and I hope that what is said in your Lordship's House this afternoon will come to the notice of enough people to mount the kind of initiative that I believe is needed in the policy of this country towards the countries of Latin. America.
3.44 p.m.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (VISCOUNT ECCLES): My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Lothian, I have been asked to reply. I think I carry the House with me when I say that all of us—Hcr Majesty's Government in particular—have every reason to thank my noble friend for his initiative in introducing this debate on Latin America. The timing is most important. I would congratulate him warmly on the well informed and well chosen speech which he has made. I should also like to thank, on behalf of the Government, the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. The speech he made will do an immense amount of good to Anglo Latin American relations and I hope it will be widely noted outside this House.
348
When I heard that my noble friend was going to raise this subject I remembered an article in The Times when, in 1962, we were setting up the Parry Committee on Latin American studies. The Times commentator then wrote:
"Latin America offers everything that should be a challenge to keen-minded young men and women. It would be reasonable to expect that this complex of developing nations would act as a magnet on British youth. But it cannot do so until facilities for understanding what is involved are much improved."
Here we are, ten years later, and my noble friend has described afresh the magnet and the need to understand what is happening in this great and various group of countries. The Government are fully in agreement on both these points. We are convinced that the time is right to revive and strengthen our traditional ties with the 22 Spanish and Portuguese speaking nations of Latin America. My noble friend, in his admirable speech, showed the House that there is nothing staid or stagnant throughout the vast area that we are considering this afternoon. Everything is on the move: unexpected, exciting, puzzling things are always likely to happen in these countries where, perhaps more than anywhere else in the world, personalities make history and strong men overshadow statistics and measurable trends.
This recurring element of drama in South America is easily accounted for: most of the Spanish conquistadores went to America to make their fortunes. These brave and often ruthless men were in a hurry, and the tradition which they established of taking an opportunity whenever it occurred has never been lost. I was always told that after the colonies gained their independence, if you wanted to take a leading part in the government of your country you had either to be a doctor of law or a colonel—either a cap-and-gown man or a cape-and-sword man. In 1972 we find many colourful figures of outstanding ability in control of affairs in these various countries. There can be no substitute for getting to know them personally, going to visit them and inviting them to come and see us here. In the past 18 months five of Her Majesty's Ministers have been to Latin America. My right honourable friend, Mr. Godber, as my noble friend remarked, will leave next month for an extended tour of Peru. Chile, Argentina and Brazil. He intends

349
to discuss all matters of common interest, and naturally the trade between us and the countries which the Minister of State is going to visit will be high on his agenda. Trade in both directions has been growing and, given suitable assurances, the opportunities for investment in long-term projects are many and very attractive to us. I am going to leave the questions of commerce and finance to my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, who is speaking later in the debate.
May I return to the opening speech. My noble friend gave us an account of the marked fluctuations in the interest taken by Britain in the fortunes of Latin America. I agree with him and with the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, that there is no denying the prolonged and depressing decline in our influence during the last fifty years, but I would remind them that, in spite of all the damage which preoccupation with Asia and Africa and two world wars did to our connections with the countries of Latin America, the foundations of our friendships with them are still firm and, in a remarkable way, which I will try to explain, are being brought to life again by contemporary events.
We are at this moment in the middle of a short span of years during which the Spanish-speaking nations and Brazil are celebrating their independence, gained in the same span of years 150 years ago. The events of those long-drawn-out, desperate civil wars are therefore very much in the news, and much is being said and written about the part which our ancestors played in securing the final victories of the patriot forces. When the colonists rose in arms against their European masters they were incredibly weak in organisation and equipment. They had very few experienced staff officers to plan the campaigns against the regular Spanish troops; they had no Navy, no cannon to mount on any ships which they could lay their hands on; they had no means of manufacturing any but the simplest of weapons of war for their land forces; they had no money to buy munitions from abroad, and if they had had any money it would have been useless unless the sea routes had been kept open for ships entering the few ports under their control.
The British supplied the officers to stiffen the patriot commands: thousands of British soldiers and sailors crossed the Atlantic and fought, and many of them
350
died, for the cause of independence. British merchants financed the supply of arms, and the Royal Navy not only kept the seas open but in one way or another rendered invaluable assistance to Bolivar, San Martin and the other insurgent leaders. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Dundonald is not taking part in this debate, because it was his ancestor who changed the whole course of the war on the West coast of Chile and Peru. The Royal Navy also played a crucial part in the history of Brazil. One stormy day in November, 1807, the wind, which had been blowing a gale through the Atlantic, suddenly dropped and enabled Admiral Sir Sidney Smith, under the eyes of Napoleon's Army as they entered Lisbon, to set sail up the Tagus with the Portuguese royal family in his care and to carry them safely to Brazil. Thus, the continuity of the history of Brazil under Portuguese influence was assured. It is noteworthy that the Royal Navy not only took an Emperor to Rio; it took a printing press, the first printing press—
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: That was dangerous!
VISCOUNT ECCLES: —and then it became a natural development. In 1822 Brazil declared her indepenedenece of Europe and I do not think it could have happened as it did without Admiral Smith's squadron and their successful mission in carrying the royal family and the printing press to the largest and wealthiest country in South America.
Brazil has given the world a succession of painters, musicians and, above all, architects of which any country could be proud. It may be that the ever-bubbling vitality of the Brazilians is due in part to the multiracial policies which they have so happily pursued. I have dwelt on these old ties because those whom we helped to win their freedom 150 years ago are again anxious about their independence, and this time from the financial, technological and cultural pressures exerted upon them by the great Powers to the North and the East of South America. These pressures, whether they come from the United States, Soviet Russia, Japan, and perhaps in the future China, provoke, as one would expect, a counter-blast of nationalism. But they are also creating a mood in which the

351
minds of many Latin Americans are turning to their oldest and best friend.
I must digress for just one moment to give your Lordships a piece of good news. In the heroic struggle for independence the greatest leader to appear on the battle field or in the council chamber was Simon Bolivar. At the age of 27, this extraordinary man came to London and asked for our help, and in the long years before his victory was complete he received it in many invaluable ways. Bolivar never failed to pay public tribute to the British who advised him and fought alongside his own troops. It is surely time that we should pay our tribute to him. We have had an offer from the Bavarian group of countries to erect a statue to the Liberator in London; and I am very happy to say that my noble friend the Duke of Westminster has generously made available a most suitable site in Belgrave Square.
My noble friend Lord Cowley and also the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, warned us against lumping all the Latin American countries together. Indeed, it is true that they all have their distinct and important differences. I was glad that my noble friend spoke so warmly of Argentina, a great country with which the British connection has been very close; and he has done all he can to make it closer. But still I feel that if we are to fire the imagination of our own young people, who until recently have had so little encouragement to learn about Latin America, we must give them a few basic facts about the whole area from Mexico to Tierra del Fuego. In size, Latin America is two and a half times Europe, but it is population and resources that count. In population the comparison between Latin America and the whole Continent of Africa is interesting. The population of Africa to-day is 345 million and the number is expected to grow to a little over 500 million by the year 2000. But in Latin America, while there are only 260 million to-day, the population is expected to reach 425 million by the year 1985 —only 13 years from now—and by the end of this century to have out-distanced the whole of Africa by some 200 million: the current estimate is 800 million. It is the rate of increase in the population of Latin America which is so astonishing. Already, if we take all the 22 countries
352
together, we find that half the population is aged under 20, and in Brazil half the population is under 15. I ask your Lordships to imagine what our situation would be if every other person in this country were a child who had, by law, to go to school to-morrow morning. This is the situation in Brazil.
Fortunately, in Latin America the rate of increase in manufactures and in basic services such as roads and electricity is also exceptionally high. In 1970 it was between 8 per cent. and 9 per cent., and it is now well established that the untapped natural resources of the 8½ million square miles are prodigious and could support a very large population. But then comes the problem: how to absorb into satisfying jobs the millions upon millions of young people who in a very few years will themselves be greatly increasing the population. How are these countries to make sufficiently spectacular advances in both the economic and the social fields without impairing their national independence or risking violent revolutionary experiments that, on the evidence of history, are more likely to dislocate than to strengthen the fragile structure on which their economic development depends? This is the background against which we are trying to improve our relations with Latin America.
When I was there recently I found that many of the leaders in politics, business and the Roman Catholic Church were profoundly anxious about the enormous preponderance of young people, combined with the vast capital requirements to keep the standard of life moving ahead of the increase in population. I admired very much the frankness with which these men spoke of the explosive situations in their various countries. None of them wanted to contract out; none of them wanted to back away from the technological revolution. But they did want co-operation with friends who could help them, not only with money and goods but also with ideas and expert advice. Some of them were for going ahead at any cost—any cost, in blood and so on. Others preferred a much more cautious attitude, and it was this clash of views that leads me to say a word about the influence of the Roman Catholic Church, which has always been of the greatest importance in the countries whose future we are considering this afternoon.

353
We too easily believe that the influence of the Church is conspicuously and consistently against reform. It is of course true that for long periods in many of these countries the hierarchy—but never all the priests—have been doggedly behind the status quo. But from the very earliest days of the Spanish Conquest individual bishops, like Bartolomé de las Casas, priests and missionaries have been found taking a stand against the civil authorities and demanding a better life for the underprivileged. Today there are divisive, agonising issues, like birth control and whether or not violence is justified to secure social change. In countries such as Brazil and Argentina the hierarchy, as well as the priests, are now openly split. In Chile the Church has for many years been in favour of change. It has pioneered agrarian reforms, and only recently the Archbishop of Santiago has come out in support of the policies of President Allende.
Therefore when my noble friend asks me about the attitude of Her Majesty's Government towards the threat of revolution in South America I have first to say that the political development of these various States is entirely their own concern: we are not a foreign country that goes there with political ideas, as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has said very well. But secondly I say to my noble friend who introduced the debate that there are strong forces in the Roman Catholic Church which are both in favour of reform and against the use of violence, and we must hope that those forces will prevail.
When I was in Venezuela last summer I was struck by the emphasis which Ministers laid on collaboration with us in cultural and educational development. It appeared to me that the problems they had to deal with were not unlike our own, except in scale. How could they provide worthwhile employment and a satisfactory life for millions of school-leavers when machines are replacing men at an ever increasing rate? One solves nothing by taking the means of production into public ownership, as Castro has demonstrated. If all one can do is to put a nominee in charge of a sugar plantation, how many more jobs are created? I was often asked by South Americans how we were tackling the same problems and to what extent we
354
thought better cultural opportunities should be part of an employment policy. I said that I should welcome a dialogue on these questions, but that first we in Britain must learn much more about the actual situation in the various countries of Latin America.
We have already made quite a good beginning. The Parry Report on Latin American studies was published in 1964 and as a result five centres for these studies were established: in Cambridge, Glasgow, Liverpool, London and Oxford. Their work is mainly postgraduate and all five centres are flourishing. My noble friend Lord Redcliffe-Maud had hoped to take part in this debate, when he would have called attention to the widespread interest in the centre at St. Anthony's House, at Oxford. He told me that he would have asked for enough money to be made available for a vigorous expansion in all the five centres in the next quinquennium. The money so far granted has been well spent, and I should like to pay my own tribute to the work of Professor Robin Humphreys at the London centre. Other universities have also extended their courses in Latin American studies, notably Essex, St. Andrew's and Sussex. In my experience one of the most serious deficiencies has been the unsatisfactory level of our collections of books and printed material relating to the part of the world that we are discussing. Even the British Museum Library is no exception. Recently, with the help of Professor Livermore, steps have been taken to remedy these defects, but there remain many gaps and some awkward difficulties in getting hold of new publications, even if the money is available. But, my Lords, this is not an occasion on which to ride one of my hobbyhorses.
Your Lordships will wish me to pay a special tribute to the work of Canning House, where the Library has been admirably reconstructed and enlarged. Canning House owes a great debt to the late Lord Davidson and to my noble friend Lady Northchurch, who we are so glad to hear is to make her maiden speech this afternoon. Lord and Lady Davidson together nursed it through its early stages until it has become now, under the vigorous and jovial chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Erroll, a splendid meeting place for British and

355
Latin American friends to talk over their mutual problems.
May I turn now to the British Council? I have seen for myself, in Mexico, Brazil and Venezuela, the excellent work which the Council does, and no doubt that is matched in the other Latin American countries. In all this area the Council's budgets are very small in relation to the scope of its activities, which are in ever-increasing demand. The Council often supports institutions or other locally sponsored organisations in order to extend the opportunities for reading, learning and teaching English. As your Lordships would expect, all the up-and-coming young Latin Americans want to learn English because it is the world language of science, trade and holidays abroad; and for reasons which your Lordships will readily understand, the people in Latin America much prefer to learn our English to any other brand of the language.
Today, helped by us in various ways, 64,000 Latin Americans are learning our English in 65 institutes or societies. You might think that a large figure, but in fact it is tiny when measured against the demand. If we could do more it would be very widely appreciated. We are already collaborating with the education authorities in several countries. We have sent them expert advisers in education and science: 128 British teachers are in posts in Latin American universities, schools and similar institutions. Here at home we give grants for Latin American postgraduates to continue their studies or undertake research, and I am informed that the number of those who want to come very greatly exceeds the number of places available. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, mentioned the B.B.C., and I am sure that it is a very important service. I understand that the Latin American Overseas Service has been substantially maintained. I will convey to my right honourable friend what the noble Lord said.
Next May Her Majesty's Government are sponsoring a major seminar at Lancaster House on Britain and Latin America. This project will enable our businessmen and bankers to discuss with distinguished guests from Latin America the many far-reaching programmes of
356
development that are already in contemplation. We shall have the great advantage of the presence at the seminar of Senor Galo Plaza, the Secretary-General of the Organisation of American States, and Senor Ortiz Mena, President of the Inter-American Development Bank, and of other leading personalities. My right honourable friends Mr. Godber and Mr. Noble are taking a close personal interest in this exercise, which we believe will strengthen greater understanding between Latin America and the United Kingdom. If any of your Lordships can help us at this time, you would be very welcome to take part in some of the meetings.
Your Lordships will be glad to know that our political relations with the countries of Latin America are generally most cordial and there are remarkably few points of difference. I must, however, refer briefly to the Guyana-Venezuela frontier dispute, and as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, raised it, also to the Falkland Islands. Happily, the frontier dispute was set aside by mutual agreement, and in reaching that very welcome result the United Kingdom participated as the former administering Power. We can now look forward to Guyana playing a full part in American institutions and Venezuela doing the same in those of the Caribbean.
Our differences with Argentina on the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands remain. In whatever way the differences may one day be resolved, our first concern is that it must be done in accordance with the wishes of the Islanders. Meanwhile, in full consultation with the Islanders, and without prejudice to the question of sovereignty, the Argentine Government and ourselves have made arrangements for modern communications between the Islands, Argentina and the world beyond, both by air and sea. These arrangements when completed will make a material contribution to the welfare of the Island community. The talks about the air and sea communications have been conducted in London and Buenos Aires in the best tradition of Anglo-Argentine friendship, and I am sure that Lord Chalfont's visit to Buenos Aires did a lot to pave the way. Now we are looking forward to a third round to be held in Stanley and we very much hope that holding the talks there will contribute to the process of greater mutual

357
understanding between the inhabitants of the Islands and their Argentine neighbours.
Finally, the Latin American countries are watching what we are doing in Europe. They cut their political ties with the old Continent 150 years ago, and since then they have made immense progress in wealth and population. But they are still politically as fragmented as it suited the Spanish monarchy to fragment them for the purpose of colonial rule. Whether the resulting jig-saw puzzle we see on the map is a good or bad thing is entirely for them to say. But we do know that to-day they are following with interest the construction of the European Community. Those of their leaders with whom I had talks last year were emphatic in their desire to see Britain become a member of the Community. As a matter of fact, if I had not already been a dyed-in-the-wool Marketeer they would have converted me, and this for three reasons. First, they want the Continent from which they came to take its place in the front rank of the world Super-Powers. Secondly, and very genuinely, they want the friend who helped them to secure their independence to have a voice in the Councils of Europe. And thirdly, they feel the need themselves to draw closer together in their immense developing Continent, which presents such a tempting area for the infiltration of ideas and systems incompatible with their historic traditions. They are wondering whether, with us as a member, the European Community will give them the example they are looking for.
My Lords, I hope I have said enough both to show that we have very special reasons to get better acquainted with the countries of Latin America, and also to secure your Lordship's approval for Her Majesty's Government's firm intention to open a new chapter in our relations with the fastest growing area in the world.
4.18 p.m.
BARONESS NORTHCHURCH: My Lords, may I claim your Lordships' specially kind indulgence, for I have to admit that although I was a Member of the other place for 22 years and have sat in your Lordships' House for a considerable period I have not spoken here
358
before. As I think many of your Lordships know, my husband was ill for a long time. I did not often leave him, and therefore I was unable to take part in many of the activities in this House. His interests were many, as your Lordships know, but I do not think I am exaggerating when I claim that the interests and problems of the countries of South America were in his opinion of immense importance, and I know that he would have wished me to speak in this debate. We owe our gratitude to the noble Earl, Lord Cowley, for instigating it, and for his speech, to which we have listened with very great interest and with which I am sure most of us are in complete agreement. I understand, and am glad to hear, that in May a seminar will be held at Lancaster House and it is vital that real efforts should be made to follow this up.
May I for a few moments strike a personal note? We were married in 1919 and it was as long ago as 1920 that I was taken out by my husband for my first visit to the Argentine. His grandfather was one of those stalwart Scotsmen who have played so great a part on behalf of our country in different parts of the world. He went out to the Argentine as early as 1827 and, although he returned home on visits and sent his three sons back to school and college, he made his home there. I shall never forget that first visit, and how impressed I was by the welcome we received from the Spanish and English-speaking communities, and the friends that we made on that occasion are still, I am glad to say, our friends to-day. Nothing ever gave my husband greater happiness and pleasure than attending the Scottish Church and being invited to present the prizes at the great Scottish School, knowing that his grandfather had been one of the very first to help to start both the church and the school in Buenos Aires.
Later we both visited on more than one occasion most of the countries of South America. But it was in 1942, at the very worst period of the war, that the Government asked my husband to go out to South America on their behalf and to visit as many of the countries as he could. There was great need of encouragement in those places. The people—our own people and those who were there

359
—were being influenced by enemy propaganda, and it was felt that if my husband could tour those places and wave the flag it would help. He had a most fascinating and interesting tour. I do not mind saying that I was extraordinarily thankful to see him home again because it was not a very pleasant voyage across the South Atlantic in 1942. I remember well that when he got back he said to me, "One thing I must do as soon as possible is to build up some centre in London where representatives of Latin American countries and we can meet and discuss our mutual problems and build up again our trade and good relations."
The creation of the Hispanic and Luso Brazilian Councils at Canning House dates back to 1943. With no Government help, but thanks to the enthusiasm of his friends and those who were really interested in South America, after the end of the war a house was taken in Upper Berkeley Street, and later the centre moved to 2 Belgrave Square, where it still carries on. How well I remember one of the first dinners that we held there just after 1945, to which we invited the then new Foreign Secretary, Ernest Bevin, and Mrs. Bevin, as she then was. Mr. Bevin sat next to me and he was fascinated to hear all about South America. He asked me all sorts of questions, and in reply I told him as much as I could. He said to me, "You know, I am very new to all this. I don't know much about South America. I don't know much about the export trade at present. In fact, I have got a lot to learn". Then he turned and looked at me and said, But if your John thinks I can help him, I will help him". I always remember him saying that. He was a great man, and he did help in every way possible while he was Foreign Secretary.
During the long period of reconstruction of British industry after 1945, export markets in the Commonwealth and in the U.S.A. were given priority, as I think has already been said this afternoon. Interest in Latin America was really only maintained by a small but dedicated group of people, who could see that this fast-developing continent would become of increasing interest and importance in the world. The part played by Canning
360
House as a meeting place for interests in Latin America—social, educational and economic—was vital in maintaining interest and knowledge of that part of the world at a time when Government interest was at its lowest. The valuable work done by the Latin American Committee of the British Export Council—particularly since the first major trade exhibition which it mounted in Mexico in 1966—has resulted in steadily climbing graphs of British exports to many of the countries of Latin America. Export figures for the first nine months of 1971, compared with the same period of 1970, show increases in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela. Overall exports to the LAFTA countries in this period rose from £211·8 million to £249·5 million, roughly 18 per cent.
While export promotion to the Latin American area will now be taken on by the British Export Board, there is a very real need to recognise that two-way trade is essential if export growth is to be maintained, and an even greater need to improve real understanding and communication between the United Kingdom and the Spanish and Portuguese-speaking countries of Latin America. The contribution of centres such as Canning House is improving this understanding and is vitally important, and we are glad to see that machinery has been set up in the Economic Affairs Committee at Canning House to take over and develop many of the personal contacts and the goodwill built up by members of the former British National Export Council/Latin American Committee. Details of this were given in the Press at the end of December, and the Department of Trade and Industry Journal also published an article recently. It is essential, as has already been stressed this afternoon, that the Government should continue to improve the close working relationship between Government Departments and private section organisations, so that the follow-up is both publicly and privately supported.
May I thank the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for so very kindly giving me his good wishes before I spoke and giving me so much encouragement. May I also thank the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, for his kind reference to my husband and to Canning House.
4.27 p.m.
LORD GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, it is a very great pleasure and privilege to rise in this debate immediately after the noble Baroness, Lady Northchurch. I think that all your Lordships will feel that her affectionate and admiring tribute to her husband was entirely appropriate. We have admired both Lord and Lady Davidson for so many years as representing all that is best in the handling of relations between Britain and Latin America. We welcome her most warmly, and even if we do not often have debates on Latin America, we hope that we shall hear from her both when we do and on many other occasions as well. May I also give a welcome to the noble Lord who will speak after me in a maiden speech, and say, with an allusion to his identity which I hope he will not feel to be ill-phrased, that it is a great privilege for me to be in this sandwich position.
I should also like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Cowley, very warmly for introducing this debate. If I may say so, it seemed to me that he said in an extremely short time almost all that is essential about Latin America. I congratulate him on a most remarkable performance in that respect.
I have been bold enough to rise in this debate not because I am an expert in this matter, but I did have the interesting experience of a tour for a month in Latin America in 1968, when I was still in the Foreign Office. In that period I was able to make a visit at least in a little depth to ten countries, and to meet the British representatives from all the other Republics in the hemisphere. That impels me at once to say that, as the noble Earl, Lord Cowley, and the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, have said, the important thing is to start right away by recognising the diversity in unity of the sub-continent. Every time one got out of the aeroplane the polite and hospitable protocol officer would say, "Where have you come from?" One said "Argentina", or "Peru" or wherever it was, and he would say, "Ah! we are different". This is something quite real, and something we must always remember. I think your Lordships will also have welcomed very much the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and the noble Viscount, Lord
362
Eccles. I would only add to the list of talents which the noble Viscount mentioned as coming particularly from Brazil, "footballers".
I am in a slightly difficult position, because in this debate, this "think-in", rather than controversy, which we are having in your Lordships' House, many of the things that needed to be said have already been extremely well said. If what I have to say is somewhat "a thing of shreds and patches", I hope that your Lordships will forgive me. But I should like to try to underline a few of the points that have been made, and perhaps try to emphasise some of the things that we as a country need to do, it seems to me, in order to provide all this resurgence of understanding and good will which we hope to see developed between Latin America and ourselves. I shall try to divide what I say into the past, our assets and the challenge.
Before I go too far back, may I suggest that we must not be too mournful about the immediate past. After all, there have been some great leaps forward. We had the visit of the President of Chile, and we then had something which had never happened before in history—the visit of a reigning Monarch to two Latin American countries. We have also had some very valuable trade successes, but of course the record has been somewhat irregular and disappointing.
We have asked ourselves already this afternoon: what has happened? Why have we slipped in Latin America? If I may put it a little more starkly than other noble Lords have done, we did, after all, have something like ten years out of thirty with hostile submarines between Latin America and ourselves. This puts in a graphic way how physical links were bound to be cut for that time, and how very difficult it is to re-establish them, particularly given the kind of links that they were. I think also that there was added to the situation an unhappy stereotype of Latin America. For some reason, people depreciated Latin America in public esteem, and by not understanding the sub-Continent and not understanding its variety, they tended to depict it as something not worth troubling very much about. This was a very unfortunate and backward-looking notion.

363
But, really, the underlying problem has been one of priority for British Governments. When one works inside Government, whether at the Ministerial or official level, one realises what an enormous burden has fallen on Administrations of this country, particularly since 1945. And with withdrawal from Empire, problems with Eastern Europe, relations with Western Europe and all those other problems crowding in on Ministers, week after week, year after year, it has been very difficult for British Governments to give to Latin America the priority which many people would have wished. I think it has been, to some extent, a purely physical problem which we must now seek to reverse.
If I may go on to the assets which we possess, many noble Lords have spoken of the British volunteers who worked with Bolivar, San Martin and others. We must not live in the days of 150 years ago but I can assure your Lordships, from the countries that I visited, that those heroic people might just as well have been living 50 years ago, or even less than 50 years ago, for the reality of their memory in the minds of so many people in Latin America. We can regard this not as a nostalgic thought, but as a real item of good will towards this country which certainly endures to the present day and which one hopes will continue. But certainly we should show that we appreciate this memory on their part.
I thought that the noble Earl, Lord Cowley, was a little hard on the United States. It seems to me that the United States have tended, in respect of Latin America, to do alternately too little and too much. There has also been the most ferocious propaganda against the Colossus of the North for many years. No doubt the United States are quite right now to adopt what President Nixon called a "low profile". In a sense it imposes on this country an obligation, not to take the place of the Americans—because we cannot do that—but, as an English-speaking Power in good standing in. Latin America, to show that we realise there is opportunity for us there and also, in a sense, an obligation.
I now come down to our more precise assets. There has been—and again I bow towards the noble Baroness, Lady
364
Northchurch—much talk of the service of Canning House. I should like to underline a very special aspect of that service. It is that in London there is both an attractive and an efficient focus of contact with Latin America. This is immensely important, because otherwise the connection with Latin America would be divided and inefficient; whereas thanks so much to the work of the late Viscount Davidson and his lady, something has been built there which we hope will endure for ever.
Then there is the work of the British Council and, again, I can tell your Lordships from personal experience how exciting it is to see the British Council's work actually in progress in Latin America. I have vivid memories of the tremendous coming and going, which is a sign of health, which one saw in British Council houses or institutes in Rio de Janeiro, in Santiago, in Caracas and elsewhere. It is very exciting and has the advantage that in Latin America it is preferable for the British Council to work separately from Government. In other words, it is working apolitically, in a Continent highly charged with political and social problems, so that this non-controversial work of communication between cultures is appreciated by everybody. All one can say is that the figures and numbers that the Council work in are quite miraculous. One can but express the hope that at some stage something will happen to enable them to have a little more, because if ever there was cost-effective work of that kind it is the work of the Council in Latin America. I have just one figure, which is that the Council here helped 300 students from Latin America to come to this country at this time. Your Lordships have just been hearing some population figures, so you can see what a small fraction that is, but I hope that in years to come we shall be able to do a little more.
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, was kind enough to mention the interest taken by my former Department in Latin America. I am sure that that will be gratifying to the Department, because over the years when economic prospects and economic retrospects in Latin America have been sober to the point of the really bearish, that Department has at least done its best to keep the consciousness of our relationship with Latin

365
America alive. I hope that it will become more alive throughout the country as time goes on.
That brings me to my final section, which is about the challenge. The first point I should like to make is a psychological one. Anyone who has anything to do with Latin America has to realise and accept that there is a style of human contact with Latin Americans which is not like the style of contact with anybody else. It is very unlike the style of contact of British people with each other. It contains much more eloquence, much more splendid language and much more outgoingness than the phlegm that has become known as a British characteristic. One has to accept this, while realising that there is hard realism underneath. So we have to learn that the outgoing personality is very much what is needed in our Latin American contacts, be they cultural or business.
Then we need to take a sober view of the great handicaps—distance, language and expense. It is a long way to Argentina, so it costs a great deal to get there. There is no background of the English language, such as there is in the former Commonwealth countries, though in some countries there are important English, Welsh and Scottish communities. All this combines to mean that commercial and other contact with Latin America is expensive. This means two things. The first is that silence and stinginess are just no use. It also means that, for business firms of small size, Latin America is an immensely difficult market. How to cover it with the smaller resources of the smaller firms is a great problem which, certainly when I went to Latin America, had not been solved at all. I can only hope that there is some progress towards that solution, because otherwise it will be difficult for small firms to get the kind of orders in Latin America that they might otherwise, on merit, expect.
May I say a word on trade and investment? I think that, with the growing nationalism, the old style of investment is out; but, as I believe the noble Earl, Lord Cowley, said, joint ventures might he something that could be entered into. But it will all have to be managed with great care and with due regard to the differing political conditions and tensions in the different countries. There are, of
366
course, small things which could be done to make investment a little easier, particularly if some difference could be made in the treatment as regards the surcharge, the premium, on direct as opposed to portfolio investment; but it may be that these things are not practical. On the other hand, as regards trade there is very much less impediment—and here I come to my final point. There has been talk of the efforts being made to bring together those people in this country who are interested in export to Latin America and in trade with Latin America. I should like to take this further and to express the hope that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will make some comment on it. There has been a great deal of talk about lack of follow-up, which I noticed myself as I went round.
I think one of the things which has been lacking on the British side in recent years is organisation. There have been committees, there have been bodies and there have been fairs; but, because of the complexity of the problems of the subcontinent, do we not need some kind of standing, continuous strategy body, to comprise the interests, not only of Government but also of industry and trade, to keep an eye on the long-term prospects in Latin America and the ways in which we can best take our opportunities instead of missing them? We have people who think in big terms about Latin America, and at the risk of upsetting anybody else may I mention, for instance. Sir George Bolton, who was until recently chairman of the Bank of London and South America, and Sir Raymond Smith, who has done so much for our exports to Venezuela; but there are many others. If, somehow, arising out of the seminar, which is very welcome, and out of Mr. Godber's tour in Latin America, we could have some point where matters could be considered in their long-term political, strategic, economic and cultural way, I think it would fill a gap which I feel has hitherto existed.
Once again I beg your Lordships' indulgence for the shreds and patches I have offered. I should like to end with those two words which I used to hear with such delight in United Nations' debates. When a Latin American delegate had made a long and impassioned speech he would suddenly stop and say, "Nada mas" which means, "That is all".
4.43 p.m.
LORD VESTEY: My Lords, in the ten years since I first took my seat in your Lordships' House I have listened with interest to debates which have been extremely far-ranging, and one of the things that has been most apparent to me is that, whatever the subject under debate, there was at least one expert in your Lordships' House who spoke on it with great knowledge. I ask your Lordships' indulgence as I speak to you this afternoon. This is the first time that I have spoken in your Lordships' House, but I felt that I should not speak unless I had some experience of the subject under discussion. I must begin by declaring an interest. For the last 60 years my family has been operating meat works in South America. We also have interests in ranching activities in Brazil and Venezuela, and we have interests in various shipping companies which run services to South America. I have spent a total of nearly three years in South America, including a period when I lived for one year in the Argentine and for a similar period in Brazil. With these interests, it is obvious that I should welcome closer ties between the United Kingdom and the countries of Central and Southern America.
I should like to confine my remarks to-day to South America, and in particular to Argentina and Brazil. There is no need for me to remind anyone in this House of the need for reciprocal trade. That is the basis of our economy to-day, and the reason for the interest in and the importance which is attached to balance-of-payments figures. Even if, or when, the United Kingdom joins the European Economic Community we shall never be able to provide all the food that we in this country require. We cannot produce the quantity, nor can we produce it as cheaply as other countries can. In particular, South America has been in the past a large exporter of beef, both frozen and chilled, and of canned meat products, although the figures have been reduced considerably in the last few years. The approximate figures for beef shipped to the United Kingdom from the Argentine, Uruguay and Brazil are 72,000 tons in 1970 and 40.000 tons in 1971; and exports of canned goods from South America to the United Kingdom were 37,000 tons in 1970 and 22,000 tons in
368
1971. These figures show that, although we are relying to a much lesser extent on imports from South America, they still play a reasonably important part in our overall totals. But I must stress that the figures I have mentioned represent under 5 per cent. of our total beef consumption in the United Kingdom to-day.
At the same time, the South American countries are expanding at a rate which we in this country find difficult to envisage. For example, Brazil's population has increased in twenty years from 50 million to nearly 95 million. Other South American countries, while not having such startling increases, have also expanded at a very high rate. By 1975, the population of South America will have increased to 300 million, and in thirty years' time the population in South America will be above 600 million.
There has always been, as has been said, substantial British investment in South America, but our trading influence has declined rapidly since the war. This reduction has occurred for many reasons, but mainly because the patterns of trade are changing; and although British skills and industry are still required to provide a service in South America, many of the things that we have exported in the past can now be produced there from within. Other countries, too, have stepped into the breach, and have encouraged their nationals to invest in South America. With such a huge population there, I feel that we as a country cannot afford to ignore South America. Apart from the enormous benefits which are to be gained from reciprocal trade, I do not believe that the United Kingdom can afford to lose the opportunity to take part in this growth. We should combine export drives with encouragement to British firms to invest overseas. I do not want this to be taken as any sort of criticism of the help which successive British Governments have given British firms abroad. But I am saying that this help should be increased and fresh drives encouraged, as I believe that not only shall we have the increased benefits of joining the Common Market, but we must also look towards the rapidly expanding markets of South America.
There are many ways in which we can learn from South America. Nearly all the countries in South America have a basis of very different racial groups, yet

369
in the past, in the vast majority of cases, there has been no racialism, and all the people living under one flag consider themselves as very much belonging to the country in which they live. We in this country have been plagued in the last five or six years with the rising cost of living. The Argentine, after extreme inflation and the rising cost of living, was able to control this until the last two years, and managed to reduce the increase in the cost of living from something over 100 per cent. down to a much more manageable 20 per cent., or even 15 per cent. Brazil, in particular, has been able to reduce inflation from approximately 80 per cent. in 1963, and 85 per cent. in 1964, to well under 20 per cent. for 1970 and for last year.
Although these figures are startling, the power of recovery has been even more so, and this shows, I feel, the recuperative powers of these countries. The countries we are discussing are still poor by Western European standards, but their poverty is only in the standard of living, which is in any case improving year by year. Most of these countries are rich in natural resources, and they are making good economic progress. The benefits to be had in this country by increased trade with South America are enormous. I know that most South American countries are keenly looking forward to the opportunities that will arise in trade with an enlarged European Economic Community. The chance of further trade with such an increased market is being seized upon in South America. I hope very much that this feeling is passed on to companies in this country which are being given such a great chance.
I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Cowley, for initiating this debate. I should like to say, in conclusion, that although people in this country may still regard South America as a high risk area, and may be steering away from further British investment there, there is no doubt that the United States, Japan and European countries other than Britain are seeing opportunities arise in South America and are establishing themselves in a very large way. As we stand now on the brink of economic recovery we cannot afford to let opportunities of trade with South America slip from our grasp.
5.1 p.m.
LORD NELSON OF STAFFORD: My Lords, I am most privileged to rise after
370
two maiden speakers have spoken to us this afternoon. I think it is a unique occasion that we should have two maiden speakers who are both real experts on the subject under debate. I very much congratulate my noble friend Lord Vestey on his maiden speech. I am sorry that it has taken him so long to get around to it, but I am sure that I express the wishes of the House that we shall hear him often on future occasions.
I should like to add my thanks to those of others to the noble Earl who introduced this debate. It is an opportunity to emphasise the importance of a large area of the world which has a great growth potential and one which has, as we have already heard, both excitement and interest. I would emphasise that I do not speak as an expert on the area like both our maiden speakers to-day, but from a considerable experience of trading in these areas; and in the context of this debate what better basis is there for increasing ties than by increasing trade and commerce?
We have already heard from noble Lords of the great historical ties which associate us with this area. I support very much my noble friend Lord Eccles in drawing attention to the great pioneering which has been done in these countries by so many from this country in the years gone by. In fact one of my own companies was closely associated with the vast railway buildings programme which took place there at the end of the last century. But it is an enormous area, and this is one of our difficulties—8½ million square miles, two and a half times the size of Europe. It is difficult to embrace such an enormous area on any occasion, and it is certainly difficult in an afternoon's debate. It comprises so many individual countries with their own characteristics, from Brazil, which has been touched on, with its 95 million people, though Mexico with 50 million people down to Guyana with, I think, the smallest population of 700,000. It comprises different climates, different conditions, different backgrounds and different national resources.
From a commercial point of view I must emphasise that each one must be treated individually and they cannot be treated as a whole. I think this a mistake which is often made. I would also emphasise the danger of generalisation. We

371
are talking about 18 different and separate republics, seven in Central America, 11 in South America. My noble friend Lord Eccles has already referred to the population: 260 million people—25 per cent. greater than that of the U.S.A. Its growth of population is one of the highest in the world and, fascinatingly, 50 per cent. are under the age of 20. It is a market with many different standards, many different requirements, very many different needs. It is also an area in which in the larger countries, the more developed countries, there are very rapidly developing and competent industries, and these have to be taken very much into account.
Having said that, one must emphasise what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said earlier: it is a country of great potential and about to "take off". Throughout my commercial life I can remember the saying that South America was about to "take off". The great difficulty is to ascertain its timing—when it is going to take place. But there is without doubt a great potential. Its gross national product at the moment is about one-seventh, I think, of that of the U.S.A. Yet North American standards are the sort of standards it sets for its better, more developed populations, and that is the way it is going with a 5 per cent. annual increase in gross national product at the present time. Without doubt there are great opportunities for developing primary products, and for the sale of capital and consumer goods, and for commerce and banking. But from a commercial point of view I must emphasise that it imposes many difficult problems.
I would agree with what has already been said: that it has been in many respects a commercially disappointing area for this country. Neither trade nor investment from the United Kingdom has increased in proportion to the economic growth of the countries concerned. These early prospects in which we pioneered have, without doubt, been hampered by the effects of two world wars. I would emphasise that most of us, speaking from industry's point of view, have time after time worked up a great enthusiasm for increasing trade with these areas. Missions have been sent out, trade fairs have been organised, individuals have stumped the countries, resident staffs have been
372
built up and investments have been made. Undoubtedly there have been some successes, but there have also been many disappointments. I think that too many of our efforts, for one reason or another, seem to run into the ground. The sheer size of the problem has something to do with it. But one thing is clear: enthusiasm, per se, is not enough.
Stimulated by this debate, I have tried to analyse my own commercial experience of this area with a view to suggesting ways of improving and strengthening ties for the future. That is what we want to try to achieve this afternoon. I think that we must start from the point of view that there is much goodwill from past associations. This has already been emphasised and I agree with it. There is also considerable expertise in this country of the countries concerned, and also many opportunities for reciprocal trade. There is a good base; on that we can all agree. But, looking at it from the industrial point of view, industry must have its priorities; it is important that we get our priorities right. Resources are not unlimited. We must compare the attractiveness of one area with another. South and Central America include countries in which successful trading has proved to be very difficult. Why is this? There are political ties which have to be taken account of.
Reference has been made to the United States being not perhaps politically always successful in its efforts, but I think I must add that commercially it has been pretty successful, and those countries' ties with the U.S. are pretty strong. I mention two aspects: first, defence; second, major infrastructure development—in both of which the United States have played a very big part and as a result have established for themselves a very strong base for future supplies, local servicing, local investment and local manufacture. In addition there are associations with Europe. There are old traditional ties with Spain. As Spain develops industrially, so its trade with South America is naturally developing. Other European countries made a direct attack on this area immediately after the War when we were preoccupied elsewhere, and have made a substantial impact. Then, added to this is the problem, which has been emphasised already but I must say it

373
again, that there are a number of countries where political and financial stabilities have not always been as strong as those in countries elsewhere.
Central and South America also poses a number of other problems specific to industry. I would mention technical standards, for instance. In my industry, the electrical industry, most of the standards are set accounting to the North American pattern, starting at 60-cycle electrical supply and working through from there. It is also very much influenced by American style of design and performance. This makes it rather difficult to sell; either you have to convince a client that he should have things of a European or British standard or you have to make something special for that particular market, which is difficult. I would mention local manufacture which is becoming equally important, and again the question of standards is important. If one manufactures overseas one wants to manufacture the things which are manufactured in this country and not something to a different design and specification.
There are also the questions of language and training. Language was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, and I agree with what he said. Many students from South American countries go to North America for their training and are very much influenced by this. Finally, may I emphasise what has been said before: that this is a very competitive area. Everybody is there and everybody is selling, and they all look on it as a country with opportunities. This makes representation very difficult. There is great competition for satisfactory representatives in the territory. One might add that politics play an important part. Where you have a lot of people after your business, politics can play a major part. These, my Lords, seem to me to be some of the reasons why industry finds this a difficult area.
Turning to the future, may I say that I do not look at this from the negative point of view, from the point of view of why it is difficult. I analyse why it is difficult only to see where and in what way we can improve for the future and therefore take a positive line. It is clear from what has been said that from the
374
aspect of goodwill, prospects and interest there is no problem. From the point of view of standards, distance, the size of the area and representation there is a problem, and primarily it is a problem of communication. We must recognise this and overcome it. I am encouraged by what my noble friend Lord Eccles said about the work of the universities and the education authorities which have made a real contribution.
In tackling these problems what are we to do and in what way can we do it? May I take this opportunity to pay tribute to those who are helping us. The Embassies and staffs throughout the South American and Central American countries are the greatest possible help to us in industry. I would pay tribute to that and also to the very considerable improvement which has taken place in the commercial activities of our Embassies and staffs in the last few years. I should also like to emphasise the importance of the Overseas Development administration. Funds which they have placed in these areas have been valuable and helpful, and I hope that they will continue to be active, particularly in respect of selective and important projects. The work of the British Council is also very valuable and I hope that this will not be cut back. I was glad to hear Lord Eccles refer to this.
Industry has helped itself also through the C.B.I. scholarship scheme which has brought over 500 students to this country in the last six years. That has been a very valuable contribution, because all those people will have positions of influence in the countries from which they came. Over the last eight years the Institute of Directors has organised visits for over 3,000 students of various groups and this again has been a great help. British consultants have pioneered in this territory and are playing a very valuable part. So on the positive side there is a great deal being done, and I think that we should take note of that.
This is an area where success breeds success. It enables us to strengthen the representation, build up local manufacture, give better service and train engineers and local personnel. So what have we to do to achieve more successes, which is really what it is all about? Perhaps I may put forward the thought that we should have greater selection.

375
It is such a large area, with such a large number of different countries and with so many different opportunities, that we should perhaps be more selective by country, by project and by product. Our efforts have to be more co-ordinated. There must be a co-ordinated attack by industry, Government and the banks. Instead of going after too many "red herrings", or objectives, at the same time, perhaps we should select more key schemes which will prove important for future success; and we should be prepared to make exceptions. I know that it is difficult for industry and Government to make exceptions. There is always the person who says, "Why not me too?". But this is done by our competitors, and if we want more successes, I think that we must be prepared to make exceptions to achieve those successes.
In the end it must boil down to the fact that we must be competitive in price, delivery and performance. In a rapidly inflating economy, one is always in difficulty about price and, if any emphasis were needed, this emphasises the need to keep inflation under control. On delivery and performance one needs capacity, which we have in British industry now, and so this should not prove difficult. Regarding product and performance, I think that our designers have to go out more into the territory and be more in touch with the needs of the market. In other words, our marketing must be improved. This, of course, is expensive, particularly in an area of this size; and the question of how such expense is to be covered until the activity in the market is big enough to support it is indeed a problem.
My Lords, probably the most important thing for industry in this area is to have competitive financial terms. These area important in three specific areas which I will touch on. First, it is essential to be able to offer suppliers credit, and this must be on competitive terms. We must be able to get proper cover from the Export Credits Guarantee Department for the projects we want to go after and the terms must be on a competitive basis. In this respect, perhaps Government policy regarding export credits should, in certain cases, be more closely geared to commercial objectives
376
rather than solely guided by financial factors. I think this touches somewhat on the point to which the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, referred. We must have a strategy, and all aspects have to play into the same common strategy. I do not for a moment suggest that we should start a credit war or that this is in any way desirable, but, on the other hand, we must be realistic and realise that our terms must match those available from elsewhere if we wish to be successful.
In this respect, I was recently told by an important customer for heavy electrical equipment that 6½ per cent. interest offered on suppliers' credit just was not good enough. Whether to believe him or not is, of course, a matter of commercial judgment. But I think the Government must take note that interest rates must be competitive if we are to be success-full. Your Lordships will no doubt realise that when one is dealing with large major projects, the question of one half of 1 per cent. interest on the loans associated with that project are indeed very large sums of money and can represent the difference between success and failure. Speaking with a certain amount of experience, I would say that it is most disappointing when one works on a major project for, say, two or three years to bring it to fruition and one finds that one loses it because of one half of 1 per cent. on the suppliers' credit.
The second area which I think should be emphasised is that fixed and known costs are important to customers even in countries which are used to living with inflation; they still want to know what it is they are going to pay. Inflation makes it difficult, if not impossible, and certainly hazardous from the suppliers' point of view. Unless we can get inflation under control, there will be a need for some insurance against inflation on contracts spread over a long period of time. Thirdly, we have seen the problems and dangers of instability of exchange rates. These again are important on long-term capital projects, and this is where the big opportunities are in these countries, because so many of the consumer goods they are now making themselves. I hope that the difficulties of changing exchange rates over the last few months are now over, but may be there is a need for a system of some protection to suppliers for

377
risks such as these which are outside their control.
These are some of the problems that must be looked at if we are to establish a firm and growing position in what we all recognise is an important market. It is essentially a matter for industry, commerce and Government to tackle together. But I would say to the Government that if this is regarded as a special situation—and I think it is—then it will require some special action along these lines, particularly in the areas of export credit and insurance cover, against inflation, investment risks and exchange risks, taking fully into account what is being done by our competitors. I hope that these matters will receive the Government's special consideration, and that what I have said will emphasise, at least from one aspect of industry, that British industry is not uninterested in this area, is alive to the opportunities and is most anxious to participate more and more in the great opportunities which lie in La tin America.
5.14 p.m.
LORD THOMAS: My Lords, I rise with a deep sense of good fortune and privilege. To have been here this afternoon to hear two such admirable maiden speeches is a lasting and memorable pleasure. I hope that we shall hear more in the future from the noble Baroness, Lady Northchurch, and the noble Lord, Lord Vestey, both of whom were a joy to listen to. I am grateful, too, to the noble Earl, Lord Cowley, for initiating this debate on Central and South America. There is a familiar ring about the words "Latin America", because when I worked at a factory at a place which bore the illustrious name of the noble Earl, we got so fond of it that we used to regard Oxford as our Latin Quarter. We shall hear a good deal more to-day about Latin America.
I would make the point that in the olden days it used to be said that "trade follows the flag". To-day, I suggest, the flag follows trade. Once upon a time, most of South American railroads, harbour works and civil contracting was done by Britain. To-day that balance has shifted. Yet, my experience in travelling up and down South America over the years has been that the countries there want to trade with the British.
378
Admittedly, I was mainly in the airline business, but that covers a very wide spectrum. I found Brazilian, Argentinian, Peruvian and Mexican business executives extremely pleasant, keen, co-operative and anxious to work with the British.
Of course, we have had our ups and downs. One of the difficulties that we had to face was in the monetary field. For several years when the pound sterling was trying to keep its head above water there were obvious difficulties in trading. Some South American countries would not allow profit from foreign capital to be taken out of their countries. They were very ingenious traders. I have sad memories of B.O.A.C. airline tickets for Paris and Rome being bought for pesos in Buenos Aires and being resold in America for U.S. dollars to provide a cut-rate onward flight to Europe. That was one of the sort of problems with which we had to deal. But, thanks to the keen eyes of people like the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, and of course to good airline staff work, things like that do not happen nowadays and there are improvements. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Nelson of Stafford, has so cogently said, monetary considerations still present obstacles. Comparatively recently in Mexico there was a demand for a nuclear-powered electricity generating station. The British basic quote was well placed on a short list; but the credit terms (and this is a point the noble Lord, Lord Nelson of Stafford, mentioned) both in percentage interest rates and duration, were not sufficiently attractive, anyway at that time. The terms, as distinct from the total price, offered by North America and other countries were overwhelmingly better. With the noble Lord, Lord Nelson of Stafford, I hope that we shall have some easement in these restrictions on finance for industry and shall be able more easily to make progress.
Of course, customers like the South Americans put forward the usual excuses —unreliable delivery dates, shortcomings in quality and in detailed work: they throw these excuses in the face of British and other salesmen. Such disparagements can and must be corrected, as well as refuted. I think that we should have in our industrial set-up a better feed-back from the sales front for corrective action on the factory floor. But my personal

379
experience proves that our record and our heritage in Latin America is still a sure foundation on which to build in these days of sophisticated technology and higher engineering advances. All is far from being lost. Historical reputation is playing back into our hands.
Mark you, my Lords, it also dealt us some very hard knocks. When the Comet fell out of the sky in the mid-'fifties we had to give up the South American route and thus hand profitable traffic on a plate to other European airlines, who naturally tended to by-pass London. But now, what a wonderful chance we have ahead with the Anglo-French Concorde! Most people seem to relate this medium-range supersonic project solely to the Europe to North American route: London or Paris to New York or Montreal. Most people outside Britain, and indeed some in these Islands, seem to regard Concorde as predominantly a French project, which of course it is not. I think it is fair to say that without the unique British engines that were specifically designed and built for this particular application there never would have been a Concorde. Let us remind ourselves that Concorde has already visited South America. I believe it can play a very considerable part in bringing the two continents together both philosophically and materially.
I observe with some abraided reaction that the modern advertising jargon for high-speed travel is "earth-shrinking". I prefer to look upon it as "time saving". However, "speed" spelt by any other name can always be spelt as "fleet" Let us take a key international city in Latin America, such as Rio de Janeiro. By today's subsonic four-jet airliner it takes 12 hours and 5 minutes to get from London to Rio. A Concorde flying via Dakar in West Africa takes only six hours and 35 minutes. Or let us look at Buenos Aires in the Argentine. A conventional jet now takes 14 hours 5 minutes flying from London. A Concorde via Dakar and Rio takes only 8 hours 35 minutes. I think that one of the best indications of how effectively Concorde can operate in South America was the demonstration tour there by 001 in September 1971, when it operated like any other commercial airline in all
380
weather conditions, fitting into the traffic patterns and departing on schedule during the whole tour. Thus, in this supersonic age we have a new tool to help build even better relationships of all kinds between Britain and the countries of Central and South America.
My Lords, let us not think in terms of passengers alone but also have regard to mail, urgent freight and medicinal and pharmaceutical interchange. It may well be that we shall now see the beginning of a new era of relationships in international trade and communications. Equally, let us avoid the pitfalls of the past when Britain tried to establish little or sometimes even large enclaves of exclusively British people—little Englanders—in a foreign land. I believe that the new philosophy is that the incomer, be he a long- or short-term visitor to a foreign land, should integrate with the culture and the social structure of the residents and not try to do it the other way round. From my own experience I know that to do that in South and Central America is by no means a hard task. I welcome and support the cause of the noble Earl, Lord Cowley.
5.23 p.m.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, whether the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Vestey, and I were educated together clouds my judgment I do not know, but I should like to congratulate him on an excellent maiden speech. Obviously I was not educated with the noble Baroness, Lady Northchurch, but I should also like to say how much I enjoyed listening to her speech.
As has already been said, in 1914 Britain dominated, among other international markets, that of Latin America. Most of the railways and the meat trade had been developed by Great Britain. The Chilean nitrate trade was shared between Britain and Germany, who was at that time our main competitor in the rest of Latin America. Since then, partly through having to sell assets to fight two wars and partly through mismanagement and ill-feeling by all concerned which arose after this war, much of the built-in advantage which Britain had as the inheritor and supporter of the Latin American revolution and of Canning's call to bring into existence the New World to redress the balance of the Old seems to have been

381
dissipated. The British public, however, appear on the whole to be more ignorant of what happens in Latin America than in any other continent. Perhaps this is due to hostile or, at best, apathetic Press coverage. There is no denying that in some cases this bad Press is partly due to the political instability and lack of a sense of purpose that is found in some Latin American countries. The impression obtained from newspapers in this country is that Latin America has nothing but coups, earthquakes and starving Incas. This picture is perhaps not completely true for Chile, for the obvious reason that an elected Marxist trying to rule constitutionally must be newsworthy. As an instance of this, all the Latin American Ambassadors, I believe, were united in their agreement that the Sunday Times Colour Supplement article of September 26 was tendentious, to say the least. This disillusionment must not prevent British businessmen from attacking hard in the most hopeful area for development, which is Brazil. The Brazilian economy is booming at the moment in a manner which can be paralleled only by that of the United States in the late 19th century.
In 1966, Brazil imported 1,500 million dollars worth of goods. In 1968, it imported goods worth 2,130 million dollars. Britain's share rose from 44 million dollars to 96 million dollars. The latest figure (which I am afraid is in pounds and not dollars) that for 1971, is £84 million per year, which is a very impressive performance. However, in 1968 Germany sold the Brazilians 235 million dollars worth of goods: in 1968, our share of the Brazilian import bill was 4½ per cent. Perhaps I can illustrate the situation by giving the picture of the insurance market, in which I work. The total inflow of funds to Lloyds and the British Insurance Association companies last year was, according to the best informed "guestimate" (there are no completely accurate figures available) in the region of £6 million. This £6 million does not represent 4½ per cent. of the Latin American insurance import bill, but 60 per cent. I should perhaps also explain that this is a gross figure. The total net banking and insurance earnings from Latin America were £3½ million per annum out of a total of £38 million. For
382
the businessman or the trader who wants to go for this Brazilian market, the Brazilian Ambassador to this country, the Brazilian Trade Centre and the newly formed Brazilian European Bank are all excellent sources of information and assistance to any British businessman who cares to take the trouble to approach this mammoth consumer market. The population of Brazil is rising towards 100 million, as we have already heard. The Department of Trade and Industry also produces a very helpful little booklet.
The Brazilian solution is a unique one, and so is the Brazilian mentality; and whoever seeks to further trade in that country, with the necessary mixture of hardheadedness and humility, would be well advised first to ensure that he is represented by someone who knows Brazil's history and language. The problem of communication cannot be overstressed, and the sad lack of knowledge of Portuguese by most businessmen in this country who deal with Brazil accounts for far more misunderstandings than is usually realised.
In Brazil, the personal contact aspect of business is of paramount importance, and joint ventures seem to be the most practical way of getting in. But let us not make the same fatal mistake of which the Brazilians so often accuse the North Americans, who think that because they are putting up at least 50 per cent. of the money, or possibly more, their Brazilian partners must learn to think and behave as they do. Such an attitude of mind will end in disillusionment for the British businessman. We must always steer a middle course between gullibility and any tendency to domineer. British firms would be well advised to send their young men to Brazil for a year to learn the language and absorb the mentality of the country before embarking on any projects which they envisage. It would not be time wasted.
Brazil has been accused by respectable and unrespectable sources alike of practising a military dictatorship, and all the other unpleasantnesses that go with one. But let us not forget that we encourage trade with other countries whose internal systems of government are such that they are probably a lot worse than those which arise in Brazil. Finally, perhaps we should be thinking of all this not in the context of British trade to Latin America

383
but, with the unified monetary system of the E.E.C. coming in the next few years, in the context of a united European assault on these markets so that we can bring the Old World back into existence to redress the balance in the New.
5.30 p.m.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, I am sure that we all welcome my noble friend Lord Cowley's Motion on this very important subject at this particular moment when we are in the process of joining the E.E.C. Here I should like to echo the words of my noble friend Lord Onslow, and the remarks he made at the conclusion of his speech. I will speak for only a few minutes, but I should like to enlarge on that point. South America is the fourth largest continent, and its population, as has been said, is increasing at the rate of 6 per cent. per year. This is larger than North America or Africa and will soon outstrip them by many millions. Its inhabitants are as to 90 per cent. European, with European historic and religious traditions. Such coloured races as there are have been integrated, and the difficulties which beset so many countries in respect of this matter are really unknown in that continent. They have a great advantage over us. As my noble friend Lord Eccles said, we played a prominent part there at the time of the Napoleonic wars; we not only made a military contribution, we also left behind a great many British whose names are familiar in those countries—and that is quite a surprise when one visits there.
Up to the 'thirties we had large investments in South America. However, the Monroe doctrine of 1823 had a certain amount to do with the change of influence from us to North America. By the end of the Second World War we had pretty well opted out. Now things have changed again. The South American Republics have become very nationally conscious and, as somebody said, woe betide you if you lump them together, because they are so different in character. All of them are struggling to free themselves from the hegemony of "Big Brother" in the North, and from this particular financial control. Further, the attention of the U.S.A., shocked by the Cuban episode, has been attracted to the East and the Far-East. In these circumstances the
384
South American States have tried to diversify their exports and exploit their natural resources. Copper, oil, bauxite, silver and tin—to mention only a few of their minerals—have a great international value with which we are familiar. We are also familiar with their normal agricultural exports, about which we have heard very interesting comments in the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Vestey. They have also diversified agriculturally in some rather original ways: fresh strawberries from Mexico, flowers from Colombia, pickled cucumbers from Dominica, mushrooms from Costa Rica, ground nuts and kenaf from Nicaragua. It makes one feel quite hungry reading out this list!
Some European countries, notably Germany and Italy (and we are going to be their partners in the E.E.C.) have for some time had an eye to the industrial developments. Germany is doing especially well—and I should like to draw the attention of the noble Lord who is to reply to the debate to this point—thanks to her system of insurance for her foreign investors and her readiness to work through international consortiums. Japan is not far behind. To a large extent, compared to our potential, we have opted out. It was especially distressing when B.O.A.C. shut down their flights, because there is no doubt that a strong air link between countries is a great help to trade and contacts. B.U.A. have done nobly, but I hope that, having listened to my noble friend Lord Thomas, Concorde will be a further great strengthener in this part of the world.
We are sometimes suspicious of South American politics and I have occasionally said to myself, "Are they less trustworthy than the African ones?" I rather doubt it. The Germans and Italians certainly do not think so. I remember saying to my son when he first went to Buenos Aires—he has since settled there—that I was rather nervous about the revolutions which periodically took place. He said, "But, Mother, you have an election every four years; we have a revolution every four years; it is very much the same thing." I have now ceased to worry.
Gradually, I am sure that the South American States will find their way towards political stability, though I do not think it will be precisely on the Westminster model. They are faced with the great

385
problem of turning over from a largely agricultural set-up to an industrial one, and trying to prevent their population from emigrating entirely from the interior to the seaside towns. They have to build up a stable middle class and develop inland industries. It is very natural that in the meanwhile in many countries the army should be holding the fort. I do not think that there is anything extraordinary about this; they are at the moment taking the place of the middle class. With the period of U.S.A. tutelage fading out, the South American Republics are looking towards Europe, their continent of origin, whose history and language they share. One might be allowed to say (although one hesitates to criticise one's American friends) that in the North of South America the indigenous culture has been very much overlaid with the American way of life. This is not congenial to all the South American Republics, especially in the South. They would infinitely prefer to strengthen their European ties and culture. Now that we are in the process of joining the E.E.C., it is time that we gave a much closer look towards this continent where there is a quite extraordinary fund of good will towards us, and where in the Southern part of the continent we shall find the British born or British descendant part of the population ready to receive and welcome us with open hands, and where we do not need to feel stupidly guilty of our colonial past.
My Lords, I commend to your interest a future of friendship and mutual benefit in this great continent, and ask you to lend your valuable influence in this House—and we have heard to-day that here there are many interested and expert people in these matters—to promote closer contacts and understanding in this part of the world which is only too ready to welcome us.
5.39 p.m.
BARONESS MACLEOD OF BORVE: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Cowley for instigating this debate because it has given the House the opportunity of hearing two excellent maiden speeches. First, we heard my very dear friend Lady Northchurch, whom I have admired for so very long. It has been a great pleasure to hear her once again giving of her charm, and the knowledge and expertise that she has in this particular field. The noble Lord,
386
Lord Vestey, spoke with eloquence, and I hope we shall all hear him a great deal in the future.
I was not aware that my noble friend Lord Onslow was going to take Brazil as his subject, because unfortunately I decided on the same course of action. It is one of those things that happen. My reason for doing so was that many years ago I made a memorable sea voyage. I was not very well at the time but that did not matter. I went to South America. I went all the way down from Recife past Rio de Janeiro to Buenos Aires, and all the way back again. This was a long time ago, and I was very impressed then by the country: by its vegetation, and also by the kindness and warmth of the people, which has been referred to to-day. I decided that if I was able to speak in this debate I should like to try to find out what has been happening, in particular to Brazil, since the time I took that voyage. I chose Brazil because it is the first landing place when one is going on such a journey by sea and, as all your Lordships know, it is such a vast country.
My noble friend Lord Onslow has, I think, given your Lordships all the relevant papers. I have a few pages of them but I shall now scrap them because you obviously will not want to hear them again. It amazed me that Portuguese was the only language which is used in this enormous country of Brazil with its 3·3 million square miles. It is so vast an area that it is almost impossible to realise the enormity of it, but the fact is that the one language is used by everyone in that country. I do so agree with one noble Lord who said that it is up to the British people, who as we know are so bad at languages, to learn Portuguese and be absolutely fluent in that language when they go out there and try to engage in trade.
I have been looking at the North-East of Brazil, which has a quarter of the whole of the population of that country, and it is very poor. The peasants farm and fish. They have a very bad mortality rate. The infant mortality rate is between 170 and 300 per thousand—a very high mortality rate indeed. It is generally brought about I believe by bad nutrition in the district, which in turn is brought about by continual droughts. However,

387
in 1969 a new form of local government called the Sudene was set up and that has organised a certain amount of prosperity in the North-East of Brazil. Eighteen months ago, as I am sure all your Lordships will know, they started to build the trans-Amazonian highway. This is getting well on the way to completion now. It is providing a great deal of employment. It is President Medici's hope that towns will be littered all along the vast highway, which stretches more or less from coast to coast and is parallel to the Amazon and covers an enormous area. This of course will bring an enormous amount of employment to the people of the North-East.
When one tries to find out some of the facts and figures, what is so striking is that, whereas Brazil was a poor country up till quite recently, now it is a very prospering country indeed. It exports to the United Kingdom only £62·8 million worth of goods per year; it imports £60·8 million worth, which means that imports and exports (I am sure your Lordships' arithmetic is better than mine) are roughly parallel. Of course, we hope that in future all trade will he increased. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, had obviously visited Brasilia and was so immensely struck by the architecture of that very beautiful city. That has been increasing in population. So, of course, has the industrial city of Sao Paulo. It is the overall wealth of the country, and the potential for all countries of the world to trade with all the countries of South America, that I think gives us encouragement. One can have courage to go out—and I hope our industrialists do—to find more trade and more ways of communication with the countries of South America, and in particular Brazil.
I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, who emphasised what I feel: that through sport and culture as well we can do a great deal to know these countries. I have been informed by my son, who is an expert in these matters, that the Brazilian football team is almost second to none in the world. I know that we over here have enjoyed watching them and that our teams have enjoyed going to play in Brazil. I hope that through this debate we have had to-day, my Lords, the countries of Latin America will take note of the fact that we are
388
interested, that we want to trade with them, and that we want to have closer ties. I am very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Cowley, for giving us the opportunity to air our hopes in this direction.
5.48 p.m.
LORD LUKE: My Lords, my contribution to this debate will be as short as possible, and possibly, as a result of the many points that have already been brought out in the debate and which I shall skim over rapidly, shorter than it might have been. My first words must be of tribute to those who have made a maiden speech: to my noble friend Lady Northchurch and to Lord Vestey, who is not in the Chamber at this moment. One noble Lord spoke of Lord Vestey's father and grandfather, and they and my father and grandfather all had very close connections with, particularly, the Argentine and Latin America; and I think it is splendid that we should have had two maiden speeches on this subject to-day.
I should like to pay a sincere tribute to my noble friend Lord Cowley for having initiated the debate. I did not agree with all he said. I know that he will forgive me when I say that I did not altogether agree with his contention that comparatively little has been done. I very much hope that as a result of this debate he will see that quite a good deal has been done and is being done, and perhaps we may hope that the debate has brought out the opportunities which he sought. In any event, I share his enthusiasm for the subject. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, in his speech said that there is nothing between us on either side of the House except agreement, which is a very good thing to go on to-day.
To my mind, the importance of recognising and appreciating the place in the world which each Latin American country has achieved is paramount. Noble Lords who have spoken to-day—and I hope it will be the case in an even wider sphere —have done much to correct wrong impressions, though none of us has minimised the difficulties in our relations with Latin American countries. Basically I maintain that we have strong, friendly ties and these are not lightly broken. They form a solid foundation

389
for our forward progress together. After all, it is the privilege of friends to criticise each other. Perhaps it is rather a pity that we have not got a Latin American Peer to speak in the debate, as he might criticise us pretty forcefully on some of the things that we have said.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Nelson of Stafford, who paid tribute to the efforts of the British who live and work in those countries, and I would certainly add my tribute, both to the embassies and their staffs and also to the many worthy people in the British communities throughout Latin America. It is fifty years since I first went to the Argentine and, as my noble friend Lord Eccles has reminded us, it is in this present year that the 150th anniversary of independence is to be celebrated. I first went there in 1922. They were then celebrating the 100th anniversary, and I am delighted to think that a statue to Bolivar is to be erected in London to mark the 150th anniversary. I have been coming and going through all those fifty years and I have seen the influence of the close tics between the British communities and the countries in which they live and work, and I believe their influence has been mostly for good.
I regret very much the considerable decline that there has been through the years. It has been the result of the decline in trade between our country and the Latin American countries. I do not want to repeat the reasons for that decline in trade, because we have heard a good deal about it to-day, but we still have some very good communities there. For instance, we still have British schools in many of the Latin American countries, in which quite often the majority of the pupils are nationals of the country concerned. I was interested to hear what my noble friend Lord Eccles said about Latin American studies at the universities, and also the various other matters that lie mentioned, including the efforts of the British Council in regard to cultural relations. I have not yet heard anybody mention sport, in connection with the Olympic Games which took place in Mexico in 1968. What a wonderful effort that was! It was the first time that the Olympic Games had taken place in Latin America.
390
All the countries in that continent have expanding economies, some more soundly based than others—Argentina, Brazil, Mexico in particular, and perhaps Colombia and Venezuela as runners-up. Through the years there has been this strong stream of economic nationalism to which my noble friend Lord Cowley referred; but in whatever way development has taken shape, there has always been the necessity for outside assistance from this country or Europe or the United States of America. One of the impediments to two-way trade has been the development of industries in those countries for import substitution rather than for export, although, of course, this is all part of the economic nationalism.
If there has been criticism that some of those countries have been hostile to the United Kingdom or to the United States I would rather put it this way: it is not hostility but a strong sense of being pro-themselves. Their attitude to foreign capital has tended to be that the outside world wanted too much for it and were not prepared to lend it for long enough. Who can say with what justification? A better tendency lately has been for the mobilising of foreign resources through international banks, and this is where I think there is great promise in what the noble Earl, Lord Cowley, and the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, called the joint development, with a proper balance between national and international sources. As I said, we have a great foundation of long-standing friendship which unfortunately, but rather naturally, fades into the past and needs to be renewed in each generation. It is this on which we try to build, and our British Weeks in various cities have undoubtedly done much in the right direction.
I would take issue with my noble friend Lord Cowley in regard to this matter. He said there was no follow-up: perhaps comparatively speaking there was not, but in point of fact there was a follow-up, and I think it is the way we look at this matter and whether the effect it should have is short-term or long-term. Undoubtedly there is an underlying need on both sides, on a continuing basis, for understanding and appreciation of the needs, the possibilities and the means

391
available. We in this country need to pay more attention to what is going on in Latin American countries. This needs a lot more study, and I only wish that the Press, which is good in parts, could be more helpful to this end. I know what it has been like, carrying on a business there for many years, through hard times and good, but I think that in the end we, and our friends there, have made a contribution which has been worth while. I have seen the progress and development which nothing can stop. Those great nations are going on their way. They are shaping their own patterns of economy, and, to my mind, it is just a question of whether we, as a nation, are going to play our part alongside al the other countries who will undoubtedly be doing so.
5.58 p.m.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, first, I apologise for the fact that my name does not appear on the list of speakers. That is not because on this side of the House there is no interest in this problem: it just happens that I had so much work to do this last week that I did not have much time to prepare a short speech on Latin America, though the Far East and Latin America are two of my first loves. However, before I make my speech, and since (I say this without any pomposity) I am the first speaker on this side of the House, apart from the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, may I draw attention to the maiden speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady Northchurch, and the noble Lord, Lord Vestey, and say how interested were Members on our side in those maiden speeches.
Having said that, may I say to the noble Lord, Lord Luke, that I am grateful to him for mentioning in the latter part of his speech the value of the British Weeks that are held from time to time. As the noble Lord opposite will know, there is to be one in the near future in Japan. It is Government money that is spent, whatever Government is in power; and it is well spent. I deprecate the terms in which some newspapers sometimes rather deeply denigrate the work of the British Council in various parts of the world, when in fact it does a first-class job of work. It would be invidious for me to mention the name of a news
392
paper because they would not have the privilege of attacking me direct, across the floor of the House. However, one need not be thin-skinned about that, because they attack anybody—sometimes merely for publicity. I know one newspaper which continuously—and "continuously" is better than "continually"—attacks the British Council.
May I say, if the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, will accept it, how much I enjoyed listening to every word of his speech, which was informative, and the tribute he paid to the organisations who have given so much attention to Latin America? I should have liked him (though he may have mentioned it and I missed it) to mention Chatham House. That, too, in its own way has done a considerable amount there, and if there is any money for seminars and constructive work by people of ability, people who are qualified, I am quite certain that the work of Chatham House in the field of foreign affairs in various parts of the world would be worthy of attention. Now to the short speech in which I wish to draw attention to a few points.
The noble Lord spoke of his grandfather. I have mentioned my grandfathers in this House from time to time. I remember telling the House of the one who was a great milker and who was so enamoured of his job that he shook people's hands one finger at a time. I had a great-uncle who took oranges to California and Mexico. If Lord Raglan happened to be in his place at the moment, or if the ghost of old Lord Llanover was still looking over the ramparts of Heaven on to these red Benches, I would tell them that in the lovely little village church of Llanover, outside Abergavenny, there is a tomb of the Davies family with the name Maximillian on it. We never ascended to the Austrian power of being princes, but in Mexico, we got mixed up with that crowd. I do not want anybody to go too much into my genaeology but there is a "Maximillian" on the tomb. So. with those threadbare excuses, I stand opposite the Government to make a short contribution. I can bring it down to about five points.
In my day, if we did not pass all our subjects in an examination we failed the lot. It was for the Welsh Higher School Certificate, and a book I had to read was

393
Plant yr Haul, which, translated, means Children of the Sun. It was all about the Incas of Peru, and I was delighted when the noble Lord in his own speech to-day spoke of this wonderful civilisation of the Incas of Peru. I was just a youngster then struggling, as we always had to struggle, to get what tiny bit of education we could through scholarships, to get what are now called A-levels—we had no highfalutin antonyms, we called things what they were; now we fill all our speeches with antonyms and nobody knows what anybody else is talking about. But, quite frankly, from that day on I always considered that one of the most dynamic parts of the world was this mighty continent. I am hoping that one day the Welsh of Patagonia will send a Rugby team to Cardiff Arms Park; they might be able to do it. When I heard to-night in this debate the comment, "Can we trust the Latin Americans any more than the Africans", I would, with all due humility, draw the attention of this noble House to the fact that it is Europeans we are dealing with in Latin America. So we must not be too "uppity" about the honesty of Latin American men as compared with European men. Whatever sins Latin American man has, he has derived them from his brothers in Europe.
The first thing that should be mentioned is that there is a change in the affairs of men. I have just been writing about this and this is why I am chatting about it, and I will only call it a chat. Nixon has turned a complete somersault and he has frightened the China watchers to death. The pundits have been prophesying about what is going to happen to Red China—I have been looking up my Marxism this weekend—and what is going to happen to the world. Suddenly, because we are not far from a General Election in the United States, we find that Nixon has changed his direction completely. I am not going to pass cheap remarks about that. If that change of direction is a sincere effort to get truth in the modern world, despite my political outlook it is my duty to do my best not to denigrate it but to help in whatever way I can to make it a success. So the first question I ask is: will this make a difference to the whole Monroe Doctrine approach to Latin America?
394
I want to take two countries, Chile and Peru. Last April the Chinese Deputy Foreign Secretary made an international agreement for the exchange of goods. I will not bother to read the figures; I want the spirit of the agreement rather than the statistics. It is a considerable amount of trade that the Chinese are doing there, and will do. But anybody who knows Chile will know that some of the hardest workers for generations in Chile have been Chinese men. I always regretted as a young man in my mentoring and tutoring days—because at one time I gave a series of lectures on Latin America—the slowness of British people to recognise the potentialities of Latin America. I do not want to make invidious comparisons, but I hope that my noble friend who spoke from the Front Bench will agree with me that in pre-Hitler days we allowed Germany to enter into Latin America, and in some inexplicable way (we did not have many Labour Governments in power) no Government in Britain seemed to pay enough attention to the volcanic possibilities of the development of this marvellous part of the world. I will not reiterate the first-clas well informed speeches that have been made in this House to-night, but to those of us who have had the pleasure and privilege of listening to them it is obvious that here is a part of the world of great potential development.
I have two loves: that on the Welsh side and in North Staffordshire where for 30-odd years I took a political interest and was a Member of Parliament for a quarter of a century. I want to pay a tribute to the North Staffordshire pottery industry for the way it has made a great penetration into the Latin American market. I did not have the privilege of hearing the noble Lord, Lord Nelson of Stafford, and for that I apologise, but I am sure he will have spoken of his great industry and the difficulties we are now having in penetrating there. So if I am asked—trying to make this a Socratic approach to the problem—what I am driving at, the answer is this. I hope that serious attention will be paid to the export guarantee side and export credit guarantees, and that, if possible, firms willing to pioneer in Latin America will, after suitable investigation, receive all possible help from the Government. Because no matter what attitude

395
we take to economics—the Marxist attitude or the ultra laissez faire Conservative attitude—one of the stark realities of the world in which we are living is the need to ask ourselves, with the mighty possibilities of the machine to-day, whether you nationalise an industry or whether it is private ownership; does it create more jobs when you have mighty machines that can do the work of 10, 20 or 100 people? In other words, the world will be forced to look at this problem of mechanisation and of currency. And this brings me to the last point but one in this tiny little speech,
I do not think you can have a sane monetary policy in the world unless the Western World is prepared to sit side by side with the Communist world of Russia and China and also with the Latin American world, because these parts of the world, Asia, South East Asia and Latin America, are the great areas of the tropical and sub-tropical oils, greases and fats which are essential for the driving of modern technology. "Liquidity of currency" is one of those silly phrases; even the economists do not know what they mean when they say it—and I am not sure that I do, either. What I mean is an easy flow; and an easy flow of currency cannot be created if we have an atmosphere of fear in the world. That is why I draw attention finally to the Nixon volcanic change. If the Nixon approach to China—and one can read, as I mentioned only last week, Lord Avon's book on Mr. Foster Dulles and the Geneva Conference of 1954—and to Chou en-Lai and Mao Tse-Tung is going to lead to great changes in South-East Asia and the Far East, it certainly is going to lead to a new approach to Latin America, because China has already made a number of agreements there and has exchanged ambassadors with Allende. We have now a Marxist system of society which has been democratically elected. Whether it will work, I do not know. As Nye Bevan once said, "Why look at the crystal ball when you have the book?" I do not want to act as a prophet, but I think there is a chance of the Chilean system indicating a new approach to Latin American politics.
If this debate is worth anything to those who are Latin America watchers, at least it will tell the world that Britain once
396
again—because I think the forces of history are pointing that way—is taking a dynamic and constructive interest in the problems of Latin America.
6.12 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I must, and I do with great pleasure, start my speech by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Northchurch, whom I know so much better as Lady Davidson on her maiden speech, and my noble friend Lord Vestey on his maiden speech. I have sat for many years in another place with Lady Davidson, and I know how tremendously involved she gets in problems where she thinks she can do some good, and I know she does a lot of good. In her maiden speech to-day she certainly did a lot of good, and I hope that her speech will be widely read. Her own personal experience of visiting South America, coupled with the experience of being married to a man who devoted so much of his life and time to the very thing that this debate is directed towards, made her speech of particular importance in this debate. She always speaks with fluency and charm, and we hope we shall hear her very often.
So far as my noble friend Lord Vestey is concerned, he has great experience. I do not know whether he is more or less experienced in the same field as my noble friend Lord Luke, but he brought that experience to bear to-day with very great effect. I thought that two of his most telling points concerned the rapid power of recovery of the Latin countries and their richness in natural resources. Perhaps I may add a third matter—a fact that was referred to by a number of speakers—namely, that there is virtually no racialism of any kind in South America. His was an excellent contribution, and exactly what was required in this debate. We are grateful to him for it, and we hope that we shall have the opportunity of being grateful to him on many occasions in the future.
One must express great gratitude to my noble friend Lord Cowley for initiating this debate and for the way in which he set the pattern. I was particularly impressed with the forthrightness of his speech. Where he had criticisms he made them, and where he had praise he gave it. He had much advice to give, and he also had a torrent of questions with

397
which I shall try to deal in the limited time that your Lordships would wish me to speak. I would also say that these three speeches were all the better for having a certain emotional content. This is certainly a subject which is near to the hearts of all these three speakers, and that made their speeches all the more interesting and convincing.
My noble friend Lord Cowley traced the history of our relations—and in particular our trade relations—with Latin America over the past century or so, from the time when British goods, capital and services far outdistanced other countries in South America, and British standards were widely accepted, including, may I say, the famous phrase which always endears Latin America to us, "palabra Inglese". They accepted this standard, and I think that possibly the admiration they have had for the standard we seek to set ourselves, of keeping our word, is something which has helped to cement relations between this country and the countries of South America.
Of course it is always true that no nation, young or old, is content to be too dependent on any other one country, however friendly. We had great influence in South America, and though that influence waned its decline neither arose from nor left behind any real sense of bitterness. Without being nostalgic we can say that the firm foundations for friendship remained and are still there. But friendship needs to be cultivated, and it is only comparatively recently that we, in this country, have realised that we have to some extent been neglecting it. If this debate does nothing else, it will at least give a clear indication, from both sides of the House, of our continuing good will, and our desire to help the countries of Latin America in their vigorous development, and, at the same time, to regain a larger share of their markets. There is undoubtedly in this country a lively and growing interest in Latin America which has been reflected not only in this debate but in the rapid growth in our exports, which in monetary terms have nearly doubled in the last four years. Last year alone our exports to Brazil rose from £61 million to £84 million. This interest is greatly fostered by the activities of Canning House. The newly formed Economic Affairs Committee is
398
receiving the full support of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Overseas Development Administration, and the Department of Trade and Industry, all of whom are represented on the Committee.
I thought that my noble friend Lady Northchurch was very right to point out that trade can never flourish for long on a one way basis, and the present rate of progress is likely to continue only if the Latin American countries are able to develop their exports to this country. Aid has a major part to play here. Advice and help, such as the Department of Trade and Industry contributes to Latin American Embassies in London and to visiting missions which come here, also has a part to play.
Then there is the generalised preference scheme. With the exception of Cuba, the Latin American countries all benefit from the tariff preferences which developed countries have agreed to give to developing countries. At the first UNCTAD conference in Geneva, at which the Prime Minister played such a distinguished part, Britain was the first developed country to give its support to the idea. Each developed country, or group of countries, has its own scheme for generalised preferences. The British scheme came into effect on January 1 this year and provides for duty-free entry on nearly all manufactures and semi-manufactures except textiles, and for duty-free entry or a duty reduction on a wide range of processed agricultural products. There are of course safeguards against disruption of trade. The third conference of UNCTAD—the second one was in New Delhi, as noble Lords will remember—is due to take place in April and May of this year on the ground of a Latin American country, at Santiago. The various groups, known as the 77 developing countries, have been preparing carefully for it, and they held a joint conference at Lima, in Peru, last November.
Official development aid to Latin America commenced on a very small scale in a limited number of countries in 1963. It has, in accordance with Government policy, expanded very rapidly even when there were restraints on the total aid programme and, with the increases planned in the overall programme, even more funds will be available over the

399
next five years. The programme concentrated initially on technical assistance, particularly in the field of tropical agriculture and technical education in which we had particular expertise to offer. It was the original intention to give the greatest amount of aid to the poorest countries, but in fact our largest programmes have been in the middle tier of countries approaching the point of economic take-off; that is, Colombia, Peru, Chile, Brazil and Central America taken as a whole. Though agriculture and technical education remain favoured targets, many other fields are now covered. In particular, it is current policy to provide feasibility studies executed by firms of British consultants to all countries, including the richest. Incidentally, a feasibility study was provided for the underground venture at Guadalajara, to which the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, referred in his excellent speech. Expenditure on technical assistance has risen from £3,000 in 1963 to nearly £2 million in 1971/72.
In the early 1960s, British capital aid in the form of loans was either for debt re-finance or disaster relief. Some small development loans were made later. This form of aid is also expanding rapidly, and development loans arranged on a bilateral basis for a total of approximately £30 million are at present at various stages of negotiation. In addition to bilateral loans, we have also contributed over £4 million in funds usable only for British goods and services administered on our behalf by the Inter-American Development Bank. The Bank also administers for us a fund of £4 million which is lent on highly concessional terms. This fund is not limited to procurement in Britain, but is open also to members of, and significant contributors to, the Bank. Our aid to this regional development bank is in line with our policy of supporting regional Latin American organisations, particularly those working towards the economic integration of the continent.
I should now like to turn to investment, which has been dealt with by a number of speakers, especially my noble friend Lord Nelson of Stafford. The long decline in British investment in the Latin American countries has been arrested and reversed. Our net annual
400
direct investment—I am not going to bore your Lordships with a great many figures, but I think you will be interested in these—excluding oil, rose from £8·3 million in 1967, to £21·3 million in 1969. Net earnings increased from £23.8 million to £32.7 million and the book value of British investment in this area (excluding oil, insurance and banking) stood at £283 million in 1968. Developing countries benefit from British private investment not only through the provision of capital, but because it brings with it technical, marketing and managerial skills and a general stimulus to local private enterprise. But, of course, British private investment will be forthcoming only if British investors consider that each particular private venture is likely to benefit them, too.
Developing countries take the view that their sovereignty is absolute, and that foreign private investment must accept the rules laid down by the host Government. Indeed, the Andean countries, which my noble friend Lord Cowley mentioned—that is, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru—have agreed on a common set of rules. They are perfectly entitled to do so. What the would-be foreign in-investor requires to know is where he stands on such questions as the sectors in which foreign investment is not welcomed; any restrictions on the transfer of profit and repatriation of capital; rates of taxation; degree of local participation in ownership and control required; and employment of foreign and local personnel. Of course, the foreign investor wants to have as few changes as possible, while recognising that changes in accordance with the position of a country at a particular time are bound to occur. The balance between national interests and the reasonable expectations of the foreign investor is a fine one, but it has to be maintained if capital—which, after all, is a scarce commodity in the world—is not to be scared away.
My noble friend Lord Nelson of Stafford, and others, mentioned the Federal German Government's investment scheme that is operated by a German holding company. The British system which is being evolved is different, but will, I hope, prove no less effective. I think it will be of interest if I went into this question, because a number of noble

401
Lords have raised it. During the past year, Her Majesty's Government have been considering what further incentives they might offer in order to stimulate a greater flow of private investment to those developing countries that wish to have the benefit of it and have shown that they will welcome it on fair terms. In a White Paper (Cmnd. 4656) published in April, 1971, a number of measures for stimulating such investment were announced. In the first place, the British Government have decided to introduce an investment insurance scheme—which I think will meet the first point of my noble friend Lord Nelson—comparable to those of other developed countries. The scheme will ensure new direct investment from Britain against the non-commercial risks of war, expropriation and restrictions on remittances. Subject to the passage of the necessary legislation, it is hoped that the scheme will come into operation in the early part of 1972.
Secondly, the British Government plan to extend the issue of capital aid in association with private investment. Subject to the approval of the host Government, aid will be available for necessary basic infrastructure (such as a road or a power supply) associated with particular British private investment projects. We shall also seek to extend the provision of capital aid through recipient Governments to local development institutions for use in joint ventures with British capital, and I fully recognise how important these are likely to be. Thirdly, we intend to introduce a scheme of financial support for pre-investment studies by British private investors in developing countries. It will reimburse a substantial proportion of the cost of approved studies which do not lead to a decision to invest. Subject to the passage of legislation, this scheme is expected to come into operation in the first half of this year.
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Nelson also referred to a scheme, operated by the French Government, to cover the loss caused by customers failing to pay price increases above 3 per cent. on account of inflation. The Government recognise that high fluctuating rates of inflation create particular difficulties for manufacturers of heavy equipment, who when tendering may have to estimate costs for some years ahead—this goes for ships, too—and who cannot always
402
include price-variation clauses; but the real cure for this problem, of course, lies in curbing inflation, and the Government's policy should serve to bring inflation under control. My noble friend will recognise, in making a comparison with France, that France has had to live with a degree of inflation which far outdistances the degree of inflation that we have experienced in this country. Our objective should be to ensure that we do not have to live with that degree of inflation, and therefore the first endeavour must be to bring back to a proper level, to a minimum level, the annual degree of inflation. We fully recognise that other Governments, including, those of France and Italy, have provisions for providing cost-escalation insurance in certain conditions, but it is difficult to conceive a scheme on true insurance principles which would recompense firms against cost inflation above a defined level. For that reason, Her Majesty's Government have no plans at present for introducing a similar scheme, but we are keeping the position under review.
In addition, we have implemented a proposal to extend to foreign countries the arrangement applying to Commonwealth countries under which a United Kingdom investor need hold only a minimum of 10 per cent., instead of 25 per cent., of the voting rights in a local company in order to obtain United Kingdom tax relief for the foreign tax paid by the overseas company on its profits. This should be a further encouragement to the kind of participation that my noble friend referred to as being common in Germany and less common here. The British Government will seek wherever possible to conclude bilateral agreements with developing countries for the protection of new and existing investment. If these measures for stimulating investment (and hence, where appropriate, joint ventures) are seen in the context of the assistance which our commercial posts overseas and 0.D.A., with all its technical expertise, can provide, our range of facilities for encouraging the private investor should be as good as those in any country.
My Lords, I turn now to the point of exports. My noble friend Lord Cowley said that exports in these days could not succeed without guidance and encouragement from Government. I should prefer to put it in this way: that

403
this country could not achieve its maximum export potential without Government guidance and help in co-ordinating, supplementing and supporting the efforts of industry. This the Government do through trade promotion, through the services provided for the British Export Board and through the guarantees provided mainly on a commercial basis by E.C.G.D. First let me answer one of the questions which my noble friend aimed at me in a burst of fire, and that is about the British Export Board. Although it is largely up to industry to get out and win export orders, the Government recognise that they have a major role to play in this matter. Towards the end of 1970, the Department of Trade and Industry conducted a review, during which other Whitehall Departments and outside organisations were consulted, of the whole field of export promotion services and organisation. It became clear that three criteria would have to be met if any new organisation was to be entirely satisfactory to exporters. These requirements were: first, that businessmen should be actively involved; second, that there should be one closely integrated organisation; and, third, that finance would have to come from Government and hence would have to be subject to public accountability.
It was from these requirements, these considerations, that the British Export Board evolved. Its concept is quite different, and its role is wider than that of the British National Export Council. It is an executive Board charged not only with giving direction to the export promotion activities of the Department of Trade and Industry and those handled formerly by the British National Export Council, but, having regard to the resources at its disposal, to bring the expertise of businessmen to bear on the question of what services should be provided, and the basis on which they should be made available. What it amounts to is this. The Board has available to it the export promotion services of the Department of Trade and Industry: the services to individual exporters, the provision of export intelligence, the general publicity effort at home and abroad in support of export promotion, the scheme for assistance at trade fairs and British Weeks, and the missions scheme, What is more—and this is very
404
important—the Board of businessmen are able to sit down with senior officials and thresh out what the policy and priorities should be. At all levels there is machinery, both formal and informal, for very close liaison with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and with the commercial departments of posts overseas, who play such an important part—and play it so well—in developing our exports; and I was very grateful for the kindly references that were made to the efforts of the commercial departments overseas during this debate.
My Lords, the Board are in action now. They are quietly getting on with their job under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft, whom I saw earlier in the debate; and I can assure noble Lords that there will be no hiatus in activities, as has been feared. They have inherited some promotion events in Latin American countries which had already been planned. These include at present some 19 outward missions in 1972 and technological symposia in Mexico City and Caracas in June of this year, along the lines of those which were successfully mounted in Rio and Buenos Aires two years ago, in 1970. My Lords, it is not intended to allow the impetus gained by the major export promotion events in the last few years to be lost, and I very much take the point about follow-up which has been made repeatedly in the debate. I am referring particularly, in these major export promotion events, to the British Industrial Exhibitions in Mexico City in 1966, in Sao Paulo in 1969 and in Buenos Aires in 1970, not to mention the outward missions and the participation in local trade fairs. All this shows how much the interest in Latin America has been growing in recent years.
My noble friend Lord Nelson cast some doubt on the ability of British exporters to match credit terms, either in interest rates or in length, with those which exporters in other countries can offer, and I must say a word or two about this. In passing, I should perhaps say to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, who made his usual vigorous intervention, that the Mexicans have decided to go out to tender again for the nuclear-powered power station in Mexico, discarding all previous negotiations, but it is too early to say whether any United Kingdom companies will be quoting for the project.

405
My Lords, I must say that I suspect that the complaint about credit terms is a complaint that is made by exporters in all countries. You cannot always win. The fact is that the scope of cover that E.C.G.D. offers is inferior to none. E.C.G.D. has been in the export credit race for years—many competitors will complain that it has made too much of the running. British official policy is aimed at achieving the maximum exports on the shortest possible terms. This is where the national interest lies. Normally, this means that the maximum period of credit is five years; but E.C.G.D. are authorised to approve terms in excess of five years to match those offered by competitors. My noble friend will be interested to know that in 1970 E.C.G.D. business on credit in excess of five years amounted to about £900 million of which about £400 million was approved on terms specifically to match foreign competition. Where there has been difficulty in matching it in the past is in those cases where a normal commercial credit is mixed with a Government loan at a concessionary rate of interest—what the French call crédits mixtes. The loan is normally used to finance the down or completion payments or even the first repayments or local costs.
Her Majesty's Government have therefore decided that either loans at concessionary rates or a special grant to provide for an interest subsidy could be authorised to match similar terms offered by foreign competitors. The importance of this concession is that its fits in with what the Latin American countries, and the Andean countries in particular, seem to be requiring. This is going to make joint ventures very much easier, because it will be possible for private capital to take up a part and for loans to be made on another part to organisations in the Latin American countries which, so to speak, can become their contribution (and will remain theirs because they are loans) to the joint venture. I think that this is something likely to be more effective even than the German schemes. E.C.G.D. naturally view each Latin American market separately and very great emphasis has been placed in the debate on the necessity to do just that. Each country holds with great vigour to its independence; but. nevertheless, with some limitations E.C.G.D. is on cover
406
for all Latin American countries and in general its attitude to them is favourable. It would like to do much more business there.
I should like to reply to one or two other points which have been raised. My noble friend Lord Cowley asked about the Declaration of Buenos Aires. This arose from the sixth meeting of C.E.C.L.A., the Special Commission for Co-ordination of Latin America. It called for increased co-operation in particular between Latin American countries and the European Communities and made general proposals with this end in view. The countries represented were Argentina, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela with the addition of Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica and several Latin American political organisations. While advocating that discussions between Latin America and European Communities should be institutionalised, it recognised that preliminary discussions would be needed at Ambassadorial level first. As the Chairman, Dr. de Pablo Pardo, is reported to have said, "Diplomacy means tact and patience". My noble friend also asked about Argentina's agreement with E.E.C. This is simply a special arrangement to enable Argentine beef to be imported into the Community under the benefit of special provisions which are spelled out in the annex to the Agreement. This means, among other things, minimising beef levies. The agreement provides for a Joint Commission to be set up which is to meet at least once a year.
My Lords, I hope I have covered most of the points that have been made in this debate. Her Majesty's Government will give careful consideration to everything that has been said and where it seems desirable, or where I have been asked to do so, I will willingly write and amplify some of the answers that I have given to-night. But it would not be right for me to conclude without saying what an important debate this has been for the future of our trade with Latin America and to express, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, their great gratification that we have had the debate and at the way in which it has been conducted. I believe that it will give satisfaction to our friends in South America, in Mexico and in Central America, and

407
I should like to conclude by once again congratulating my noble friend Lord Cowley on his initiative in initiating the debate.
6.45 p.m.
EARL COWLEY: My Lords, first I should like to add my own congratulations to my noble friends Lady Northchurch and Lord Vestey on their excellent maiden speeches on topics in which they are obviously expert. Furthermore, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate this afternoon and made it of such high standard and immense interest. I hope that as much publicity as possible is given to the concern shown for Latin America in this House to-day. I think that what is of great importance in our future relations with the countries of Latin America is the unity of ideas on both sides of the House. This country's past relationship with Latin American countries has been fully debated and very important points have been made on the immense importance of these countries and the necessity for this country to strengthen ties with them. Furthermore, the efforts and work of the Government, the City and of Canning House have been brought out; but there is a great deal yet to do. I hope that the great enthusiasm for this area of the world expressed today bears equivalent results in the future and that the problems of those countries and the benefits of trading with them will be fully understood in this country as a whole.
Lastly, I should like to take the opportunity of wishing Mr. Godber every success on his tour of Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Peru. I feel certain that this tour by a senior Government Minister can only drive home to the countries in Latin America the importance that this country attaches to them. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

TRANSPORT HOLDING COMPANY BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
ROAD TRAFFIC BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House: Bill to be printed as amended.
  HOSPITAL OUTPATIENTS
  HOSPITAL OUTPATIENTS
  FAMILY PLANNING ADVICE AND THE HEALTH SERVICE
  FAMILY PLANNING ADVICE AND THE HEALTH SERVICE
  MALTA: UNITED KINGDOM LOAN AID
  MALTA: UNITED KINGDOM LOAN AID
  TRAINING OF PSYCHIATRIC NURSES
  TRAINING OF PSYCHIATRIC NURSES