Sitting of 8 November 1973

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

  QUEEN'S SPEECH (ANSWER TO ADDRESS)
  The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSE-HOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
  I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Citizenship
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider legislation to ensure that registration as citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies of persons hostile to the Crown and constitution of the United Kingdom does not take place.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Robert Carr): The new provisions for registration, introduced from 1st January 1973 by the Immigration Act 1971, give me adequate powers to withhold citizenship where I consider this is the proper course. But the Act preserved the entitlement to registration of Commonwealth citizens already settled here prior to that date.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that there will be no danger of a repetition of the astonishing case of Mr. Tariq Ali, who has offered favourable consideration from
    1146
    his organisation to shelter Irish Republican Army bombers and who has admitted without denial that he took the oath of allegiance in bad faith without believing in it? Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that there will be no registration of Commonwealth citizens of that kind?
    Mr. Carr: No. I am satisfied that those who have settled here since the beginning of the new Act can have registration withheld from them at the discretion of the Home Secretary. That was not possible in relation to those settled here before that date. We have, however, put the law right for the future.
    Mr. Soref: Is it not a fact that there are 50 terrorist or revolutionary organisations with offices in London? What is being done to prevent further recruitment? Is it not true that there are discussions to bring to this country from Chile 200 Marxist mercenaries who originate in other South American countries which do not want them? Could they not be sent back to Cuba rather than brought to this country?
    Mr. Carr: Although those are important matters, they do not arise in relation to the registration of Commonwealth citizens.

    Police Allowances (Home Counties)
    Mr. Gryllsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider the introduction of a Home Counties allowance to help police officers meet the extra cost of living in areas of high housing cost.
    Mr. R. Carr: Police pay and allowances are a matter in the first instance for the Police Council and under a standing agreement police officers are entitled to free accommodation or to a rent allowance in lieu. This allowance, which is effectively free of tax, is related to rents and rates in the area and can be increased outside the pay limit.
    Mr. Grylls: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that the exceptionally high cost of housing in Surrey is a great deterrent to recruitment? It is of great concern that at present we in Surrey are 105 officers or 10 per cent. below establishment. That is worrying a large number of people.
    Mr. Carr: Yes, indeed. But I am aware, too, I am glad to say, that the strength of the Surrey force is still rising this year, as it has been in recent years, and I hope that that will continue. Under present arrangements the rent allowance, which is the way of dealing with the problem, has a further eight months to run. It will then be renegotiated in the normal way outside the pay limits.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: We welcome the Home Secretary's suggestion that allowances for areas of high cost housing will be considered by the Pay Board. Has he been able to make representations to suggest that next summer is a late date for a report from the board on that matter?
    Mr. Carr: As the hon. Lady will understand, it is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, but I promised the House last week that, because of the urgency, we would do all we could to urge the Pay Board to produce the report as quickly as possible. I believe that my right hon. Friend has already taken action in that direction.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that this is a symptom of a difficult situation, not only in those areas which have been mentioned but throughout the country, when serious crime is increasing and the police force is below strength? Will my right hon. Friend do everything he can at the earliest possible moment within the limits of stage 3 to see that inducements are given to increase police recruitment?
    Mr. Carr: I am glad to say that police recruitment over the whole country is going quite well still. Police strength earlier this year exceeded 100,000 for the first time. I am also glad to say that in 1973, for the first time in many years, crime is on the decline. While we are not in any way complacent about it, I can only assure my hon. Friend that we shall continue to give the same high priority to the maintenance of law and order.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: The right hon. Gentleman has acknowledged the gravity of the manpower situation in the Metropolitan Police force. Will he now say what in his view is the earliest date by
    1148
    which the Police Federation's claim for a differential increase in pay for London policemen can be settled within the terms of the Government's policy?
    Mr. Carr: The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that it is a matter for the Police Council. I can only assure him that, in so far as the Police Council may be dependent on anything I may have to do, I shall do my best to ensure that it is not held up. Meanwhile, I believe that the new London allowance agreed for the metropolitan area, which raises from £10 to £15 the maximum rent allowance, should be of substantial help.

    Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
    Mrs. Castleasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to announce the results of his review of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Mark Carlisle): It is too early to say when the working party which my right hon. Friend has set up to review the scheme will report.
    Mrs. Castle: Is not this delay intolerable, since the committee has been sitting for six months? Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that my constituent, Mrs. Joan Rosina Carroll, formerly Smith, who was severely criminally injured by her husband, is still without a penny of compensation? In view of the intolerable delay, will the Government act administratively, as they have power to do, to remove Section 7 from the scheme?
    Mr. Carlisle: I think that the right hon. Lady's talk about intolerable delay is somewhat unreasonable. The scheme has been in existence since 1964 on a non-statutory basis. Any review of it to put it on a statutory basis will be accepted by everyone as being a matter of considerable depth. It was only in April this year that my right hon. Friend announced that a working party was being set up. The working party is under way and has already put out a consultative document inviting the views of various interested bodies on its terms of reference. It must have time to consider the views that it has received.

    Criminal Legal Aid Work (Allocation)
    Mr. Clinton Davisasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement concerning the system of allocation of criminal legal aid work by magistrates' courts consequent upon the study made by the Nuffield Foundation's Legal Advice Research Unit in consultation with Mr. Michael Zander, a copy of whose report has been sent to him.
    Mr. Carlisle: The method of assignment of solicitors to the minority of applicants for legal aid in criminal proceedings who do not make their own choice is a matter for the justices' clerk concerned, acting under the general direction of the magistrates, to determine. The study referred to has been widely publicised and commented on, and no doubt magistrates and justices' clerks generally are aware of its contents.
    Mr. Davis: Having regard to the serious allegations in that report, coupled with the latest generalised and un-substantiated attack by Sir Robert Mark upon a minority of lawyers and upon the jury system, should not a full investigation be carried out by the Home Office in which the police would provide the evidence available to substantiate those allegations? Was Sir Robert Mark's speech read and considered by the Home Secretary before it was delivered?
    Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman starts by asking me about Mr. Michael Zander and ends up by asking me about Sir Robert Mark. I will take the questions in turn. In the article by Mr. Michael Zander certain specific allegations of corruption were mentioned which have been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions for his consideration.
    My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was provided by Sir Robert Mark with the text of his speech before delivery. He was not consulted about the theme chosen, and Sir Robert, during the course of his speech, made it clear that the views he was expressing were his own.
    Mr. William Price: Is the Minister aware that some hon. Members share those views?
    Mr. Carlisle: Everybody—including Members of this House and others—is entitled to his own views.
    Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: To revert to the original Question, are not the disquieting findings of Mr. Michael Zander an illustration of the difficulty of administering the criminal legal aid scheme in its particular form rather than in the form of the civil legal aid scheme, which means that these cases are considered by a committee of lawyers? Given that criminal legal aid has to be dispensed more quickly, could not this be done by emergency certificate?
    Mr. Carlisle: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that there are considerable differences between the systems of civil legal aid and criminal legal aid which would make their assimilation difficult. Mr. Zander in his article was dealing with the nomination by the court of solicitors to deal with particular cases where the client himself did not mention a solicitor by name. I do not think that is relevant to the point made by the hon. Gentleman about the Law Society.

    Remand Home (Women)
    Mrs. Knightasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the state of progress reached in the provision of a remand home for women in the Midlands.
    Mr. Carlisle: The Home Office has recently put to Birmingham Corporation proposals for building a women's remand centre on land opposite Winson Green prison, and is awaiting the corporation's views.
    Mrs. Knight: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that it is now more than five years since the Home Secretary in the Labour administration, arrogantly ignoring advice from the Magistrates' Association, the police and other interested persons in the Birmingham area, closed the Brockhill remand centre for women? Is he further aware that since then women on remand from the Birmingham courts have had to come all the way down the M1 to be housed in Holloway while on remand? Is the Minister aware that this has cost the taxpayer considerable sums and has also

    1151
    cost the women concerned a great deal of anguish, distress and inconvenience? Is my hon. and learned Friend aware, too, that only a few weeks ago one such woman flung herself out of the vehicle on to the M1 in the face of oncoming traffic? Does he recognise that there is great urgency in this matter?
    Mr. Carlisle: I am fully aware that it has been extremely difficult to find an alternative site to the Brockhill remand centre which, as my hon. Friend said, was closed by the previous administration in about 1968. We have approached Birmingham Corporation for a site opposite Winson Green prison. We are awaiting the corporation's views, and we are well aware of the importance attached to a new remand centre. Without being able to comment on the individual case referred to by my hon. Friend, I am sure she will be aware that in January of this year the Home Office made arrangements so that there is now overnight accommodation in Birmingham prison for women on remand.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: Does the Minister recall that the main reason for closing Brockhill remand centre at that time, which I believe was in 1968, was the difficulty of recruiting staff? Has his Department reconsidered the allocation of housing to women officers on the same basis as that used for men officers? Is he aware that this inequality is one of the reasons why it is so difficult to recruit women to work at remand centres?
    Mr. Carlisle: I seem to recall that difficulty of obtaining staff was one of the matters referred to at that time, but I think it was a question of staff living in rather than with their own quarters provided. I shall consider the matter referred to by the hon. Lady.

    Probation Hostel (Newcastle-under- Lyme)
    Mr. Goldingasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now seek an alternative site for a probation hostel in Newcastle-under-Lyme other than that under consideration at Knutton.
    Mr. Carlisle: I understand that the probation and after-care committee is already considering an alternative site.
    Mr. Golding: Is the Minister aware that that news will be welcomed in Knutton, where there is intense opposition to this scheme? Is he further aware that there has been great concern at the thought that an appeal would be made against the borough council's refusal of planning permission, because there is a good alternative site available?
    Mr. Carlisle: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman but, as I understand it, the appeal is still being made. The probation and after-care committee found premises which it thought suitable at Knutton and applied for planning permission. Planning permission was refused, and it has appealed to the Secretary of State for the Environment against the decision. In the meantime, the committee has been asked to look for an alternative site.

    Shoplifting (Acquittals)
    Mr Greville Jannerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of women who pleaded not guilty to shoplifting charges before juries during the latest 12-month period for which records are available was acquitted.
    Mr. Carlisle: The latest year for which information is readily available is 1971. In that year, 62 per cent. of female defendants who pleaded not guilty at assizes and quarter sessions in England and Wales to a charge of shoplifting were acquitted.
    Mr. Janner: Is not that a very remarkable and sad figure, which shows that far too many people are wrongfully charged with shoplifting? What do the Government propose to do to prevent as far as possible the wrongful prosecution of the innocent?
    Mr. Carlisle: With respect, it does not appear to be a remarkable figure. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked me the proportion of those who elect to go for trial and who plead not guilty. A fact that he should equally bear in mind is that, of the 47,589 people proceeded against for shoplifting in 1971, 44,251 were found guilty. That is a fairer figure to take than merely the proportion of the much smaller number who go for trial, and I have no reason to think that

    1153
    there is a greater risk of innocent people being charged in these circumstances than in any other circumstances.
    Mr. Fowler: In the Home Office working party on shoplifting, the report of which has just been published, why was no original research commissioned into shoplifters themselves? Is there not a danger of shoplifting being categorised as accidental or done under stress, when the evidence that is available suggests that the great majority of it is deliberate dishonesty?
    Mr. Carlisle: The reason why the working party did not look into that was that the working party was set up by the Home Office Standing Advisory Committee on Crime Prevention and it was dealing with ways of recommending to retailers more effective means of security against shoplifting. I take this opportunity of confirming what my hon. Friend says, namely, that we should all remember that shoplifting is a form of dishonesty just as much as any other form of theft.
    Mr. Arthur Davidson: Would the figures that the Minister has given have been included in the figures and statistics presented by Sir Robert Mark? Does the Minister think that those figures support Sir Robert Mark's assertions or go against them?
    Mr. Carlisle: From the fact that the greater includes the lesser, presumably the figure for women acquitted of shoplifting comes within the general overall total. The figure Sir Robert Mark gave of 45 per cent. to 50 per cent. was of those who are acquitted by a jury on trial at quarter sessions and higher courts. I remind hon. Members that 70 per cent. of those who go to a higher court plead guilty. What we are talking about, therefore, is 50 per cent. of the 30 per cent.

    Marriages of Convenience
    Mr. David Stoddartasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will inquire into the extent to which British citizenship by marriage is being offered by advertisements for a financial consideration.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Lane): My
    1154
    right hon. Friend deplores these advertisements, but he has no reason to think that many marriages of convenience are taking place for the purpose of qualifying the wife for registration as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. We shall watch the situation very closely.
    Mr. Stoddart: I am glad to hear that the Minister will watch the situation, but would he not agree that advertisements of the sort that have been brought to my attention, in which two guys offer a marriage of convenience for £500 apiece, are obnoxious, insulting to the status of women and, indeed, to the institution of marriage, as well as smacking of male prostitution? Furthermore, will he alter existing legislation to enable the women concerned to remain in this country without having to marry dubious characters? In the meantime, will he redouble his efforts to stamp out this sort of advertisement?
    Mr. Lane: Altering the immigration legislation is a much wider question. Of course the advertisements are obnoxious, as I said. My right hon. Friend has no reason to think that there has been more than an infinitesimal number of marriages of this sort over the past few years, but if it looks like developing into a serious abuse we shall consider what to do about it.
    Mr. Robert Taylor: Is it not a fact that, by my right hon. Friend's rather quaint proposals for anti-discrimination, it will become illegal for anybody to advertise for a partner of the opposite sex?
    Mr. Lane: That is a much wider question.
    Mr. George Cunningham: Will the Minister take an early opportunity of making a strong public statement that if this abuse were to continue—it exists and the Home Office cannot be aware of its full extent—it could have only one result, and that is for this country to terminate the acquisition of British citizenship by reason of marriage? That would be most regrettable.
    Mr. Lane: That is a helpful comment. If we have to say something stronger about this matter we will do so. But it would mean changing the law. The House must pause to consider how one would

    1155
    define a marriage of convenience. We may have to do so, but I merely remind the House that it is not easy.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the un-satisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek leave to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Ugandan Asians
    Mr. Whiteheadasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many appeals by Ugandan Asian refugees not holding British nationality, but wishing to reside with their families who are domiciled in the United Kingdom, have been allowed during the past year; and how many have been rejected.
    Mr. Lane: In the time available it has not been possible to establish how many of the appeals determined during the past year come within the category which the hon. Member has in mind, but the number is likely to be very small. I will write to him when I have further information.
    Mr. Whitehead: I acknowledge that in a pre-election year the Government may be sensitive to those who regard even a single successful appeal as evidence of a Communist conspiracy in the Home Office. However, will not the Under-Secretary agree that, in the small number of cases involved, it is fundamentally inhumane and absurd to deny to families domiciled in this country the services and prescence of a breadwinner, often the only member of the family who is not allowed to enter the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Lane: I remind the hon. Gentleman that this situation basically derives from the change in the immigration rules made by his right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary in 1969 because the former rules were being abused. In the present situation, in general about one appeal in four is successful—that is, appeals over the whole immigration system; so to that extent the appeal system is working generously towards the people who are appealing.
    The hon. Gentleman knows the rules that we are operating in these cases and he knows, too, that we look at all their individual circumstances. There are provisions in Rule 47 concerning cases in
    1156
    which there is exceptional hardship. Up to the middle of October, 74 husbands had had applications for entry clearances refused and had been given rights to appeal, and I have no doubt that some of them will be exercising those rights.
    Mr. Redmond: Will my hon. Friend make clear to the country how effectively the 1971 Act is preventing immigration? Will he bear in mind the correspondence that I have been having with him on this subject?
    Mr. Lane: Yes, that is certainly the case; I have corresponded regularly with my hon. Friend. The latest information is that the total figures for Commonwealth immigration in the first half of this year were 25 per cent. down on the same period last year, and this was the lowest rate since control was imposed in 1962.
    Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: There is no appeal against a decision of the Home Secretary in the exercise of his absolute discretion, and perhaps the Government will consider the machinery for that. May I call to the hon. Gentleman's mind the plight of many spouses, particularly in India and Pakistan, who have waited a long time for decisions from the high commissions and embassies in those countries about their right to come here? The delay is now becoming serious.
    Mr. Lane: The final appeal is surely to the House of Commons, where instances when Members think that we have taken a wrong decision, even after appeal, may be brought up. I know that there are delays. The delays result mainly from our determination to operate this control fairly as between one person and another and also, regrettably, from the degree of subterfuge employed by people trying to get round our controls.

    Prison Officers
    Mr. Thomas Coxasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met representatives of the Prison Officers' Association.
    Mr. R. Carr: On 16th October.
    Mr. Cox: Is the Home Secretary aware of existing conditions in the prison service? Recruitment is down, there are frequently resignations from the service,

    1157
    and massive overtime now has to be worked. When will the Minister do something that will start to rebuild the confidence of prison officers that it is a job worth keeping? Many of them do not think so now.
    Mr. Carr: I believe that the terms of the pay code for stage 3 will give allowances which will help people working unsocial hours of the sort that prison officers have to work. That possibility, of course, will now come up for review and negotiation under the code. We must wait to see what it does for prison officers, but I hope that it will be of some help, as it is intended to be.
    But I do not think that the hon. Gentleman does the case any good by exaggeration.
    Mr. Cox: It is not exaggeration.
    Mr. Carr: There are almost 2,000 more prison officers in post today than there were when we took office—that is a substantial increase—with 4,000 fewer prisoners. So at least the position has improved substantially, although there is still plenty of room for further improvement.
    Mr. Roger White: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are anomalies between the prison service and the police and that it is a matter of contention? Will he look into that, too, as a matter of urgency?
    Mr. Carr: I cannot add to what I have already said, but we are now due for a new negotiation in the normal course of events for the prison officers. That will take place under the pay code, stage 3, and I hope that the prison officers will find that not unhelpful.

    Aerosol Adhesives
    Mrs. Sally Oppenheimasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will use his powers under the Consumer Protection Act 1961 to ban the sale of aerosol adhesives containing the same chemical substances as those which have recently been banned by the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission.
    Mr. Lane: The production and sale in this country of these aerosol adhesives have already been stopped by the manu-
    1158
    factures. Further investigations are being made by Home Office medical advisers, among others, and until their outcome is known regulations under the 1961 Act would be premature.
    Mrs. Oppenheim: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is expert evidence that these products can lead to genetic malformation and that, although these products were banned in the United States last August, and subsequently in the EEC, they have not even been the subject of a national warning here, let alone banned? Whereas manufacturers may have withdrawn supplies, they are on sale and in use in this country. Why do we always seem to be trailing behind instead of blazing the trail with regard to the safety of consumer products?
    Mr. Lane: I do not accept that. To use my hon. Friend's phrase, does she not think that we are blazing a trail in many of the ways in which we are protecting consumers? I know the disturbing views that have been expressed, as my hon. Friend said, but I think it right that we should investigate this matter thoroughly, just as it is being investigated in the United States, before we finally decide what steps to take. I take this very seriously indeed, and if necessary we will take action.

    Shopping Centres (Fire Safety)
    Sir John Tilneyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to ensure safety from fire in roofed-over city shopping centres.
    Mr. Lane: Fire safety in such premises is secured partly through the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963, enforced by the fire authorities, and partly through the Building Regulations, enforced by the building authorities. A code of practice, drawn up by a Home Office working party, was circulated to those authorities for their guidance earlier this year. Research into special problems of fire safety in shopping centres is continuing.
    Sir John Tilney: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are now many new roofed-in shopping centres and that there is a danger from fire in such closed-in areas because smoke is not able to get out very easily?
    Mr. Lane: Yes, that is certainly the case. The research we are carrying out at the Fire Research Station is particularly concerned with the control of smoke-spread. I hope that this, and the recent guide, will be very helpful.

    Fireworks
    Miss Fookesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to ban the sale of fireworks except under licence for organised displays.
    Mr. Peter Archerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to prohibit the retail sale of fireworks, except under licence.
    Mr. Lane: No, Sir.
    Miss Fookes: Would my hon. Friend take the same view if this were a brand-new product being introduced to the market instead of a well-established product with vested interests well entrenched?
    Mr. Lane: That is very hypothetical. We must try to keep this in perspective. Last year was a bad year for firework accidents, but, even so, the number has been halved in the last 10 years. This year we took special publicity steps including the help, among others, of the Osmond Brothers to get the message across, and I hope that the figures will be better. If they are not, we shall reconsider the issue.
    Mr. Archer: Are not the arguments all one way, since this proposal would save a great deal of suffering whilst sacrificing nothing in entertainment? How many accidents does the Minister consider to be too many?
    Mr. Lane: I am certainly not complacent about this. Anyone who reads about accidents, particularly to children's eyes, cannot be complacent. However, we would be depriving many people of reasonable pleasure in sensibly conducted firework parties. Therefore, I suggest that the right answer is to continue publicity and education.
    Sir John Hall: Does not my hon. Friend agree that there is a danger of the Government being asked to become far too paternalistic? Is not this on a par with cigarette smoking, for example,
    1160
    which is probably much more damaging to health than the use of fireworks? Should we ask for cigarettes to be smoked only under licence?
    Mr. Lane: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We should rely as far as we can on the good sense of the individuals, particularly parents.
    Mr. John Fraser: I should not regard the saving of children's lives and preventing injury to them as being paternalistic. In view of the increase that has taken place in the sale of fireworks, will the Department consider licensing shops for the sale of fireworks and raising the age limit at which a child may buy them? At present, although the limit is 14, younger children are able to buy them.
    Mr. Lane: I know that these suggestions have been made. I do not rule out further steps being taken if we think that they are necessary. At the moment we do not. The balance of restriction freedom and responsibility is about right.

    Motor Vehicles (CD Plates)
    Mr. Bryant Godman Irvineasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list his powers over the use of CD plates on motor cars; and in what circumstances these are permitted as part of the equipment of a hire car.
    Mr. Carlisle: My right hon. Friend has no such powers in respect of motor vehicles generally or of hire cars in particular.
    Mr. Godman Irvine: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that he is the second Minister to whom I have addressed a Question to find out who has any power? As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has just expressed concern about accidents to children and has mentioned the assistance received from the Osmond Brothers, may I ask whether he noticed that a child was involved in an accident with a car in which those gentlemen were being driven and that that car was displaying CD plates? Is he further aware that regular users of the vehicles of London Airport private hire conveyors are under the impression that CD plates are given favourable consideration?
    Mr. Carlisle: I am glad to say to my hon. Friend that, true to consistency, he received the same answer from my hon.

    1161
    Friend as he has had from myself. CD plates have no official status in this country and confer no privileges in respect of the vehicles to which they are attached. I agree with my hon. Friend that that should be made clear and known to everyone.
    Mr. Pavitt: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman explain why for three weeks in Great Smith Street, on a yellow line outside Church House, there has been a line of cars bearing CD plates which has congested the traffic on the 88 bus route and has been a nuisance in the area?
    Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman may be confusing the CD plate, which gives no privilege, with the fact that certain people may claim diplomatic immunity from prosecution. The police have exactly the same power to remove a car bearing a CD plate as they have to remove other cars.

    Probation Service
    Mr. R. C. Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had recently concerning the pay and grading of probation officers; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. David Clarkasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress is being made towards a return to a single salary scale for main grade probation officers.
    Mr. R. Carr: On 26th October the Joint Negotiating Committee for the Probation Service agreed on increased salary scales for probation officers with effect from 1st July 1973. The increases, which have been approved by the Pay Board, correspond to those agreed for local authority social workers from the same date, and the necessary amendments to the Probation (Conditions of Service) Rules are being prepared.
    The employers' side of the Joint Negotiating Committee is continuing its examination of the A and B salary scales and possible alternatives.
    Mr. Mitchell: Can the Home Secretary tell us why delegates walked out of a meeting of the National Association of Probation Officers on 26th October?
    Mr. Carr: No, I am afraid I cannot. I am not sure that that is an accurate description of what happened.
    Mr. Deedes: In the light of my right hon. Friend's reply, may I ask whether he has seen an official expression of opinion from the probation officers which appeared in The Times about 10 days ago and which virtually attacks the Government for a breach of faith? What comment has he on that?
    Mr. Carr: Yes, I saw that allegation and I both regret and reject it. In the lifetime of this Government the full-time strength of the probation service has risen—in round figures—from 3,300 to 4,400. The salary limits have also been raised substantially as a result of the Butterworth Committee and our joint agreement to that. The two scales, A and B, to which so much objection is now taken, were part of that committee's recommendations and were agreed to by the association's representatives. The association is perfectly entitled to change its mind but not to make allegations of bad faith.
    Mr. Clarke: Does the Minister realise that this twin scale has become notorious in the association and among probation officers? Does he realise that it is causing embarrassment and jealousy within the service? To try to help smooth the efficiency of this worthwhile organisation, will he do something to get a single scheme for rates of pay?
    Mr. Carr: I said that the employers' association was looking into the matter. The House must realise that it is only 18 months since the association's representatives agreed to the scales. The association is justified in changing its mind, but we must have time to look at the question properly.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: Does the Home Secretary recall that at the time of the Butterworth Report the National Association of Probation Officers expressed its doubts about it, but subsequently it emerged that only a small number of probation officers had been left behind on scale A? Does he also recall that in answer to a Question of mine shortly before the recess he said that he had some understanding of the difficulty and would look into it himself? Will he

    1163
    therefore consider it again in view of the disruption that will be caused?
    Mr. Carr: I do not want to take back any of the words I used to the hon. Lady, but this is a matter for the joint negotiating committee and the employers are actively looking at it.

    Prisoners (Visits)
    Mr. Norman Lamontasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes he plans to make in the financial assistance available to relatives to visit prisoners.
    Mr. Carlisle: The arrangements for providing financial assistance to relatives for visits to prisoners are under review, but I cannot yet say what the outcome of this may be.
    Mr. Lamont: Is it not illogical that the financial assistance given to poor relatives visiting prisoners is not available when a prisoner is being held on remand, which can be for long periods? Will the Home Secretary look into the fact that many prisons do not seem to take this problem seriously and that people who go to a prison to visit a relative often find that he has been moved? Is it not time to make an improvement in the existing arrangements?
    Mr. Carlisle: It is right that it does not apply to those on remand; nor is it available to prisoners serving a sentence or three months or less. It is one of the matters being reviewed. On the second matter, if my hon. Friend will let me have details of individual cases I shall certainly look into them.

    South African Citizens
    Mr. John Fraserasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the criteria he uses for the admission of South African citizens to the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Lane: The admission of South African nationals is governed by the Immigration Rules for control on entry of EEC and other non-Commonwealth nationals.
    Mr. Fraser: Can the Under-Secretary tell the House the result of the police investigations into an alleged raid by
    1164
    South African police spies on the home of Mrs. Astrid Viner? Can he also tell us the extent to which immigration control is used to keep out these insidious South African police spies? Is the control as strict as it is against some ordinary Commonwealth citizens and the citizens of East European countries?
    Mr. Lane: My right hon. Friend wrote a few days ago to the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) saying that the police had already written to Mrs. Viner inviting her to get in touch with them so that she could help clear up the allegations about this case. On the general point, the hon. Member knows what powers we have under the Immigration Act and the rules to keep out certain individuals whose presence, for instance, is not conducive to public good, and we should not hesitate to use those powers in suitable cases.

    Mugging
    Mr. William Priceasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many mugging offences have been reported in 1973; and what was the comparable figure for 1972.
    Mr. R. Carr: There is no agreed definition of "mugging", but the most relevant figures are those for offences of robbery or assault with intent to rob. The number of such offences known to the police in England and Wales in the first six months of 1973 was 3,765; the corresponding figure for 1973 was 4,262. I much welcome this reduction.
    Mr. Price: Is the Minister aware of the astonishing variations in the sentences being imposed by judges—everything from 12 months to 20 years? Are we not entitled to expect consistency from the courts? Is it right that one or two offenders should be picked upon for swingeing sentences as an example to others? If there are to be swingeing sentences, should they not be applied to all offenders?
    Mr. Carr: It is a basic principle of our system of justice, as the hon. Member knows, that neither the Home Secretary nor any other Minister can or should comment on individual sentences, which are at the discretion of the courts.
    Mr. Speaker: Questions to the Prime Minister.

    Mr. P. Saint (Order for Costs)
    The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
    Mr. Tom DRIBERG: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in view of the Lord Chief Justice's recent direction to courts, he will give urgent consideration to what relief can be given in the case of Mr. P. Saint, of 39 Hurstbourne Gardens, Barking, who, having been found not guilty of an alleged offence, was ordered to pay £100 towards the costs of the prosecution.
    Mr. Driberg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to give notice that I shall raise on the Adjournment the matter referred to in Question No. 24 if the answer I subsequently receive is not satisfactory.

  FOOD PRICES
  Mr. Greville Jannerasked the Prime Minister whether he will appoint an expert on food prices to the Central Policy Review Staff.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): As I have said before, I do not intend to appoint to the Central Policy Review Staff members with responsibility for specified subjects.
  Mr. Janner: Does not the Prime Minister consider that an exception should be made in the case of food prices because of the continuing scandalous increase which is borne most by those least able to bear it? What does he propose to do to bring some fairness into this branch of the economy?
  The Prime Minister: I do not accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument about the CPRS. The scandalous situation to which he refers is brought about by world supply and demand, and those who need most help—in other words, the pensioners—have been given it.
  Miss Joan Hall: Is the Prime Minister satisfied that in households where there have been wage increases averaging, apparently, 45 per cent. since June 1970, and where the housewife does most of
  1166
  the shopping, the wage increase has been passed on pro rata to the housewife?
  The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has a point, but whichever answer I gave would be wrong.
  Mr. Joel Barnett: Will it be possible for a member of the public or a Member of Parliament to check with the Price Commission whether a manufactured food price has been increased without the permission of the commission?
  The Prime Minister: That was dealt with in the debate yesterday. A member of the public can ask a firm for the answer.

  ETHIOPIA
  Mr. Whiteheadasked the Prime Minister if he will seek to pay an official visit to Ethiopia.
  The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to visit Ethiopia.
  Mr. Whitehead: When the Prime Minister is next in touch with the Ethiopian Government, will he take the opportunity to repeat, at the highest level, the pledges which his right hon. Friend has given about aid to Ethiopia? Will he also repeat that we will provide air transport and Land Rovers to get the aid to the province concerned? Is he aware that there are serious allegations coming out of Ethiopia about the degree to which news of the famine was suppressed and that people who have gone to Wollo Province to try to help have been arrested? When did he first get news of this famine through the embassy in Addis Ababa?
  The Prime Minister: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and everyone in the House will agree about the serious situation. Our ambassador, by 12th July, had enough information to recommend a substantial contribution to the relief effort. We thereupon acted immediately with our initial offer for the food-for-work programme. I shall certainly take into account the point made by the hon. Gentleman about ensuring that sufficient transport is available for delivery of all the supplies which we are making available.
  Sir Bernard Braine: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us who have been trying to get help to Ethiopia since the summer are satisfied that Her Majesty's Government have met requests from the Ethiopian authorities promptly? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the lesson we have learned from this tragic experience is that there is a pressing need for much more effective early warning procedures and international co-operation in dealing with acute food shortages before the onset of famine? Will he therefore use his influence within the European Community to get action upon these lines?
  The Prime Minister: We are prepared to do everything that we can to try to get the earliest possible information. As I have said, we were relying upon the evidence which had been accumulated by our ambassador, and obviously we cannot be responsible for information which is passed by other people. At the same time, it is often a matter of judgment whether food supplies will be sufficient to see a country through or whether it will need substantial assistance. My hon. Friend is right in saying that we ought to do everything possible to foresee difficulties. There is general agreement that the British Government have done everything they possibly can to help.
  Mr. Oram: The whole House will support all measures taken to relieve the situation, but is not the long-term lesson to be drawn that prevention is better than cure? Does not this imply that there should be a greatly expanded official aid programme, particularly for the provision of the necessary rural infrastructure, which has been proved to be deplorably absent in Ethiopia?
  The Prime Minister: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, who has great expertise in this matter, that the creation of the necessary rural infrastructure is one of the most important steps we can take to benefit developing countries.

  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL
  Mr. Thomas Coxasked the Prime Minister when he last met the Leader of the Greater London Council.
  The Prime Minister: I have had no official meetings with the present Leader of the GLC.
  Mr. Cox: Is the Prime Minister aware that that is a most disgraceful reply? Six months after the GLC elections, he has still not met the elected Leader of the Greater London Council. Is he not aware that many of the essential services of London—housing, education, transport and key social services—are grinding to a halt as a direct result of the Government's policy? If he is still a London Member, when will he meet the Leader of the GLC and give confidence to the people of London to overcome these problems?
  The Prime Minister: If the Leader of the GLC stopped posturing on Westminster Bridge and did his proper job, all of us in London would be the better for it.
  Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Will my right hon. Friend tell the Leader of the GLC, if he makes a request to meet him, that he would be better employed staying at County Hall rather than leading fake political demonstrations without even bothering to use green cards to notify London Members of Parliament?
  The Prime Minister: I do not believe that he sent me a green card. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who has primary responsibility for many of the services concerned with the GLC, has met the Leader of the GLC, together with leaders of other great cities, and he can deal with these matters.
  Mr. Raphael Tuck: Since when is walking across a bridge to be construed as posturing? Does the Prime Minister accept that he postures every day outside No. 10 Downing Street?
  The Prime Minister: The answer is, when one behaves like the present Leader of the GLC.
  Mr. Berry: When my right hon. Friend has such a meeting, will he impress upon the Leader of the GLC his extreme disappointment that the Chairman of the Inner London Education Authority has cancelled this year's Christmas carol service for children in London? Will he tell him that watching a television programme, however trendy, is no substitute for boys and girls taking part in singing Christmas carols?
  The Prime Minister: I recognise the strong feeling which exists in many quarters, including the schools, about this matter. It is difficult for me to give an answer because I might be doubly biased—first, because I am interested in carol concerts and, secondly, because I twice defeated the present leader of the ILEA.

  PRESIDENT POMPIDOU
  Mr. Hoosonasked the Prime Minister when he next plans to meet President Pompidou.
  Mr. Skinnerasked the Prime Minister whether he has any plans to meet President Pompidou; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Wyn Robertsasked the Prime Minister what plans he has for an official meeting with President Pompidou.
  The Prime Minister: As the House is aware, I will be meeting President Pompidou at Chequers on 16th and 17th November.
  Mr. Hooson: As there is so much concern in this country and in Europe about future defence policy, foreign policy and the future of food and fuel supplies, does the Prime Minister intend to explore with President Pompidou what common ground exists for the development of common policies that might be acceptable to the people of this country?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Skinner: When the Prime Minister meets Pompidou in a few days, will he seek his advice as to how he managed to impose a freeze on food prices despite the weather and the Common Market regulations? Does the Treaty of Rome apply only to Britain?
  The Prime Minister: I shall treat the President of France with the courtesy which the hon. Gentleman denies him. In any case, he does not have to compete with people such as the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Roberts: Will my right hon. Friend seek to encourage the President to accept the latest EEC proposals regarding the reorganisation of the common agricultural policy and point out to him that they are in the interests not only of the people of this country, in that our contribution will be reduced by more than £100 million a
  1170
  year up to 1978, but of the European consumer?
  The Prime Minister: I think that we shall probably have very fruitful discussions about the proposed revisions of the common agricultural policy.
  Mr. McBride: When the right hon. Gentleman meets the President of France, will he mention to him the increases in food prices, especially for butter, which, with Her Majesty's Government's agreement, will increase over five years from £357 to £826 a ton? Will the Prime Minister ask M. Pompidou whether it is right that on accession to the EEC we in Britain should pay a tax of £200 per ton on some cheese, approximately £200 a ton on butter and £140 per ton on canned ham? Has not the right hon. Gentleman a duty to protect the British housewife to whom he spoke so wooingly at Leicester?
  The Prime Minister: The President of France could challenge the figures given by the hon. Gentleman and point out that we are benefiting from the subsidy on butter from the Community and that we can buy soft wheat in the Community cheaper than anywhere else in the world.
  Mr. Sandys: Having regard to the urgent need to strengthen Europe's influence in the world, will the Prime Minister discuss with President Pompidou what steps can be taken to ensure that the timetable for European integration, laid down at the last European summit meeting, is maintained and, if possible, accelerated?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, we shall certainly do that. Whereas it had previously been envisaged at the summit meeting in Paris that the next summit meeting would take place in 1976, it will now take place on 14th and 15th December 1973. This is encouraging and shows that events are moving.

  ASSOCIATION OF EUROPEAN JOURNALISTS
  Mr. Rostasked the Prime Minister if he will seek an oportunity to address the Association of European Journalists.
  The Prime Minister: I shall be addressing the association on 30th November, Sir.
  Mr. Rost: When my right hon. Friend addresses the European journalists, will he take the opportunity of sounding them out to find why the reputation of the leadership of the Labour Party in Europe has sunk to an all-time low? Will he find out, too, whether that situation interferes with and aggravates the probability of achieving greater European unity?
  The Prime Minister: Of course I can do that, but I suspect that their views will only confirm my own. As the House knows, I have always hoped that both parties would play their part in European development, particularly by sending Members of Parliament to the Strasbourg Parliament.
  Mr. John Mendelson: Disregarding for a moment the propaganda use that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) made of his supplementary question, may I ask the Prime Minister, in an attempt to use his time rather more seriously, to say a little more about the recent discussions among some of the NATO allies about the proposal to create a European nuclear command? Will he resist any attempt that might be made in the discussion he is to hold with the President of France or other NATO members to enlarge the sphere of nuclear armament and adhere strictly to the treaty against the spreading of nuclear arms to other countries?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, of course we shall adhere to that treaty. We have signed it and we shall stick to it.
  Mr. Thorpe: When the Prime Minister addresses European journalists, will he make it clear to them that he regards the present threat to the oil supplies in Holland, and to a lesser extent in West Germany, as a golden opportunity to prove that we in this country believe in working towards European unity and are prepared to help those and other countries to resist attempts at Arab blackmail?
  The Prime Minister: We have shown that we are working towards European unity by working towards a European foreign policy. The first stage of that was in Copenhagen, beginning in September when we settled the relationship we propose between Europe and the United States. The Foreign Ministers have since had further discussions about this matter
  1172
  and we shall discuss it as Heads of Government in December. This must be the first stage.
  Sir F. Bennett: I believe I heard during the last supplementary question mention of West Germany and Holland. I understand that since Portugal has been embargoed—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ask a question."] May I be reminded whether the Prime Minister has had any representations from the benches opposite on the grounds of principle in the supply of fuel to Portugal?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir, I have not, but in fairness to the Leader of the Liberal Party I must point out that Portugal is not a member of the Community.
  Mr. Orme: Will the Prime Minister explain to the European journalists that the British people are more opposed now, in November 1973, than they were in January when he signed the Treaty of Rome?
  The Prime Minister: I do not accept that. The journalists can form their own judgment.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Harold Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 12th NOVEMBER. Second Reading of the Local Government Bill. Remaining stages of the Channel Tunnel (Initial Finance) Bill.
TUESDAY 13th NOVEMBER. Second Reading of the Cinematograph and Indecent Displays Bill and of the Charlwood and Horley Bill.
WEDNESDAY 14th NOVEMBER. Second Reading of the Consumer Credit Bill. Motions on the Double Taxation Relief Orders for Belize, Brunei, Sweden and Barbados.
THURSDAY 15th NOVEMBER. Supply (1st Allotted Day); until Seven o'clock, debate on an Opposition motion on the disastrous shortages in public services in Greater London, and afterwards an

1173
Opposition motion on museum charges. Motion relating to the Direct Grant Schools (Amendment) Regulations.
FRIDAY 16th NOVEMBER. Second Reading of the Horticulture (Special Payments) Bill. Motion on the Agriculture (Tractor Cabs) (Amendment) Regulations.
MONDAY 19th NOVEMBER. Supply (2nd Allotted Day): Subject for debate to be announced.
Mr. Wilson: In regard to Thursday's business following the cheap and frivolous replies of the Prime Minister on Question No. Q3 about London, may I give the right hon. Gentleman notice that we are today tabling a motion censuring the Government for the fact that their policies are bringing essential public services in London to a virtual standstill?
Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that we can expect a debate on Northern Ireland shortly after the House has dealt with the business which he has read out?
Thirdly, will lie arrange in Government time for a half day's debate—a full day if he can afford the time—before 30th November, which is the last date for receiving representations on the recent Green Paper on the question of discrimination? [HON. MEMBERS: "Against what."] The Green Paper on discrimination against women, of course.
Fourthly, will the right hon. Gentleman give consideration to providing Government time for a debate on the question of disabled drivers and the kind of vehicles they have available to them, since we now understand from the Secretary of State for the Social Services that he has received the report of Baroness Sharp and her Committee? It would be extremely helpful if the House could have a debate on that subject, a subject in which many hon. Members on both sides of the House are expert and on which they will want to express their views before the Government take a decision on the Sharp Report.
Mr. Prior: I have noted what the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said about the Opposition motion on Thursday.
I hope to be able to include in my next week's business statement the
1174
announcement of a debate on Northern Ireland.
I note what the right hon. Gentleman said about discrimination against women. There were opportunities during the debate on the Address to discuss that subject and there will be a chance to air views when we proceed with the Bill. At the moment I see little prospect of being able to arrange a debate before the end of November, but this is a subject which hon. Members successful in the ballot could select.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about disabled drivers and the report of the Sharp Committee. I recognise that this is a subject which the House will wish to debate. I should like to consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, and I have noted that the House wishes to debate this important matter.
Mr. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his reply about the Green Paper on discrimination is not good enough? I ask him to think again about it, and I remind him that facilities which were provided in the debates on the Gracious Speech were as a result of our own choosing. But there were many hon. Members on that day and on other days who felt that it was right to speak on other aspects of the Gracious Speech.
Is the Leader of the House aware that if the Government propose to go forward with a bill based on the Green Paper, it will exclude many of the principal issues on which legislation is needed on discrimination, including education, work and many other questions? Since during the debates on the Gracious Speech I promised that the right hon. Gentleman would receive a copy of Labour's Green Paper on this matter, and since I know that it has reached his office, may I ask him to study that excellent document before deciding not to grant time for a debate?
Mr. Prior: I shall certainly give further consideration to what the right hon. Gentleman said.
Mr. McMaster: Since the House has been back at work for four weeks following the Summer Recess, may I press my right hon. Friend to provide time for an urgent debate on Northern Ireland? I say this in view of the continuing critical

1175
security situation, particularly in my constituency, where there are nightly incidents, including murders, and also because of the many political developments that deserve the attention of this House.
Mr. Prior: I have just said that I hope to be able to make an announcement about Northern Ireland in next week's business statement.
Mr. James Johnson: May I turn the right hon. Gentleman's attention—and I see the Prime Minister at his side—to the Icelandic fishing situation? Unfortunately, my Question No. Q17 on this subject was not reached today. What is happening in Reykjavik? Are we now at the stage where we shall have to haggle over a definitive list of ships which are to fish in these waters? Is that a fact, and has the Prime Minister had any official communication that Mr. Johannesson is in difficulties against Mr. Josepsson, the Fisheries Minister, and that it is likely that the Icelandic Cabinet will be dissolved? Will the Leader of the House tell the House the situation, because this keenly affects my constituents as well as many others in Fleetwood, Lowestoft and other fishing areas?
Mr. Prior: I note the hon. Gentleman's interest in this matter. We are awaiting the decision of the Icelandic Government. I believe I saw on the tape a short time ago that there was a likelihood of an early decision. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will report to the House as soon as a decision is reached.
Mr. Powell: Will the Leader of the House provide an early and full opportunity for the House to debate the recent important report by the Select Committee on Immigration?
Mr. Prior: I should like to consider that matter.
Mr. Palmer: Will the Leader of the House arrange soon for a debate on the Government decision to use American reactors for the next stage of the British nuclear power programme? Could not this debate centre on the recent report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology which advised against that course of action?
Mr. Prior: No decision of any sort has been reached on this important matter. The Nuclear Power Advisory Board is urgently considering the issue under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The Government's reply to the second report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology will be made shortly, and it will be best to await that before considering time for a debate.
Mr. Neave: Reverting to the question of the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer), is my right hon. Friend aware that there are many of us on this side of the House who are extremely anxious about the possibility of ordering American reactors, which we would consider a devastating blow to British industry and to the Atomic Energy Authority? Will my right hon. Friend seriously reconsider his statement that there should not be a debate on the Committee's report?
Mr. Prior: I repeat what I have already said to the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer)—that no decision has been reached. My right hon. Friend chairs the Nuclear Power Advisory Board. Decisions will be taken in the light of its advice to the Government and I will keep the House informed, or will ask my right hon. Friend to keep the House informed.
Mr. Cyril Smith: Can the Leader of the House give us any indication when we may expect the Government's Green Paper on worker participation in industry, which was promised in June? Will he guarantee that when the paper is published there will be an early opportunity to debate it? Further, can he tell the House whether there is any truth in the rumour which is circulating that the paper has been written once but has been rejected by the Government's "Think Tank" and is now being rewritten?
Mr. Prior: There is certainly no truth in the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question. The Green Paper is nearing completion and, of course, I expect that the House will wish to debate it after it has had proper time for consideration.
Mr. Ronald Bell: In considering how soon he can find a day for a debate on the recent report of the Select Committee on Immigration and Race Relations, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that

1177
since the passing of the 1971 Act the House has lost its annual opportunity of debating the subject of immigration, and that unless an opportunity such as this is taken we shall have no debate upon the subject?
Mr. Prior: I recognise the point which my hon. and learned Friend makes.
Mr. Oram: May I ask whether it is next week that the House is to expect the promised statement on population policy? Also, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind not only his promise that such a statement would be made in the autumn, but the fact that United Nations Population Year begins on 1st January and that many people want to know the Government's policies in respect of that event?
Mr. Prior: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister promised a statement this autumn. I know that the autumn is getting well on, and I will ask my right hon. Friend when he can make that statement.
Sir J. Rodgers: May I ask my right hon. Friend to realise that we on this side of the House would like an early debate on the question of the education of immigrants?
Mr. Prior: I have noted the point which my hon. Friend made.
Mr. Bidwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept from me that the desire to debate the Select Committee's report on education is by no means confined to the other side of the House, because we would very much welcome such a debate. Also, may we have a debate on one aspect of the previous report, concerning police-immigrant relationships?
Mr. Prior: I should like to remind the House that we have a number of days set aside for debates on reports of Select Committees. I am not quite certain when the first day will be available, but I will make a note of the strong views expressed this afternoon.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: The Opposition have chosen public services in London as the subject for one of their supply days next week. Will my right hon. Friend use his influence to persuade them to make the subject public services in
1178
London and Peterborough, because, as a consequence of the decision when they were in Government to prevail upon Peterborough to be a good neighbour to London by accepting the new town procedure, the public services of Peterborough may well be detrimentally affected? That is an omission which ought to be rectified.
Mr. Prior: I have no doubt that the Opposition have taken due note of my hon. Friend's problem.
Mr. Harold Walker: Will the right hon. Gentleman recall that for nearly 12 months I have repeatedly asked questions about a debate on industrial health and safety, and will he recognise that the Roberts Report is a major document with far-reaching consequences? Will he consider lending a rather more sympathetic ear, and can he assure me that, before the Government's proposals on health and safety at work are drafted and put into a Bill, the House will have a full opportunity to debate them?
Mr. Prior: There was time last Session for a short debate—and I agree that it was a short debate—on this matter. I think it is now of great importance that the Robens recommendations should be put into the form of a Bill which can be put through the House this Session, and that will provide an opportunity for discussion and for amendment wherever necessary. If I were to say now to the hon. Gentleman that we could have a debate before the Bill was drafted, I doubt whether we should get the Bill this Session, and I think it is important that we should get it.
Mr. S. James A. Hill: Will the Leader of the House kindly give time for a full debate on the European Regional Development Fund, and on the implications that it will have for our own regional policy?
Mr. Prior: I have undertaken to the House that we shall have a debate on the regional fund before decisions are taken in Brussels at the beginning of December. I hope that it will be possible to widen the debate a little to include other matters of European interest.
Mr. Raphael Tuck: Can the Leader of the House give us an indication when he expects to make a statement on the

1179
salaries and conditions of secretaries to Members of Parliament? As he well knows, these have been the subject of considerable criticism in the Press recently. Does he not think it about time that the Government themselves took the whole matter over?
Mr. Prior: I had something to say about this matter last Tuesday night, and I have nothing to add at the moment.
Mr. Evelyn King: Reverting to electricity generation, am I correct in understanding that my right hon. Friend gave an assurance—and, if he did not, will he give an assurance—that no American generators will be bought until there has been a debate? In that context, is he aware that there has been developed at Winfrith in Dorset a heavy water generator which is clearly more efficient and cheaper than anything that America has produced?
Mr. Prior: What I told the House this afternoon is that no decision has been taken on thermal reactor choice. I think I will ask my right hon. Friend to contact my hon. Friend on any further points that he has in mind.
Mr. Alfred Morris: Has the Leader of the House seen the report of the decision in the High Court affecting the pay of employees of Co-operative laundries, and will he arrange for a ministerial statement next week on the implications of that decision? Is it not utterly deplorable that the Pay Board should have been instrumental in stopping a meagre pay increase of 10p a week for some of the lowest paid people in this country?
Mr. Prior: These are matters for my right hon. Friend and I will draw his attention to them.
Mr. Adam Butler: Further to the question of nuclear reactors, will my right hon. Friend agree that these are part of a much wider subject, and may I urge on him very strongly that we should have a debate at the earliest possible opportunity on the whole energy question?
Mr. Prior: Of course this is a matter of very great importance to all parts of the House. We are in difficulties over general debates in the period leading up to Christmas, but I shall, of course, bear this one in mind.
Mr. Booth: Can the Leader of the House tell us whether we may expect a statement in the House next week concerning the EEC's proposals on regulations to define those areas in this country which will be eligible for aid under the European Regional Development Fund? Also, can the Leader of the House give a categorical assurance that no regulations for this purpose will take legal effect in this country until there has been a debate in the House?
Mr. Prior: I have already given an undertaking to the House that there will be a debate on this matter ahead of any further negotiations and decisions in Brussels. That will give the opportunity which the hon. Gentleman requires.
Mr. Jeffrey Archer: Will the Leader of the House be kind enough to ask the Secretary of State for Social Services to make a statement following the debate last Session on the Quirk Report? There were 2,000 speech therapists when that report was made, but in this morning's copy of The Times it is suggested that there are now only 910. This problem becomes a greater worry every day, and is this not an example where the Government must put rules on one side and deal with the problem?
Mr. Prior: I will certainly consult my right hon. Friend.
Mr. William Hamilton: Will the Leader of the House give a categorical assurance that legislation will be introduced early on the question of discrimination? I use the word "early" because I am sure he knows that, in our view, the consultative document is extremely limited and that consequent legislation proposed by the Government will probably require very drastic amendment.
Mr. Prior: As the consultative period does not end until the end of November, it will be some while before the Bill can be drafted, but I will bear in mind what has been said.
Mr. Fowler: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is almost 18 months since the Criminal Law Revision Committee reported, making important proposals affecting criminal trials in this country? Is my right hon. Friend also aware that in the recent important speech by Sir Robert Mark, Commissioner of the

1181
Metropolitan Police, he made many of the same points? Is it not a matter of urgency that the House should be allowed to debate the proposals?
Mr. Prior: I agree with my hon. Friend that this matter must be debated. I gave an undertaking that it would be debated, but I am afraid I cannot promise a debate for a few weeks.
Mr. Pavitt: Has the Leader of the House taken note of Early Day Motion No. 23 in my name and supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House, including the Father of the House, which seeks to say "Thank you" to the back room boys and girls in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association for the successful conference held in September?
[That this House wishes to place on record its deep appreciation of the organisation and hard work of the officers and stall of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, Sir Robin Vanderfelt and his stall and Mr. Peter Molloy and all those serving the United Kingdom branch, including officers of the House who gave freely of their time, which led to the outstanding success of the 19111 Annual Conference in London in September 1973 and reflected great credit on the mother of Parliaments.]
Although it is obviously not a subject for debate next week, will the right hon. Gentleman find ways and means of securing time for Her Majesty's Government to associate themselves with those thanks to the officers and staff of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association?
Mr. Prior: I am sure the whole House would wish to associate itself with this motion. We are all extremely grateful for the hard work which Mr. Molloy and others carried out in order to make the conference the success which it undoubtedly was. I am certain that we all wish to congratulate those who took part,
Mr. Normanton: Would my right hon. Friend care to take note of the growing concern in the Greater Manchester conurbation at the prospects of the deferment, or still further deferment, of the SELNEC Pic-Vic tunnel project? In view of the concern of the region and of hon. Members in all quarters of the House, will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the possibility of finding some time for a debate on this matter?
Mr. Prior: I know that there is a great deal of concern in the Greater Manchester area on this subject, but I cannot promise time for an early debate on it. It is a matter which might suitably be raised by hon. Members if they get a chance. All I can say is that with the need to contain and control public expenditure very strictly at the moment, I am sorry, but this has had to drop out of the programme.
Mr. Hamling: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the Cinematograph and Indecent Displays Bill is not contentious from a party point of view, and would he discuss through the usual channels the possibility of the House being given an opportunity of a free vote on this important matter?
Mr. Prior: These are not matters for me, but no doubt what the hon. Gentleman said will be borne in mind by those whose responsibility it is.
Mr. John Wells: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to Early Day Motion No. 10 which expresses the anxiety of many hon. Members on both sides of the House about the position of professional engineers—perfectly reputable non-chartered engineers—who may well suffer as a result of European rulings?
[That this House, mindful of the fact that from 31st December 1973 the right of many thousands of qualified engineers to practise in the United Kingdom and the European Economic Community will be in jeopardy, urges Her Majesty's Government to seek an urgent settlement between the Council of Engineering Institutions and the many known non-chartered bodies such as the Institution of Heating and Ventilating Engineers.]
We have heard this afternoon an expression of the desire to speed up integration with Europe. Matters such as this which are already urgent should be reviewed even more urgently.
Mr. Prior: I will have a further look at that, but at the moment I cannot add to what my hon. Friend said on 22nd October.
Mr. Lawson: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government have now published their findings on the Scottish Select Committee Report on Land Use. Is the right hon. Gentleman ensuring that this is one of those reports which are to be debated in the near future?
Mr. Prior: I shall obviously have a good many demands for debates on Select Committee reports. There is a certain amount of time available for debate of such reports, but I am afraid that I cannot at this stage promise which Select Committee reports will be debated. I have had requests this afternoon for at least two. We shall have to see how we get on.
Mr. Marten: On the question of the day which my right hon. Friend has promised for a debate on European regional policy, am I right in assuming that he also wants to add some other matters into that same debate? Is he aware that since the debate on the Queen's Speech we have received the agenda for the Council of Ministers' meeting and that it contains extremely important matters, each one of which ought to be given at least a half day, if not a whole day?
Mr. Prior: We have just had six days of general debates on the Queen's Speech. There are a number of important matters. One of the things that I had in mind when I said that it might be possible to debate other matters at the same time was that I thought that hon. Members would want to raise matters other than those of regional policy. I have made a note of what my hon. Friend said.
Mr. Blenkinsop: May we have an assurance that we shall have an opportunity of debating the Government's new housing improvements proposals under the new Bill within the next fortnight or three weeks, in view of the anxiety among local authorities about this matter?
Mr. Prior: These are matters which will be in the Bill, and the Bill will be brought before the House as soon as possible.
Mr. Moate: Will my right hon. Friend say when we may expect the Government to seek the approval of the House for their White Paper on metrication?
Mr. Prior: One or two matters relating to metrication have already been before the House. I have nothing to add to the statement which was made in the debate at the end of last Session.
Mr. Russell Kerr: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept congratulations from myself and from a number of other mem-
1184
bers of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries on the prompt manner in which the committee has been reappointed on this occasion? May we take it that this represents an end of the policy of months of delay before Select Committees of this importance are reappointed?
Mr. Prior: I am always glad to have the hon. Gentleman's support.

BILLS PRESENTED
  STATUTORY CORPORATIONS (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS)
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin, supported by Mr. Secretary Campbell, Sir John Eden, Mr. Tom Boardman, and Mr. John Nott, presented (under Standing Order No. 91 (Procedure upon Bills whose main object is to create a charge upon the public revenue)) a Bill to make provision for compensating certain statutory corporations in respect of financial loss due to compliance with the national policy relating to limitation of prices, and for extending the borrowing powers of certain statutory corporations; and for purposes connected with those matters: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 10.]
  LAND TENURE REFORM (SCOTLAND)
  Mr. Secretary Campbell, supported by the Lord Advocate, and Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith, presented a Bill to provide, as respects Scotland, for the imposition of limitations on newly created feuduties and other perpetual payments from land; for limitations on the residential use of property subject to long lease and other rights of occupancy; for the variation of standard securities in the event of residential use of the security subjects; for restrictions on certain rights of reversion, redemption and preemption; for the abolition of the right to create leasehold casualties; for the recognition of interposed leases; for amendment of the law relating to registration of leases; for the abolition of the registration and recording of documents in the Office of Chancery; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 9.]

CHANNEL TUNNEL (INITIAL FINANCE) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
3.57 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The House had a very full debate on the principle of the Channel Tunnel when it approved the White Paper less than two weeks ago. We shall have further opportunities over the next few months to debate the detailed arrangements for the financing, construction and operation of the tunnel which will be set out in a major hybrid Bill which we hope to present to Parliament later this month. I do not want today to traverse all the ground which has been or will be covered in these debates.
This Bill has a limited purpose—to enable the project to go forward to the next stage, referred to in the Bill as the "initial period", but more generally as phase 2. This will be inaugurated by the signature of an Anglo-French Treaty and a main agreement, Agreement No. 2, which will govern the project as a whole, and will cover final design and preliminary works including the construction of sloping access tunnels leading to the sites in Britain and France from which the tunnels will be bored, and the boring of about two kilometres of the service tunnel from each side.
This will enable us not only to take the project to the point where full-scale work could start early in phase 3 but also to confirm the conditions to be encountered underground and such key matters as the rate of progress of the tunnelling machines in practice, and hence the forecast cost of the project, before final commitment to the main works. During this phase, the traffic and revenue forecasts will be kept under study. Towards the end of the period it will be necessary to review the terms on which the main capital has to be raised, as was explained in Chapter 11 of the White Paper, and phase 2 will conclude with the signature of a supplementary agreement No. 3, after which—assuming all goes well—the bulk of the money will be raised and the main construction started.
1186
The Bill provides the financial powers needed to enable British Ministers to carry out the obligations in respect of phase 2 which they would incur on the signature of Agreement No. 2. These are within the general framework of the arrangements for the dual partnerships between Britain and France and between the Governments and the private interests represented by the British and French Channel Tunnel companies, which are described in Chapter 11 of the White Paper. They are, however, limited in scale and time, and differ in certain respects from the arrangements proposed for the main works.
The key features of the arrangements for financing the project during phase 2, which are reflected in Clause 1 of the Bill, are as follows.
Firstly, the work to be undertaken during the initial period is expected to cost some £30 million. The private interests expect to raise £8 million of this as risk capital, and the rest with Government guarantees. Since £2·6 million of the £5·4 million forecast cost of phase 1 was raised as risk capital, this means that by the end of phase 2, 30 per cent. of the total expenditure on the project to that point should have been met by risk capital. It will be necessary also during this period to refinance the guaranteed funds raised during phase 1.
Second, there may be some expense to be incurred by the Secretary of State himself for any further studies. It may prove desirable for certain further studies to be carried out about aspects of the project, or from points of view which, while of direct concern to the British Government, could not legitimately be considered to be the responsibility of the project as a whole. Examples of such studies carried out during phase 1 are the United Kingdom transport cost-benefit study, the study of the economic and social implications for Kent, and the current assessments of the noise which might be generated by the tunnel installations combined with the M20 motorway. These latter will certainly require review as the design of protective works and the installations as a whole progress.
Third, there could be obligations arising if the project were abandoned during phase 2. The extent of these would

1187
depend on the circumstances of the abandonment. If this were by mutual agreement or following notice by the private interests, the only obligations resting on the Governments would be to meet their guarantees, coupled with certain buy-back provisions should they wish to proceed with the project separately. If, however, the Governments wish to opt out or are unable to go ahead for any reason, while the companies are willing to proceed with the project, then provisions broadly reproducing those of Agreement No. 1 would operate. The effect would be that the Governments would be obliged to purchase the companies' interests at a price in excess of their cost, on a basis which takes account of the length of time the companies have had their money at risk and their loss of expectation of future profits.
In addition, as paragraph 11.21 of the White Paper explains, certain provisions have been agreed which would have the effect of partially compensating the private investors if it proved impossible to agree in 1975 on the terms for raising the main capital because the Governments and companies could not agree on the forecasts of future revenues.
Fourth—a point which is implicit but not explicit in the Bill—all the obligations arising under the guarantees, whether given by one Government or jointly, will be shared 50—50. So will any costs arising from an abandonment, however caused. This will be enshrined in the treaty and, to cover the period before that can be ratified, in an exchange of letters which will be signed at that time.
Those are the obligations which may be incurred during the initial period. I turn now to Clause 1. Subsection (1) provides the power to provide the guarantees and make the payments which are necessary to meet them. Subsection (2) sets a limit of £30 million on the guarantees which may be given, with a power to raise the limit to £35 million by order, which, under subsection (7), would be subject to affirmative resolution of this House.
Mr. Robert Sheldon (Ashton-under-Lyne): I am not sure that I have read the relevant passage correctly, and I should like to be clear. Is it only the excess of £5 million over the £30 million for which the order is required?
Mr. Speed: That is correct. The limit to which I have referred is high enough to cover the obligations of both the Governments, as it may well be most appropriate for some or all of the money to be guaranteed by both jointly. However, as I have already explained, all obligations will be shared jointly by the two Governments. Therefore, if Her Majesty's Government paid out less than half the total sum due, we should have to reimburse the French Government, and provision for this is made in subsection (3). Conversely, if we had paid out more than half, we should be reimbursed by the French, and the sums received would, under subsection (4), be paid into the Consolidated Fund.
There is one other provision to which I shall draw the attention of the House. Under Clause 2(1) "the initial period"—these powers relate only to that period—is defined as running to 1st July 1975. I expect that well before that date the Hybrid Bill providing the full powers required for the project will have been passed and by that date Agreement No. 3 will have been signed and the project will have passed into phase 3. In case all our expectations are falsified, however, provision is being made for the period to be extended. Hon. Members will, no doubt, have noticed that the date is different from that in the draft clauses published in the White Paper. This is because the timetable has been reassessed following the deferment of the start of phase 2 to mid-November.
The Bill will enable us to make progress with this major project. In itself, however, it is a limited if important measure. Its passage is now urgent. As my right hon. Friend explained on 25th October, it was deferred to the new Session because we felt that it would be for the convenience of the House if consideration of it were separated from the debate on the general principle. I am sure that that was right. If it is not passed, the project as now conceived may well collapse. The passing of it, however, is not an irrevocable step, as Chapter 12 of the White Paper makes clear.
It has taken us seven years to reach this point on the basis of the agreements reached by the Labour Government in 1966. I hesitate to think how long it would take to put together a new scheme. Indeed, I suspect that our

1189
grandchildren could well be continuing to debate it 30 years hence, and that is not a prospect which I find attractive.
I commend this limited but important Bill to the House.
4.7 p.m.
Mr. Frederick Mulley: As the Minister said, today's debate follows naturally and directly from our debate on 25th October, when we considered the White Paper and the full details of the scheme proposed by the Government, and I accept that, to give effect to the next stage as set out in the White Paper, the Government are bound to ask the House for the Bill now before us.
However, for the reasons which were so cogently put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) on 25th October—hon. Members will be glad to know that I shall not spell them out at length now—the Opposition do not completely go along with the scheme in the White Paper, and the House will not, therefore, be surprised to learn that we are not able to agree to the passing of the Bill, which, in effect, would give a second endorsement to the decision to which we objected on that occasion.
Our objections, in essence, are two. The first arises sharply on this Bill. We do not see the need for the generous provision proposed by way of guarantee and division of profits as they accrue to the private sector as distinct from the public sector. I shall not quote from the various financial columns of the newspapers commenting on the White Paper and the Government's estimates of how the scheme should work out, but I remind the House that with one voice they said that the projected returns were amazingly high, and in almost every case they said that, if the scheme is to produce that level of results, there should be no need for private capital to seek the kind of guarantees and terms which the Government are offering.
That being the case, we are in a dilemma. Either the Government estimates are wrong and the Government do not believe they will be borne out or the private capital will have a quite unreasonable share of the benefits and revenues that are expected to accrue. The Government cannot have it both
1190
ways. The difficult question to which they have not yet given an answer is whether, as may well be the case, they can get the participation of private capital only on these terms and with these guarantees. We have been given very little information and we have had very little time to discuss these issues in the House. If the people with whom the discussions and negotiations have taken place, the hard-headed business syndicates and the banks that they have gone to for the capital, are suspicious of the Government's figures and are doubtful that the results will be as the White Paper suggests, why should we accept what the Government tell us? That is the question that has not been answered.
Maybe in the calm of today we shall get an answer to this question. Are we to accept the estimates put forward as adequate forecasts—at least as much as any estimates can be adequate—or should we share the reservations of the private capital that has been involved in the negotiations. The people behind the capital say that the project is so risky, the prospect of return so doubtful, that they can go ahead only if, on the one hand, a great part of the money is guaranteed by the Government and, on the other, if the actual breakdown of surplus and revenue is in accordance with the White Paper.
The Bill is completely central to this argument because without the guarantees, as I understand it, at this stage in phase 2 the whole complicated structure of the financing of the tunnel would collapse. We are therefore entitled to know the Government's view about that and whether, as the scheme and the further studies go forward and the Government eventually convince themselves about the validity of their estimates and are satisfied that there will be a lot of profit in the scheme, there is the prospect of an adjustment in favour of the taxpayer and against those who contribute the private capital.
The second fundamental doubt we have about the tunnel is the difference between the ministerial speeches commending it and the small print of the White Paper. That is the difference between the benefit for British Railways on the one hand and whether, as the White Paper says, it will be, in effect, a rolling motorway with the railway content, apart from the actual

1191
conveyance of vehicles through the tunnel, not materially significant in the total volume of passenger or freight traffic.
I asked two questions in this connection in the last debate and no answers were given. Again, perhaps in the relative calm of today we might have those answers. They are very important for many of us in assessing what we see as the main attraction of the tunnel—the benefit it will bring to British Railways as distinct from the enormous congestion and environmental damage caused by the mounting level of road traffic, both private and commercial. So we want to know first, whether the Government are to provide funds for the new line, which they have approved, from the tunnel to London in the same way as funds are being provided for other aspects of the project, or whether British Railways will have to find the money themselves. If so, will it be deducted from the total investment programme that British Railways need in any event if they are to remain viable and efficient?
It could be that the question will be answered when we at last see, as we are assured from week to week that we shall, the Government's proposals for the future of the railways. We get little snippets of information. It is becoming like a serial story. The Under-Secretary was flapping his skirts again this week saying that all would be revealed by his right hon. Friend towards the end of the month. I think that is what he said. But we have been hearing that kind of message for a year. I hope there is some substance to this theatrical performance and that we shall get to Act 1 and find out what is going on. However, the hard fact is that the value of the project to British Railways is a most important aspect in our current discussions. British Railways are not in an attractive position when they have to raise money themselves for new investment. Will the Government treat this as a special case and pay for the new route?
The other aspect which for many of us is extremely attractive is the possibility of direct passenger and freight trains from all parts of the United Kingdom without the need, as in the case of freightliners, for a changeover because of gauge problems. It is an attractive prospect
1192
that goods loaded on the railways at Sheffield can go direct to any part of Europe. I realise that substantial expenditure will be incurred by British Railways if continental trains are to be able to use these lines.
The Minister for Transport Industries (Mr. John Peyton): I have already made clear in the previous debate that the £120 million investment required for the link between the Channel coast and London will be provided separately by the Government and not out of ordinary railway investment. Secondly, it is already clear that British Rail traffic will be free to go all over the Continent. There is no question about that. It will be able to come back here. There will be certain difficulties for continental traffic going beyond London, and that is understood by the European railways.
Mr. Mulley: That is most illuminating. I am only sorry that the right hon. Gentleman did not tell us that when he replied to our last debate. He did not mention securing the understanding of European railways that they would be unable to go beyond London, and he did not say that they would be content for their traffic to travel, for example, from Italy to Sheffield carried by British Rail. Obviously, the great attraction of the scheme would be removed if freight had to be unloaded in London and transferred from one railway system to another, as I imagined would need to be the case.
We must get this absolutely clear. In the fulness of time it may be desirable for some railway tunnels to be improved, for some permanent way to be replaced and for bridges to be widened and signals removed in order to accommodate continental rail traffic. British Railways cannot be expected to do this in addition to their normal enormous commitments necessary to maintain an efficient and viable system. Now we have the Government's assurance that all the necessary railway investment consequent upon the tunnel will be met by the Exchequer.
That is very good news, and if the right hon. Gentleman had told us that a fortnight ago we should have been much happier. He did not say anything like that, that all British Rail expenditure arising from and in connection with the tunnel would be found for it by the

1193
Exchequer by way of grant. That is important. I congratulate the Government on having done it. It removes part of our difficulty about British Rail, which still worried us, because the whole financial structure set out in the White Paper is based on the major revenues coming from rail traffic.
In the Opposition's view, the White Paper, which the House has accepted, makes excessive provision for the private capital participating in the proposed scheme. We are in rather unusual company in sharing the view of many financial commentators, including the Economist, that there should be no need in the circumstances for the kind of guarantees proposed in the White Paper, the first of which is before the House. For those reasons I advise my right hon. Friends to vote against the Bill.
4.21 p.m.
Sir Richard Thompson: As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State reminded us, the Bill is about money. I think he hopes that the subsequent discussion can be restricted purely to that aspect of the matter, but it is an old principle of the House that we must have redress of grievance before grant of supply, and if we are to provide the £30 million that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries wants in order to carry out the next stage of his preparations for the tunnel, certain questions that have not so far been answered must be answered.
There is no doubt that although theoretically, after we have spent the money on the trial borings and all the rest, we can still think again and decide not to go ahead with the tunnel, in practice the fact that we embark on the spending of those funds will pre-empt the rest of the programme. As time goes on we shall increasingly hear the argument, "We have spent all this money on the preliminary arrangements, the test borings, and so on. We must not spoil the ship for a ha'porth"—some ha'porth?—"of tar. We must now go ahead to the end."
Some hon Members are very familiar with such accumulator processes. Some of us who sit on the Public Accounts Committee will remember, for example, examining the situation that arose over the financing of Concorde. We were told that that we were on the frontiers of tech-
1194
nology, and nobody knew what Concorde would cost. Nobody could challenge the figures. The Channel Tunnel is not a parallel case. It is not on the frontiers of technology but is nineteenth-century technology, boring a tunnel and running trains through it. Therefore, perhaps we shall not fall into the same error.
But if we pass the Bill tonight we shall have committed ourselves effectively to the whole of the expenditure and all the environmental upset and everything else that the tunnel entails. If that is what the House wants, we should have an answer to one or two questions I have already raised, which are very important to my constituents and other people affected by the proposed high-speed railway.
When my right hon. Friend wound up the previous debate on the tunnel, I asked him to answer certain points that had not been raised in the debate by other hon. Members. He was unable to do so. When the line leaves London, it emerges in South Croydon and runs in the open for some miles before re-entering a tunnel at Woldingham. Some of my constituents have a number of houses and properties along that route which are now wholly blighted. They could not sell them in the market for what those properties should command, or for anything like it.
I know perfectly well that with the effluxion of time British Rail will in due course produce a Bill, and notices to treat will be served. I dare say that fair compensation will be agreed. But it is a long process. In the meantime, my unfortunate constituents see the value of their principal investment in life, their house and home, blighted at a time when everything is very expensive.
Not all of them will be alive at the end of the process. Some will have died, and it will have been found that the value of the principal asset in their estate has been cut to ribbons. Some may wish to sell their properties, or may have to sell. What will happen to them? Will proper regard be paid to the value of their property at the time when the proposals became known? Anything else would be grossly unfair. Their properties have been depreciated because of the threat, and they should be compensated for it. That is only fair.
Compared with all the fuss about running a motorway through London, the

1195
fuss that will be created in South Croydon if the route is carved through it without proper arrangements in advance is fearful to contemplate. I ask my right hon. Friend to say now that British Rail will be human and understanding and will make a statement on the matter so that my constituents' minds may be set at rest.
What will British Rail do in places where it is not possible to build a tunnel—through the countryside, near villages, small towns and settlements, where the trains will scream through at 150 mph at frequent intervals in both directions—to shield people from the effects of the noise and blast? In the White Paper there are cosy references to landscaping, screening, the building of rail embankments and so on. It all sounds fine, but it will need to be spelt out in detail before people who now live in peace and reasonable quiet in the countryside can contemplate what is proposed. They will not be comforted by the thought that a generous Government might offer to double-glaze their windows at no charge to them.
My local authority in Croydon made a very sensible suggestion to the Department of the Environment, that the line should be continued in a tunnel until Woldingham, well clear of the built-up area. I am assured that that is technically feasible. It would be expensive, but if the Department balances against that expense the cost of compensating not only those whose houses are destroyed but those whose houses are rendered uninhabitable by injurious affection, I am sure that it will give serious consideration to the proposal, which is environmentally sensible in view of the duty of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to protect the physical fabric of the country in which we live.
Have any detailed technical studies been made of the effect of driving trains at 150 mph through a very long tunnel? There are no prototypes in existence. Here in London we are standing on the longest rail tunnel in the world, but it is occupied by underground trains that stop at every station and never go more than 40 mph, and there is frequent ventilation. Imagine the effect of projecting a successsion of trains at 150 mph through the
1196
proposed pipes. Has that technical matter been given all the attention that it deserves? If it has not, all the economic forecasts geared to the speed, and therefore the structure, of the trains, are at risk.
Equally, I hope that my hon. Friend will pay some attention to the rapid loading of the ferry trains. A rate of loading of one every three minutes, or something unbelievable, has been quoted. I do not believe, with the best will in the world, that trains can be loaded at that rate. If that cannot be done, once again the forecasts of profitability are seriously at risk.
Nothing like enough time has teen allowed, in the technical studies which I have read, for the servicing of the tunnels. The tunnels will have to be shut down for approximately six hours every 24 hours so that essential daily maintenance can be carried out. We can take no chances with the servicing and maintenance when we are to commit enormous numbers of people at high speed into the tunnels. The standard of servicing required will not be out of line with what goes on in conventional tunnels throughout the world. The Simplon Tunnel through the Alps is a good example.
I shall not go through all my reservations. Those matters have been covered in previous debates. They are serious matters. There is a great problem for my constituents. While we may agree that we need better links with the Continent and that we must move with the times, the fact remains that a great deal of suffering will be caused unless we can assure people well in advance that they will not lose their homes or be paid a fraction of their real value. We want an assurance now to deal with the special case of people who have to sell their houses or who die before British Rail finally makes an offer for their houses. My reservations have been stated before, and I hope that on this occasion my right hon. Friend will make it easier for those who have serious reservations to consider his proposals favourably.
4.33 p.m.
Mr. Frank Tomney: This is a classic example of the Treasury draftsman's short Bill. It is designed to lull us all into a sense of agreement. In every clause there is contained a potential liability for the nation

1197
which the nation should not be asked to undertake.
If all the financial pundits, the financial forecasters and the financial journalists are right in their assessments, the tunnel will be one of the biggest money spinners of all time. It is said that the tunnel will be a bonanza. If that is so, what is the necessity for public finance? Straight away, the Government are in at the deep end with both feet. Initially there is to be provided £30 million, with £22 million coming from public finance.
Those hon. Members who have sat on various specialist committees—I was a member of the Select Committee which investigated the aircraft industry in 1954—will realise how easy it is to become involved without realising it.
There are two projects on which the nation has badly burnt its fingers. One is the development of nuclear power. Design studies have been undertaken, and to no end, for 20 years. We have not produced one nuclear power station after 20 years. We have poured millions of pounds into research and design studies. Concorde is still costing £2 million a day. That product is still in the design study stage.
It is with those examples in mind that hon. Members become anxious when they read Bills of this character. We must be cautious. The project involves £30 million for design studies, traffic studies and revenue studies. There is not one word about the matters which the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Sir R. Thompson) mentioned—namely, compensation for the displacement of people who will be affected.
The problem facing my constituents is greater than that facing the constituents of Croydon, South. The Government, with the blessing of the Opposition, have concurred that the terminal shall be at White City. That is one of the most congested boroughs in the whole of London. Housing land is at a premium in that area. The only thing which we do not make more of in Britain is housing land or land of any kind. The land which will be used will be a further permanent loss. That land could be claimed justifiably for housing.
British Rail is said to own the land which is available in the White City area.
1198
What compensation will be offered to the hundreds of householders who will have to be displaced? The first study should have been about compensation for the displacement, dislocation and uprooting of people who will be troubled for many years following the construction of the tunnel.
The issue goes further than that. The hon. Member for Croydon, South is right. We are committed from the start. However, there is a difference in philosophy between the two Front Benches. The Opposition Front Bench has said that there shall be a rail tunnel only. What will happen if in 12 months there is a change of Government? What shall we be committed to then? Shall we be committed to taking over the plans in toto? Shall we be committed to compensate the French Government, the French financiers, the British financiers and the Channel Tunnel Company for a tunnel which may never be built?
That is the kind of mess into which we are getting ourselves. Never mind the forecasts of profit. We should have first considered capital engineering costs. It is true, as the hon. Gentleman said, that the tunnel is a nineteenth century concept in engineering. It is not a project which takes us to the frontiers of technology. I fail to see the need for a figure of such magnitude for design studies. We have built tunnels all over the world from Hong Kong to San Francisco. Britain has been involved with the development of tunnels and has been a large investor and exporter throughout the world. The technique is known. A subterranean design study may be required, but that need not cost £30 million. At any stage the tunnel may have to be abandoned.
The Bill before the House is short. The hybrid Bill, when it arrives, should deal with the matters and the fears which have been mentioned. The Government draftsmen should consider the issue not strictly from the terms of the financial arrangements. They should consider how those arrangements will affect the people concerned by the Bill. That is not what they have done but that is what they should do.
When the hullabaloo starts, once the die is cast, there may well be endless legislation. We cannot determine compensation on the basis of house to house,

1199
shop to shop or factory to factory. Properties will become due for compensation at different times. Some will become the subject of compensation within the first two or three years of the scheme. Some may become involved 20 years or 30 years later. What will be the coherent standard for compensation? Will compensation be payable over "X" number of years? Will there be taken into account the changing value of property and money? Such matters have not been considered, and for that reason I shall be joining my right hon. and hon. Friends in Lobby.
4.40 p.m.
Mr. Roger Moate (Faversham): My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State emphasised that the Bill did not represent a final and irrevocable step, but none of us is under any illusion about what we are debating. If the Bill is passed, from this moment forward the rolling motorway beings to roll. If the House wished to take a contrary decision on subsequent legislation, I cannot imagine that the Government would accept that it was right to do so. They would say that the House was committed in principle and that on the basis of this legislation they had signed a treaty and had encouraged people to put in risk capital. If the Bill is passed as it stands, the House and the country are committed to going forward, right to completion, with this Channel Tunnel. I do not suppose that my right hon. Friend will disagree that that is the intention, and the House should be under no illusion about it.
Mr. Peyton: My hon. Friend should not take my agreement to such a proposition for granted. Had he listened to the speech by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, he would have heard him say clearly that the Bill was a step further forward. If it were a final commitment, why would we introduce a major Bill later in the Session?
Mr. Moate: With respect to my right hon. Friend, I quoted my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State as saying that the Bill was not a final and irrevocable step, but in practice we recognise this to be the decisive moment. I think that is self-evident, although there are, in theory, options by which we can extricate ourselves later.
1200
We have been told that the final cost will be £846 million at 1981 prices, plus the cost of the railway, but when the tunnel project was first approved—the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) gave it her blessing originally in 1966—the cost was estimated at between £160 million and £170 million. That represents quite an escalation in seven years. These figures are important because the British taxpayer will guarantee that the out-turn price will not be much more than £850 million and we want to be sure that we are not backing another white elephant.
If the project is delayed even by one year—and a project of this size is not likely to be delayed only by a year—the extra interest charges will be £80 million plus. If the project is delayed by much more than a year, as it obviously could be, the increase in the final cost and the subsequent interest burden will be massive.
Mr. Adam Butler: The purpose of this initial period is to establish the approach road and some of the service tunnel. This will give an indication whether we are likely to be on time if the main project goes ahead.
Mr. Moate: Of course that is so and I recognise the logic and common sense of that trial period, but with most construction jobs of this nature many delays occur during the contract period and during construction, and would not be evident in the initial stages.
The basic question which has not been answered by the Government has been put to my right hon. Friend many times. If the project is likely to be so profitable, why does it need a Government guarantee? It is incumbent upon the Government to explain this. If the prospects are so good, why cannot private operators raise the capital required in the City? It has been done before for other projects. The extraction of North Sea oil, for example, involves far more money than does the Channel Tunnel. I ask my right hon. Friend to explain, if the figures are so good and the risk is so safe for the taxpayer, why the Government need to offer a guarantee.
When we debated the White Paper I abstained from voting because I am attracted by the idea of a Channel Tunnel, but one based on a railway link.

1201
When one reads the White Paper and hears my right hon. Friend speak on this subject one sees the enormous opportunity and the attractions of establishing a fast connection between the railway systems of Britain and Europe. I want British Rail to have this opportunity to switch freight from road to rail. It makes sense. Those advantages would accrue from a railway-only tunnel, from a tunnel which does not have a Cheriton terminal and which is based on passengers, freight and motor vehicles boarding at many regional termini throughout Britain.
I would further request the Government to put in hand during the next phase a serious study of the advantages and disadvantages of and the economic case for and against a railway-only tunnel, and to report back to the House. There are figures which show that it would cost 30 per cent. less to construct such a tunnel and that the operating costs would be very much less. There could be a handsome profit by 1990 from such a railway-only tunnel.
The figures for the operating costs for a railway-only tunnel are startling. One report submitted, I understand by the Channel Tunnel Company states that with a railway-only tunnel—with no rolling motorway and no terminal—the operating costs in 1990 would be £5 million a year. The operating costs for the vehicle ferry type tunnel will be £34 million per annum. The same chart shows that the railway-only tunnel could still make a profit by 1990 of £54 million after servicing all debt, compared with the £163 million profit estimated from the vehicle ferry system. These figures are impressive. In view of the environmental advantages of a railway-only tunnel, the Government should institute a serious inquiry about it, or at least try to answer the case that has been made Out by a large number of bodies outside the House who have given a great deal of attention to it.
On the question of the projected profits to be made, are not we being complacent in thinking that a Government-backed project would be allowed by the British public to make a profit of nearly two-thirds of its gross receipts? If we reached a stage where the gross receipts were £286 million with a pre-tax profit after interest charges of £163 million, there would be
1202
an enormous outcry in the country and great pressure for the rates to be brought down.
I should like an amendment to be made to the Bill providing that before we proceed there shall be a proper public inquiry. In the last year or two we have heard a great deal from my hon. and right hon. Friends—and I know they mean this sincerely—about encouraging greater public participation in all these great planning projects. I readily pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries, who has been to great lengths in discussing the project in Kent with many bodies and others who wanted to discuss it with him. That has been immensely helpful, but there is a difference, which I know he will recognise, between full and frank discussions and a full public inquiry at which the public can put their case formally and where the results are analysed and considered by an impartial and objective body. We need a public inquiry particularly because of the tremendous environmental considerations that apply, certainly to Kent.
Mr. Mulley: The Opposition attempted to provide for a public inquiry in the terms of an amendment we moved on the last occasion. I do not think that we had the support of the hon. Gentleman then.
Mr. Moate: As I said, I abstained on that occasion because, if the Opposition had been successful in carrying the amendment, the project would probably have been killed stone dead, whereas many of us wish to have the railway-only principle analysed further. That would mean that the Bill could proceed but with amendments in which could be incorporated some of the arguments put forward by the right hon. Gentleman in that debate. I hope that before we consider the Bill in Committee we shall be able to put down constructive amendments on these points—first, a study of the railway-only link, and secondly, the holding of a public inquiry before we proceed further.
I believe that the environmental damage to Kent has been underestimated. Admittedly, whatever happens, there will be an increase in the number of lorries and cars on the roads. Much of this traffic will go along the present roads to the Channel ports. If the tunnel is built with

1203
the terminus in Kent it will attract many cars and lorries from all the other ports on the South Coast, and from the airports to the Kent coast. Although there will be motor rail facilities. My right hon. Friend's Department told me recently in a letter that it recognised that because of cost only a small proportion of the traffic will go on the motor rail services. Therefore, most of it will go on the roads.
The four million cars—the figure which has been projected for 1990—will be spread over a great area of Kent.
My right hon. Friends believe that this traffic will be contained on the M20, but the motor car does not behave like that, and the situation will not develop that way. There will still be heavy traffic going to Folkestone and Dover, as well as to Cheriton. If a railway-only tunnel is built, then British Rail should be backed so that it can have a fare structure designed to attract goods and vehicles off the roads on to the railway. It would be a great opportunity to protect the environment to a large degree.
Mr. Peter Rees: I am concerned with what my hon. Friend said, and I was interested to hear his development of this point. Can he suggest where the motor car would go if there were not a Channel Tunnel?
Mr. Moate: That is a very important point. The point is, simply, as everyone agrees, that the motor car will be driven through Kent. This has been stated categorically by both supporters and opponents of the tunnel. The motor car will go through Dover or Folkestone or other ports, such as Southampton, or the hoverports, or through Cheriton. It is now suggested that Cheriton should be added to these other ports. This would give a positive attraction to motorists to drive through Kent.
British Rail should be given every encouragement to offer cheap charter trips which would persuade people to leave their cars at home and travel by train, from the many regional centres, on their way to their holiday or business destinations and hire a motor car at the other end. This is the solution we should be looking to. It is ironical that at a time when people are at last beginning to question the absolute right of the motor car and lorry to travel freely
1204
across the country, a project is being initiated which is designed to give one of the biggest boosts we have ever had to road travel.
Mr. John Sutcliffe: My hon. Friend has been talking about the extra traffic which will be attracted into Kent because of the tunnel. Would he agree that many juggernauts at present travelling to East Coast ports would be attracted by the existence of the tunnel on to the roads of Kent and through the tunnel?
Mr. Moate: It is probable that that would be one result. It should be a railway-only tunnel, based on a railway-only philosophy, and if necessary paid for by the French and British Governments. We must face the fact that if private enterprise does not want to do it, then it should be a Government-owned tunnel like all other railway tunnels. The scheme should be based on a positive policy, once and for all, to get vehicles off the road and on to rail.
4.55 p.m.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) has posed one of the most important of all the questions likely to arise in the debate. If the tunnel is to be so profitable, why has it to be guaranteed by the Government? It is a question to which we have never had an answer, and we are never likely to have an answer. I will explain why.
The Government are not in the position of insisting on their 90 per cent. involvement. They have this degree of involvement because there is no alternative. They did not think that it was such a profitable venture that they could say to private interests "Stand aside while we cash in on such a profitable venture." What they are saying in fact is that it is such a risky scheme, and so unlikely to have a high degree of profitability, that it needs to be underwritten by the Government. This means that the profits will depend upon Government action, and in such a situation one is able to get private interests involved.
The Government are going to influence the competition. They are influencing it now. I remind the House of the investigation being undertaken by the Monopolies Commission into the ferry services. When the commission finally deigns

1205
to report after all this time and the Minister involved has to reach a decision, clearly he must be influenced by the amount of money which is going to be made by the Channel Tunnel itself.
Clearly, in such a situation, if the Channel Tunnel's finances look a bit shaky, the Minister will look less fiercely upon such a monopolistic arrangement as that undertaken by the ferries. On the other hand, if he sees that the profits from the Channel Tunnel are likely to be very high indeed, clearly he will be prepared more readily to allow a greater element of competition. So the essential profitability of the Channel Tunnel will be very largely determined by the Government. They will have full power to act on the toll charges on vehicles and people going through the tunnel. These will largely be decided by Government intervention as well.
So if the Government, by this means and others, are going to determine the minimum profitability, what the private investor is gambling on is not a Channel Tunnel in the absence of anything else. He is deciding on what the Government will effectively allow, and since the Government themselves stand behind this scheme it is clear that his position becomes more favourable than it might otherwise be.
Why are the Government entering into an undertaking of this kind? It is because if something goes wrong they will have the ability to blame somebody—that is, the private interests. They will be able to blame the private interests for anything that might go less well than they might have expected. I put it in another and more kindly way to the Government. The Government believe that private interests will give an element of objectivity to the scheme.
But in this the Government are mistaken, because the 10 per cent. involvement of private interests must be only a reflection of how those private interests consider the importance of Government involvement. As a result, there will never be that objectivity which the Government are seeking. The Government have to make the decision themselves, and if they have to make it themselves there is no point in having these private interests, which serve no function except possibly as an excuse whereby,
1206
when things go wrong, the Government will be able to point to people other than themselves as having made errors.
I would accept these risks in the scheme if I regarded the basic scheme itself as sound. The difficulty I am in is that I am very attracted to the whole principle of a cross-Channel link. At some time in future we must come to a decision as to what should be the proper form of such a fixed link across the Channel. The trouble in this case is that Governments right back to 1963 and before decided on the kind of scheme they wanted and have pursued it ever since. Their minds were closed from the beginning.
What is at fault is the planning organisation within the Department itself. Three Governments have been involved, with five or six Ministers. Not one of them has been able to re-open the project to look at it afresh during these past 10 years. The engineering structure was posed at least 15 years ago—indeed, some would say that it was posed as long ago as the last century. The failure over such a long period to re-examine that structure must be the failure of the Department itself.
In a re-examination, the Government should have looked at the widest aspects of the cross-Channel link and, as they proceeded to the investigation, zeroed in on the final scheme which offered the best hopes. But that has not happened, as I know only too well because I tried to get the matter re-opened and was appalled by the ignorance of other matters which should have been a common place of discussion within the Department. The Department had a limited vision and retained it.
There is a similar case—that of Stansted airport. The Department then took a blinkered view, based on the movement of air traffic, and held Stansted to be the one airport which would meet the situation. But on that occasion my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland), who was then the Minister responsible, had the courage and determination to re-open the case. I regret that successive Ministers of Transport have fallen short of that example in considering this Channel Tunnel.
So we have the situation in which no one can feel happy about the arrangement before us. Engineering science is moving at a rapid rate but we are taking

1207
none of it into account. The only consolation I find in the Bill is that some of the dreamy and rosy pictures which were before the eyes of some Ministers have now been replaced. This is shown in Clause 1(1)(c)(ii), by which the Secretary of State will have power to pay out money in order to wind up the project. I suggest that at any time during the last few years had such a Bill been presented to the House it would almost certainly not have contained a provision of that kind. That is one element of realism at least. If the Government find themselves with one or two dud companies on their hands in the event of there being a winding-up, they will be able to make changes. What is the position of the private interests in the Channel Tunnel Company at the present time? What are the Government's intentions?
The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Sir R. Thompson) spoke about the slippery slope, and how right he was. All these projects, once begun, have some of the functions and disadvantages of the slippery slope, but this one has more than most. There are two main reasons.
First, the Government are setting a limit of £35 million, which we know will be spent almost come what may. No one is going to say "We have spent £20 million and it is not going very well, so let us call it a day." That will not happen because when such projects are started they are difficult to stop. Secondly, they are even more difficult to stop when one is in partnership with rather different interests from those of oneself.
We thus have the situation in which the Government might decide that they have made a mistake but in order to bring the project to a conclusion they would need the French Government simultaneously to come to the same conclusion. The difficulty there is that there are always phases in such matters, as we have learned with the Concorde. At a time when one Government are blowing hot, the other tend to be blowing cold. To have a coincidence when both Governments are blowing roughly the same temperature, other than rosy optimism, is not easy.
Mr. Peyton: The hon. Gentleman is misleading the House and himself. It
1208
has been made clear that it is open to any party to abandon the project at any time, and the residuary loss to the Governments would in the circumstances be divided 50–50. He cannot say that it would take the agreement of the two Governments.
Mr. Sheldon: I am aware of that. The right hon. Gentleman has made the point before. But the fact is that when it came to the crunch that kind of decision would not be taken, even if with such an exemption clause. It would not be taken for the same reason as it has not been taken in the case of the Concorde. All sorts of ramifications are involved and the Government would be bound to take them into account. When one is talking of having spent £20 million and there is the question of spending another £5 million or another £10 million, then I assure the House that the extra money will be spent. I would settle for that now. What worries me is that the right hon. Gentleman or his successor may be coming to this House saying that £30 million to £35 million is not enough. Then we would have to introduce another Bill for a further £10 million or £15 million. Once we start on the slippery slope there is no telling where we might end.
I should be happy to accept those large risks if I felt sure that we had the right project. It is because I am so dissatisfied with the project that I am dissatisfied with the kind of risk that we are taking.
The main purpose of the Bill is to give the power to guarantee the interests concerned. We know that the agreement which is to be guaranteed has not yet been made. I find that unsatisfactory, too.
Clause 1(5) says that the Government—I give them credit because they are doing more than previous Governments have done—are to lay before the House a statement of the guarantee, but that will be done immediately after the moneys are guaranteed. I cannot see why the Government, having gone so far, should not have gone that step further and said that the statement of guarantee should come before those moneys are guaranteed. I hope to table an amendment to that end. It is the only way in which we would be able to

1209
control the project. We all know the difficulties of controlling a project and of supervising it. It is a problem, as with all kinds of ventures that must be solved. If there is to be some measure of control the House of Commons should acquire it.
5.7 p.m.
Sir Robin Turton: I have certain misgivings over the Bill. I realise that my right hon. Friend will apply an excuse, rather like that for the unexpected baby—that "It is only a little one." Unfortunately, once we have taken this step, a large amount of public expenditure must inevitably follow. The project will happen at a time when, quite rightly, the Government are moderating the growth of public expenditure and are postponing many important projects for communications because the economy is overheated.
My first question and complaint about the Bill is directed towards its wrong timing. Is it the right time to put forward this expenditure of £30 million to £35 million when important road programmes are of necessity delayed by the Government because of the overheated economy? How many road projects that would otherwise be carried out next year and in the following years will have to be delayed because of the Government's commitment to this measure?
I listened with sympathy and attention to what was said by my hon. Friends the Members for Kent and Surrey, but I am thinking more of the North-East, where road communications important to exports have been held up for six or seven years so that we cannot get our exports to Europe from our own Teesside ports. Will the project in question hold up communications in the North-East? I hope that my right hon. Friend will give us some assurance that, whatever the effect of the Bill and its financial implications, he will put greater dynamism into improving communications between the West Riding of Yorkshire and Teesside than his precedessors have done.
The right hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) said that it was good news that all the additional rail expenditure would be given in grant. That gave me a shock. We are embarking here on a project which will cost not £30 million but £1,000 million, all of which
1210
will be directed into a narrow corridor through Surrey and Kent in order to get to France. I have often wondered—I should like the economists to make some estimate—what has been the cost of the infrastructure in the South-East compared with that in the regions. I believe that the figures would show that successive Governments have neglected the regions in favour of the South-East.
Mr. Peyton: I should be happy to provide my right hon. Friend with some such figures, but if he were to compare the roads of either the North-East or the North-West with those of the South-East he would find the comparison overwhelmingly favourable to the North. The roads of Kent have been shockingly neglected for many years; I am trying at long last to restore the balance.
Sir Robin Turton: I am very grateful. I was talking not just of the road programme but of the whole of the infrastructure, which includes projects like the Victoria Line and other capital expenditure which has gone into the South-East. If that is balanced against the regional policies of successive Governments, I believe that it will be seen that the South-East has been unduly favoured. That is why there has been the drift to the South-East and away from the regions.
We should also consider what is happening across the Channel; I should be grateful for some details. The emphasis in the Community will probably be found to be centred on the Rhine-Danube Canal rather than on any route through France. If that is so, it is wrong to think merely of this "Chunnel" link with France rather than of ferry services to Europe and steamer services north to Scandinavia.
I cannot understand Chapter 11.21 of the White Paper. I appreciate that, now that the Government are backing this risk, it is right that, if the scheme is wound up, they should compensate the private enterprise for a part of its commitment. But it seems doubtful to me whether we have any obligation to guarantee compensation of 50 per cent. of the money invested before the Government had backed the risk.
Would my right hon. Friend go in greater detail into Clause 1(1)(c)(ii) which I gather gives him the statutory

1211
authority for this generous provision over compensation. I should have thought that there was a good case for saying that, if the scheme proved abortive, the Government should guarantee some return to those who were encouraged for having undertaken to back it.
Sixty years ago, when I was young, I remember people talking about a Channel tunnel and saying then that it would have been better done 50 years before and that at that time it was out of date. With what is happening now in engineering and with the tendency for trade to radiate to all areas in England, especially when we have been pressing on all sides for greater attention to regional policy, this scheme seems sadly out of date. The Bill should be given the conventional parliamentary treatment of being considered again in six months' time.
5.16 p.m.
Mrs. Renée Short: The Minister seems to have no friends in the House tonight. He certainly has none on this side, and all his hon. Friends who have spoken so far have shown clearly that they do not like the Bill's proposals.
The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) asked a very important question—why is this scheme brought forward at this particular time? The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney) have mentioned the severe social, as well as economic, costs of this scheme. The cut-back in the road building programme that the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton mentioned is only part of the difficulties which make this scheme utterly incomprehensible.
I am amazed that the Minister, who is generally regarded as intelligent, in contrast to a large number of his colleagues on the Front Bench, should have persisted with this scheme instead of doing as my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) suggested and throwing the whole thing back, telling his civil servants to bring themselves up to date. If we must have a Channel crossing, let us consider something more up-to-date than a proposal that is over 100 years old.
1212
I will not go into the history of the ideas about the building of the Channel Tunnel because I did that in the debate on the White Paper, when the Minister was present.
I am concerned about the social costs of this scheme and its effect on the building industry which will have to provide the necessary men and materials. We are in enormous difficulty. Many other Ministers are in acute difficulty and embarrassment. As a result, the local authority house-building programmes, for example, have been held back. The Secretary of State for Education and Science recently announced cuts of £100 million in local authority school-building programmes. My own authority, for example, has lost nine projects which range from nursery projects to the polytechnic—all because we are in an over-heated situation. The Secretary of State for Social Services has cut back on hospital building for the same reason, and the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton mentioned the road-building programme.
Therefore, this is the worst possible moment to bring forward a scheme which is expensive in terms both of money and of the demands that it will make on men and materials. The Minister would be well advised to think again and to withdraw the Bill.
If we look at the demand this project will make not only upon money but upon materials it will be seen that problems may arise because of the long delays in the supply of materials to builders large and small. What will the Minister do if he finds that his project cannot start because there is no timber, or no aggregates with which to make concrete? He will be in difficulties. What sort of material will be used to build this tunnel?
There is chaos in the aggregates industry, where good material is being wasted and not much use is being made of artificial materials. The steel industry cannot supply the steel which the construction industry needs, either reinforcing steel or pre-stressed steel. This will be needed in enormous quantities for the tunnel, even in the initial stages. When the project gets going there will be this open-ended commitment and a continuing demand on scarce building resources which the country needs for other purposes.
Mr. David Crouch: I am interested in the hon. Lady's observations about aggregates. Does she think that the boring of the tunnel will require great use of these? Is it not a fact that the tunnel is to be steel-lined?
Mrs. Short: Concrete will be needed in large quantities to build a tunnel. It is not a completely steel construction. Perhaps the Minister would like to go into the technical details when he replies. I think the hon. Member can be assured that large quantities of this material will be needed as well as steel. The Government are not prepared to expand the steel industry. There will be a continuing drain by the tunnel on scarce resources needed for other, more important, social purposes.
If this was put to the people I am sure they would say without hesitation "Leave the Channel Tunnel; we are not interested in it. We do not want it, but we do want schools, houses, hospitals and roads." This is what the right hon. Gentleman should be concerning himself about, not his wretched tunnel. In the debate on the White Paper, the right hon. Gentleman attempted to make fun of what I said about steamers. He said that I had said "stick to steamers." Presumably the right hon. Gentleman does not intend to drop the steamers to the bottom of the Channel. There will still be the steamers. The ferries will presumably still be plying to and fro. I do not believe that he has ever done a proper analysis of the cost and the way in which custom will be removed from existing ferry and air links in favour of the tunnel.
If the hon. Gentleman makes the profit out of his tunnel that he expects, and that private enterprise is absolutely certain it will make, then unless there is a tremendous increase in the number of people wanting to cross the Channel, and we are by no means certain that that will happen, the established means of crossing the Channel will suffer. The right hon. Gentleman should tell us more about this. He ought to look, as the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton said, at some of the areas where road links are needed which would serve other crossings to the Continent, both for trade and for passenger travel.
I repeat what I have said during the debate on the White Paper. The road
1214
links between the Midlands, where my constituency is, and where an enormous number of engineering projects are made, to the East Coast are non-existent. The right hon. Gentleman ought to look at these projects to see what can be done before he embarks on this white elephant of a Channel Tunnel. This open-ended commitment is likely to lead to the expenditure of £100 million or more before it is completed. It is a scandalous project for the Government to be bringing forward.
5.25 p.m.
Mr. Adam Butler: The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) said that she was looking for something more modern, but she then reverted to her famous steamers. I suggest that if she does want something more modern it is likely to cost much more than the tunnel, while the risks will be very much greater than those attending upon the tunnel.
Mrs. Renée Short: Can the hon. Gentleman point to any cost-benefit schemes or alternative plans that have been worked out and costed? None exists in the Department.
Mr. Butler: I was coming to the point of the cost and how certain we can be. If the hon. Lady will listen to the brief speech I hope to make I trust that I shall deal with the point.
I hesitated slightly to enter the debate because my constituents are not directly affected in the same way as so many of those of my hon. Friends. I sympathise with the worries expressed on behalf of his constituents by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir R. Thompson). Those are justifiable worries. When I look more closely I see that my constituents do have a real interest because running through Bosworth is the M1, as well as other trunk roads. Further, my constituents are interested in getting to the Continent by the most agreeable and shortest route, for business or holiday. They are also interested in getting their products there if they are exporters. I therefore find that they are very much affected.
I mention roads because this is surely the greatest attraction of the tunnel. In my view, it is the main justification for it because it provides an opportunity to

1215
switch so much of our freight and passenger traffic from the roads to the rail system. I would like my right hon. Friend to give an assurance that of this money we are debating today, and on which we hope to vote shortly, an adequate amount will be devoted to preparing the necessary surveys to ensure not only that the most effective rail link is devised but that there are no delays in putting it into effect.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) is rightly concerned about the export opportunities for the North-East and so many of the industrial peripheries of our country. If the export business can be put on to rail and guaranteed a through route to the Continent, the expenditure which I understood him to be looking for on roads becomes less necessary. It is because those industrial areas will be so much better served as a result of the tunnel that I support it.
Reference has been made to motorail. This ties in with one of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) in his request for a rail-only tunnel and the suggestion that the Cheriton terminal should be abandoned. Quite understandably, he hoped that traffic, passenger or freight, would be loaded at regional terminals. There is nothing to prevent that happening, and I believe that the cost of motorail will become much more attractive over the next few years as fuel costs escalate. We shall experience this rise shortly. I also see this continuing demand for a rail-only tunnel by the Opposition as being an attempt to retain that insularity which they have displayed over many years on this and other projects.
This again is where my constituents come in. Those who are now in favour of the European Community and those who are coming to accept it see this tunnel as an essential link between the Continent and this island of ours. Again the rail-only tunnel ignores the basic fact of life as far as the motor car is concerned; namely, that people like to take their motor cars with them. However one might encourage the use of rail and the hiring of rented cars at one's destination, there is no doubt that, particularly for family travel, people will want to take
1216
their cars to the Continent. They will have my encouragement to do so, and they will be able to do so by the use of the tunnel as proposed by the Government.
I should like my hon. Friend to clarify further the question of the amount of money for which the Bill makes provision. There is a limit of £35 million. As I understand it, we are hoping for and expecting a cost for the initial period of £30 million, of which £8 million is to be found from private risk capital and the balance of £22 million by Government guarantee. Half of this amount will be taken by the French.
According to my mathematics, that leaves £11 million, and I cannot see the justification for putting in this figure of £30 million, which can be raised to £35 million. Clearly, there will be fluctuations, so I can see that there could be some requirements over and above the mean figure in the short period, to be recovered, perhaps, from the French. However, I do not understand why we have to write in that amount, and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to explain.
I welcome the prudent approach that has been adopted by the Government. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) talked about the slippery slope, but that is absolute nonsense. If in a sophisticated society we are not prepared to move a step forward from this order of magnitude, which in today's terms is not big spending, and are not prepared to withdraw, we should be ashamed of the society that we have set up.
It is no good trying to compare this venture with Concorde and indicating that we might well be considering withdrawal from that, because the dissimilarity and difference in price are colossal.
Mr. Sheldon: The hon. Gentleman seems to assume that Governments have changed over the past few years. Surely he is aware of the whole history of escalation of costs and the reluctance of Governments to cancel once they find themselves embarked on any project.
Mr. Butler: I recollect that the Labour Government chose to cancel the TSR2 at a very advanced stage, and that was a decision taken with a cost far greater than

1217
this. My right hon. Friend's Government will still be in power in 1975, and they will be able to take the decision if it is necessary.
The prudent approach is to be welcomed, because it will tell us more about the technologies that will have to be used in boring, giving us the experience that we need. However, as these are mostly known technologies, we should look for a speeding up of the final operation, particularly in view of the rapid progress with the Victoria tunnel, admittedly a slightly smaller project, but involving not dissimilar tunnelling techniques.
When I first considered this project, I had one reservation only. The hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East made the point when she said that we should not be committing money, materials or men to a project of this magnitude at a time when these commodities appeared to be in short supply or when we should be restricting Government expenditure.
A point of omission from the beginning of the speech of my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary was that he did not emphasise once again the stages in which the money is to be spent and the insignificant sums of money which are to be paid out over the next two or three years. The demand on men and materials, too, will be relatively small in the same period. As that is the case, I have no hesitation in supporting this initial expenditure and hope that the project can go ahead.
5.35 p.m.
Mr. John Prescott: We are admittedly dealing only with a money Bill today, but the Bill includes the moneys for preliminary work to be done on further studies, particularly regarding the construction of the Channel Tunnel project.
It has been made clear by a number of speakers that, although the amount of money involved at this stage may be considered insignificant compared to the global cost of such a project, it is nevertheless the first step. The Minister may say that it can be cancelled and that this is written into the contract. However, it is like a helter-skelter in that once the first yard or two is covered it is impossible to stop. The escalations of
1218
the costs involved bring to mind the consideration of the Concorde project.
It must be remembered that this project is always advanced on the basis of commercial justification—that is, that it will pay. This reason is always put forward, rather than that of extending our transportation system from this country to the Continent. It is advanced on the basis that this project is viable, that it can pay, that it is profitable and, therefore, a good investment for us to consider guaranteeing the money that will go into this project.
I agree that the private sector has made absolutely clear what it thinks of the future of such a project, certainly the dubiousness of it, in that there has to be a Government guarantee for this money. Many reasons have been given about the difficulty of raising this sort of capital, but many greater amounts of money are raised regularly on the money markets for North Sea investment projects without any guarantee. That is a good indication of what the private sector thinks about this project.
I have to admit that the previous Government thought of the idea of mixing industry and the Civil Service as some kind of check on the latter in this situation. I accept that as a disagreeable fact. But if that is so, having got the private sector to do the studies and provide the answers, and even if that group is still saying that it is a viable project to be undertaken, why not take notice of the greater commercial sense in the market—the people who provide the money, who are giving it the thumbs down signal? It would be far better to take that latter point rather than the mix of private and public we have on this project.
What is essential to it is the studies. We cannot be precise in this type of study, but we have to be sure that the assumptions are nearly correct, to justify the commercial basis of the profitability of this project.
A massive amount of data has been made available about the Channel Tunnel. If I may make a "plug", if we had research assistants or even a full-time secretary we might be better able to make an assessment as Members of Parliament about this sort of project. But we do not have that, and I have no job outside the House to assist.

1219
The importance of the consultants in this arrangement is that the consultants make assumptions and give figures and details of their subjects. But it is not without significance that they are consultants both to those building the tunnel and to those involved with the company. It is rather like going to Hawker-Siddeley about the Concorde project and asking for a feasibility study on it.
I am not impugning the honesty of the consultants, but they are deeply immersed in their assumptions and we should be able to have a check. In a massive project such as this, a check is essential.
At the same time, the Achilles heel in this project is the Channel shipping interests. If their commercial predictions are correct, the Channel Tunnel will not be a commercial proposition. They dispute the evidence given to the consultants and its interpretation by the consultants.
If there is a serious dispute between these two parties, we should look extremely closely at the assumptions and be careful about how we assess our information. I will not go over the details again, but it is plain that the importance of this project depends upon how much share of traffic the tunnel can get.
It boils down to the fact that the tunnel w ill be able to get 80 per cent. of the holiday traffic, with fares 40 per cent. higher than shipping fares. It is a dubious project, and I would be the last to accept the word of the shipowners, having spent a great deal of time contesting their views, but we need a more independent judgment.
We have been told of a wealth of data. We have been told how high this data would stand if they were stood on the deck and their height and weight measured. But we have not analysed the quality of the data, nor of data that may have been missed.
I want to comment on a sector in which we all have an interest and responsibility—the investment by British Rail. This is a nationalised industry and is very much caught up in the project. It is required to deal with an investment outside the investment requirements of the Channel Tunnel and amounting to £168 million, plus possibly £100 million for interest payments and inflation during the period of the project.
1220
So we are talking of a British Rail investment in rail facilities alone of about £268 million. Clearly, we need to look at our justification for British Railways alone making that investment, quite apart from whether they will be allowed Government resources to invest in the regions where rail investment is needed, probably on a much greater scale than in the South-East for the tunnel.
I want to consider the British Rail argument about investment. In this sphere we have to rely upon the consultants, as British Rail has given little evidence to the House for us to be able to make an assessment of the situation.
I can only presume that more detailed information has been passed to the Minister. The only pamphlets we have seen have been glossy pamphlets about how one gets to a destination, the type of accommodation available, and so on; but very little hard data. That is what we need to make a judgment. Nevertheless, the assessment is made and quoted by British Rail. It is shown to be the view of the consultants that the return to British Rail would be about 14 to 17 per cent. I assume that a separate account will be kept of British Rail's investment, and that when its return is assessed, it will be assessed on the return on the investment for the Channel Tunnel.
A nationalised industry such as this has other responsibiliies and has to consider developments resulting from participating in the Channel Tunnel. Being responsible for the public purse, we must take that into account because of the State invesment in a nationalised industry.
As I said, it is assumed that there will be a return of 14 to 17 per cent. on the investment. The studies take into account an assessment of a capital saving as a State investment by comparing the estimated number of ships required if there were a tunnel with the number needed without a tunnel. The difference between those two figures would represent the net saving to the community or to a nationalised industry.
The study could also estimate, as consultants do in such studies, the cost if fewer ships or ports were operated and there was, therefore, less activity. It could estimate, too, the cost of operating transport systems and the amount of money that is used. In fact, an estimate

1221
of that has been made by the consultants and taken into account.
The important point to remember is that in assessing some of the social consequences of this capital investment one lumps together the estimated saving in ships and in the operating costs of the ports—I am talking mainly about British Railways' activities, because they are a prime investor in both ships and ports—and says that it is a plus which has to be taken into the profitability account because the Government would save that amount of money on capital investments and operating costs by using the tunnel. If that is taken into consideration, the assumptions become absolutely crucial in deciding whether it is a profitable estimate.
Let us look briefly at the ports. I am dealing solely with capital investment and the money that it would involve. According to the Channel Tunnel United Kingdom Transport and Cost Benefit Study, which deals primarily with ports and ship investment, there would be a saving of capital investment of £76 million by 1990. That is something to be added to the computation that the community saves £76 million. It is the community, because the State owns port facilities in Great Britain and, therefore, the public are the net investors.
The assumption made is that a lot of traffic would be diverted to the Channel Tunnel and 25 per cent. of that would be to Dover on roll-on containers. What it does not assess is that if 25 per cent. of the traffic is diverted from one part, such as Hull—I am not making a constituency point—the throughput cost of traffic will rise. The Government's policy is that ports must pay, and if they do not then must close down. We have had an example of this policy in my constituency.
To an operator like British Rail the costs would rise and the ports become more expensive, and one would be left with fixed assets such as a dock which cannot be moved no longer profitable. It involves a lot of capital investment, about £4 million, and has no further use. It is too dirty to use as a swimming pool, and, therefore, has no other value.
One has to bear in mind the massive investment that has already gone into making a port, especially by the Labour
1222
Government, who, after the Rochdale Report put millions of pounds into that industry. So we must take into account what has already been invested in the port and not what might be saved. Balancing in that way produces a deficit rather than profit.
The pro-Marketeers—I am not one—should bear in mind that it is Community policy that ports should be used as a regional development point and that ports are expanded perhaps not on a profitable basis but as part of that regional development. There is much sense in that argument.
Mr. S. James A. Hill: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the Community is actually asking that ports should not be subsidised? Consequently, does that not answer his point?
Mr. Prescott: I am glad the hon. Gentleman has mentioned that point. I do not think he has looked deeply into what the Community has said concerning ports. EEC countries, having spent millions of pounds subsidising their ports, such as Le Havre—and the hon. Member should know the ports which are in competition with Southampton—now saying "We want to end subsidies;" when for years we have said that the ports should be profitable and not subsidised. All the modern investment in the continental ports will eventually be to the disadvantage of this country, which will have a deficiency of modern investment in its ports and will have to accept the new European policy of no subsidies for the ports.
The consultants' reports says that there will be a capital saving on shipping alone of about £100 million. When one goes into the detail of what that means the assumptions again become all-important. The consultants estimate that 46 more ships will be required by 1980 if there is no tunnel. The shipping industry estimates that we shall need 25 more ships but of a larger type. That number can be disputed, but the important point is that the more ships estimated as being needed by 1980 which will be saved by building the tunnel, the more that can be put down as the capital cost that will be saved on the profit and loss account. That is something which needs more substantial

1223
investigation than has been done b' the consultants.
The capital savings would not be so great. The cost of the 63 ships that apparently would be saved by 1990 represents a saving of capital cost with operating costs of about £150 million. That sounds fine; but why is no wider investigation made into it?
Ships are built, in the main, in shipyards in the underdeveloped areas, and the consequence of denying a shipyard the opportunity to build a ship denies work not only to the shipyard but to the regions and the areas supplying the shipping industry.
That is the multiplying effect, in the phraseology of the economists.
The consultants say that there is no maintenance cost with a tunnel, so that again is a saving. But that maintenance cost, interpreted in terms of jobs, money, work, or regional development, is an important factor which would avoid the necessity of pouring money into the regions—and the Government are always proudly telling us how much money is being poured into the regions.
The point I hope I have made is that the social consequences of investment of this kind need greater analysis than has been done so far. The British Rail argument that £268 million will give a return of 14 per cent. has not been supported by any sound evidence from Members who profess to have strong railway interests.
Shipping, ports and hovercraft form 5 per cent. of British Rail's assets, 5 per cent. of its turnover and 13 per cent. of its profits. The profitable sector will be cut out by this development. We must consider—and I think the consultants have not done so—the effects of cutting out the profitable Channel shipping. British Rail does not make profits on Irish Sea traffic because of the troubles and other reasons. Ferries have to be maintained in unprofitable areas. At the moment there is cross-subsidisation. If the British Rail channel sector is to be ended, the State, or British Rail, will have to step in and subsidise the other areas—which is another deficit cost which should be added to the total.
There is not sufficient detailed data on the points I have mentioned. The social
1224
consequences have not been fully taken into account, and I hope that something will be done to remedy the situation before the next stage is reached.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris: There is not very much time left and quite a number of hon. Members wish to speak. Therefore, I hope speeches will be as short as possible.
5.55 p.m.
Sir John Rodgers: I hope I shall not be accused of insularity if I say that I have the greatest misgivings about both the Bill and the project. It is not the magnitude of the project that worries me. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said, we are a country that should, and can, look at big projects such as Maplin, Concorde and the Channel Tunnel. It is the scheme that worries me.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Adam Butler) said, the main justification for the tunnel would be if it would switch freight and passenger traffic from the road to rail. My hon. Friend went on to say that British Railways are likely to benefit from a tunnel because it would give them a through route to the continental railway network, not just to Paris.
Speaking as a Kent Member, I want a rail through-route for Kent for this traffic. My criticism of the Bill is that the Cheriton project will attract more cars; more lorries will come through to Cheriton on the way to the Continent. When they come from the Continent to England they will disgorge at Cheriton and come tearing through the roads of Kent. The traffic will use not just the M20 and the A2 but all the small roads, looking for less crowded roads. Already the villages in Kent are suffering enormous social damage through these juggernauts chasing up and down, causing danger and hazarding life itself.
In view of the last debate we had on this subject, I had hoped that my right hon. Friend the Minister and his colleague would have given consideration to the doubts that were expressed about the social cost of the project. That is what worries us, not the money so much as why the Government feel they must produce the Bill just a few days after it was debated in the House when there were few speeches in favour of it.

1225
I do not believe that the Minister's heart is in the Bill. I believe he has been pressured into going ahead with it. Promises were made to the French Government a long time ago that we would go ahead with it without any debate here. He now has to carry the can and produce a Bill which has not been properly thought out.
Earlier in the debate one of my hon. Friends said that the people of Kent were right to ask for a public inquiry. Why is it that the Government in this viable proposition—they say that it will be profitable—will not allow private enterprise to undertake the financing of the project, as in the search for and production of North Sea oil and gas? I see no reason why the Government should put the taxpayers' money into this.
I query the Minister's remark in an intervention that at any time the project can be abandoned. I may be wrong, but I thought that the abandonment could take place only up to the end of 1975. If we went beyond that point we could not revoke. I may be wrong and would like clarification
I should like an itemised budget to be drawn up showing what the £35 million covers. I know that it covers studies, surveys, trials, experimental work, and so on. I should like to see all that itemised so that we could see how the £35 million is made up.
1 have doubts about the Channel Tunnel, although I am not opposed to it. I have doubts about the siting of Cheriton. I should have liked to see detailed plans by British Railways before we went ahead with the project. I should have liked more time to be given to the social consequences and to allow more detailed studies to be made.
I shall have great difficulty in supporting the Government later this evening.
5.59 p.m.
Mr. David Stoddart: I am generally in favour of a Channel Tunnel, albeit a rail tunnel. I intended only to listen to the debate. However, I have been impressed by the arguments of my hon. Friends who cast doubts on the ability of the construction industry and the materials industry to do many things at one time.
1226
This project is being brought forward by the Department of the Environment. That Department also brought forward the Maplin project, which may never go ahead, although if the Government have their way it will. On Tuesday last we debated another service administered by the Department of the Environment, namely, housing. During that debate it became obvious that in many parts of the country there was a shortage not only of money for housing but of manpower and materials
The Department of the Environment is responsible for environmental questions and housing and for building tunnels and airports, yet there seems to be no coordination. I wonder whether the Department and the Government have set out their priorities properly. Clearly, we have neither the physical nor the monetary capacity to do all these projects at the same time. The people will have to decide whether we should solve the housing problem or whether we should develop Maplin or the Channel Tunnel. That is an important matter which I hope the Department and the Government will take into account.
I am well aware, because I represent a railway constituency, that the British Railways Board is in general in favour of the present proposals. It would support the rolling road. But I am not sure that it is right. British Rail has an inferiority complex which it has had for a long time. It says that if it cannot get the best, which is a rail-only tunnel carrying goods from centre to centre, then it will make do with second best. Because it thinks it will get some spin-off from the operation of a Channel Tunnel it will support it.
That is the key to British Rail's attitude. In the interests of British Rail, and of the environment of the South-East, it should say, "We believe that we can carry this traffic. We do not need a large terminal at Cheriton. We can do the job from centre to centre if you will only give us the opportunity to do it", but because of its inferiority complex, and because it has been hammered round the ring for so many year, it does not come forward with its solution.
We are told that the terminal at Cheriton will not have any big impact

1227
on the region. But it is bound to have an impact on the region from the point of view not only of motor traffic but of services and industry which will be attracted to the area. Once the pressure is on it will be irresistible. No business will operate in the North or the South-West, with the consequential transport costs, if it can operate near the terminal. There will be pressure for a further build-up of population in the South-East; make no mistake about that. I am against it because it will affect my constituency, and I do not want it to affect my constituency. It will draw to Cheriton firms which would otherwise go to Swindon. I do not want that.
I have a further reason for supporting a rail-only tunnel, namely, that in Swindon we repair, and manufacture a certain number of, wagons, and have facilities for the manufacture of railway engines. Until recently it was almost certain that Swindon railway workshops would close. Now they have been saved, at least for the time being. I believe that if we have a rail-only tunnel British Rail have the potential to provide the wagons, carriages and locomotives necessary to afford a good service which would be beneficial in financial and comfort terms to passengers and from the environment point of view as well. We have that capacity, and I want it used.
That is why I support the tunnel. But I hope that the Government will take into account all the questions raised—the financial aspect, the ability of the country to carry on so many projects at the same time, the effect on the housing situation, and all the other aspects mentioned—before they proceed further. That is why I shall support my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Lobby this evening.
6.6 p.m.
Mr. Richard Hornby: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary took pains at the start of the debate to make it clear that this did not represent the final decision on the Channel Tunnel, but rather an opportunity for providing funds for further study of its operation and construction. Nevertheless, we should not be tempted into taking this step too lightly. Experience on many other matters suggests that, although proper research is necessary in any pro-
1228
ject of this size, with each step taken it becomes that much more likely that the stage is reached at which people say "We cannot turn back at this stage." Although there is much to recommend the tunnel, at this stage there are aspects of the Government's case as represented in the White Paper which still need a great deal of further study.
However it is done, this project will cause a great deal of damage to the environment of certain parts of Kent. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir R. Thompson) said at the beginning of the debate that it is one of the key functions of the House that grievances must be remedied before Supply is granted.
Nothing that has been said by the county council or by hon. Members representing county constituencies denies the fact that Kent recognises that it cannot escape, nor does it seek to escape, from its own geographical situation. But cross-Channel traffic through the county is increasing, and will continue to increase, and that, in addition to profit and advantage for certain commercial interests, and so on, means damage to the environment of the county from the motor car, the tourist trade and the juggernaut lorry, whether or not the tunnel plan goes forward.
The question is how that traffic can grow in such a way as best to serve the national economic interest and at the same time do the least damage to the environment of the county through which so much of it will pass. On a number of aspects the Government's existing proposals require further study, and I ask my right hon. Friend that the funds made available through the Bill should be devoted to further study of the matters I shall now raise.
The prospect for Kent, unless changes are made, is of an excessive expansion of road traffic in addition to the damage that will be caused by the tunnel if it is constructed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir J. Rodgers) said, Cheriton, under present arrangements, will generate its own traffic. The tourist trade is not sufficient reason for the destruction of the garden of England, and the livelihood and homes of a great many people in the area. The tourist trade can be a great benefit to Britain,

1229
but unless properly controlled it can also be a monster. It deserves to be seen in this way.
The first point I wish to make—and I hope that there will be further studies—is that there should be an examination of the rail-only link. This would go a long way to deal with the point in regard to Cheriton. The British Road Federation argues that consumer preference for the motor car would make a rail-only link less commercially viable. Consumer preference, although important, is not necessarily the dominant interest in an issue of this kind. Studies have not gone far enough to suggest what either consumer reaction or British Rail arrangements would be. We shall receive this sort of information only if the rail-only link study is further pursued.
Secondly, for environmental reasons, I wholeheartedly support the case for positive tariff discrimination in favour of rail as opposed to road traffic.
Thirdly, I believe there should be more detailed studies by British Railways, and they need to be examined in terms of British Railways' proposals in seeking to attract additional freight traffic. British Railways' commercial record on freight has not been sufficiently good for them to be taken at their face value without a great many additional questions about whether they are doing their job properly. This must be seen against the background of juggernauts and similar heavy traffic whose volume we want to see limited.
Fourthly, we need—this applies particularly to my constituency—more information about the methods proposed for dealing with the noise generated by high-speed trains. Tonbridge as a town stands on the route of this railway line, and we need much more information on this aspect.
Fifthly, if road traffic should increase as a result of the Cheriton terminal, Kent will need substantial additional grants from central funds to cope with the additional road programme which will be required in surrounding areas. It is not good enough to say that in the national interest the citizens of Kent must see their landscape despoiled and that at the same time they should be required to pay the rate bill for the despoliation. So far, too little has been done by central Government to give any indication to the Kent
1230
County Council that the Government care a rap about this matter. The face of economic progress is beginning to look just a little ugly to many people in Kent. Rightly they will ask "Is it worth it—is the cost justifiable in environmental terms?" Unless a satisfactory answer can be given to those people and to the House, we shall need to think again on this project.
6.13 p.m.
Mr. S. James A. Hill: We are all agreed that there is a great amount of sympathy for those who are affected by the plan to build a Channel Tunnel. However, I must say to all those hon. Members now present—at least those who have bothered to attend; and one does not see many Liberals present, although they have been making a furore in the Kent area on this issue—that we are tonight dealing with one of the most important transport policy decisions on which this House will ever have to vote.
This legislation is all part of the transport infrastructure of Europe. It does not stop on the French coast but goes right through the Community. Indeed, in future it will reach into Asia Minor and even right the way through to India. These are the sort of policy decisions which face us tonight. We have all heard about the bridge over the Bosphorus, which has become an accepted achievement. Surveys have been, and are being, undertaken throughout the Community on the great traffic barriers of Europe. I refer to the Straits of Denmark, the Messina Straits, and others. We know that there are tunnels running between Denmark and Sweden and now, at long last, we are about to make a decision tonight which will lead to the establishment of a Channel Tunnel.
We must regard the Channel as a dangerous traffic barrier economically and socially. If we do not make the right decision, we shall put at a disadvantage our exporters, our freight hauliers, our nationalised railways, and everybody who wants to take an interest in the Community. This is what will happen if hon. Members take a wrong decision this evening.
One important question that has been asked in this debate is whether this is the right time to spend this amount of

1231
money. With a project of this size, there is never a right time at which to spend money. If we are to spend our money in the right way and to cut our cloth accordingly, perhaps we should look again at Maplin. That is my personal view, but probably it will go unheeded.
The Commission in Brussels is most concerned about the Channel Tunnel. The latest report emanating from the Community dated 24th October, suggests that more consultation is needed on this important part of Europe's transport infrastructure. We see from the White Paper that in 1980, 28 per cent. of the containers that would have passed through Southampton will go via the Channel Tunnel. It might be said that this will be an event which will go against the interests of my constituency, but we are at our wit's end at present to deal with the container traffic from the Midlands and the North which goes across the Channel through Southampton or on to the international steamship lines. Consequently, we look forward to the fact that the Channel Tunnel will take some of the pressure off my constituency, whose roads are ill-prepared for any increase in container traffic. This matter can be reviewed under the next Conservative Government, so that the Minister will be able to take the right decision in terms of motorways from the Midlands.
Before hon. Members embark on this vital decision I wish to draw the attention of the House to paragraph 13.6 of the White Paper, which says this in terms of the next step we must take:
"Britain cannot be economically and socially isolated from the Continent."
We must bear this in mind when we vote this evening.
6.18 p.m.
Mr. Guy Barnett: On one point at least I can agree with the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. S. James A. Hill)—that the House has before it a major transport decision. There are several things we have to learn—and it looks as though they have not yet been learned by the Government in taking this decision.
The first lesson to be learned is that transport projects inevitably create their own demand. If this project is to include roll-on roll-off arrangements, we
1232
can be certain that this will lead to a vast increase in tourist traffic in South-East England and also in the number of juggernauts coming into Britain via the South-East. Apart from that, we have to be prepared for a considerable increase in the building of warehouses for goods brought in by the juggernauts which will use the Channel Tunnel. I am very concerned about this matter, because in my constituency a number of warehouses have already been acquired to cater for the goods coming in via juggernaut lorries and, as one of the consequences of building this tunnel and the provision of roll-on roll-off facilities, I foresee a considerable increase in the number of warehouses that will appear in South-East London. I am further concerned about this matter, because the exit for lorries from the tunnel will be by the M20, which will bring a lot of lorries towards South-East London where, inevitably, large warehousing facilities will be required. South-East London is a large residential area, and the environment is polluted enough by the traffic which affects people in their daily lives, but it seems to me that in the plans which the Minister has put before us there is little or no provision for dealing with these environmental problems. In any decision we take we must bear in mind the fact that the consequences will go far beyond the immediate region in which the project is sited.
Other hon. Members, representing Swindon, the Midlands and Hull, have referred to the consequences for their constituencies. I do not see any overall appreciation of the consequences of this proposal for the economy of the country as a whole, and this gives me great cause for concern. After years of motorway building, and after the consequences which we have seen arise—some of them unexpected—I should have thought that the Department of the Environment would at least be seized of the fact that a major transport decision of this kind is bound to have considerable consequences some distance away from the project itself. I foresee grave environmental damage both to Kent and to residential constituencies in South London, and I am exceedingly worried about it.
I echo the words uttered by the hon. Member for Tonbridge (Mr. Hornby). I know his constituency well and I

1233
understand the reasons why he must be concerned about the consequences of this decision for his constituency. Although analyses and a rather sketchy study have been made about the environment and about the economic consequences for the county of Kent, there appears to be no appreciation of the effects of this project on the country as a whole. Above all, the tunnel does not appear to be seen as part of a transport plan for Britain, including road and rail. The time for such a plan is surely overdue.
Other speakers have been right to emphasise the degree to which the resources of South-East England are likely to be affected as a consequence of the building of the tunnel. In constituencies such as my own, with grave housing shortages and inadequate roads, there seems to be a need for an overall plan to measure the degree to which it is sensible to commit resources to this project. I am almost certain that any such analysis would suggest the need to postpone this project until much more socially desirable schemes have been undertaken. I am therefore opposed to this project as it stands, and strongly opposed to the roll-on, roll-off facilities, because of the damage that is likely to be done to the environment of South-East England and South-East London.
6.25 p.m.
Mr. Peter Rees: Because of the short time available to me, I hope that the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Guy Barnett) will forgive me if I do not follow all of what he said, and limit myself to one point which is of importance to my constituency. If we give this Bill a Second Reading tonight it is likely that work will start quite soon in my constituency and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain). If the Government proceed to the next and final stages it is likely that work will continue for five or six years. The work will be carried out at the Shakespeare Cliff, next to Dover, and at Cheriton, but however well organised it is—and I have no doubt that it will be very well organised—there are bound to be some unattractive side effects for those who live nearby. There will be the movement of men, machinery and materials, the problem of housing people who are
1234
working on the site and, finally and inevitably, the problem of noise. All of these side effects will be felt primarily by residents in my constituency, on the Aycliffe estate and around Cheriton.
My right hon. Friend the Minister who will make the concluding speech, has been very sensitive to the needs of those of us who represent Kentish constituencies, but, inevitably with a long project, there will be all sorts of both small and large points of irritation and hardship to those living around. I therefore put it to him as a modest proposal that if an ad hoc committee could be formed, on which his Department, local authorities, local interests and the contractors were represented, it would be possible to deal expeditiously with points as they arise and even to anticipate the kind of problems that might arise. This is a very modest and practical proposal, which I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to accept tonight, and it will reassure my constituents that their interests will be safeguarded while this great project proceeds.
6.28 p.m.
Mr. David Crouch: I do not want to repeat anything that I have already said, and I shall speak with great delicacy because of the kindness shown to me by my right hon. Friend when I spoke in the last debate. When I went back to my constituency the following day, I was not exactly welcomed as a hero who had spoken up for Kent. I had spoken up for Kent because I was concerned, as all Kent Members are, with the attack on our environment. I am still concerned that there will be a great environmental impact on Kent, even in the first stage, when there is limited expenditure on tunnel exploration. The only point I want to make today is that I hope the Government will go out of their way to take such steps as are necessary to protect against the impact of this initial stage on the people of Kent. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Peter Rees) did not mention the question of spoil, which will be a very serious matter. Although the White Paper speaks of using the spoil to level out the ground at Cheriton, I hope that we can be given some assurances about the effects of this. When a quarry is being excavated there are problems of long lanes and

1235
roads. I hope that this very important detail will not be overlooked.
There is one other matter which I must mention, because it does not seem to be properly covered in the Bill. There is nothing in the Bill to say what the Government, their contractors, and all those involved in the building of the first stage, will do if the project does not go ahead. I do not want it to be left as an eyesore which may cause people to say, "That is where they began to dig the Channel Tunnel in 1974. Come and see it. Is it not interesting?" I should not like a folly like that to be left—not that I think the tunnel itself is a folly, but I should like a positive assurance that money will be provided for tidying up if the project should be abandoned.
In checking back in the White Paper, I see that it is suggested that, depending on the materials available and the studies which are to be made by the engineers concerned, the tunnel will be lined with steel, cast iron or concrete. I hope it will not be concrete, because concrete will require aggregate and, to be economic, aggregate cannot be brought a great distance—usually not more than 25 miles. That means that aggregate would have to be dug from new quarries in Kent. This would be an absolutely horrific addition to the problem of building the tunnel. Therefore, I hope my right hon. Friend will bear in mind that it would be preferable to line the tunnel not with concrete but with steel or cast iron.
6.31 p.m.
Mr. Ernest G. Perry: I thank you for calling me, Mr. Speaker. I hope that the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) will excuse me for not following his remarks, but I have one constituency point to raise.
As hon. Members know, I represent Battersea, South, in which is situated the main railway link from Clapham Junction to East Croydon. In view of the pressure now put on Wandsworth Common for a certain purpose, I should like the Minister to tell me whether the land at the side of the present track will be adequate for the two extra tracks. It seems to me that there is enough room for two extra tracks if they are put on either side of the present four tracks. If the right hon. Gentleman can assure
1236
me that he will look into this point thoroughly before he allows the British Railways Board to make a decision I shall be happy, and so will my constituents.
6.32 p.m.
The Minister for Transport Industries (Mr. John Peyton): Before I attempt to answer the detailed points which have been raised in this debate I should like to make four or five points by way of introduction.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) is not here at the moment. She dubbed this as my tunnel. With due humility, I must admit that it is not my tunnel. Quite a lot of people have had a part in the parentage of this project. Among them are many members of the previous administration. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) was herself largely responsible for many of the arrangements which underlie the project today. Those for which I am responsible can be said to have been developed directly from what she very wisely did with, I may say, all the help and encouragement that could be given to her by the right hon. Gentleman the present Leader of the Opposition. As a Minister, I do not find it necessary to look for reasons for overturning everything that our predecessors did, but what I find slightly strange is that they should so readily disavow any responsibility for the arrangements.
We have been frequently questioned on the need for guarantees. The reasons are the same as when hon. Members opposite were in office, namely, that very large sums are involved. It would be cheaper to raise the money backed by Government guarantee and, of course, as a result of the guarantees the Government are given a very large share in the profits, and end up as the eventual owners. That seems to be a not unsound idea.
I say to the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) that if all the ideas of his administration were on that level hon. Members opposite might still be in office, because they seem to me to be redolent of common sense and perception. These are not always virtues which we associate with Labour Governments.
Sir John Rodgers: Will my right hon. Friend tell us exactly how this project differs from North Sea oil and gas?
Mr. Peyton: I do not think it would be particularly helpful if I were to go into a long dissertation distinguishing the Channel Tunnel from North Sea exploration. What I have done is to set out the history of what seemed to me to be very good reasons for the guarantee, and I hope my hon. Friend will accept, with me, that for once the party opposite was not wholly misguided when in government.
I suggest that in considering this major project hon. Members might have in mind the fact that it is not always possible to go back to the beginning and make a fresh start. Certainly this is endemic in many speeches which we have heard on the project, and it seems to be very much a feature of life in this country today to want to go back and have another look at things. It makes the business of decision almost impossible, and it makes a habit of putting off decisions indefinitely with, I think, little profit or gain to our country.
Those who have opposed the Channel Tunnel have made very little, if any, reference to the growing traffic in the South-East which has to be dealt with. Some hon. Members would prefer to deal with it in other ways, but no one should ignore the fact that this traffic has grown at a horrifying rate and will continue to do so, and we have got to make arrangements to cope with it. What we are seeking to do, and what the Government, along with those who are responsible for the project, believe we should do, is to adopt the most efficient and convenient and the least damaging means.
May I say particularly to the hon. Member for Wolverhamption, North-East—I mention this aspect last, although it is not the least important—that this project has the prospect of being very profitable. Surely that has some advantages, even from her point of view. Without profitable projects, how can the other desirable things to which she referred so eloquently be financed? I also hope the House will bear in mind what one or two hon. Members have mentioned, namely, that this scheme should be a
1238
source of substantial benefit to British Railways.
I hope I have answered the point raised by the right hon. Member for Sheffield Park, about guarantees. I was under the impression that I had dealt with this in the previous debate; I apologise if I did not do so. Let me make it clear that the £120 million for financing the new link from the coast to London will be provided by means of a loan from the National Loans Fund to British Railways, and I stress that it will not be part of British Railways' normal investment programme at all. It will be quite separate from it and in addition to it.
Mr. Mulley: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that clear. I must, however, modify a little my enthusiasm for it, because I had hoped and understood that it might have been a grant. I understand now that it will be an additional debt for British Railways to service, and this is worrying. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to reconsider this aspect of the matter.
Mr. Peyton: I think the right hon. Gentleman would have been exceedingly surprised if it had been a grant. It would have been a new break in customs under any administration. I am sure that I would have to search history very hard to find any record of such generosity under the previous Government.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked about rolling stock. Detailed arrangements are being made with railways all over the Continent for British rolling stock to have free access. On the return journey continental rolling stock, which is of different loading gauge from our own facilities, will be provided, by means of a new link, with free and unimpeded access to White City. After that it will have to comply with the physical conditions of the British system. There is no question of British Rail's being obliged, at huge financial cost, to undertake works to accommodate continental rolling stock all over our system.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir R. Thompson) has cogent reasons for disliking the tunnel. I am writing to him about many of the detailed points he raised. He said that this is a case of nineteenth century technology. I challenge him on that. It is, in

1239
fact, updated and not outdated technology.
My hon. Friend said that we were committed by this Bill to the whole expenditure, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate). We are not committed any further than we say. I accept that there will be added commitments the further we go down the road. At any time—and this is the answer to one question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir J. Rodgers)—any party to the project is free to abandon it. The terms of abandonment have been arranged so that the loss is divided equally between the two Governments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South went on to express concern about the railway line going through his constituency. I accept what he says and sympathise with him about the danger of planning blight, but it would have been wrong, and greatly resented by the House, for British Rail to have undertaken extensive examination works at least until Parliament had approved the project in principle. We have this approval, and I have been engaged in discussions with British Rail. British Rail will undertake urgent examination of alternative routes and make its plans public as early as possible, with a view to having them enshrined in an Act of Parliament. A great deal more detail is needed both by British Rail and, I accept, by my hon. Friend's constituents. He asked about the speed at which trains could be driven underground. The answer is that there will be a 100 m.p.h. maximum speed limit in the tunnel. I recognise that the railway line is a great problem for his constituents and for those of other hon. Members whose constituencies it will pass through, but I assure the House and my hon. Friend that these matters will be considered with care and sympathy.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Tomney) asked about compensation. Now that the 1973 Act is available, much more generous terms can be offered. I assure him that the greatest care will be taken by British Rail, my Department and me to see that inconvenience and hardship are avoided wherever possible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham referred to the cost. The esti-
1240
mates are the best and most up-to-date ones that we can make. They take account of both interest charges during the construction period and inflation. He, like others, argued for a railway-only tunnel. British Rail, which has not canvassed a rail-only tunnel, recognises that there are great advantages to it from the proposed project. A railway-only tunnel would cost 30 per cent. less and the operating costs would be less, but, so, too, would the traffic and the profits be very much less and would start later. Worst of all, we should still be left with the problem of having to cater for the immense growth of traffic. As my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham admitted to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Peter Rees), there is still an acute and growing traffic problem in Dover and Folkestone.
If the Government were to make a lot of money, as my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham suggested, my only answer is that it would be very agreeable, and I have no doubt that many hon. Members, and even right hon. Members, would have an agreeable time deciding what to do with it. When my hon. Friend advocated a Government-owned railway-only tunnel I thought the sound of his voice must be coming to me by echo from the other side of the House.
The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) is to be congratulated on being remarkably consistent. He has been an implacable opponent of a bored rail tunnel under the Channel during the period of both administrations and, as such, he has been unique. Most of the opponents of the tunnel have been gained with a change of Government. Labour Members who were willing to support it before have conveniently forgotten that fact. I was not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was complaining that the tunnel would be under Government influence, if not Government control, but with a project of this importance it is almost inevitable that the Government should have a major influence.
The intention is that the tunnel should be commercially operated. The hon. Gentleman has frequently suggested that there should be not a bored tunnel but a bridge.
Mr. Sheldon: No.
Mr. Peyton: I am sorry if I have misinterpreted the hon. Gentleman. He has

1241
said that insufficient examination has been made of alternatives. Such detailed examination is enormously expensive and is a long drawn-out process. All those who are engaged in the present project are united in believing that it is the best, the most efficient and the most economic.
Before too many condemnatory opinions are expressed about engineering capabilities and techniques, we might all recognise that RTZ is not unknown in this field. It has a distinguished record and its judgment is entitled to be respected by the House. That such a firm is involved in the project is a source of confidence to me.
I repeat to my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) what I have said previously—that expenditure on the infrastructure in the North-East compares very favourably with that in any other part of the country, and I will be glad to give any supporting figures he asks for.
In the time of the previous Conservative Government, Lord Hailsham went to the North-East and laid the foundations for a considerable road programme, which has brought in its wake a magnificent increase in industrial development. I am sure that my right hon. Friend would not wish to ignore that. I can give him at least one figure now. Taking together trunk and motorway schemes which have been opened since 1970, those currently under construction and those in planning, the total investment in the Northern Region will amount to £234 million—a very substantial sum.
Sir Robin Turton: Although that road programme was started under Lord Hailsham, the motorway from Teesside to the A1 link has not yet been completed, and we have been waiting for it for seven years.
Mr. Peyton: My right hon. Friend must know that great progress has been made in the North-East, and that it will continue to be made. He knows what the plans are, and if he is anxious for further information I shall be happy to supply it.
Mr. Arthur Bottomley: On three occasions I have listened to the Minister saying how well the North-East has been treated. Does not he agree that under successive Gov-
1242
ernments the North-East has been neglected and that although it is now doing better, it is not doing as well as it should be doing?
Mr. Peyton: No area, in the eyes of those who represent it, is ever doing as well as it should be doing. I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman says about past arrears regarding development in the North-East, but great progress is now being made there.
I turn now to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East. At the beginning of my speech, I pointed out that this project can hardly be described as "my" tunnel. I would be very happy if anyone gave the tunnel to me as a present, but I do not believe that the bounty of even the hon. Lady is capable of such munificent action.
Mrs. Renée Short: It is Peyton's tunnel.
Mr. Peyton: The hon. Lady also commented on the inadequacy of road links between the Midlands and East Coast ports. The A45 is currently being comprehensively improved. Only when this Government came into office was there a firm commitment to and a recognition of the need to provide adequate roads connecting the ports with the industrial areas, and we are making substantial progress in this respect
The point that the hon. Lady raised about aggregate is genuine and important. A large part of the tunnel would be lined with concrete. This point is dealt with in paragraph 9.9 of die White Paper, which the hon. Lady has doubtless read, and that is why she so wisely made the point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Adam Butler) made a speech with which I totally agree. I hope my remarks do not embarrass him, but he made an excellent, sensible speech. He alone made the point that the costs of alternative schemes would be higher, as would the risk. He asked whether some of the money with which we are now concerned would be devoted to thorough surveys. Whatever else the project may have suffered from, it has not suffered from a lack of thorough and lengthy surveys. I can assure my hon. Friend that the surveys which are now needed, covering, for instance, the marketing of railway services, could not have been done

1243
until now. I am grateful for his acknowledgement that the railways stand to gain from improved communications.
I also entirely agree with my hon. Friend's view that the advocates of a rail-only tunnel ignore the facts of life. He reminded the House—and this needs to be said from time to time—that people who own cars have, oddly enough, a strong wish to use them.
My hon. Friend also asked about the speeding up of the final operation. The more thorough the preparatory work, the more reliable will be the programme of construction, if and when it is undertaken.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) advocated, with his customary eloquence, that we should check up on the consultants. That is a very good recipe for doing nothing, because we checkup on the checkers-up, and the process is endless.
I have already dealt with the abandonment point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks. The details of the budget of phase 2 will in due course be published.
I understand the anxieties expressed by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Guy Barnett), which seem to be general throughout the country, but he did not apply his considerable intelligence to the question of what he would do with the existing traffic problem in the South-East, which is becoming terrible.
I do not think that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover will challenge the fact that I have always been conscious that many points of irritation are likely to arise in the course of so complicated and long drawn out a project. I hope I can convince him that I will spare no pains to see that these points of irritation are dealt with promptly and removed.
My hon. and learned Friend suggested that some sort of committee should be set up. I would prefer to avoid any too formal arrangement. I have already got
satisfactory informal arrangements with Kent and Surrey county councils from the point of view of the railways and I have also undertaken to go down there at regular intervals and hold a special meeting, at part of which at any rate members of the public could perhaps be admitted and anyone would be free to ask questions. I am determined to establish as well as I can arrangements which make sure that people's grievances and causes of anxiety are removed as quickly as possible wherever possible.
The answer to the question put by the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Ernest G. Perry) is, "Yes". I am assured by the railways that there is enough land but I would like to confirm it more formally when the railways take a detailed look at the matter. I can certainly assure him that the railways will study the matter very carefully, although quickly.
I am dreadfully sorry that when my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury went home after his splendid speech last time he was not welcomed as a hero. This fate, unhappily, befalls Members of Parliament from time to time. They are not always as well and generously reminded as they wish of the good deeds they perform. It is the errors and omissions of which our constituents are so disagreeably conscious all too often, and I am sorry that my hon. Friend, who is so distinguished a man, should have been treated like them on this occasion.
But if I may say so, my hon. Friend has really been looking backward. Here he has found himself tortured with the nightmare that at the end of the day, when the project had all fallen to pieces, somebody would leave the relics on the South Coast and no-one would go down there with a dustpan and brush to clear them up. I assure him that if no one else will, I will.
Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
The House divided: Ayes, 176, Noes, 125.

Division No. 4.]

AYES

7.0 p.m.

Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

Awdry, Daniel

Biggs-Davison, John

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Blaker, Peter

Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord

Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

Boscawen, Hn. Robert

Astor, John

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

Braine, Sir Bernard

Atkins, Humphrey

Benyon, W.

Bray, Ronald

Bryan, Sir Paul

Havers, Sir Michael

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

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

Hicks, Robert

Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Higgins, Terence L.

Raison, Timothy

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

Hill, S. James A. (Southampton, Test)

Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

Carlisle, Mark

Holland, Philip

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

Hordern, Peter

Ridsdale, Julian

Channon, Paul

Hornby, Richard

Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

Chapman, Sydney

Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

Howell, David (Guildford)

Rost, Peter

Chichester-Clark, R.

Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

Royle, Anthony

Churchill, W. S.

Hunt, John

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Clegg, Walter

Jenkin, Rt. Hn. Patrick (Woodford)

Scott, Nicholas

Cooke, Robert

Johnson Smith G. (E. Grinstead)

Scott-Hopkins, James

Coombs, Derek

Joplin, Michael

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

Cooper, A. E.

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

Shelton, William (Clapham)

Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick

Kershaw, Anthony

Simeons, Charles

Costain, A. P.

Kimball, Marcus

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

Critchley, Julian

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

Speed, Keith

Crouch, David

Kinsey, J. R.

Sproat, Iain

Dean, Paul

Kirk, Peter

Stainton, Keith

Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

Lamont, Norman

Stanbrook, Ivor

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

Le Marchant, Spencer

Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

Drayson, G. B.

Longden, Sir Gilbert

Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

Loveridge, John

Tapsell, Peter

Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John

Luce, R. N.

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

McCrindle, R. A.

Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

McLaren, Martin

Tebbit, Norman

Emery, Peter

Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)

Temple, John M.

Eyre, Reginald

McNair-Wilson, Michael

Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

Fell, Anthony

McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

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

Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

Mather, Carol

Trafford, Dr. Anthony

Fidler, Michael

Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

Tugendhat, Christopher

Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

Fookes, Miss Janet

Miscampbell, Norman

Waddington, David

Foster, Sir John

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Fowler, Norman

Money, Ernle

Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

Gardner, Edward

Monro, Hector

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

Gibson-Watt, David

Montgomery, Fergus

Ward, Dame Irene

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

Warren, Kenneth

Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

Neave, Airey

Weatherill, Bernard

Goodhart, Philip

Normanton, Tom

White, Roger (Gravesend)

Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

Nott, John

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Gray, Hamish

Onslow, Cranley

Wilkinson, John

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

Winterton, Nicholas

Grylls, Michael

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

Gummer, J. Selwyn

Osborn, John

Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

Gurden, Harold

Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

Younger, Hn. George

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Peel, Sir John

Hannam, John (Exeter)

Percival, Ian

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Haselhurst, Alan

Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

Mr. Paul Hawkins and

Hastings, Stephen

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Mr. Marcus Fox.

NOES

Abse, Leo

Dunn, James A.

Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Ellis, Tom

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

Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

Kaufman, Gerald

Ashton, Joe

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

Kelley, Richard

Atkinson, Norman

Fraser, John (Norwood)

Kerr, Russell

Austick, David

Freud, Clement

Kinnock, Neil

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Gilbert, Dr. John

Lamborn, Harry

Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

Lawson, George

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Golding, John

Leonard, Dick

Bishop, E. S.

Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

Lestor, Miss Joan

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

Lipton, Marcus

Booth, Albert

Hamling, William

Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

Hardy, Peter

McBride, Neil

Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

Harper, Joseph

Marshall, Dr. Edmund

Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Mayhew, Christopher

Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

Hatton, F.

Meacher, Michael

Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

Heffer, Eric S.

Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

Coleman, Donald

Hooson, Emlyn

Mikardo, Ian

Concannon, J. D.

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Milne, Edward

Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

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

Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Janner, Greville

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

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

Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Mudd, David

Davidson, Arthur

Jeger, Mrs. Lena

Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Oakes, Gordon

Deakins, Eric

John, Brynmor

Oram, Bert

Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

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

Orbach, Maurice

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

1246

1247

Orme, Stanley

Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

Torney, Tom

Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)

Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

Padley, Walter

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Urwin, T. W.

Paget, R. T.

Silverman, Julius

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Pavitt, Laurie

Skinner, Dennis

Wallace, George

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Stallard, A. W.

Watkins, David

Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

Steel, David

Weitzman, David

Prescott, John

Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

Whitlock, William

Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

Stoddart, David (Swindon)

Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

Richard, Ivor

Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Brc'n & R'dnor)

Sutcliffe, John

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Taverne, Dick

Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Roper, John

Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

Mr. James Hamilton and

Rose, Paul B.

Tomney, Frank

Mr. Ernest G. Perry.

Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Tope, Graham

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Clegg.]
Committee tomorrow.

CHANNEL TUNNEL (INITIAL FINANCE) BILL

  CHANNEL TUNNEL (INITIAL FINANCE) [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make financial provision in relation to preliminary work on or in connection with the construction of a railway tunnel system under the English Channel, it is expedient to authorise—

  (1) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of sums required for fulfilling guarantees given by the Treasury in relation to money borrowed for the purpose of providing finance for such preliminary work subject to a limit of £35 million in so far as the sums are required for the repayment of principal, and the payment into that Fund of sums received in pursuance of arrangements with the French Government towards the fulfilment of guarantees so given;

  (2) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of such sums as may be so required for contributing, in accordance with those arrangements, towards the fulfilment of guarantees given by or on behalf of the French Government in relation to money borrowed for the purpose mentioned in paragraph (1) above subject to a limit of £17·5 million in so far as the payments relate to the repayment of principal;

  (3) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of sums required to meet any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State—

  (a) in carrying out studies connected with the construction of such a tunnel system; Or

  (b) in fulfilling any obligations or exercising any rights (including any obligation or right to acquire securities of a body corporate) which become his in consequence of the abandonment of the preliminary work on the construction of such a tunnel system.

RHODESIA
7.13 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): I beg to move,
That the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965 (Continuation) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 18th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
The purpose of the order is to continue in force for a further year Section 2 of the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965, which gives Her Majesty in Council power to take whatever measures are necessary to deal with the situation in Southern Rhodesia brought about by the unilateral declaration of independence. Among the Orders in Council made under the section are, of course, those containing the various sanctions measures.
It is disappointing that, after so many years, it remains necessary to make a continuation order yet again. But I am convinced that, in the circumstances, it is right and necessary, and I shall explain briefly why I think that is so.
When the report of the Pearce Commission was published last year, I told the House that we ought to provide time for the people of Rhodesia to reflect on their future. I said that I hoped that there would be consultations between the races in an effort to reach agreement among themselves. While it is, naturally, frustrating to us here in Britain that progress in this direction has been so slow, nevertheless some progress has been made. The situation now is noticeably different from what it was a year ago, and this is certainly not the moment to give up hope.
It is important to keep clearly in mind what our objectives are and what is the goal we wish to reach. I doubt whether anyone would dispute my description of

1249
the goal which we wish to reach—the creation of the conditions in which an act of legislation would bring Rhodesia into a legal relationship with Britain again and once more into the community of nations. To that end we must be able to give Rhodesia independence in a form which will be broadly acceptable to the people of Rhodesia, black and white. A settlement which does not command that support will not last. I believe that this is increasingly being accepted inside Rhodesia, by Rhodesians, African and European.
For this reason, we have concluded that the best, and indeed the only practical, course at this stage is for Rhodesians themselves to try to work out their own solutions to their own problems. I do not, after all these years, underestimate the difficulty of the task which confronts them. This is a country in which there have not been political contacts between black and white on any substantial scale. Perhaps we should not be surprised. After all, we have a parallel in Northern Ireland on our own doorstep. But I believe that they are now making a real effort to tackle this problem. We remain ready to help as and when we can, but meanwhile the important point is that we should do nothing here in Britain which might make yet more difficult the task of creating a constitution by Rhodesians for Rhodesians.
I have seen it suggested in Rhodesia that Britain is no longer interested in achieving a settlement. I do not know why it should be thought that it could be to Britain's advantage to continue one day longer than is necessary the present unsatisfactory state of affairs. At any rate I should like to dismiss any such idea lest it linger on and gain currency. We are as determined as we ever were, in spite of the difficulties, to see a satisfactory settlement in Rhodesia achieved. Measures which get us only half way there will not do. But the British Government remain committed to achieving a settlement in Rhodesia in accordance with the five principles to which we have always adhered
Therefore, how do we help the Rhodesians to get a settlement? One question is how far the 1971 proposals should stay in the picture. That will be for discussion and decision between the
1250
those who are talking in Rhodesia. All I need to say is that they contained very valuable advances on the present Rhodesian constitution—for example, a justiciable Declaration of Right, a commission to investigate and recommend on the elimination of racial discrimination, improvements in the franchise system related to membership of the Parliament, and progress towards a common roll and towards majority rule. These advantages should not be lost. It must be for Rhodesians, European and African alike, to see what they wish to keep and how they want to add to those elements in those proposals which were to their advantage.
While these processes of discussion go forward in Rhodesia, our task in Britain at this stage is to hold the ring so that there is the least possible disturbance to them from outside—whether from Britain, the United Nations or other African countries and organisations. It is in this context that the discontinuance or maintenance of sanctions has to be decided. Their impact is indecisive in political terms, but there can be no doubt that if they were lifted there would be so strong an emotional reaction inside and outside Rhodesia that thoughts about a settlement in that country would come to an abrupt end.
I have often been asked by the Opposition whether sanctions can be made to bite any harder. Certainly there is room for improvement in the performance of a number of other countries. Some of the major trading nations have recently shown an interest in improving their domestic controls. It has been suggested—I think by the right hon. Member for Cardiff South-East (Mr. Callaghan)—that we should raise the subject of sanctions breaking in the EEC Council of Ministers. I have considered this, but breaches of sanctions are invariably action taken by individual companies in individual countries. Every member of the community has legislation under which sanctions are imposed. When we receive an indication that a breach of sanctions may have occured, as well as informing the committee of the United Nations which is set up to deal with these matters, we bring it to the notice of the Government of the country concerned. That is the only authority which can have influence on the firm which

1251
may be breaking sanctions. That is the right way to handle these matters, directly with the Governments who are responsible for the application in their own countries.
I said earlier that the situation in Rhodesia had changed—
Mr. Neil Marten: Before my right hon. Friend leaves that point, may I put something to him? I have supported these sanctions orders, rightly or wrongly, on every occasion when they have come before the House. What I question now is the toughness with which the British Government are dealing with questions of sanctions in the Council of Ministers. I do not believe that this subject has been inscribed on the agenda for the Council of Ministers meeting. It was not on the agenda of the last meeting. What I would like to have from the Government before I can agree to support them again is an assurance that they will place it on the agenda for the next meeting of the Council of Ministers and will be really tough about it. If these other countries do not take action against their own sanction breakers, in Germany, France, Italy and so on, I want the Government to say that they will place their own sanctions upon them in the EEC.
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I must say that is an interesting suggestion coming from my hon. Friend. I hope that on some other matters he will support the unity of the Community and other unified action. If my hon. Friend is interested in getting the sanctions to apply, it is the Governments of each country which have to do this, if they have the necessary powers over their industry.
Mr. David Steel: The Foreign Secretary has, naturally, spoken of commerce and trading sanctions and the loopholes in them. Would he not agree that perhaps the most important sanction and the least publicised is the denial to Rhodesia of the international money markets, and that we ought not to pass this renewal order tonight without stressing the important effect of that?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I think it is the one sanction that is biting. It certainly is the most important sanction
1252
in relation to Rhodesia, if one supports the sanctions policy.
I said earlier that the situation in Rhodesia had changed substantially over the past year. I also explained my conviction that the best, if not the only, hope for a peaceful future for Rhodesia lies in consultation and ultimately in agreement between Rhodesians themselves. A year ago there was almost no consultation in Southern Rhodesia. Now a great deal is going on. I must not exaggerate this but some is going on. Mr. Smith told his party conference in September that he was in touch with African leaders.
He and Bishop Muzorewa, the President of the African National Council, have held discussions together. They are, quite rightly, for the time being keeping the details to themselves. But if agreement is to come it is essential that those two must work the change. I understand that consultations between the authorities and the ANC are to continue. The national executive of the ANC unanimously endorsed the holding of such consultations at a meeting on 13th October, something which would have been inconceivable a year ago. In Rhodesian terms the fact that such consultations are being held at all is a considerable step in the right direction.
Consultations are also going ahead at other levels. The African National Council and the new Rhodesia Party have been meeting and have published 12 agreed principles for a multi-racial society. The recently elected leader of the Rhodesian Party, Mr. Savory, called on me in London last month and told me that his party hopes to continue the discussions and to reach further agreements with the ANC.
That again is new. Although we must never under-estimate the difficulties which lie ahead, and I would be the last person to do that, we should certainly not give up just as it seems that progress may be becoming possible. If we decided now not to continue the sanctions, we should be signalling to Rhodesians that we had indeed abandoned hope. We should be turning our backs on those who are striving for agreement between the races, an agreement which would give a chance for

1253
a peaceful and prosperous future for Rhodesia and all its people, and an agreement which would open the way to the very settlement which all of us have all along sought.
At this time the right thing to do is to pass this order again, disappointed as we may be. We should be ensuring, if we did not pass it, that the moderates would give up hope and that those who would be left to make the running would be the extremists on both sides, with all that that would entail in terms of increasing confrontation and violence in Rhodesia, which is bad enough now.
It is for these reasons that I ask the House to approve the order.
7.26 p.m.
Mr. Ivor Richard: I want to say how much we on the Labour benches agree with the last part of what the right hon. Gentleman has said. Broadly speaking his approach is absolutely correct. It is that at this stage, given the developments that seem to be taking place within Rhodesia, it would be foolhardy in the extreme to alter the pressures that seem to have produced that movement. Doing the best I can with the views of hon. and right hon. Members on the Conservative benches who have opposed sanctions for many years, I must say that it seems illogical to say that sanctions will not work and will produce no political effect in Rhodesia at the very moment when there is evidence that some political effect is being produced there. It is the height of illogicality and irrationality now to say that we shall remove the sanctions which are the very pressures that are producing movement.
On behalf of the Opposition, I wish to associate myself with a great deal of what the Foreign Secretary said. The only point of real dispute between the two of us arises from what he said in answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten). I would not go as far as the hon. Gentleman in imposing sanctions against the E.E.C. if it did not fall in with our policy of sanctions in respect of Rhodesia. I am not absolutely certain how far the hon. Gentleman was serious in putting that proposition forward. There is a strong feeling on this side of the House, which I share, that our Common Market partners are not playing the game with the Rhodesian policy.
1254
There is evidence that some European countries, if not acquiescing in the policy of sanction breaking by some firms are, perhaps, not being so vigorous in pursuing sanction breakers as we—as members of the Community and of the United Nations, and subject therefore to the resolutions of that body—are entitled to expect. I have some sympathy with what the hon. Member for Banbury said when he urged his right hon. Friend to raise this as specific item on the agenda of the next meeting of the Council of Ministers in Brussels. I cannot see what harm it would do, and it might produce some benefit.
We have this debate annually on the renewal of the sanctions order. We have renewed it for eight or nine years. Predictably, whichever party has the responsibility for asking the House for renewal indulges in a certain amount of stocktaking on the question whether sanctions are, to use the current phrase, biting on Rhodesia—I am not quite sure what that term means in that context—whether sanctions are having an economic or political effect on the Rhodesian situation. During the last three years there has usually been a plea from the right hon. Gentleman for his hon. and right hon. Friends on the back benches to trust him for yet another year to see whether he can produce the settlement in the next 12 months, although he has not been able to produce one in the past 36 months.
Our view about the sanctions policy is somewhat tougher and less pusillanimous than that of the right hon. Gentleman. I am bound to say to him that we should now move away from this idea of renewing the sanctions order annually. [Interruption.] I do not expect hon. Gentlemen opposite to agree with me, but at least they might do me the courtesy of listening.
Is it clear that both sides of the House are in broad agreement that the policy of sanctions in Rhodesia should continue until there is a political settlement in Rhodesia which is acceptable to the Rhodesian people, both black and white, and also to the House of Commons? If that is right, and if that is the principle which unites us all—and I believe that it does—why do we have to go through this farce, every November, of the right hon. Gentleman getting up and saying,

1255
"It has had some effect during the last 12 months, let us give it another 12 months to see what happens"?
We all know that if, at the end of November 1974, we are still in the same position as we are this evening, exactly the same policy will be put forward by whichever party occupies the Government Front Bench, and exactly the same policy will be supported by whichever party is in opposition. Would not it be more realistic, honest, sensible and effective, not to go through this spasm—which has an international effect, because each year the Rhodesia Front sits in Salisbury and says, "Well now, is there really going to be a major political row in the House of Commons this year so as to overturn the sanctions policy of the British Government?" This can only create a greater degree of uncertainty as to what our policy is, and as to what British intentions in Rhodesia actually are.
I therefore make a plea to the Government that between now and next time we have to go through this charade—
Mr. Evelyn King rose—
Mr. Richard: If I can just finish my abuse I shall be happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman. Before we go through this charade again next November, perhaps the Government should think about introducing legislation—if this is needed, and I think it probably is under the 1965 Act—so that we can enact a policy of sanctions towards Rhodesia once and for all and that policy can be pursued until the objectives that hon. Members on both sides of the House are agreed upon are brought to fruition.
Mr. Evelyn King: I wonder whether the hon. and learned Gentleman would accept that one of the reasons why the opinion of the House of Commons is not fully understood outside is that this debate is always held at a late hour on a Thursday night, when most hon. Members have gone home, and that it is deliberately done, so that the real opinion of the House of Commons seldom emerges.
Mr. Richard: The hon. Gentleman has been in the House for a long time, and has sat on the Government and the Oppo-
1256
sition benches. From all the experience that he has garnered during his years in the House he surely does not think that Members of Parliament are so weak and cowardly as that. It is, after all, only 7.33 p.m. It is a Thursday evening, but I have no doubt that all the hon. Gentlemen present tonight, consistent in their views over the years, and firm in their conviction—or lack of it—will at the end of the day, whenever it comes, show a demonstration from the Government benches of the strength of opinion that they feel against the policy that has been so ably put forward this evening by their Front Bench.
If there is to be a rebellion, let us not excuse the smallness of the vote and the paucity of the number of the rebels by saying that it has been put on too late, and that our rebels are so firm and grave that if only it had been put on on a Wednesday evening, at 5.30 p.m., we would have had another 30 rebels, but because it was put on at 7.30 p.m. on a Thursday we can muster only 25 or 30. With great respect, I do not think the argument stands up to much examination.
This evening, together with other hon. Members, I shall look forward with great interest to see exactly how many hon. Members on the Government side follow the hon. Gentleman and his friends into the Lobby this evening against a policy of renewing sanctions. I do not think that there will be many on this side of the House. With as much sincerity as I can muster at this late hour on a Thursday evening, I merely state that if the Government find themselves in need of support in the Lobby this evening in order to do down the massive rebellion that is apparently likely to take place from the benches below the Gangway—all 25 paper warriors who sit there this evening—they can rely upon the support of myself and my hon. and right hon. Friends. We shall be happy, contented—indeed, enthusiastic—to vote in favour of a policy renewing sanctions for another 12 months.
Mr. Ronald Bell rose—
Mr. Richard: Does the hon. and learned Member insist?
Mr. Bell: Yes.
Mr. Richard: Very well.
Mr. Bell: I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will bear in mind that one form of opposition to the proposal before the House among some hon. Members on the Government benches will be abstention, whereas the absence of hon. Members opposite from the Lobby will just be plain absence.
Mr. Richard: Abstention is the last refuge of the weak. On an occasion when the Whips are not imposed on one side of the House it would be wrong of the hon. and learned Member to claim that all those who did not vote tonight abstained on his side of the argument rather than on the other side of the argument. Inertia is frequently a much more potent parliamentary weapon than is the conviction of not wishing to vote for the Government on Rhodesia sanctions.
I turn to two practical arguments which may appeal to some of the practical gentlemen sitting below the Gangway. There is now no economic case which would benefit Great Britain by lifting sanctions. There is no economic case which stands examination for the removal of sanctions against Rhodesia. I am talking not of the economic effect that sanctions have in Rhodesia but of the economic effect on Great Britain's trading and investment position in the world, and in Africa in particular, if sanctions were to be raised other than as part of a general agreement acceptable to the majority of Africans in Rhodesia. If we were to lift sanctions we should be taking an economic risk which would be unjustifiable and might prove extremely damaging.
If one looks at United Kingdom direct investment in sub-Saharan Africa—and we should not confine our sights wholly to Rhodesia—one gets this pattern: there is about £98 million worth of British investment in Rhodesia and there is £141 million worth in Nigeria, excluding the oil investment. Oil from Nigeria now accounts for about 10 per cent. of British imports of that commodity. In view of the oil situation in the Middle East, it is not unpertinent to consider what the effects on our oil position might be if we were to pursue a policy in relation to Rhodesia which proved unacceptable to the majority of Africans in the rest of Africa.
1258
In other Commonwealth countries in Africa, British investment amounts to £201 million. British investment in other African countries amounts to £101 million. There is £647 million worth of British investment in South Africa, £98 million worth in Rhodesia and £450 million worth in the rest of black Africa.
The economic background of sanctions was recently examined in a very perceptive article in The World Today, of September this year, by Mr. Michael Williams and Mr. Michael Parsonage. Their conclusion was expressed as follows:
"It must be emphasised that Rhodesia is only one of a number of under-developed countries in the area and, with few exceptions, British companies would be willing to lose their interests there to safeguard the lusher pastures to the north. For it is in black Africa that the future must lie. Reserves of labour and resources have hardly been touched, and the larger population concentrations provide ample opportunity for local market expansion on the basis of the surplus from the mineral and agricultural sectors. In addition, the strategic importance of many of Africa's commodities and the likelihood of large new mineral deposits make it essential to maintain British interests in the area. The growing Nigerian oil industry, which now provides 10 per cent. of the United Kingdom's consumption (together with the possibility of large reserves elsewhere) adds a sense of urgency to this conclusion. This argument now seems to be widely accepted by British industry, at least for the long run."
They continued:
"…there is no economic case for the removal of sanctions in advance of a settlement that is acceptable to African opinion. At first sight the maintenance of sanctions appears to be an unattractive option, but to lift them would produce few gains. British companies would regain contact with their subsidiaries, but this is unlikely to affect overall profitability, and the trade links lost to the sanctions-breakers will be hard to re-establish."
Their final words were:
"The political wisdom and moral propriety of the argument against sanctions has always been in doubt. In the present article we have tried to strengthen the new realisation that there is also no economic case for their removal. Indeed, it is being argued in some circles that sanctions should be reimposed indefinitely. This would go a long way towards establishing Britain's commitment to black Africa and to avoiding the embarrassing international consequences of the annual policy debate. Pressures for a settlement can now only come from within Rhodesia, and there is some evidence to suggest that continuing economic and psychological isolation will bring a political change. In the long run, Rhodesia will be recognised for the small country that she is."
Mr. Piers Dixon: The House is probably very impressed by the figures that the hon. and learned Gentleman has given of hundreds of millions of pounds, no doubt representing the book value of British investments in those countries. The hon. and learned Gentleman has read a most impressive passage, but what is his personal view about the true market value of those investments? Whether there are sanctions or not, does he not think that there is a serious possibility of their being confiscated in large quantities, anyway?
Mr. Richard: Of course there is a possibility that individual nations will pursue policies which are inimical to British economic or political interests. But that is so anywhere else, and, in any event, Rhodesia is doing precisely that.
What is interesting about Rhodesia's economic history over the past eight years is that she has transferred her markets away from the United Kingdom and elsewhere. All the evidence now is that if sanctions were lifted the people who would benefit would be the sanction breakers. They are the people who have cashed in, evading United Nations resolutions over the last eight years, and who would benefit from the removal of economic sanctions. I cannot see the morality, the propriety or the common sense of that.
I accept that there are dangers in investment in under-developed parts of the world. That danger exists everywhere. We are talking not about the possibility of investment in the future but about the £457 million of investment which has already taken place in black Africa. Is it worth risking £457 million in order to safeguard a doubtful £98 million? That seems to be an argument of practicality which should appeal to some hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. In the last five or six years we have heard a great deal of nonsense about the effect of economic sanctions on this country, but there are some hard figures which show that the economic case is not made out.
Indeed, all the economic arguments go in the opposite direction. The main economic arguments go in favour of maintaining sanctions—I am talking about the United Kingdom, and not
1260
economic arguments for Rhodesia and, if possible, intensifying sanctions, even if it needs to be done by deliberately moving British investment away from what was in Rhodesia and what might be in Rhodesia in the future and putting it into what the article calls "the lusher pastures" of the rest of Africa.
I see that the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) is about to rise. I am sure that other hon. Members will rise, too. Before they do, let me say that I accept that there are arguments contrary to mine. If the hon. and gallant Member is going to say that there are arguments on the other side which may carry conviction, I accept that. None the less the balance of the economic advantage to the United Kingdom is now overwhelmingly in favour of retaining sanctions rather than removing them. I defy any hon. Gentleman—and I put it as high as that—who is in favour of removing sanctions now by denying the Government the order to disprove that argument.
Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: What is it in the hon. and learned Gentleman's ideology that makes him prepared to trade only with black or white Africa? Is that not a policy of despair? Is not the true path of statesmanship to attempt to trade with both?
Mr. Richard: There are two answers. First, I am not at present inclined to trade with Rhodesia. It is a country which has torn up—
Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Ah!
Mr. Richard: The hon. and gallant Gentleman says "Ah!" in his profound way; if only he would listen for a minute through his lowing. I am not inclined to trade with Rhodesia. It is a country which has deliberately torn up constitutional arangements entered into with the United Kingdom Government and has turned its back on constitutional development in favour of unconstitutional development. My second asnwer when the hon. and gallant Gentleman accuses me of wishing to trade only with black Africa is that I have said nothing about British investment in South Africa. The only figure I gave was the figure of £647 million for current investment.
If one takes British investment in South Africa into the argument, one can still

1261
claim an overwhelming preponderance of economic advantage from concentrating our economic priorities in areas where we have the greater economic interest.
Mr. Harold Soref rose—
Mr. Richard: No, all hon. Gentlemen opposite are familiar faces in these debates and I have no doubt that they have an opportunity to make speeches of depth, significance and interest. If they will forgive me, I shall not give way again, because I fear that I have been on my feet too long already.
The second limb of the economic argument is to question the economic effect of sanctions on Rhodesia. It is interesting to look at what is being said in Rhodesian journals. The Financial Mail which deals with the position of Rhodesian industries, states that
"Hampered by the foreign exchange shortage Rhodesian industry ended the first half of 1973 on a sour note."
There is a table showing that the industries in Rhodesia are doing worse this year than last. That is not something I rejoice in, but it is idle for hon. Gentlemen opposite, especially those below the Gangway, to argue that sanctions should not be maintained, on the basis that they are not having any effect in Rhodesia, when one can see from the figures that Rhodesian industries are not as prosperous as they were.
One specific industry shows that it is because of the imposition of sanctions that extreme economic pressure has been produced in that industry. An article headed:
"Not Cottoned On" states that
"It's happened again. Rhodesians keep finding that economic oportunities are just beyond their reach because they cannot get foreign currency to import machinery. This time it's the cotton industry. For the want of R$30m. the cost of increasing Rhodesia's present spinning and weaving capacity to five times its present level, the country is missing out on the cotton boom."
One could go through the list of industries in Rhodesia—the metal industry and the metal manufacturing industries—and see that the effect of sanctions over a long period of time is having not a political but an economic effect. I wish hon. Members would face that. They may have good political arguments about sanctions, but to argue that they are not having an economic
1262
effect in Rhodesia is absolute and utter nonsense. They ought to accept that fact.
What is the political effect that we are trying to achieve? It is a settlement which is acceptable to all races in Rhodesia and is capable of being accepted by this House within the principles that both sides of the House have emphasised and re-emphasised. Is there any possibility of this happening at the moment? In the last 12 months there have been signs that were not present before.
To a certain extent, I share the Foreign Secretary's optimism about what is beginning to happen in Rhodesia. The Rhodesian Party and the African National Council's 12 principles agreement is a remarkable document, not only because it is an agreement between black and white groupings but because the African Council has clearly abandoned any immediate claim to majority rule. I do not think that many hon. Gentlemen can have read the 12 principles. They mention "A joint co-operative effort in development"; "Law and order with justice'"; "Constitutional protection against racialism and racial domination"; "'Total' power to be excluded"; "A constitutional council and a council of State for protecting essential constitutional rights'"; "Multi-party parliamentary elections"; "A non-racial common roll' qualified franchise"; "'Natural' expansion of the electorate in line with the country's economic growth"; "Protection of minority race groups in a non-racial' parliament"; "Preservation of the free enterprise' system"—which will appeal to a few hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite; "Elimination of racial discrimination in public life"; "Freedom of cultural association".
It is significant that when the negotiations took place between the Rhodesia Party and the Africa National Council, one of the Rhodesia Party's negotiators, Dr. Charles Morris, said that he
"found himself 'absolutely shattered by the complete reasonableness' of the ANC".
The developments that are beginning to take place in Rhodesia may prove to be of great significance.
Let me give two other examples. I do not know how significant they are, or whether they are large straws in the wind. Mr. Harper—a gentleman not

1263
exactly noted in Rhodesia for his progressive views—has recently said:
"There is no sense in being blind to the fact that Africans…"
in Rhodesia
"…are…today a political factor."
Lord Graham, who will be known to many hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, has urged that
"a completely new constitution be drawn up in consultation with all African opinion."
On the face of that evidence it cannot be sensibly argued that economic sanctions are not worth keeping on for the United Kingdom, when they are clearly proving an economic pressure on Rhodesia. The result of that economic pressure and Rhodesia's international isolation seems to be that political movements are taking place in Rhodesia. In our opinion it would be the height of folly not to give the Government this order tonight.
7.54 p.m.
Mr. Patrick Wall: The hon. and learned Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) said that it would be an economic advantage to this country to keep in with black Africa and to continue sanctions against Rhodesia. In economic terms, of course, he is right. What interests me is that he and his colleagues were standing that argument on its head the other day when they accused the Government of being blackmailed by the Arabs to take action against Israel on the threat of an oil boycott and said that this was immoral. So we have an exactly opposite argument being produced on successive days.
Figures can be made to prove anything, but, as we have had certain figures quoted, let me briefly quote some others. They are somewhat similar to the hon. and learned Gentleman's, but lead me to reach a different conclusion. British investment in southern Africa is some £740 million. In the whole of black Africa, excluding the Arab countries, it is £352 million plus some £150 million for Nigeria's oil. Therefore, the advantage of investment is in favour of southern Africa.
Mr. Richard: The flaw in the hon. Gentleman's argument is that £640 million of that investment is in South Africa and not in Rhodesia. That investment
1264
has remained in South Africa despite the fact that, if the hon. Gentleman is right, we have in the last eight years pursued policies in southern Africa grossly inimical to the interests of the South African Government. The investment is already there and has to be ignored in the equation.
Mr. Wall: I have already conceded to the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument that we have a greater investment and economic interest in black Africa than we have in that little country called Rhodesia. That is obvious to anybody. The hon. and learned Gentleman drew the conclusion that if we have to choose between southern Africa—which he called white Africa—and black Africa, it is to our economic advantage to choose black Africa. That is totally wrong, because in terms of investment we have almost twice as much interest in the south though the trade figures slightly favour black Africa if one includes oil. But if one allows for the fact that black Africa tends to take over our industries or businesses with little or no compensation and one adds a figure for security or the safety factor of our investments in the south, one will find that our economic advantage is bound up with the south rather than the north.
I must be honest and admit that if I were in my right hon. Friend's shoes as Foreign Secretary, I should probably be reintroducing the order. I have not much faith in the argument that it is a lever to push the Europeans to make concessions to the Africans. But I have a great deal of faith in the argument, which my right hon. Friend touched upon in his opening speech, that as long as we claim the right to control Rhodesia, whether that right is apparent or imaginary, we act as a buffer in the United Nations and so prevent a government in exile from being formed.
There was recently much nonsense talked about Portuguese Guinea when the United Nations General Assembly recognised a small group of rebels which controlled a minute fraction of the country as the government of that country. As long as we have the policy which is maintained by the order, we can act as a buffer in the case of nonsense of that kind being applied to Rhodesia.
Captain Walter Elliot: I should like to introduce a cautionary note.

1265
ZANU and ZAPU have both been given observer status at the United Nations, as was the party from Guinea Besau which went on to be recognised. The writing is on the wall.
Mr. Wall: I am glad to see that the British Government voted against the suggestion that the rebels in Portuguese Guinea should be recognised. We always have the veto in the Security Council, if it comes to a final showdown.
I intend to vote against the order because I do not believe in sanctions in principle. They do not work; they never have worked in history, as far as I know. They certainly cannot work effectively in Rhodesia because of the support of South Africa and the Portuguese provinces. It took the British House of Commons, or the Government of the day, seven years to recognise the rebellious American colonies. Now the Government have beaten Lord North's unenviable record. This is a sad position to be in, and one which should never have arisen.
I intend to vote against the order because I believe that on three occasions Conservative leaders have had the opportunity to settle Anglo-Rhodesian differences. The first was at the Victoria Falls conference. I believe that now it is recognised that the 1961 constitution would have been infinitely better for the Africans than the 1969 constitution. Had we not put pressure upon Mr. Winston Field and Sir Roy Welensky, the world would have accepted the independence of two African States, Malawi and Zambia, at the same time as we conceded independence to Southern Rhodesia. The Rhodesians thought that they would get independence, but they did not.
The second opportunity arose when we were in opposition. We could have got off the hook of the five principles. These five principles can mean everything or nothing. One cannot define them. They mean exactly what any individual wants them to mean. Therefore, they have been a stumbling block in all negotiations between this country and Rhodesia.
I remind the House that, though the principles were originally discussed by my hon. Friends, they were codified by the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley) and by the then Prime Minister, the present Leader of the Opposition, at a time when
1266
he was talking about "frightened little men" and "weeks rather than months". They are responsible for the five principles, and we have allowed ourselves to be impaled on that hook. The principles are imprecise; that is why they are so dangerous.
Mr. James Johnson: May I ask the hon. Gentleman how he visualises society in middle Africa, in this case Rhodesia, in 10 or 20 years' time? Does he visualise a multi-racial society, or does he visualise a white-dominated political assembly? Does he visualise it moving as Kenya and other countries in the vicinity have done?
Mr. Wall: I certainly do not visualise it moving as Kenya has done. I do not think the Asians are very pleased by what is happening in Kenya, nor do I think a lot of the white people left on the farms are very happy.
My view is that the whole of southern Africa will be a kaleidoscope of States joined together in a common market, or possibly a federation. Some of these States will be black-ruled, some white-ruled, and some will be multi-racial. That is the only acceptable future for the strategically important territory of southern Africa as a whole and I believe the Portuguese territories, South Africa, the ex-High Commission territories, Zambia and Rhodesia, will be included in that broad common market or federation.
I return to the theme I was discussing. The third occasion on which we could have settled our differences was at the time of the Pearce Commission. I was told on very good authority when I visited Rhodesia that the Government gave an understanding—not an undertaking—that the Pearce Commission would complete its work by December. Instead of that, it did not go out to Rhodesia until January.
All the evidence I have seen in Rhodesia, from both black and white people, leads me to believe that had the commission gone out when the settlement terms were announced in the House in November and had its work been completed by December, it would have reached very different conclusions. Why did this happen? Was the Foreign Office

1267
dragging its feet at the time? This is a fundamental issue, and we could have saved ourselves a great deal of trouble if that commission had been sent out when the settlement terms were announced in the House. I still cannot understand why that was not done.
Both sides of the House agree that they want a settlement. We now agree that the settlement must be reached in Rhodesia. In the past, Opposition Members have insisted that we must hold the power here. From what I have heard from the Opposition Front Bench, they now agree that a settlement must be reached in Rhodesia and must be reached by all sections of African opinion.
We must remember that there are many sections. There are elected Members of Parliament who are Africans, there are businessmen, trade union leaders, and chiefs, all representing a certain section of African opinion, and there is the African National Council under Bishop Muzorewa. The ANC's importance is due to the fact that he is the only Rhodesian-African whose name is well known in Europe. He is an honest man, and he wants a settlement. He has an executive of 55, amongst whom are many ex-detainees and many present members of ZANU and ZAPU. As soon as he decides to take a step forward, pressure is put upon him to take a step backwards. Now the OAU is coming into the act, and further pressure is being exerted. As soon as one sees hopeful signs, pressure is put on and the wretched man is forced to retreat. We must realise how difficult his position is.
Mr. George Cunningham: Is not the hon. Gentleman trying to put pressure on the Foreign Secretary to take a step back?
Mr. Wall: No, I am trying to put pressure on the Foreign Secretary to take a step forward and to end this ridiculous farce, which has been described by his own Front Bench as a charade, as I believe it is.
The reason African opinion is changing in Rhodesia is not the pressure of sanctions. If sanctions are hurting anybody, they are hurting the Africans. Opinion is changing because of the work of the Rhodesian Settlement Forum and the
1268
Rhodesian Settlement Convention. They are changing because many Africans, including the bishop, believed that if Pearce was turned down there would be a new constitutional conference at which he would sit alongside my right hon. Friend and the Rhodesian Prime Minister. He believed that that would happen. Now he has realised that it is not going to happen.
Many Africans now realise that the only alternative to the settlement terms is union with South Africa, which must inevitably come if this charade goes on for much longer. I certainly do not want to see that happen. I do not imagine that many hon. Members want to see that happen, and I am certain that very few Rhodesians, white or black, want to see it. But I suggest to the House that it is inevitable.
This is the question Rhodesian politicians always ask anyone who visits Rhodesia. They certainly ask me. They ask "What will Her Majesty's Government accept as an implementation of the five principles?" My right hon. Friend has indicated Pearce plus; but can he define more clearly what that plus would mean? It is clear to me that African and UN opinion will accept nothing short of NIBMAR. I doubt very much, if the chips were down, whether Opposition Members would accept much short of NIBMAR. Both groups, I am sure, would vote against anything else.
What are the Government asking for? What is their concept? It is not NIBMAR—they have disowned it. How far are they prepared to go, and how can the Rhodesians negotiate among themselves without having some idea of what is in Her Majesty's Government's mind?
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The hon. Gentleman seeks to read my mind for the public about what I should accept. I am prepared to accept whatever the African National Council, representing the majority of African opinion, would also accept. That is why the hon. Gentleman was wrong in saying that Bishop Muzorewa was misleading himself in thinking that there would be a constitutional conference. There will be a constitutional conference before this is finished, because in the end he has to be consulted along with Mr. Smith and the

1269
British Government. However the matter evolves, in the end that is the only way this issue will be settled.
Mr. Wall: I am sorry for Bishop Muzorewa's present political position. He is not a politician. He is an honest man who truly wants the best settlement for his country. It is extremely difficult for him, or for anyone else who has an executive committee of 55, most of whom are extremists. As soon as the bishop moves forward, he is pushed back. That is the point I was trying to make.
I do not want to detain the House, but I have been interrupted on a number of occasions.
I turn to my final argument; namely, that speed of economic expansion in Rhodesia has been at least twice or three times that of this country, and I concede to the hon. and learned Gentleman that without sanctions that expansion would have been ten times as much, largely because Rhodesia would have attracted European immigration. That is what Rhodesia needs more than anything else—to generate capital and a better standard of living for the Africans.
We must face the fact that Europeans are doing well out of sanctions. It is the Africans who are suffering, and particularly school leavers who have no jobs to go to. That situation will build up a dangerous security problem in future years if it continues for much longer.
The Rhodesian forces have now got on top of terrorism. I believe that the Rhodesian Army is the best small operations army in the world. Who are these men labelled "freedom fighters"? They are men who hit at "soft" targets, by which I mean their own people who are unarmed. More Africans than Europeans have been killed in Rhodesia by terrorists in the past year. These "freedom fighters" are men who kidnap schoolchildren, who rape and torture. In August they killed a schoolmaster in front of his family and his schoolchildren. Since the Labour Party conference in Blackpool, it appears that these are the men whom the Opposition now officially support. Do the Opposition deny that? Do they support violence and terrorism in Rhodesia today, because it is apparent from their stated policy that they do?
1270
It is because I wish to pay tribute to the courage of Rhodesians, both black and white, that I shall vote against the order, and I hope that those of my hon. Friends who told me last year that that was the last time they would support sanctions will follow me into the Lobby.
8.10 p.m.
Mr. R. T. Paget: I find the attitude of my side of the House the more respectable of the two today. It is not that I agree with the attitude of my side of the House but that I find it sincere, even though deluded. I find it difficult to respect the attitude of the Government, for I can find no sincerity in it at all.
The Foreign Secretary said that we must not give up the hope of bringing Rhodesia into the community of nations. Did he mean the United Nations? If he meant that, it would give the impression that he had never been there—that he was unaware of the passionate racialism of the United Nations majority, which involves not only black but brown. It is a passionate racialism which involves even the unfortunate Israelis, who have done a great service to Africa, because their complexion is too light.
Does the right hon. Gentleman imagine that any conceivable settlement on Rhodesia which did not involve the total subjection of the white to the black would be acceptable to the United Nations or to the majority there? Of course it would not. If Bishop Muzorewa, who is a sincere man, were asked, he would say what was good for his country. He wants to get rid of sanctions; he wants to see Rhodesia working again because he knows that it is for the good of black Rhodesians. But if he comes to an agreement on that basis, it will be at the expense of his being denounced by all black Africa—and, indeed, by the brown world and the yellow world—as a Quisling Uncle Tom. That is what would happen.
I find it hard to believe in the Government's sincerity when they talk of the hope of bringing Rhodesia into the community of nations on any conceivable terms. That just does not arise.
I turn to the sanctions and what they are supposed to do. The hon. and learned Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richards) said that they were preventing the financial development of Rhodesia. Of course

1271
they are. They are preventing industries there going ahead; they are preventing any increase in employment there; they are preventing black school leavers getting a job; they are preventing black workers in the Rhodesian economy obtaining promotion.
I am not a racialist. I never wanted to see Rhodesia as a white-dominated country. I wanted to see it as the first multi-racial country in Africa. I thought that that chance depended not on the form of constitution but on the evolution of the country and its economic circumstances. We are dealing with a country that is unlike South Africa, where the figures of black to white are three to one. The figure in Rhodesia is 22 to one. Therefore, apartheid on this terms is nonsense. Apartheid on those terms can exist only in a static society. It is precisely that static society which is the result, and the only result, of sanctions.
If the whole process could be stopped, it would be possible for white domination to continue. If one had allowed the economy to go ahead, one would not have had white domination since the figures were dead against it. One would have had to build that expanded economy on the advance of the blacks into all kinds of positions—first in subaltern authority and then in greater positions of authority. There are not enough whites in the country to envisage anything else. Educational advance would have gone forward because employment demands would have required educated men, and there were only Africans to provide them. The sad but effective part of these sanctions is that they have stopped the very process which would have imposed the first multi-racial society to come out of Rhodesia's advancing economy. The Government know that perfectly well, and they know whom they hurt, but they are going on with their sanctions.
Then the right hon. Gentleman told us that if these sanctions were removed it would cause the moderates to lose hope. What moderates has he in mind? Is it Mr. Bashford, is it Sir Roy Welensky? Which single moderate in Rhodesia has not begged him to remove the sanctions, because they are the one thing which keeps Mr. Smith and his more reactionary friends firmly in power? Does Bishop Muzorewa support sanc-
1272
tions? He would be utterly thankful to see them go. His chance would be enormously better if this nonsense were out of the way.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I apologise to my hon. and learned Friend for interrupting, but has he ever spoken to these people? Has he ever spoken to Bishop Muzorewa about his attitude to sanctions, because that does not appear to be his view?
Mr. Paget: I can produce the quotation for my hon. Friend. What he has said in Rhodesia is certainly on record.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: He has spoken rather differently in private.
Mr. Paget: He may have spoken differently in private from what he has said in public, but that is no good at all. Certainly, I should be very interested to hear any public statement, by anybody who, by any stretch of the imagination, could be called a moderate in Rhodesia, that has favoured the maintenance of sanctions. I should be very interested if anybody could produce such a public statement.
Therefore, what are we doing here? In a word, this is a policy of appeasement. It is precisely this same policy that we discussed last week in regard to supplying spare parts for the Centurions with which we have provided Israel. We thought that, by that very dishonourable let-down of our plainest obligations, we could appease the Arabs. Maybe we have saved our weekend motoring, but not at a price that I care to pay for it.
Now this same idea is applied in Africa, and it is imagined that we can somehow appease black Africa by feeding our friends to them. It will go on. This policy of decadent appeasement, which is the real basis of what is happening tonight, happened in Biafra. But that is not true of this side of the House, because many on this side believe that it is nonsense. But, the Government think that this is a way by which they can appease.
I have a strong feeling that I am living in eighteenth century Venice, and am suddenly feeling the numbness which has come to a society with a lack of the will to assert its interests, to assert its point of view, to stand up for itself. There is

1273
this idea that something can be obtained by apologising for oneself, but when one does that the boot will always be put in. In the days when we had a better standing, South Africa was our friend and we traded with her. None of these African nations says "We will not trade with you if you trade with the apartheid people", because that trade is established. But if it started now, we should have the same trouble. Rhodesia is just something which they think they can kick us over.
We shall get out of this impasse only when we are prepared to stand up once again and say "No", to say that we are going to do what we think is right, that we are going to write our own foreign policy and not have it written for us either in Brussels or in NATO. Until we can show a little courage again we shall move from one miserable situation of surrender to another. Here again we are being asked to consent to a policy, which everybody on the Government side of the House knows is wrong, in order to appease.
8.20 p.m.
Mr. Stephen Hastings: I listened with attention and a great deal of satisfaction to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). His is a blessedly independent voice. There are perhaps too few such voices in the country, perhaps even in this place, and I hope his words will be heeded not only by his right hon. and hon. Friends but by those on this side of the House as well. I hope, too, that they will be read in the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow and that the Government will pay attention to them.
They were rough words. The hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of a decadent appeasement, and I do not suppose many of us on this side of the House would wish to use that sort of expression in any debate about the Government or about policies pursued by a Government whom we support. Nevertheless, the mood which he describes is something which I dare say every one of us in this House is conscious of. I dare say the hon. and learned Gentleman is right and that we shall not get our foreign policy right or be in a position to take wise decisions until we can "ship" a little
1274
more courage, as he put it, than we do at the moment. I think this debate is simply about one aspect of a wider problem which he sought to describe.
I was grateful for the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech, much more grateful than I was for the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard). He may be a very good lawyer, he is certainly no mean hand as a speaker in the House of Commons, but he is a rotten economist and would make an even worse businessman. He said that one reason why he did not wish to trade with Rhodesia was that the Rhodesians had abrogated their constitution. If he is not going to trade with any country in Africa which has abrogated its constitution, how much business will he do?
The hon. and learned Gentleman produced figures which, although I am not a great hand as an economist or even as an arithmetician, seemed to me to support the exact contrary argument to the one which he was seeking to adduce. He read widely from some article—I apologise for forgetting which magazine it was; he could have written it himself, I should have thought—which was nothing more than an expression of opinion. We are all entitled to our opinions in this place. The author of this article manifestly shares the opinions of the hon. and learned Member for Barons Court, but it does not make him right.
If the hon. and learned Gentleman talked to people who do business in Africa he would find that the gentleman who wrote the article was writing nonsense. Certainly most people who have experience of the area would agree with me. One thing alone which he said I agree with, and that is that this debate has become a charade. That is why I shall confine my remarks. Most of the things that I wished to say have been better said already by hon. Members on both sides of the House. This debate is a charade because we know the outcome. We know what is going to be said and by whom it will be said. The only purpose is to examine old arguments to see if they are still valid, and to see whether there may some new element in the situation.

1275
I should like to say a word on those two themes. First: are the original arguments—those I have adduced over the years—valid still? The case that is so blandly presented to us each year by whatever Government is responsible is always put in terms of actuality. Seldom does my right hon. Friend take account of the beginning, or, very often, of the end. For the record, I would like to go back to the beginning.
Rhodesia has ruled her own destiny since 1923. During that time, particularly during the 1950s and 1960s, there have been many wise and liberal leaders, whose aims were near to the highest ideals of Cecil Rhodes. After the war, Rhodesia was invited to join the Central African Federation on the clear understanding that she would be given independence as part of the settlement. Let us never forget that. What happened? Against the advice of many responsible citizens, Rhodesia joined the federation. As they had foreseen, the federation fell to pieces. Zambia and Malawi got independence, Rhodesia did not.
The conditions subsequently demanded by Labour and Conservative Governments were always just too much. Wise and responsible men in charge of Rhodesia's affairs would go so far, but they were always asked to go a little further, until at last the people of Rhodesia turned in despair to the Rhodesia Front. That is the background. Everything that has happened since has its genesis in that long, bungling relationship for which Her Majesty's Governments of both persuasions must take responsibility and blame.
That is the main reason why I shall vote against the order. It is the only way I have of expressing the revulsion I feel at this long and miserable story, regardless of the arguments today about what sanctions might or might not do.
For eight years we in the Conservative Party have been assured by our leaders that our instincts are generally right and that sanctions, though perhaps necessary, constitute a bad policy.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that the original resolution would wrest the initiative for settling the dispute from Britain and hand it to the Security Council. My right hon. Friend
1276
the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) said that it was an abuse of the charter and constituted a dangerous precedent. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that sanctions would never bring Rhodesia down and must not be applied vindictively. Finally, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said that sanctions were the bankruptcy of statesmanship. So tonight we are invited to renew them again.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will accept this in the spirit in which I mean it. I know of no one who could advocate this counsel of unwisdom with such consummate skill as he. On listening to him this evening I almost imagined the Rhodesians shaking at the knees at the possibility of the withdrawal of sanctions.
Second: is there any new element? There is just one which was ably described by my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall). Her Majesty's Government's policy is now supposed to encourage discussion. We have heard a great deal about what is going on behind the scenes, but where is the evidence that anything is being achieved? With Her Majesty's Government removed from the scene, the influence over these discussions—if they be meaningful and are taking place—of the OAU countries, Nigeria, Zambia and Tanzania in particular, is being brought increasingly to bear, so that the Rhodesian Front Government are not negotiating with Bishop Muzorewa alone, or indeed, with his more moderate advisers—and there are not many of them—but are instead negotiating with these other countries.
That is the danger that this policy has created. So long as we were holding the ring this outside interference would not have taken place to the same extent. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said that he saw it as the task of the Government to hold the ring. I see no evidence of their succeeding; rather the precise contrary—I see increasing interference from the outside as a result of our having opted out.
Mr. Richard: How do we hold the ring better by withdrawing from the situation?
Mr. Hastings: I do not follow the hon. and learned Gentleman. It sounds like some legal entanglement.
Mr. Richard: I put it simply, in that case. It has nothing to do with legal entanglement at all. It is a straight and simple question. The hon. Gentleman has said three or four times that it would be better if we were holding the ring. How can we be in a better position to hold the ring in Rhodesia if we withdraw from it almost entirely and wash our hands of what happens?
Mr. Hastings: That is a nonsensical interpretation of what I did not say. The hon. and learned Gentleman is talking about sanctions. I certainly want to get rid of them, but I do not want to get out of the situation at all. I want to achieve a sensible solution.
Mr. Richard: How?
Mr. Hastings: By advocating talks and taking part ourselves. I do not see that, by getting out, we are doing any more, on present evidence, than encouraging interference from African countries outside—and that manifestly has happened increasingly since last year's debate.
I can see no real hope of progress in these circumstances. If the ANC is in the hands of the African powers outside, or is influenced unduly by them, I am afraid that it is being excessively hopeful to pretend that there will be a settlement. Therefore, it is only sensible, surely, after these eight years to stop now. There could be a phased programme, say, against agreed reforms in Rhodesia, and in the general context of the talks and of what my right hon. Friend has called "Pearce-plus" there might well be room for improvement, with sanctions disappearing on a phased programme against some gain on the other side.
The time has come to advocate that Rhodesia has every right to expect to be recognised. There is a very interesting and well-argued Bow Group pamplet which has just come out on this subject and which goes some way, perhaps, towards refuting the accusation of those who have always held that we who are opposed to the policy of sanctions are simply a band of incorrigible reactionairies on the right of the Conservative Party. It is a very thoughtful document, and the Government would do well to study it.
1278
There is a traditional British policy, expressed by none better than Lord Trevelyan in his recent book "Diplomatic Channels", in which he says:
"The sensible British practice is to establish diplomatic relations with any government which has control of a country and looks like keeping it, whether we like the government or not. To be in relations with a government should not mean that you approve of it, but only that you have interests in the country which you want to protect and therefore have to deal with the people who are governing it."
That is common sense and was appreciated throughout the nineteenth century,—indeed, until only a few years ago.
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: If Lord Trevelyan were here, he would have to say that this was in respect of independent foreign countries and not of one which had a dependent relationship with the United Kingdom. That is the difference.
Mr. Hastings: I appreciate that, but if my right hon. Friend will pay the Bow Group the compliment of reading its pamphlet he will find that there is a well argued parallel with Chile, despite what he has said. It would perhaps be worth his while to look at that.
Mr. John Biggs-Davison: Does not the Bow Group also argue that even if Rhodesia be considered as a colony in rebellion, which is a somewhat misleading description in the case of Rhodesia, Rhodesia still satisfies the criteria for international recognition?
Mr. Hastings: That is my understanding of the proposition, although I am not an international lawyer, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
My verdict is that despite their assurances and attempts, the Government have failed to solve the problem of Rhodesia. I conceive it to be a disgrace that we should be asked yet again to approve this order. I wish the Government could screw up their courage and rid us of this unnecessary abscess. This is the only realistic contribution that they can now make towards security in Central Africa. Of course there would be an international row. It would last three or four weeks, perhaps even two months, and they would have to sit it out. But are they incapable of that? I refuse to believe it.

1279
If they will not pursue this course—my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice also hinted at this—let them explain their convictions now that we—indeed, all of West Europe—are being subjected to economic sanctions to achieve a political aim. We seem to be a good deal more compliant in Western Europe than the Rhodesians, incidentally.
When the history of our times is written from the perspective of, say, 50 years, I believe that it will be said that this incident was the point at which we lost touch with the realities of power: indeed, the point at which we went off our collective head. I have no intention of going off mine, and I shall vote against the order tonight as usual.
8.36 p.m.
Mr. George Cunningham: The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) referred to what might have been done in the nineteenth century about one feature of this problem. If the Government of a British colony in the nineteenth century had illegally seized power, I wonder what he thinks would have happened. What we would have done—and what we should have done in 1965—would be immediately to use as much force as was necessary in order to compel the obedience of that Government to the law. That would have been the spirit of the nineteenth century and it is what we should have done in 1965.
Whenever I have intervened on this subject I have always been ready to admit that the primary responsibility for our failure in Rhodesia—although the responsibility belongs to both parties—is that of the party that was in power in 1965 and was immediately charged with responsibility. That was my own party.
On these occasions it is easy to make trouble between the vultures on the Government benches below the Gangway—the description does not apply to all of them—and their own Government, but when this House is responsible for 5 million people and has positively asserted its responsibility by passing an Act of Parliament eight years ago come Monday, and has repeated its responsibility each year, the situation is too serious and our honour too closely concerned to try to make trouble between different factions of the Conservative Party.
1280
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) used the word "decadence". Right from the time of UDI and before I have felt that the word "decadence" is the one that immediately springs to mind in talking about Rhodesia. That feeling dates at least from the debate in the House on 12th November 1965—before I came here—when most speakers seemed more concerned with scoring party points than with acting up to their responsibilities on behalf of a British colony. But although hon. Members on both sides of the argument might use the word "decadence", I suggest that decadence can show itself in very different forms.
My hon. and learned Friend and the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire feel that it is decadent to give in to the pressure of black African States to do something in Rhodesia. I regard it as decadent that successive British Governments, faced with the accepted illegality of the revolt of the Government of a British colony, seizing 5 million British subjects into their control, have not immediately settled the hash of that Government.
I want to see the kind of "gutsy" reaction that the previous two speakers called for, but it should be a gutsy reaction in the direction of modern life and not in the direction of maintaining racial supremacies in the middle of Africa which are doomed in the end, whether the vultures opposite below the Gangway accept it or not.
Mr. Soref: Will the hon. Gentleman explain what he means by "settling the hash"?
Mr. Cunningham: I will explain. It could have been done in a number of ways. When the Government of a British colony decide that they will tear up the constitution which this House made and imposed upon them, it is the duty of the British Government, possessing the legal authority in that territory, to use such force as is required to bring those who have disobeyed the law before the courts to suffer the proper penalties. That is the responsibility of the Government. That is what the process of government is all about. If someone breaks the law in my constituency or in the Gorbals he goes to gaol. The attitude of the British Government should have been that

1281
those who broke the law in Salisbury should go to gaol.
That is what I mean by "settling the hash"—ensuring that those who abide by the law are protected and that those who break it, like Smith and his gang, are brought before the courts to suffer the full penalty of the law.
I wonder whether it is correct to refer to this annual charade as a farce, or whether it is not more in the nature of a tragedy. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), who has now left the Chamber, feels that the lapse into violent reaction by those who have no legal means of getting their way in Rhodesia is something which must condemn their side. We all know that if people are denied advance by democratic means they will turn to violence. It is not something of which we have to approve or disapprove. If we have been alive we know it happens. That is life. It will not be nice violence. It will get nastier—and not because I want it to. I do not want to encourage Mau Mau type activities in Rhodesia, but we have to face the fact that if people are denied any democratic means of achieving a political and social advance, this is what will happen.
"Tragedy" is the right word because in the end these people will do things which we shall all condemn. Atrocities will be committed. But what other development do we expect if we deny these people the normal processes of political evolution? The shameful rôle of this country in connection with Rhodesia has gone on for eight years. The principal ingredient of all the errors that we have committed from, say, a year before UDI until now—and which will persist—has been self-deception.
The British have a capacity for self-deception which is boundless. We assumed, or some did—I must say I did not—that economic sanctions against Rhodesia might work. It was plain to some of us—and we said so at the time of UDI—that it was extremely unlikely that economic sanctions would work, especially if they were not backed up by the possibility of using force. It was the ruling out of force that made all lesser measures ineffective. A man can be led by the arm if it is made clear to him that he will be frog-marched if he resists.
1282
If we say to him at the beginning that we do not intend to use force against him, all the lesser measures, warnings and sanctions, will have no effect.
There is always an argument on these occasions as to whether sanctions are biting, or working, or whatever the term is. Sanctions can bite without working. They bite if they impose some hardship. But they work only if they produce the objective which we have set ourselves—which the Government set immediately after UDI—namely, the securing of a change of government in Rhodesia. They did not work, and were never likely to work. So we are faced with sanctions which are having a harmful effect in Rhodesia—sanctions which are biting but are not working. They never will work to secure a change of government there.
Nevertheless, if it were only a matter of British self-respect in the face of the Government of a British colony who have illegally and immorally seized power, I would not wish to condone that activity in any manner by restoring normal relations with the present Government of Rhodesia. We have to face the fact that in the future the Africans of Rhodesia will, regrettably, have to work out their own salvation without the help from us to which they were entitled. Neither this Government nor any other British Government in prospect will do that job for them. They must do it for themselves.
I wish to mention again what I believe is the very marginal service that the House can, even at this stage, perform for the 5 million people whom we have so badly let down. I have yet to encounter anyone who agrees with me upon this. At this stage it is our duty—as we are not ourselves willing to do the necessary—to endeavour to hand over to the United Nations some power, additional to its rights at the moment—which are limited in respect of Rhodesia—to intervene. We are not going to do the job. In the end the Africans in Rhodesia, with such United Nations help as they might get, will have to do it. Assistance for the United Nations is more likely to be quicker and based upon law if Rhodesia becomes a United Nations trust territory.
Mr. Hastings: Does the hon. Member remember the example of the United

1283
Nations in the Congo? Does he think that that is a useful precedent?
Mr. Cunningham: No, I do not think it is. But the United Nations has never managed to perform a peace-keeping rôle in a manner which I would regard as competent. However, one either looks to the United Nations to assist the Africans in Rhodesia or one fails to give them any assistance at all.
Sooner or later the United Nations will give some assistance to Africans in Rhodesia. At the moment it has no legal right to do so. Since, over eight years, we in this House have been decadent enough not to do our duty, before we bow out finally from this aspect of British colonial history, this shameful episode, we ought, as we are not prepared to use our legal powers, to hand over to the United Nations that small legal right which derives from a territory's being a United Nations trust territory, so that what intervention it is able and inclined to make is at least based upon law.
It will not be a great advantage. The advantage which the United Nations possesses in respect of Namibia is not very great compared to its rôle in respect of the Republic of South Africa, but it is a significant difference. The United Nations has been able to do more in Namibia—to have more of a presence and an effect—because this is a mandated territory. If we were prepared to make Rhodesia a United Nations trust territory, instead of doing absolutely nothing for the 5 million people whom we have let down, we should at least have handed over some small part of our legal powers in relation to Rhodesia to the only body which, in the end, is likely to be able to help the 5 million Africans.
8.49 p.m.
Mr. Harold Soref: I am delighted that I took the precaution, before listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham), who apparently wants to make sure there is a war in Central Africa, of visiting Rhodesia on two occasions since the recital of this charade last year. From listening to speeches made from the other side of the House and viewing the situation as it is in Rhodesia, one is constrained to believe that there are certain hon.
1284
Members who live in cloud-cuckoo land. The realities of Rhodesia are vastly different from what we are told here.
On my visits I had the opportunity of visiting he whom I prefer to call the Prime Minister rather than the "gangster" referred to by an hon. Member opposite. I also visited members of the opposition—and the black opposition. In how many Parliaments in Africa to the north of Rhodesia can one visit members of the opposition? They are not allowed to exist? But in Rhodesia, not only do they freely exist and one can visit and speak freely with them, but with one exception they were all black and they all had plenty of views, which may be sensible or otherwise, but they can speak freely, and they do so.
Similarly, there is no country on the African Continent to the north of Rhodesia which has a free Press as Rhodesia has, a Press which is a monopolistic Press, hostile to the Rhodesian Government. That is inconceivable anywhere else and is something which we should record.
Why is it, in the context of what is happening in the world today, that Rhodesia is singled out for such singular persecution? What crimes has it committed? It was alleged, on the one hand, by the Leader of the Opposition when he was Prime Minister, that Rhodesia was a threat to peace. It has never been a threat to peace. It is not now and it was not then. It is probably the most peaceful country in the African Continent. It is the only country where, for example, the Prime Minister has no protection whatsoever. Anybody can enter his office. There is one unarmed policeman outside the Prime Minister's office building. The degree of freedom which exists there is unsurpassed on the African Continent.
What are we trying to do but destroy that and replace it with what? There is no country to the north that Rhodesia can learn lessons from. Is it not significant that Rhodesia is a country into which Africans seeks to immigrate, and from which Africans refuse to emigrate, because conditions are so much better than in their northern neighbours' territories?
In fact, the only serious migration which takes place is to the Republic of South Africa, where, for obvious reasons, social conditions are better because more

1285
money can be spent on hospitals and schools. But Africans from outside seek to come to Rhodesia because conditions are so much better.
When I go there, as I do most years, and speak to the hundreds of Africans whom I know, they tell me that conditions are improving. It is a fact based on statistics, equally good as those produced by the hon. and learned Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard), that, under the present Rhodesian Front Government, and despite economic sanctions by this country and many other countries—far too many countries in my opinion—the standard of living of the Africans and the amount of money spent on education and hospitals have increased and are increasing. Despite all the impediments that they have encountered, desipte the economic warfare, the standard of living of Rhodesians has improved, and I am pleased to say that, whatever disparity there has been, the standard of Africans has risen also at a greater rate.
Mr. George Cunningham: Will the hon. Gentleman, in addition to his tributes to what is going on in Rhodesia, tell us whether Africans are free to reside in any part of Salisbury, the capital city of their own country?
Mr. Soref: There are, for reasons of protection of all segments of society, rules that prevent a European businessman opening a shop in an African reserve, or in a black territory. Racial relations are best served by the present means adopted in Rhodesia. If the hon. Gentleman is so interested in racial relations in Africa he should know that there is no former African colony where Asians feel as secure as in Rhodesia. Not one persecuted Asian refugee has left Rhodesia to come to this country. Not one wishes to do so. I met both Hindus and Moslems during my visit at Christmas and New Year who told me how their conditions were so much better than those of their brothers and cousins, whether in Zambia, Kenya, Tanzania or anywhere to the north. The same is true of all other components of the population.
It is not merely a coincidence that this country itself is being threatened by the imposition of sanctions by the Arab States. What makes that so interesting is that at present Egypt, which is an aggressor, has received a bounty from this
1286
country of £10 million; yet not only has Tanzania, which was recently feted in London, had its business interests threatened but, as was revealed in the Press, British settlers in Tanzania are forced to leave the country because of reprisals owing to what has happened in Libya and the unsubstantiated suggestion that they were helping the Israelis.
This partially answers the points raised by the hon. and learned Member for Barons Court. Of course there is substantial investment and trade in black Africa. But there is not an export merchant in the City of London, not an investor in those territories, who will not speak of the jeopardy in which he is placed. Ask those interests which have had their losses in Tanzania or Uganda without any compensation whatsoever. All British investment in black Africa is in jeopardy. Much of it has been lost. Bankruptcies have occurred in the City of London time and again because of the confiscations that have taken place.
Such risk is increased at the moment because so much of the commerce in these territories was in the hands of the Indian population. The Indians were good at commerce, and now that they have been removed commerce is in the hands of people who are incapable of exercising commercial understanding. The result is that, in addition to confiscation and nationalisation, millions of pounds of British money have been lost.
Mr. Richard: I wonder whether that is so. If the City of London is so scared, why is it that investment is increasing so rapidly in those very countries?
Miss Joan Hall: The hon. and learned Member talks about the City of London rather a lot, but I remind him that there are many investing companies outside the City of London which are investing in Africa and elsewhere.
Mr. Soref: The amount of money that has been lost in Africa has been lost very largely by investors, investing companies, confirming houses and merchants in the City of London, and I have no doubt elsewhere as well. The great difference between Rhodesia and the countries to the north is that Rhodesia asks nothing of us. She never received a bounty from the British Exchequer. She does not

1287
seek aid. She merely requests the opportunity to trade and perform legitimate business. The other territories which have been mentioned earlier and where money has been lost seek and obtain aid from the British taxpayer and at the same time do everything to undermine British lives and interests. We should also not overlook the fact that after 50 years of peaceful development which Rhodesia has enjoyed, that country has gone ahead in a way that no other country has in central Africa. During those 50 years the Rhodesians have had complete local internal autonomy.
It was the suggestion of Mr. Winston Churchill, when he was Colonial Secretary, that Rhodesia should go in with the Union of South Africa in 1921. I have his speech in which he commended this possibility, and he did so in a manner very different from the attitude adopted towards Rhodesia today. He merely suggested that it would be in Rhodesia's interest that it should have the last word. Rhodesia had a referendum on the subject. The decision was that it would rather remain within the British Empire and have local autonomy. During that period it has maintained all services and its army, through taxes imposed locally, and it has done so in a way that is by most standards commendable, in that the United Nations figures prove that more money is spent on social welfare on Africans in Rhodesia per capita than in countries to the north.
What strikes me as so appalling is that Opposition Members who, in another context and in other debates are so concerned about unemployment, poverty and distress anywhere else in the world, are trying to manufacture it by making sanctions bite. What does that mean but to reduce Rhodesia to poverty? What good can that possibly do to anybody? It does no good to the black; it does no good to the white; it does no good to this country. It merely creates not only unemployment but a chaotic condition which must produce a revolution. Surely no reasonable person can want that.
It is significant to have a confession that hon. Members opposite seek a bloody revolution—
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Not bloody.
Mr. Soref: Revolutions are always bloody. The risk involved is so great that this is one of the greatest confessions of a dedicated partisan of sanctions. But is it not remarkable that, whereas, for example, in Ethiopia drought has produced the most appalling conditions and suffering, Rhodesia had its worst drought last year for a very long period and yet, because of the self-help and enterprise of the population, and despite sanctions, Rhodesia is even now exporting agricultural produce because of her ability?
The tobacco industry has been almost ruined by sanctions, and the Rhodesian tobacco farmer has largely gone over to growing cotton. But what is the effect? Far fewer Africans are employed in growing cotton than in growing tobacco. I should have thought that a net disadvantage. But such is the patriotism of the Rhodesian population that the tobacco farmers, who have suffered more than any other part of the population as a class are the strongest supporters of Mr. Ian Smith and the Rhodesian Front.
I find it particularly distressing, in the light of what is happening in Rhodesia that Her Majesty's Government should have given a United Kingdom passport to Mr. Chetepo, who is the head of the terrorist organisation ZANU financed by the Red Chinese, when Mr. Gerald Hawksworth, a Briton, is a prisoner of ZANU—nobody quite knows where, but it is believed somewhere in Tanzania.
These things have a strong emotional effect on Rhodesians, almost as much as sanctions. They feel that we support brigands and terrorists, such as ZANU, who wish to bring destitution to that country. They resent the fact that a Briton could have been treated as Hawks-worth was, that Britain has done nothing about it and that no one knows where he is and that there is no outcry in this country. Yet if he had been black, there would have been the most appalling outcry—he would probably have joined Mrs. Allende in Trafalgar Square when he came out of captivity.
That is the trouble with double standards.
Mr. George Cunningham rose—
Mr. Soref: I have given way on one occasion already, and other hon. Members wish to speak.
Mr. George Cunningham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Soref: I am not giving way.
Mr. Cunningham: Is the hon. Gentleman afraid of the point?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Order. The hon. Gentleman is not giving way. The hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham) knows perfectly well that he should, therefore, not persist in his question.
Mr. Soref: I am not giving way again. I want to conclude my speech to give other hon. Members who wish to speak an opportunity to do so. I have also given the hon. Gentleman an opportunity—
Mr. George Cunningham rose—
Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman has been given a good chance to put his point of view. He must not interrupt others.
Mr. Soref: In this country we should recognise what the Rhodesians have done, not only for their own people but in two world wars for us. I do not believe that that is something that we can ignore. The greatest danger we face in this country is failure to recognise who are our friends and who are our enemies.
Rhodesia has always been a friend of this country. Fundamentally, there is no conflict of interest. The sooner we make peace, the better.
I shall go into the Lobby tonight against the Government because I believe that these sanctions are vindictive. They achieve absolutely nothing politically, and if, as may well be proved, they have an unfortunate economic effect on Rhodesia, surely to create economic suffering is nothing of which one could be proud. It is something of which we should be ashamed on behalf of our own people.
9.8 p.m.
Mr. James Johnson: Those of us who over a period of years have taken part in debates on Africa have a feeling of déjà vu. This has all happened before.
1290
The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Soref) is a well-known performer on this circuit and others. One of the biggest defects of this Chamber is that, unlike the Chamber of Deputies in Paris, we have no black deputies or members of overseas territories to take part in our debates. If we had members similar to those who sit on behalf of Martinique and Guadeloupe—if, for example, we had members sitting here representing Zanzibar or Malta, or where ever it may be—we might have heard a very different viewpoint from that put forward by the hon. Member for Ormskirk.
The hon. Gentleman knows Central Africa well. He knows about the people, the situation and the economics of that Continent. I am sure he even knows how many tons of soya beans various countries export, and all the rest of it. But if we had here tonight, as there have been in Paris for many years, black men who live among their own people and who speak for their people, they would be shocked to hear the sentiments which the hon. Member has been uttering.
We have heard some hard language tonight. We have heard my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), who is always salty and worth listening to. He has his views; he is an independent, and one can agree with much of what he says. The word "charade" has been used, but is this not also a matter of sheer hypocrisy? There is an unreal atmosphere in these debates. I listened carefully to the Foreign Secretary—he was not thinking aloud—who said that we must help the natural settlement, and must do so with the least possible disturbance.
Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that Smith—or should it be "Mr. Smith"—wishes to have a settlement on the lines that we in this House visualised when we had settlements with our own people in former dependencies such as Kenya, Zambia and Tanzania? I do not believe for one moment that he does, and I challenge anyone on the Government benches to state that Mr. Smith and people like him, who hold power between the Zambesi and the Limpopo, desire to have a settlement with blacks, Asians or whites in Central Africa on the lines that we in this Chamber, of whatever party, have visualised over the years.

1291
I think of the names of those who have departed, such as kin Macleod, and who have gone to the Lords, such as Lord Boyd. There is no one on these benches who can say that Mr. Smith visualises that, in two, five, 10, 15 or 20 years, the Africans will advance to ultimate and final emancipation and political independence in the sense that we visualised in the 1950s and 1960s.
Mr. Wall: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this House has given multiracial constitutions to many ex-colonies of Africa, and will he say how many still have those multi-racial constitutions? How many have dictators or army takeovers, or one-party States?
Mr. Johnson: I am not a statistical machine, but I know the facts as well as the hon. Member does. I tell him that if he wants to debate with me on those terms he is flying in the face of history, which is being made day by day. That is the way history is going, and the clock cannot be put back in continents like Africa or Asia. That is why I say that all parties in this House have looked upon those areas as territories where one finally moves into a situation where the mass of the people, whatever their colour, becomes dominant or leading, and becomes the government in power.
If, in a situation where there are only 250,000 whites, where blacks are having more and more youngsters in comparison with the whites, and where the population gap will become more and more wide with economic facilities and development, Mr. Smith does not hand over political power, that will not reflect the sort of democratic language which has been spoken by many of us in this Chamber for the past two decades. Hon. Members talk about the moderates giving up, but where are these moderates in this situation? There were Rhodesian moderates in the past who were much better than the present moderates. Who was a better moderate than Sir Roy Welensky. He was given a chance; maybe he was not given all the chances, but he was given a chance and set upon his way in the multiracial federation. But the African population would not wear this. This is history as it has been made in the lives of us all. Therefore, we are turning back Commonwealth history if we use lan-
1292
guage which has been used in this instance. Where, in Africa, have the moderates held power, continued to hold power, and built up a society? When we talk about the African National Council and about Bishop Muzorewa, do not let us call him—as he was called tonight, unfortunately by a colleague on these benches—"a Quisling Uncle Tom".
Mr. Paget: I said nothing of the sort. I said that if he came to an agreement—in fact, he would not be allowed to do so—that is what black Africa would call him.
Mr. Johnson: We are both saying the same thing. [Interruption.] We are, because in the opinion of this House "a Quisling Uncle Tom" would be his designation in his society. Therefore, this term would fit him. Otherwise, why use it? In my view, people like Bishop Muzorewa act as historical midwives in colonial territories when they move into a certain position; then as the political society develops, people who are not so moderate—we would now call them extremists—move in afterwards.
If anyone thinks that in a continent like Africa one can avoid changes of this nature without some violence, then, to use an expression which was used earlier, he is indeed living in cloud-cuckoo land. The charge can be levied against us on these benches that we sometimes live in cloud-cockoo land; but I am speaking in the light of African social and political development. Canute thought that he could hold the tide back. There are too many Canutes on the Government benches. I have sat here, almost thinking aloud, in this artificial atmosphere where the same things are said year after year. We may say them, as white people, in this Chamber, but the black society overseas is changing. It is a dynamic society out there. Here we are static. We say the same things year after year about those people.
Mr. Paget: I have followed my hon. Friend's argument with interest. Surely what he is saying is that time is moving on. Why do we not get out of its way? That is all there is to do.
Mr. Johnson: My hon. and learned Friend and I have been sitting on these benches seeing Europeans, or white, or

1293
Anglo-Saxons, getting out of the way in Kenya. I am speaking in a political context. I am not speaking in the sense of miners, doctors, lawyers, economists and teachers. I am speaking in the sense of political development, political emancipation and political change. I am speaking of people who make the laws, people who decide the zones where people live, in Salisbury and elsewhere. Who are the people who make decisions in their own African society? We have seen the changes in Lusaka, Nairobi, Lagos and elsewhere. If anyone thinks that less than 250,000 white people can hold back this constant change and surge in political life they are living in cloud-cockoo land.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: If that is so, what is the point of sanctions?
Mr. Johnson: During the ninteenth and twentieth centuries we went to Africa and handed over the good things of life—material comforts, spiritual nourishment and political power and decision-making. That has been our mission from these islands and north-west Europe. Here, we are holding back on this course.
We have no black men sitting here to tell us what their people think, although there is a lot of third-party talk about what the OAU thinks. The Foreign Secretary and I were fortunate to be at the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference recently. There I met no one, whether from Hong Kong, Canada, the Bahamas or Singapore, who did not condemn our political stance in middle Africa, where live these 5 million black people who are finding their feet and surging to get to the top. Not a single delegate at the CPA Conference thought differently from the way in which we on the Opposition benches think.
Miss Joan Hall: I was with the hon. Gentleman at that conference. The thing that the people of all shades of colour and opinion deprecate more than anything else is hypocrisy, wherever it comes from.
Mr. Johnson: I began by talking about an atmosphere of hypocrisy. The speeches we have heard from the Conservative benches all have an air of unreality. We speak of the Africans being superstitious and employing witch doctors, but the superstition is all on the Conservative benches. It is all superstition and
1294
folk lore. Conservative Members behave like our ancestors did in the nineteenth century. Whether one talks to American-educated lawyers of the Bahamas, English stock in Quebec, or black men who have been to the LSE or Nsukka University in Nigeria, one finds without exception that they consider that Bishop Muzorewa and others with him should be allowed to come out into the open, and that Mr. Smith should alter his views about the way in which Rhodesian society should develop in the next 10, 15 or 20 years. I see no sign of this in this Chamber. I hear the same old clichés, superstition and soothsaying from the Conservative benches. I hope hon. Gentlemen will come into the daylight and find out what the black African leaders think about the present situation.
9.24 p.m.
Mr. Richard Luce: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) has made a careful study of certain parts of Africa and takes a great interest in that part of the world. I have tried to follow the theme of this argument, but I am not quite certain what constructive suggestions he is putting forward as a way out of this difficult problem.
I am in isolation on the Government back benches in that I support the Government's proposal to renew sanctions, but I do so extremely reluctantly. In two ways sanctions have made no contribution to solving the problem. We have heard from both sides of the House the economic arguments. We have heard that sanctions have not led to a change in the régime and its attitudes. But, far more important, sanctions lead to isolation—a lack of contact between Rhodesia and the rest of the world. This is harmful, and leads to more extremism. But I do not think that we can just drop sanctions, except on an honourable basis. We have four options before us.
The first is to say that after eight years, sanctions have been a failure and that, as one or two hon. Members have suggested, we should hand the matter to the United Nations. I believe that that would be utterly disastrous. It could make Rhodesia the playground of the prejudices of the member countries of the United Nations, and the consequences would be disastrous for the Rhodesians—both African and European.

1295
The second option is to drop sanctions just like that. There would be international implications. There might be some implications for our trade. But I would oppose such a move on two grounds. First, it might well lead to a United Nations take-over of the Rhodesian situation, which is the one thing we want to avoid. Secondly—this was a most important argument put by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—it might spoil the chances of the discussions now taking place between Mr. Smith and Bishop Muzorewa and other Africans and encourage extremism in Rhodesia.
The third option is to maintain the status quo, which, for the reasons I have given, I regard as being unsatisfactory. Indeed, a policy of sanctions is an essentially clumsy means of diplomacy. It creates isolationism. Sanctions on their own do not produce the results that we want. But if we are to maintain that policy, we are entitled to ask other countries rigidly to stick to sanctions, which many of them are breaking. But it is an entirely negative policy for the long-term future of the Rhodesians.
Finally, therefore, we in this House have an overwhelming duty to seek out new ways of breaking through the barrier of sanctions. I would like my right hon. Friend to consider the possibility of the United Kingdom's taking the lead with the Commonwealth in trying one more initiative which might provide a spur or incentive to the Africans and the Europeans to reach a final agreement on the basis that they are at the moment having discussions.
The criteria for satisfactory progress of the Africans towards majority rule and an enhanced political status, which is part of the proposals for the settlement which we reached with Mr. Smith, are a steady improvement in the educational standards of the Africans and, allied to that, a steady improvement in their income and property standards. In these proposals, the United Kingdom offered £5 million per annum for 10 years in capital aid and technical assistance, to be matched on an equal basis by the Rhodesian Government.
The communiqué of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference in
1296
Ottawa contained two hopeful signs. First, it said that the British Prime Minister welcomed the constructive suggestions that other Prime Ministers made about Rhodesia, although it did not say what those suggestions were. Secondly, it said that the Prime Ministers took note of the development of a special Commonwealth programme for assisting the education of Rhodesian Africans. It is this note upon which we should build, because it could provide a basis for a new initiative and possibly a reconciliation between the Africans and the Europeans in Rhodesia.
If Britain could take the lead in persuading the other Commonwealth nations to put up substantial sums to help towards the more rapid development of African education and therefore economic advancement, it could lead to an advantage to the Europeans to the extent that if it was acceptable to Mr. Smith sanctions could be dropped, and, if it was acceptable to the Africans, they could have opportunities for more rapid advancement to majority rule. This is the only possible way to break out of this impasse.
The Rhodesian problem is one of the most explosive in the world today. We still have a tenuous responsibility, although no power. Most hon. Members will have read that moving book by Alan Paton, "Cry the Beloved Country". On the very last page, he referred to the fear of bondage and the bondage of fear. I still think that Great Britain has a duty to try to release the Africans from the fear of bondage and the Europeans from the bondage of fear.
9.31 p.m.
Mr. Ronald Bell: Sanctions were first imposed on Rhodesia in November 1965, just eight years ago, and when we are asked to renew them for a ninth year it is appropriate to ask why they were put on in the first place. I never expected incidentally, to be speaking in a debate when under a Conservative Government, for the third year running, renewal of sanctions was sought. I find this disappointing.
Rhodesia was never governed from this country. It was first ruled by a chartered company. When that ended in 1923, it was given full self-government,

1297
which it enjoyed until UDI and, of course, enjoys still. Independence was, therefore, a technical consideration which did not matter. It acquired its importance only when the United Nations Committee of 18, which came to be called the Committee on Anti-Colonialism, began to take an interest in Rhodesia.
The institution of that committee and its activities were described in terms of withering condemnation by my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary in two distinguished speeches to the United Nations Association, which caused a great stir at the time and with every word of which I would have agreed. That Committee made Rhodesia its first quarry, and that was when it became important that Rhodesia should have the technical independence of sovereignty, as distinct from the complete self rule that it had always enjoyed up till then.
This technical sovereignty was refused by British Government after British Government to Rhodesian Prime Minister after Rhodesian Prime Minister, in circumstances on which we must now look back with profound regret. Rhodesia is the only country in Africa which, of its own spontaneous movement, was developing a democracy based on a common rule and a society which politically, educationally and in every other way, was fully integrated.
Therefore, independence in that technical sense was not refused to Rhodesia by any British Government because they disapproved of what was happening there. Rhodesia was the model that we would have wished all Africa could follow. It was refused for one reason only—to avoid unpleasantness and difficulties with the Afro-Asian lobby in the United Nations.
It was not the Rhodesian Front that was refusing independence; it was Roy Welensky, Winston Field and people like him, and, even before that, Garfield Todd. This went on year after year, and the chase from the United Nations hotted up. Rhodesia asserted independence unilaterally in 1965. Then the sanctions were imposed by the Government of the day. At first they were mild sanctions, because the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson) thought that
1298
they would work very quickly and lead to a negotiated settlement which would give sovereign independence to Rhodesia.
Of course they did not work, in weeks, months or years and so they moved on in severity and the language sharpened. In May 1968 the fatal error was committed of going to the United Nations for mandatory sanctions—a step which I think that even the right hon. Gentleman who did it must quickly have regretted, because it limited his freedom of manoeuvre from that time on just as it has limited the freedom of manoeuvre of my right hon. Friend.
I have looked backwards to that extent because people now talk in the heightened atmosphere of these debates as though sanctions were imposed on Rhodesia and maintained upon some high ground of principle concerned with the relations between the different races in Africa. That is absolute humbug. There never was any such dispute originally. Sanctions were imposed because we did not give Rhodesia its independence, because we did not want a row in the United Nations, and because the British Government thought it did not matter very much. Rhodesia had full self government and had had it for as long as anyone could remember, and so why should it have sovereign independence—there was no basic difference—at the expense of unpleasantness with certain African nationalist politicians?
That is the fact of the matter, and as the eight years have drifted past it has become covered up because principles have proliferated in all directions. It was bad enough to have five principles to start with. The right hon. Member for Huyton added another, and made it six, and now we are told that in these fruitful negotiations going on in Central Africa another 12 have been enunciated, making a total of 18. The language has become virtually histrionic. This is one of the tragedies of modern history.
It is an unnecessary quarrel which has poisoned relations between us and the people of British stock in Central Africa. I ask myself now, as every other hon. Member must ask himself: what is to be done in this situation? We can look at it from the point of view of the laws and practices by which one nation recognises another. The hon. Member

1299
for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham) advocated a kind of gunboat diplomacy which reminded me of nothing so much as the pre-war militancy of the pacificist Labour Party we had in those days. We must not desist until we have crushed the rebellion, he said.
Some little time ago, I looked up the member States of the United Nations and found that about 30 per cent. of the Governments were based upon revolutions in the previous five years. We are talking about eight years for Rhodesia. The Government of which my right hon. Friend is a Member was based on a revolution if we go back to 1688, and I suppose that almost every Government in the world is so based. It is only a question of how far back we go. We do not have to go so far back with the United Nations.
Then it is said "Yes, but this is a rebellion against the Crown." The hon. Member for Islington, South-West said we should "settle their hash." I wondered how he would have settled the hash of the United States, which sprang from a rebellion against the Crown or, if we want to be more up-to-date, Sierra Leone, which two or three years ago staged a rebellion against the Crown and locked up the Queen's representative.
We did not turn a hair. Why? Because it was a coloured African country. That was the only difference. That is humbug.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has other arguments that I am sure he genuinely believes. He feels that sanctions help towards a settlement—that they press upon Rhodesia and will, therefore, influence a settlement.
There has been a good deal of talk tonight about the damage done to Rhodesia by sanctions. There has been some damage, naturally, but on balance sanctions have been beneficial to Rhodesia, in the same way as the limitation of the gold price by the United States for so many years was beneficial to South Africa, for it turned it into a major industrial country.
In eight years sanctions have turned Rhodesia from a monoculture into a considerable industrial and agricultural country. It has telescoped the advance of 30 years into eight. There is growing
1300
up a considerable vested interest in sanctions in Rhodesia, so let us not fancy that they are some great burden upon the European population of Rhodesia that will force the result.
Then there is the other side of the argument—that if one removes sanctions after eight years that is itself a positive step, with an emotional reaction. I suppose that after eight years it is a positive step to take them off, but it will be more positive after nine years and more positive still after 10 years. That argument lives with one for ever. Are we to continue, year after year, maintaining sanctions on Rhodesia because no one can think of a way of taking them off?
Not claiming a great knowledge of Central Africa, but only some knowledge, I believe that the continuance of sanctions positively harms the prospect of agreement. It makes the African nationalist leaders—and I am thinking not of Bishop Muzorewa at the moment but of those with whom he has to cope—more militant, more aggressive and less compromising. They think Britain is behind them and breathing down the necks of the other side in negotiations, and that if they stick out they will be guaranteed, anyway. If sanctions were taken off, we would have an agreement in Rhodesia in a matter of months. We are totally mistaken in our political tactics, quite apart from the question of merit.
What about the other nations in Africa? The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) slid away from this point very quickly. He was asked how many of those nations still had their constitutions. We did not give the Rhodesia her independence when the federation broke up. That was crazy. We gave it to the two backward elements, Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia, but, when we imposed sanctions on Rhodesia, Zambia—as it then was—and Malawi were already abandoning the West-minister constitutions which we had given them.
We imposed sanctions on Rhodesia for not accepting the sort of constitution that Zambia and Malawi were already abandoning. That seems very odd. I have tried for many years to come to terms with the situation and to find some rationality in it. I cannot see the rationality. Year after year I have made this

1301
point in debate and in questions, or in other ways, to Ministers, asking what the difference is. They say that the difference is that our responsibility is to start these people off with a constitution providing for universal suffrage and the sort of institutions in which we believe.
What countries do after achieving independence is their business and not our responsibility. Suppose that the Rhodesians had been willing to go to Lancaster House or Marlborough House and to sign on the dotted line of one of the constitutions, had achieved their independence, and had then gone home and torn it up, and had an efficient dictatorship as in Malawi, a one-party State as in Zambia, or a sort of South American arrangement as in Sierre Leone. Any of those things would be perfectly all right, and all 18 principles would be vindicated. But if they say, "No", in this minor respect or that minor respect, or "We do not think that this would work in the 1960s or 1970s in Central Africa", do we then roll out the guns and smash them to bits? I find that preposterous and absurd. I opposed sanctions from the beginning, and it is with a good heart that I shall go into the Lobby against them tonight.
9.47 p.m.
Mr. Alan Haselhurst: It is important when debating Rhodesia to observe the situation as it is, and not to believe that it is as one would wish. I am inclined to take my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and Shoreham (Mr. Luce) out of isolation on these benches, although in doing so I would put the accent slightly differently.
If we are honest about the situation, what was said a year ago during our debates could not be said with equal conviction today. I hoped that during the course of the year we would have seen meaningful discussions between the Africans in Rhodesia and the Rhodesian Government. But little has taken place, as far as one can judge.
I was disturbed to see in the wake of the recent Rhodesian Front Party Congress a report in The Times of 24th September to the effect that, although Mr. Smith had said in his presidential address to the conference that he had been talking to African politicians, it emerged at a Press conference later that he had
1302
been talking to African leaders on the basis of the 1969 Constitution.
Mr. Smith apparently denied that his Government were considering any changes in the 1969 Constitution. He said:
"It simply means that when we talk to Africans we say we must now plan our future on the basis that we live under the 1969 Constitution."
This does not seem to bode any great hope for the future.
I do not think that tonight the hon. and learned Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) could look at, in particular, columns 1323 and 1324 of HANSARD of 9th November 1972 and utter the words which he did then with the same ringing conviction, in light of what has happened during the last year.
I suppose that there are still some hopes, and my right hon. Friend has evinced them. They are somewhat fainter now, but it does not mean that they are not worth while or unworthy, and I should not wish to sweep them away. The first hope is that there can be sufficient effect from sanctions to continue to pressure Mr. Smith and his Government into meaningful negotiations with the Africans. That is the hope of the sanctions.
The second hope is that this may lead to a multi-racial solution in Rhodesia. Many hon. Members from both sides of the House have referred to the ideal of the multi-racial solution. Indeed, there were hopes that that could be achieved Rhodesia. I should have thought that was a sufficiently worth while ideal, and that one should continue to work towards it.
It is my judgment—and this is a matter on which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) and I disagree—that it is the maintenance of the sanctions which is more likely to get a meaningful solution, but I share his doubts about whether there can be any meaningful solution at all. The aim should be to maintain the sanctions.
Our motivation and concern is to do our best for the people of Rhodesia. Hon. Members who have spoken in contrary terms tonight are saying what they think is right for the people of Rhodesia, and that, too, is a worthy ideal.

1303
We should also take British interests into consideration. But how does one interpret British interests? We might be invited to be decent to our kith and kin in Rhodesia, bearing in mind that people in that country have stood by us in the past in times of danger and conflict. But I have to ask myself whether the people in Rhodesia and those in charge of the Government who are meant by the phrase "kith and kin" share the ideals of a great number of us in this country.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: They fought for them in the last war.
Mr. Haselhurst: I have already acknowledged the point made by my hon. Frend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) from a sedentary position. The people of Rhodesia supported this country in the last war, and because of that feeling it is argued that we should take a more conciliatory attitude towards them today. But we can see what their attitude is towards the black people in their country.
It is interesting to be reminded by Mr. Des Frost, the Chairman of the Rhodesian Front Party, that the Rhodesia Front was formed in 1962 to stop the attempted handover of the country, and that remains the basic principle of the Rhodesian Front. Some of my hon. Friends may say "amen" to that, but it is not what I want to see happening in that country. It is not a view that I support.
One also asks, when mentioning kith and kin, whether the people running Rhodesia today truly are our kith and kin. The immigration figures and the kind of immigrant that Rhodesia has been having show that the nature of the white population in Rhodesia has been moving nearer and nearer towards that of South Africa, which is not necessarily closely related to us in origin.
I do not believe that the sympathies of the people who support the Rhodesian Front Government are headed towards any kind of multiracial solution. One's view on this matter must essentially rest upon on how one views the question of racial conflict.
I am still hopeful that it will be possible for black, white and brown to live together in harmony wherever they are in the world. However, if we are to endorse a solution which clearly accepts that white
1304
should be in charge of black in perpetuity, I do not believe that that will add to the chances of a successful racial solution in other parts of the world.
Some of my hon. Friends argue, too, that it is in British economic interests to resume a normal relationship with Rhodesia. I find that difficult to follow, because the amount of trade that we were doing with Rhodesia when UDI was declared was about £40 million. I am not sure how much trade we would be able to gain from Rhodesia if normal trading relationships were resumed from tomorrow. I believe the amount would be minuscule. It would be considerably offset by the trade elsewhere in Africa that we gained in recent years.
Another argument has been put forward; namely, that we as a country are making ourselves look an ass over the matter of sanctions. None of us likes to find that he has been isolated in the way we appear to have been isolated, as the only country playing it straight. Others are clearly acting in their own interests and choosing to ignore sanctions.
I do not like this situation any more than do some of my hon. Friends, but it is not a question of describing the lifting of sanctions as a positive act and of arguing the matter dialectically. It is a matter of the reaction which would arise to the lifting of sanctions. That cannot be ignored.
If we were to decide in this House that it was right for Britain to lift sanctions, the correct way to do so would not be by refusing to pass this order tonight. There would have to be an approach to the United Nations for us to be relieved of our responsibility.
Mr. Norman Tebbit: My hon. Friend has dwelt on the morality of our use of an economic weapon in pursuit of political objectives against Rhodesia and on the possible consequences for us in that our trade with black Africa is more important than is our trade with Rhodesia. Will he expand that view and say a few words about his attitude towards the use by the Arabs of their oil as an economic weapon against us, and the morality of how we balance our trade with Israel?
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman were to pursue that line of argument, he would be out of order.
Mr. Haselhurst: If my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit) had been in the Chamber a little earlier, he might have heard that point discussed.
The other argument that is used about British interests is that we might be accused of adopting double standards. My answer to that argument is that our responsibility is at stake because we have a legal connection with and responsibility for Rhodesia. We must maintain our links with all our former colonies and dependencies and should not depart from our standards in the way we bring Rhodesia to independence. I believe that if we take that view we shall behave consistently.
I do not accept the particular way of defining British interests as I have heard them defined by others in this debate. I believe that British interests can best be summarised in this way. In economic terms we are trading more with the black African countries than we could ever have traded with Rhodesia, and our trade with black Africa is expanding at a faster rate than ever could have happened with Rhodesia. That trade is of great value to us.
I have some understanding of business in Africa, and I declare an interest. I cannot agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) that there is no substantial British economic interest in black Africa. That is not my experience of the motivations of British firms prepared to invest in black African countries. Surely they can be expected to know precisely what they are doing, and I believe that they understand it to be in the interests of British trade—and, in the final result, the proof lies in the figures, which clearly show that this trade is in our interests.
I also believe that, whether or not the value of our investments is declining—which is the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Dixon)—British companies are putting their money there, and they must be taking into account all the risks of so investing. I believe that they are doing this in a quite calculating way, understanding that they can get maximum value from those investments.
So I believe that the economic arguments are plainly in favour of our trad-
1306
ing with black Africa, and we must accept that we put at risk some of that trade if we suddenly ditch our policy on sanctions against Rhodesia in return for some small trade from there. People may argue that we could call the bluff, but I just do not think we can take that risk. We have far too much at stake in the African countries to take that risk.
Mr. Robert Taylor: I have been following my hon. Friend's speech, and I understood that he castigated those who were breaching the sanctions regulations because they were putting their own interests first. Surely his whole speech suggesting that we should maintain sanctions is based upon the idea that it is in our interests to do so, and therefore he wishes us to put our own interests first.
Mr. Haselhurst: Yes, indeed I do. I believe that we must put our interests first, but we must also take into account how we are judged by other nations. Whether or not my hon. Friend likes it, the fact is that some countries attribute to us a higher standard in our dealings than they do to other countries. Certain other countries may get away with certain policies, because people say "That is what one would expect of those countries." But those countries with which we had a former relationship do not expect that behaviour of us, and are likely to react more bitterly and more sharply if we let them down in that way.
The second point that I wish to make in my defence of British interests is that, diplomatically speaking, we have to look not merely one, two or five years ahead but much further ahead than that. We shall have to live in a world in which the Asian and African countries, no doubt having suffered various constitutional traumas, will be major countries in the world with which we shall have to deal. I want to be on talking terms with those countries. I want this country to be influential with the third world, and I do not believe that we shall give much encouragement to the third world to deal with us if we appear to be aligning ourselves with a minority white régime in Southern Africa, which appears to be overriding its clear obligations. I believe that we should stand up for what we

1307
believe to be right in relation to Rhodesia, and that will stand us in good stead in our diplomacy in the years ahead.
So, while I believe that the hopes to which we cling when we discuss the renewal of sanctions are fainter, I do not think they have been completely extinguished, and, because the price is not too high to achieve a multi-racial solution, we should make one further effort to try to work towards it. I believe that, on any reasonable analysis, it is in Britain's interests to maintain the sanctions. If hon. Members cannot be swept into the Lobby with any sense of burning idealism in support of sanctions tonight, I believe that a serious count of British interests should take all hon. Members into the Lobby in support of the Government tonight.
10.4 p.m.
Mr. John Stokes: I want to vote, and, therefore, I shall be brief. I have always believed that sanctions do not work, never can work and, in the end, are nothing less than a counsel of despair. I also believe, having listened to the whole of this debate, that the force of argument has been entirely against the further imposition of sanctions. I am sorry to differ from my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, for whom I have the greatest admiration, not least for how he has acted recently in the Arab-Israeli war, but I simply cannot follow him this time, as I have not previously for many years, down the primrose path to sanctions.
I had not intended earlier to take part in this debate, which I believe has become something of an annual bore, but this morning I was at a very large gathering of my constituents, and when I told them that I was coming here to listen to this debate and that I was going to vote against sanctions they said "We absolutely agree; why do you not speak for us?" I believe that I am speaking for many more people than just my constituents. I particularly ask hon. Members opposite whether they know or think about or care for the views of their constituents on this matter.
Every year we are led to expect that sanctions will be applied for the last time, and here we are proposing to apply them once more. I enjoyed very much, as I
1308
always do, the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), who, in my view, is equally good on Ireland and on Africa. He said, what I believe is very true, that in continuing to impose sanctions we are giving way to some feeling in the United Nations and to black Africa.
I believe—and I say this with great regret as I see that my right hon. Friend has come into the Chamber again—that the Government have lost touch not only with the realities of power but with the wishes of the vast majority of the people in this country. After all, what do people think? They cannot understand, for instance, why General Amin is allowed entirely to get away with it, while Mr. Smith alone is pilloried. Almost every African leader to whose country we have given freedom has torn up the constitution and substituted dictatorship of one-party rule, and often with very rigorous repression of minorities.
Rhodesia is more or less ahead of these black African States, and is certainly a far freer and happier country than South Africa. Surely we must admit that something worth while has been built up by the British and more recently by other European people in Rhodesia. Naturally, they are proud of their achievement. Amid the chaos and brutality around them in other African States, can we blame the Europeans if they say "What we have we hold, and when we give way we give way in our own time and in our own manner"?
The Government in Rhodesia are under attack by cruel and ruthless terrorists supported by Powers which we all know, are enemies of this country. I regret to say that by our sanctions we would appear to be aiding and abetting the aims of those vicious attacks. The Government still behave as if we once ruled Rhodesia from here, which we never did. Their legal case now looks doubtful. We have certainly given our trade rivals in other countries a field day and, to my mind worst of all, we have allowed the United Nations, if I may coin a phrase, to poke its unacceptable face into this tragedy.
I believe the time has come to end this piece of nonsense as quickly as possible and to take off sanctions before the position becomes utterly untenable. This

1309
time last year many of my hon. Friends said that they would vote for sanctions for the last time. I hoped this time they will vote with the courage of their convictions.
10.10 p.m.
Mr. Evelyn King: I listened with care to the interesting speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Mr. Haselhurst). I hope that he will forgive me for saying that he was shooting at an enemy which is not there. No one regards Rhodesians as their kith and kin—at least I do not. I am no supporter of Mr. Smith. That is not the point at issue. What my hon. Friend was doing, although I am sure he did not mean to, was speaking as an imperialist. He is convinced that, as it did in the past, Great Britain controls Central Africa. That is the greatest illusion of all time. What matters is not whether the Government of Rhodesia are good or bad, any more than it matters whether the Norwegian Government are good or bad. What matters is that, for good reasons, we have not a single soldier or sailor from the Cape to Cairo. That is perfectly right, that is how it should be, but do not let us imagine that we are still an influential Power in Central Africa. We are not. That is the point my hon. Friend missed.
To support the re-imposition of sanctions tonight is to support something that is unlawful. Those who heard the then Sir Lionel Heald's speech of a few years ago will remember his eloquence and learning on this subject. The United Nations can impose sanctions only on a sovereign state which is a Member of the United Nations. The argument of the United Nations is that Rhodesia is not a sovereign State which is a member of the country to Great Britain. If that be so, then no sanctions under the United Nations Charter can lawfully be imposed.
It is clearly laid down in the United Nations Charter that any State that offends in a way in which it is suggested that Rhodesia has offended must have the right to appear before the United Nations and put its case. Rhodesia sought to appear, but consent was refused. So twice the United Nations has breached its own charter. I know the argument that the United Nations can breach its charter and do anything it likes, but
1310
it is a rash argument to accept. What we propose to do tonight is unlawful within the meaning of international law, and I take that seriously.
There are those who believe that what we are doing tonight is moral. Believe me, there is no morality whatever in it. Not for one moment does the Foreign Office believe that. We must face the fact that we are being realist. In the General Assembly of the United Nations since 1965 there has been an Afro-Asian majority, now numbering 75 out of 135. Not long ago I spoke to a Foreign Office official in the United Nations, and I take the point that it can be argued that we must in no circumstances offend that majority. If there be a case for what is proposed tonight, that is the case, and no other. It is the case of reality in politics. I do not take that view. As recent months have shown, to take that view is to run grave risks. The Afro-Asian majority is as powerful in the cause against Israel as it is in the cause of Rhodesia.
We have a duty to the Afro-Asian nations, which I have never denied, to give them aid and to do all we can for them. We have no duty to be dominated by them, and that is the trap into which, with respect, my right hon. Friend has fallen. Not only in Rhodesia and Israel but in a dozen other instances as the years go by this policy, if pursued, can lead us and the whole of Europe into disaster. We should help these nations, we have an obligation to them—yes, yes and yes again—but it would be fatal to accept that we should be guided by them in policy.
I want to say something constructive. I fully understand our difficulties. I fully understand my right hon. Friend's difficulties in facing the United Nations—the fact that this was placed in the hands of the United Nations by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson), and that, because it is in the hands of the United Nations, it is difficult for Britain unilaterally to withdraw.
But there is a way out of it. I earnestly suggest that we should go to the United Nations—not a difficult thing to do—and say "There are doubts about what ought to have been done but we have for nine years used sanctions in the hope of bringing about a solution. It is now abundantly clear that this method

1311
has not been a success—that is indisputable. None the less, if it is the view of the United Nations that they should be continued, and if every member is willing jointly to see that they are continued, we will agree to participate, because clearly Britain alone, or almost alone, will not bear the heat and burden of the day while Japan and dozens of other nations, even African nations, are now breaching sanctions right, left and centre, and we cannot, in justice, equity or good sense be persuaded to go on alone."
That we can say, and say fairly. We can say that we do not wish to hurry the matter and that we can go on, if the United Nations wishes it, for another six months but that if in that time we still find ourselves alone, we shall not go on any further. That is not an illiberal thing to say, or unreasonable. It is something which could be said.
In the last three years we have heard my right hon. Friend on this side of the House with patience and admiration—and let me be careful here. My right hon. Friend never said, "This will be the last year", but again and again we have caught the inference that, "Perhaps, if we are lucky, this is likely to be the last year." It has always been untrue. I hope that this really is the last year. Perhaps my suggestion is not acceptable, for other solutions may be put forward. But it is practical, and I beg the Government to take note of the weight of opinion now behind them and which has been behind them for many years.
10.18 p.m.
Mr. Richard: I hope that the House will allow me to say a few words in winding up the debate, although I am conscious that I opened it for the Opposition. In my defence, I should point out that one of the reasons I wish to speak again is that we thought it perhaps best to have only one speaker from the Opposition Front Bench, as, thereby speeches from the Labour benches may be somewhat shortened, as they have been.
In some ways this has been a vintage debate even for Rhodesian sanctions renewal order debates. But I seem to detect this year that the feeling displayed by hon. Members, particularly hon. Members opposite, was deeper than it was last year and deeper than it has been for many
1312
years past. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am not sure that I should be grateful for that applause, although of course I welcome it.
The reason for this is perhaps that the real divide in principle becomes more apparent as the years go on. It is clear, as I said earlier, that there is no real division in principle between the policies being pursued by the present Government and the policies which the Labour Government were pursuing and which we would now advocate. I said, and repeat, that I believe that having a renewal of sanctions in this way each year is basically a farce and a charade, because most people in the House of Commons and in the country now agree that the proper policy towards Rhodesia is one in which we maintain sanctions, that by maintaining sanctions we thereby keep up the economic and international pressures on the present Government in Rhodesia, and as result we hope that some kind of political movement will take place there. If that is right—and anyone who sat through this debate tonight will agree that the views expressed here, while they may represent a certain view in the Conservative Party, cannot be said to be fairly representative of the House as a whole or of the views in the country as a whole—[Interruption.] I do not mind being howled at by people who have been here throughout the debate, but I do object to being howled at by someone who has just rolled in.
If my general point is correct, namely, that there is a broad consensus on this issue between the two Front Benches and the two parties and throughout the country, it is understandable that, as the years have gone on and hon. Members below the Gangway have advanced their views with great sincerity—the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) and I crossed swords on Rhodesia in November 1965 and have expressed the same views, although I hope not in the same terms, since then—the divide should have become clearer in the Tory Party, the views more deeply held and perhaps more bitter.
What I beg hon. Members to consider for a moment is not just the effect that sanctions may be having in Rhodesia but what the effect would be on our international standing if sanctions were now to be removed. The hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King)

1313
recently spent some time at the United Nations and it is noteworthy that, having done so, he did not join in the general condemnation of that organisation in which some of his hon. Friends were prone to indulge this evening.
Can anyone doubt that if we were now to remove sanctions against Rhodesia the effect on Britain's position in relation to other African and Asian countries, and, indeed, some of our closest allies within the Atlantic alliance, would be seriously damaged?
Have hon. Members considered the effect on our relationship with the United States? The Byrd Amendment is being considered by Congress. The administration this year, unlike last year, have seriously campaigned for the abolition of that amendment. If Congress does what it is anticipated it will do over that amendment, we shall find ourselves in two or three weeks in the most extraordinary situation—the United States reimposing a sanction in relation to chrome precisely when the United Kingdom, by a vote of the House of Commons, was removing general sanctions. We should be in a ludicrous position.
The evidence now is overwhelming that sanctions are justifiable both in relation to their effect within Rhodesia—economically, it makes sense for us to continue them—and also in relation to our international standing. If we did as hon. Members opposite wish us to do we should be putting ourselves on the wrong side of the racial confrontation which is taking place in southern Africa.
10.25 p.m.
The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Lord Balniel): This is the eighth time that we have debated the renewal of sanctions. On the whole there have been the same speakers developing the same arguments year after year. As always in these debates, there have been hard words spoken, and there have been constructive speeches. I apologise in that I missed the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and Shoreham (Mr. Luce). Whatever views have been expressed, they have always been deeply felt and spoken with great sincerity. I am afraid that because the same speeches have been made year after year the House
1314
will have to hear some of the same arguments in reply.
The hon. and learned Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) argued in his opening speech, and repeated it a moment ago, that we should take powers to avoid this annual debate. I see his argument, that it would be convenient for Governments to take such powers. But the imposition of sanctions on a dependent territory is a serious matter indeed. It is not right to sweep it under the carpet and allow it to be forgotten by the House. It is valuable to examine the actualities of what is happening in Rhodesia. It is valuable, too, that the House should have the opportunity of noting any changes that have taken place. The fact that so many hon. Members have spoken and expressed such strongly-held views and should have the opportunity of recording their vote is of real value in a democratic society, and I am not sure that it is something I would remove in present circumstances.
As I said, it is the eighth time that we have had to debate the renewal of sanctions. It is natural that there is great frustration and disappointment in every section of the House that we have to debate this again. Such disappointment means that we have had to examine very carefully once more the argument for and against renewal, but we cannot allow our natural frustration to take the place of judgment in debate.
Because of recent developments in Rhodesia, which my right hon. Friend described in opening the debate, it would be quite wrong for us simply to turn aside from the problem at this time and say that it is too difficult to solve. Although he is not here, I will refer to the hard words spoken by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). He used the hardest words of all when he said that Governments of both parties, and our society, were imbued with decadent appeasement. What has happened is that British Governments have asserted their responsibility for several millions of black Africans, and although our power on the ground is limited—
Mr. Ronald Bell: Hear, hear.
Lord Balniel: —we have from year to year re-asserted our responsibility. What

1315
the hon. and learned Gentleman implied was that we had given in to the pressures of Black Africa. What he was saying was that we should surrender to Mr. Smith, give up, wash our hands of it and surrender any hope of reaching a multi-racial society.
I will try to deal briefly with some of the questions that have been raised. I feel I must make one general point. The fact that sanctions have now continued for some time in no way means that we feel that they should automatically be continued. They should be re-examined in the present circumstances. But the question we have to ask is not whether it was right to impose sanctions for the first time but whether lifting then, now without a settlement—with all the emotional and political difficulties and consequences that would flow from that decision—will contribute to the talks between the parties concerned and the restoration of legal government.
We have to ask whether any alternative put forward is more likely to result in the restoration of legal government or is more likely to assist the talks that have begun inside Rhodesia. Many hon. Members have expressed doubts as to whether those talks will get anywhere. Many have been sceptical, and maybe they are right. No one can prophesy. Undoubtedly the situation is changing in Rhodesia, surely when, for the first time, talks are taking place, it is not the right time to give up. I understand the strength of the arguments involved but I rather doubted the logical position adopted in his interesting and knowledgeable speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), who said that if he were Foreign Secretary he would probably introduce the order but, since he is a back-bencher, he will vote against it.
Mr. Wall: The point was that the Foreign Secretary must do what he thinks right. My contention was that Conservative leaders should never have got us into this situation, and I gave three examples of how this could have been avoided.
Lord Balniel: Those words are better addressed to the right hon. Gentlemen on the Labour benches than to the Government.
1316
Many of my hon. Friends have argued that it is right to withdraw sanctions now without having achieved a settlement. The arguments that these have developed have been broadly along the lines that sanctions have not worked effectively and that they have hit hardest at the Africans It is also argued that we are losing, and have lost, the Rhodesian market to less scrupulous commercial rivals. I understand the feelings of those who advance these arguments. They have considerable force but they are only part of the picture. We all know that sanctions have not been as effective as those who began them claimed they would be. They will not force a political settlement but they do have an effect. This is particularly the case in relation to Rhodesia's foreign exchange and capital position. This and the inability to obtain international recognition.
Sir Gilbert Longden: On the question of foreign exchange, though sanctions have to continue, which I accept on balance, I should like my right hon. Friends to give some attention to the plight of two groups of quite innocent people. These are the British subjects who went to Rhodesia to retire long before UDI and cannot get their money out of England. They are not supporters of the Smith régime. The second group are those people who were sold Southern Rhodesia stock and cannot now get either their capital or their interest. I beg my right hon. Friends to give consideration to these two groups. They could be helped without damaging the sanctions policy.
Lord Balniel: My hon. Friend has raised two specific issues which it is impossible for me to comment on in detail straight away. Where there are humanitarian reasons for trying to ease the impact of sanctions, which we can do, we certainly will do so. I will consider the two specific points raised by my hon. Friend.
The shortage of foreign exchange is a factor, not a compelling one I agree, which has led to the holding of talks which have recently taken place in Rhodesia. My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Soref) and other hon. Members pointed out in urging the lifting of sanctions that Africans were being hardest hit. They said that Africans

1317
leaving school found it difficult to get jobs; their housing and education programmes were being delayed. That is probably all true. But we must not forget what the Pearce Commission said about the African response to sanctions. It said:
"Sanctions might affect the Africans more seriously than the Europeans, but this was the price (the Africans) were ready to pay."
If one were to remove sanctions today without a settlement the prospect of getting an inter-racial agreement within Rhodesia would completely disappear. The moderates who are talking would be swept aside by the extremists.
The third leg of the argument concerns Britain's trading interest. Here it is possible to develop totally contradictory arguments as did the hon. and learned Member for Barons Court. I am not using this as an argument for the maintenance of the status quo, but it is a fact that our trade with Rhodesia, if sanctions were lifted, would be a very small element by comparison with the £1,500 million of trade we do every year with Africa south of the Sahara.
Our overall trade in Africa is a consideration which we must all weigh up very carefully when we speak in terms of Britain's trading interest. It is not only with Rhodesia or only with South Africa: it is with a multitude of sovereign countries in Africa.
The more general argument of those who would like to see sanctions lifted is that they are actually driving the community, especially the Europeans, into more extreme intransigent attitudes. I think that the decisive argument for maintaining the status quo is to look at what is happening on the ground in Rhodesia, and it is not a picture of the two communities becoming more extreme. It is true that there is terrorism and extremism, but the main political parties are now involved in talks.
For the first time there have been discussions between Mr. Smith and Bishop Muzorewa, the leader of the African National Council. It may seem
1318
a very small step towards a satisfactory settlement, but it is a step in the direction of conciliation and moderation.
It may be true that there are some people who, out of a sense of defiance and feeling isolated, have become more extreme. But if we were to end sanctions now, with the talks going on but with no settlement reached, we should turn our backs on those who are working hardest for a settlement. It is from these people in Rhodesia that agreement must come—
Mr. Hastings: May we have some precision here? How long have these talks been going on, who has been taking part in them, and what evidence is there of progress?
Lord Balniel: The talks are taking place between the African National Council and the Rhodesian Front, and they have been taking place during the past year. Mr. Smith and Bishop Muzorewa met in July, and the talks have been going on within the parties since then. Only last month, for example, the African National Council issued a unanimous statement saying that it wished these talks to continue. There have also been talks at other levels—for example, between the African National Council and the Rhodesia Party. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary pointed out, they have reached agreement on 12 principles for a multiracial society which they wish to see established in Rhodesia.
My point is that if we were to drop sanctions in breach of our international obligations under the United Nations Charter the control of events would almost certainly be swept out of the hands of moderate Africans and Europeans. While talks were still going on, and before a settlement had been reached, there would be such an emotional reaction in Rhodesia and outside that any hope of a settlement would be swept away.
For those briefly deployed but, I hope cogent reasons, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends and the House as a whole to support the order.
Question put:—

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965 (Continuation) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 18th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

The House divided: Ayes 133, Noes 26.

Division No. 5.

AYES

[10.40 p.m.

Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

Grylls, Michael

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

Atkins, Humphrey

Gummer, J. Selwyn

Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

Austick, David

Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

Redmond, Robert

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Haselhurst, Alan

Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord

Hatton, F.

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Benyon, W.

Havers, Sir Michael

Richard, Ivor

Blaker, Peter

Hawkins, Paul

Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

Hicks, Robert

Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Booth, Albert

Higgins, Terence L.

Roper, John

Bray, Ronald

Hooson, Emlyn

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

Hornby, Richard

Royle, Anthony

Bryan, Sir Paul

Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

St. John-Stevas, Norman

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

Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

Scott, Nicholas

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Hunt, John

Scott-Hopkins, James

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

Jenkin, Rt. Hn. Patrick (Woodford)

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

Carlisle, Mark

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

Shelton, William (Clapham)

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

Simeons, Charles

Channon, Paul

Jopling, Michael

Sinclair, Sir George

Chapman, Sydney

Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

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

Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

Kaufman, Gerald

Speed, Keith

Chichester-Clark, R.

Kirk, Peter

Sproat, Iain

Clegg, Walter

Knox, David

Stanbrook, Ivor

Concannon, J. D.

Lamont, Norman

Steel, David

Costain, A. P.

Lawson, George

Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

Critchley, Julian

Lestor, Miss Joan

Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

Crowder, F. P.

Longden, Sir Gilbert

Sutcliffe, John

Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

Loveridge, John

Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

Dean, Paul

Luce, R. N.

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

Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

Torney, Tom

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

McCrindle, R. A.

Tugendhat, Christopher

Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John

McLaren, Martin

Urwin, T. W.

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

McNair-Wilson, Michael

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Ellis, Tom

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

Emery, Peter

Milne, Edward

Waddington, David

Eyre, Reginald

Money, Ernle

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

Monro, Hector

Ward, Dame Irene

Fidler, Michael

Neave, Airey

Weatherill, Bernard

Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

Nott, John

Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Onslow, Cranley

Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

Fowler, Norman

Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

Younger, Hn. George

Fox, Marcus

Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

Gibson-Watt, David

Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

Percival, Ian

Mr. Hamish Gray and

Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

Mr. A. G. F. Hall-Davis.

Green, Alan

Prescott, John

NOES

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Stokes, John

Bell, Ronald

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

Boscawen, Hn. Robert

Kinsey, J. R.

Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

Bruce-Gardyne, J.

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

Mudd, David

Wall, Patrick

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Winterton, Nicholas

Dixon, Piers

Rost, Peter

Drayson, G. B.

Skeet, T. H. H.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Fell, Anthony

Soref, Harold

Mr. John Biggs-Davison and

Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

Mr. Stephen Hastings.

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

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

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

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

Ordered,
That the Committee do consist of Fourteen Members.
And the Committee was nominated of Mr. David Crouch, Mr. Jack Dormand, Mr. Peter Fry, Mr. John Golding, Mr. Green, Sir John Hall, Mr. Brynmor John, Sir Donald Kaberry, Mr. Russell Kerr, Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson, Mr. John Prescott, Mr. Robert Redmond, Mr. Stewart-Smith, and Mr. David Stoddart.
Ordered,
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to adjourn from place to place and to report from time to time.
Ordered,
That the Committee have power to report from time to time the Minutes of the Evidence taken before the Committee.
Ordered,
That the Committee have power to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purpose of particular inquiries, either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee's order of reference.
Ordered,
That Five be the Quorum of the Committee.
Ordered,
That the Committee have power to appoint Sub-committees and to refer to such Sub-Committees any of the matters referred to the Committee.
Ordered,
That every such Sub-Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; to report to the Committee from time to time; and to adjourn from place to place.
Ordered,
That Three be the Quorum of every such Sub-committe.
Ordered,
That the Committee have power to report from time to time any Minutes of Evidence taken before such Sub-committees.
Ordered,
That the Minutes of Evidence reported to the House by the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries on 24th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be referred to the Committee.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]

CONSOLIDATION, &c., BILLS
Ordered,
That the Lords Message [6th November] relating to the Committee on Consolidation, &c.. Bills be now considered.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]
Lords Message considered accordingly.
The Committee to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords on the Joint Committee on Consolidation, &c., Bills was nominated of Mr. Peter Archer, Mr. Robert Cooke, Mr. Richard Crawshaw, Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke, Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman, Mr. Ian Percival, Mr. Peter Rees, Mr. John Smith, Mr. David Waddington, Mr. William Wells, Mr. Jerry Wiggin, and Mr. William Wilson.
Ordered,
That Two be the Quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]
Message to the Lords to acquaint them with the Order necessary to be communicated to their Lordships.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS (JOINT COMMITTEE)
Ordered,
That the Lords Message 6th November relating to a Joint Committee of both Houses to scrutinise delegated legislation be now considered.
Lords Message considered accordingly.
Ordered,
That a Select Committee be appointed to join with a Committee appointed by the Lords to consider:—

(1) Every instrument which is laid before each House of Parliament and upon which

1323
proceedings may be or might have been taken in either House of Parliament, in pursuance of an Act of Parliament; being

(a) a statutory instrument, or a draft of a statutory instrument;

(b) a scheme, or an amendment of a scheme, or draft thereof, requiring approval by statutory instrument;

(c) any other instrument (whether or not in draft), where the proceedings in pursuance of an Act of Parliament are proceedings by way of an affirmative resolution; or

(d) an order subject to special parliamentary procedure.

(2) Every general statutory instrument not within the foregoing classes, and not required to be laid before or to be subject to proceedings in this House only, but not including Measures under the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919 and instruments made under such Measures, with a view to determining whether the special attention of the House should be drawn to it on any of the following grounds—

(i) that it imposes a charge on the public revenues or contains provisions requiring payments to be made to the Exchequer or any Government Department or to any local or public authority in consideration of any licence or consent or of any services to be rendered, or prescribes the amount of any such charge or payment;

(ii) that it is made in pursuance of any enactment containing specific provisions excluding it from challenge in the courts, either at all times or after the expiration of a specific period:

(iii) that it purports to have retrospective effect where the parent Statute confers no express authority so to provide;

(iv) that there appears to have been unjustifiable delay in the publication or in the laying of it before Parliament;

(v) that there appears to have been unjustifiable delay in sending a notification under the proviso to subsection (1) of section four of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946, where an Instrument has come into operation before it has been laid before Parliament;

(vi) that there appears to be a doubt whether it is intra vires or that it appears to make some unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the Statute under which it is made;

(vii) that for any special reason its form or purport call for elucidation;

(viii) that its drafting appears to be defective; or

on any other ground which does not impinge on its merits or on the policy behind it; and to report their decision with the reasons thereof in any particular case:—And the Committee was nominated of Mr. Ronald Bell, Mr. Albert Booth, Mr. Edward Gardner, Mr. Arthur Latham, Mr. Ernie Money, Mr. Ronald King Murray, and Mr. David Waddington.

Ordered,
That Two be the Quorum of the Committee.
Ordered,
That the Committee have power to appoint one or more Sub-committees severally to join with any Sub-committee or Sub-committees appointed by the Committee appointed by the Lords; and to refer to such Sub-committee or Sub-committees any of the matters referred to the Committee.
Ordered,
That the Committee and any Sub-Committee appointed by them shall have the assistance of the Counsel to Mr. Speaker and, if their Lordships think fit, of the Counsel to the Lord Chairman of Committees.
Ordered,
That the Committee have power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House and to repot from time to time, and that any Sub-committee appointed by them have power to sit notwithstanding and adjournment of the House.
Ordered,
That the Committee and any Sub-committee appointed by them have power to require any Government department concerned to submit a memorandum explaining any instrument which may be under their consideration or to depute a representative to appear before them as a Witness for the purpose of explaining any such instrument.
Ordered,
That the Committee and any Sub-committee appointed by them have power to take evidence, written or oral, from Her Majesty's Stationery Office, relating to the printing and publication of any instrument.
Ordered,
That the Committee have power to report to the House from time to time any Memorandum submitted to them or other evidence taken before them or any Sub-committee appointed by them from any Government department in explanation of any instrument.
Ordered,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee that before reporting that the special attention of the House be drawn to any instrument the Committee do afford to any Government department concerned therewith an opportunity of furnishing orally or in writing to them or to any Sub-committee appointed by them such explanations as the department think fit.
Ordered,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they do consider any instrument which is directed by Act of Parliament to be laid before and to be subject to proceedings in this House only, being—

(a) statutory instruments, or drafts of statutory instruments;

(b) schemes, or amendments of schemes, or drafts thereof, requiring approval by statutory instrument; or

1325

(c) any other instrument (whether or not in draft), where the proceedings in pursuance of an Act of Parliament are proceedings by way of an affirmative resolution;

and that they have power to draw such instruments to the special attention of the House on any of the grounds on which the Joint Committee are empowered so to draw the special attention of the House; and that in considering any such instrument the Committee do not join with the Committee appointed by the Lords.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkin.]
Message to the Lords to acquaint them with such of the said Orders as are necessary to be communicated to their Lordships.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS (JOINT COMMITTEE)
  ADJOURNMENT
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Gray.]

COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDERS
10.56 p.m.
Mr. F. P. Crowder: I shall not detain the House too long this evening on a matter which affects my constituency, but it is a matter which is very important to my constituents since it relates to compulsory purchase orders. These compulsory purchase orders are being made in Northwood, Ruislip and in other places.
I believe that local government should be local. We are a new borough but we do not begin to be "local" because people in Hayes and in the outskirts of Ruislip have not the same ideas and feelings as those who live in Northwood.
I am sorry to have to bring this matter before Parliament, since it is a matter which is a particularly local issue, but I have been into the subject very carefully and have been enjoined by many people to give the matter an airing in Parliament on the basis that the spirit of the Act is not being put into effect by the local council. To give an illustration of the feelings that exist in my area on this subject, a lady in my constituency told me the other day that when she received one of these compulsory purchase orders through the post, she literally shook from head to foot.
Great unhappiness and distress has been caused to a section of my con-
1326
stituency by an absolutely callous local council. I say, as a Member of Parliament, that this is something I will not stand for, and that is why I bring this matter to the attention of the House.
The Act was designed on the basis that local councils were responsible bodies, but when one comes across a council which acts utterly irresponsibly, and which takes an extreme view—I do not wish to bring in politics here, but it is difficult not to do so—there comes a moment of time when a Member of Parliament has to come to the House and say so.
I wish to ask the Minister one or two questions. First, how can an owner-occupier defend his land against a council that possesses compulsory purchase powers? Secondly, what action can residents take to avoid the destruction of their environment in relation to the Act? It may be that, thanks to the irresponsibility of the council in whose area my constituents reside, we shall eventually have to amend the Act.
What action can an owner-occupier take if a compulsory purchase order affecting his property is made? Can anything be done to reduce the time taken—and this is very important—to take a decision on compulsory purchase orders? It is the waiting that is such a problem. My constituents are very upset about this matter, and that is why I raise it in the House. I understand that compulsory purchase orders on housing require the confirmation of the Secretary of State in every case—I think under Sections 38 and 39 of the Act. Should not a similar procedure apply to planning applications in respect of a local authority's own schemes? I do not like to bring local matters before the House of Commons, but when I see an Act being misused and misinterpreted in this way I feel that I have a duty to do so.
10.51 p.m.
Sir Gilbert Longden: I shall not delay my hon. Friend's reply a second longer than I need, because I am very anxious to hear his answers to the extremely pertinent questions which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ruislip—Northwood (Mr. Crowther) put to him. I intervene merely to say that my constituents are close neighbours of my hon. Friend's,

1327
and these compulsory purchase orders will very grievously affect them and the value of their properties and the whole character of the place in which they live. They are grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for what he is doing and I strongly support all that he said.
10.52 p.m.
Mr. Michael Shersby: I am very grateful for the opportunity to intervene briefly in this debate, because my constituency of Uxbridge is immediately adjoining the constituency represented by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ruislip—Northwood (Mr. Crowder).
My constituents, too, are suffering from the policies which are being pursued by the London Borough of Hillingdon. Like many other London boroughs, Hillingdon has a long housing waiting list and it must therefore pursue energetic policies if it is to solve its housing problems. But I believe that these policies should be such as would command the support of all the community. The council is doing much that is worthy of support. It is providing easy and quick mortgages and it is building houses for sale as well as for letting, and these are proper policies for a local authority to pursue. But, unhappily, the council is making what I regard as excessive use of the power of compulsory purchase as a general instrument of housing policy.
The position is that between 1st January 1972 and 12th October 1973 34 compulsory purchase orders have been made. I have been reading the Statute this evening, and I find that the compulsory purchase powers which were originally granted by Parliament under the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation of Procedure) Act 1946 were designed to provide an instrument to help rebuild our cities and rehouse our people after the Second World War. I believe that the excessive use of these powers in 1973 is completely unacceptable to the vast majority of my constituents, in the same way as it is unacceptable to the constituents represented by my hon. Friends. Many of my constituents feel that their homes or land may be suddenly and compulsorily acquired without their consent.
1328
Before I came to this House, I spent 12 years in local government as a councillor in two London boroughs whose housing problems were as severe as—perhaps more severe than—those of Hillingdon. But during that period the compulsory purchase powers were sparingly used, and were used only when some development of very important local or national interest was involved. I believe that that is how compulsory purchase powers should be used. I am quite sure that they are not intended to be used as a massive blunderbuss to acquire almost every piece of land that comes on to the market, or to acquire the homes and businesses of my constituents without their consent.
It is not only the number of compulsory purchase orders involved that is causing concern; it is also the brutal approach made to owners to purchase their properties on the basis that if they do not do so, a compulsory purchase order will be issued.
Concurrently with this policy, my local authority is proposing to purchase up to 500 miscellaneous properties on the open market at a capital cost of over £7· million. I therefore ask my hon. Friend to give me some assurance that if these properties cannot be acquired on the open market he will not look with favour on the use of compulsory purchase.
It also seems to be the policy of Hillingdon Council to drive out of the borough the local private developers whose contribution to the housing target plays an essential part in the building of a balanced and happy community. Developers in Hillingdon, some of whom have been building houses there for more than 150 years, find that if they assemble a parcel of land for building it is acquired by the local authority for municipal housing. If the developer refuses to sell, he has to wait a year or more before my right hon. Friend is able to decide whether he will confirm a compulsory purchase order. Few developers can afford to wait so long with their money tied up in land at today's prices. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend, when he replies, will say that he will discourage wholesale acquisition of land from private developers and will speed up the consideration of compulsory purchase orders.

1329
I hope that this short debate has drawn attention to a very serious local situation in my constituency which is causing much fear, bitterness and division amongst local residents.
11.1 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Reginald Eyre): I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ruislip—Northwood (Mr. Crowder) for raising this important subject and I will certainly do my best to answer the questions which he has raised. I have also noted carefully the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Sir Gilbert Longden).
I am well aware of the controversy in the constituency of my hon. and learned Friend over the London borough of Hillingdon's proposals to acquire and redevelop a number of residential sites in Northwood and elsewhere, and I welcome the opportunity provided by this debate to say something in general terms about the use of compulsory purchase powers and the safeguards provided by the legislation, with special reference to London housing.
My hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friends who have taken part in this debate will appreciate that because of the Secretary of State's quasi-judicial position in relation to planning and compulsory purchase procedures, I cannot comment in any way on individual cases. But perhaps I should start by sketching in the background of the London housing scene against which decisions on these matters have to be taken.
The House does not need to be reminded that we are faced in London with a very serious and urgent housing situation, reflected in an overall shortage of dwellings, an ageing and deteriorating housing stock, overcrowding, poor housing conditions and homelessness.
The largest and worst London housing problems are to be found within the inner London area, where the authorities cannot possibly meet all their need from within their own areas. They must look outside London and to the outer London boroughs for some assistance, either directly or through the strategic activities of the Greater London Council, and, of course, we expect that a lot of new housing land will be found in the dockland.
1330
It is up to each London borough to work out a housing strategy in terms of its own local needs and circumstances, but the Government ask all boroughs to ensure that they make the best possible use of available resources and, in the case of the outer London boroughs, that they do what they can to help inner London.
How they arrange this is entirely a matter for them, subject of course to any necessary statutory, financial or other approvals. Housing is essentially a local matter, to be dealt with by democratically elected local authorities, within a broad framework of policy laid down by the Government and incorporated in legislation sanctioned by Parliament.
The methods available to a London borough when planning its housing strategy include, for example, the provision of local authority building to rent or for sale; assistance to housing associations; and encouraging the private sector to provide dwellings of the right type and within the right price range. Local authorities, housing associations and the private sector can also work to secure the improvement and conversion of existing dwellings; to ensure that much needed empty dwellings are brought back into use as soon as is reasonably possible; and to see that an adequate supply of existing rented accommodation is retained within the borough.
When there is such a diverse range of policies and activities to choose from, I would hope that all the London housing authorities, whatever their circumstances and political persuasion, will continue to co-operate in a team effort to deal with London's housing problems as a whole.
The Action Group on London Housing, in its Third Interim Report, identified additional land for 24,400 dwellings in 1972–81 as firmly available in Greater London, but this still leaves land for a further 16,000 dwellings to be firmly identified, if the impetus of the drive to eliminate London's housing shortage is to be maintained during this period.
The action group and the Department are continuing their efforts to close the gap, but in this sort of situation it is clearly imperative that the best possible use should be made of the land which has already been identified. One important factor in this concerns the density at

1331
which sites are developed, and perhaps I might refer here to Circular 122/73 addressed to local authorities, which pointed out that while the Government do not favour very high densities, a consequence of developing land at very low densities could be to release for housing a needlessly large amount of land which is well suited to its existing use.
Subject to the Greater London Council's strategic planning responsibilities, the House will appreciate that each of the London boroughs is the planning authority in its own area. Where a proposal does not involve a substantial departure from the initial development plan, the borough can, in the first instance, determine the application itself in consultation as necessary with the GLC. This is of course based on the fact that the approval of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, or his predecessor, the Minister of Housing and Local Government, was given to the development plan's provisions; their detailed implementation, whether by private or public agency, almost invariably involves only local issues.
Where, on the other hand, both the borough council and the GLC wish to allow development which involves a substantial departure from the plan—such as housing in the Green Belt—the application has to be referred to my right hon. and learned Friend. If any such application, or, indeed, one which accords with the plan, raises issues which are of more than local importance, my right hon. and learned Friend can use his reserve power to call it in for his own decision. But I must emphasise that he uses this power only exceptionally since he is most anxious that the local planning authorities, who again are democratically elected bodies, should be, and be seen to be, responsible and accountable to their electorate for the day-to-day administration of planning control in their areas.
These procedures apply to proposals for private development and for development by the local planning authorities themselves.
If a would-be developer, whether a private builder or a local authority, does not own the land covered by an application for planning permission, notice of the proposals must be served on the owner and he has an opportunity to make
1332
his views known to the local planning authority before it determines the application. Where a substantial departure from the development plan is involved, the proposals must also be advertised in the local Press, and objections can be made to the authority. Apart from this and a few other limited categories where there is a statutory requirement to advertise proposals for development, publicity is a matter for the local planning authorities.
My right hon. and learned Friend issued a circular in June last—No. 71/73—encouraging authorities to give publicity to the more important applications where the general public interest is involved, and they were also asked to give publicity to their own development proposals similar to that for private development proposals. Once planning permission is granted either to a private developer or to a local planning authority for its own development there is no right of appeal by the landowner or nearby residents against that permission. But any landowner can of course refuse to sell his land to a would-be developer, including a local authority, and it can only be taken from him if a compulsory purchase order is made and confirmed by my right hon. and learned Friend.
Where a local authority has a housing need and proposes to acquire land compulsorily for housing purposes, it can proceed under Part V of the Housing Act 1957 to make a compulsory purchase order and submit it for the Secretary of State's consideration. I must emphasise that the making of such an order, or, indeed, a whole series of orders, is entirely a matter for the local authority—the democratically elected body to which I have referred. But its order will have no legal effect unless it is confirmed by the Secretary of State, and such confirmation will be forthcoming only where my right hon. and learned Friend is satisfied that this is in the public interest.
Before submitting a compulsory purchase order to the Secretary of State, an authority is required under the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act 1946 to serve notices of the making of the order on all owners, lessees and occupiers—except tenants for a month or less—stating that objections may be sent within a specified period of not less than 21 days to the Secretary of State. The

1333
authority also has to advertise the making of the order in two successive weeks in one or more local newspapers.
The Department has urged authorities, in Circular 91/72, to set out at the time their reasons for wishing to resort to compulsory purchase and to supply any other information which may be sought by persons affected where appropriate, for example, the authority's proposals for rehousing occupants who would be displaced if the order were confirmed.
There are, of course, other ways open to a local authority, such as public meetings, exhibitions and so on, to explain to its electorate the background to any proposals involving compulsory purchase. Here I note particularly the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) arising from his local government experience.
If anyone is approached by a local authority, or, indeed, by any other public body possessing compulsory purchase powers, with an invitation to sell his land, or some part of it, by agreement, and he finds the reasons for the proposed acquisition unconvincing, he need not feel under any obligation to sell.
If the authority seeks compulsory powers and there are objections to its order by people with a legal interest in the land concerned, which are not withdrawn, the Secretary of State will hold a public local inquiry, and will have regard to the arguments put forward by the parties in addition to the inspector's conclusions and recommendation, before deciding whether to confirm the order. It is therefore up to those whose land is
1334
included in the order to register their objections and to appear or be represented at the inquiry.
My hon. and learned Friend made reference to delays with compulsory purchase orders. The Department is very conscious of the understandable anxieties felt by those affected and is making every effort to recruit additional housing inspectors and to speed up both the holding of public inquiries into compulsory purchase orders and the subsequent decision processes.
It is always difficult to hold the balance between the rights of the private citizen and the broader interests of the community, but I hope that the debate has shown that the statutory procedures governing the use of compulsory purchase powers by local authorities incorporate substantial safeguards.
Mr. Crowder: It seems a bit unfair that, when there is the whole weight of the ratepayers' money and a local council in a public inquiry, legal aid should not be made available as it is in many other instances—as no one knows better than I—because in the face of such immense resources it is very hard for the individual.
Mr. Eyre: I appreciate the validity of that point but it is not possible for me, as my hon. and learned Friend will understand, to deal satisfactorily with it now. But I will ask my right hon. and learned Friend to consider it.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  Abortion
  Abortion
  Parking Offences (Diplomatic Immunity)
  Parking Offences (Diplomatic Immunity)
  Suffolk Constabulary
  Suffolk Constabulary
  Urban Aid (Manchester)
  Urban Aid (Manchester)
  Mr. P. Saint (Order for Costs)
  Mr. P. Saint (Order for Costs)
  Immigrants' Passports (Police Checks)
  Immigrants' Passports (Police Checks)
  Convicted Persons (Employment)
  Convicted Persons (Employment)
  Police (Malpractice Allegations)
  Police (Malpractice Allegations)
  Firearms
  Firearms
  Police (Aircraft)
  Police (Aircraft)
  Working Men's Clubs
  Working Men's Clubs
  Aerosol Paint Sprays
  Aerosol Paint Sprays
  Ugandan Asians
  Ugandan Asians
  Public Appointments (Shared Duties)
  Public Appointments (Shared Duties)
  Horserace Totalisator Board (Greyhound Betting)
  Horserace Totalisator Board (Greyhound Betting)
  East African Asians
  East African Asians
  Police (East Midlands)
  Police (East Midlands)
  Prisons (Security)
  Prisons (Security)
  Electro-Magnetic Pulse
  Electro-Magnetic Pulse
  Taxi Trade (London)
  Taxi Trade (London)
  Fire Hazards (Stepney)
  Fire Hazards (Stepney)
  Prisoners (Segregation)
  Prisoners (Segregation)
  Immigrants (Police Checks)
  Immigrants (Police Checks)
  Mr. Tariq Ali
  Mr. Tariq Ali
  Fire Precautions Act
  Fire Precautions Act
  Shoplifting
  Shoplifting
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Judgment Enforcement Officers (Safety)
  Judgment Enforcement Officers (Safety)
  Teachers (Sick Pay)
  Teachers (Sick Pay)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Beam Trawling (South Coast)
  Beam Trawling (South Coast)
  Milk Bottles
  Milk Bottles
  Food and Drink (Processing)
  Food and Drink (Processing)
  Milk (Price)
  Milk (Price)
  Farm Price Review
  Farm Price Review
  Dairy Farmers
  Dairy Farmers
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Balance of Payments
  Balance of Payments
  Brazil (Double Taxation)
  Brazil (Double Taxation)
  Prepaid Envelopes
  Prepaid Envelopes
  School Fees (Covenants)
  School Fees (Covenants)
  Commonwealth Investment
  Commonwealth Investment
  Concorde and Maplin (Expenditure)
  Concorde and Maplin (Expenditure)
  Inland Revenue (Staff)
  Inland Revenue (Staff)
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  Alcoholic Liquor
  Alcoholic Liquor
  Share Savings Scheme
  Share Savings Scheme
  Exchange Rate
  Exchange Rate
  Invisible Trade Balance
  Invisible Trade Balance
  Retirement Annuities (Tax Relief)
  Retirement Annuities (Tax Relief)
  Uncollected Tax
  Uncollected Tax
  Labour Costs (Manufacturing)
  Labour Costs (Manufacturing)
  EEC Investment
  EEC Investment
DEFENCE
  Reserve Forces Personnel (Service Deaths)
  Reserve Forces Personnel (Service Deaths)
  NATO (Military Alerts)
  NATO (Military Alerts)
  Dolphins
  Dolphins
WALES
  Roads
  Roads
  Primary Schools (Class Size)
  Primary Schools (Class Size)
  Footbridge (Newport)
  Footbridge (Newport)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  European Political Union
  European Political Union
  Chile
  Chile
  EEC Council of Ministers
  EEC Council of Ministers
  Malta (Loans)
  Malta (Loans)
  United Nations Peacekeeping Force
  United Nations Peacekeeping Force
  Icelandic Fisheries
  Icelandic Fisheries
  Malawi (Detained British Subjects)
  Malawi (Detained British Subjects)
  European Commission of Human Rights
  European Commission of Human Rights
  Western European Union
  Western European Union
  Nigeria (Aid)
  Nigeria (Aid)
  NORTH SEA OIL
  NORTH SEA OIL
  CBI AND TUC (MEETINGS)
  CBI AND TUC (MEETINGS)
  GREATER LONDON (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)
  GREATER LONDON (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)
  PRIME MINISTER (TELEVISION BROADCASTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (TELEVISION BROADCASTS)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (INQUIRY)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (INQUIRY)
  NORTHFIELD
  NORTHFIELD
  ICELANDIC FISHERIES
  ICELANDIC FISHERIES
  STERLING BALANCES
  STERLING BALANCES
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Further Education (Russell Report)
  Further Education (Russell Report)
  Haringey
  Haringey
  COURTS AND TRIBUNALS (LAW OFFICERS)
  COURTS AND TRIBUNALS (LAW OFFICERS)
  Aspirins
  Aspirins
  School Transport (Report)
  School Transport (Report)
EMPLOYMENT
  Construction Industry (Training)
  Construction Industry (Training)
  Maintained and Private Schools
  Maintained and Private Schools
  Women
  Women
  Community Industry (Tynemouth)
  Community Industry (Tynemouth)
ENVIRONMENT
  Pedestrian Crossings
  Pedestrian Crossings
  M6
  M6
  Housing
  Housing
  Driving Tests (London)
  Driving Tests (London)
  Brandon and Byshottles
  Brandon and Byshottles
  Information Retrieval (Exhibition)
  Information Retrieval (Exhibition)
  Local Councillors (Allowances)
  Local Councillors (Allowances)
  Narrow Roads (Vehicle Restrictions)
  Narrow Roads (Vehicle Restrictions)
  Rye Hill Bridge
  Rye Hill Bridge
  National Parks
  National Parks
  Noise Abatement
  Noise Abatement
  Local Authorities (Public Relations)
  Local Authorities (Public Relations)
  Channel Tunnel
  Channel Tunnel
  Consultants
  Consultants
  River Dearne
  River Dearne
  A19 (Speed Limit)
  A19 (Speed Limit)
  Rating Valuation
  Rating Valuation
  Development Control (Review)
  Development Control (Review)
SCOTLAND
  Offshore Development (Drilling Technology Centre)
  Offshore Development (Drilling Technology Centre)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Ambulance Service
  Ambulance Service
  Hearing Aids
  Hearing Aids
  London Emergency Bed Services
  London Emergency Bed Services
  Abortion
  Abortion
  House Repairs (Allowances)
  House Repairs (Allowances)
  Special Diets (Allowances)
  Special Diets (Allowances)
  Hospital Electricians (Pay)
  Hospital Electricians (Pay)
  One-Parent Families (Report)
  One-Parent Families (Report)
  Invalid Vehicles
  Invalid Vehicles
  Telephones (Pensioners)
  Telephones (Pensioners)
  Foster-Parents
  Foster-Parents
  Divorced Women (Retirement Pension)
  Divorced Women (Retirement Pension)
  Retirement Pensions
  Retirement Pensions
  Christmas Bonus
  Christmas Bonus
  Claimants' Travelling Expenses
  Claimants' Travelling Expenses
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Investment
  Investment
  Petrochemicals
  Petrochemicals
  Oil from Coal
  Oil from Coal
  ss "Ayra Sara" (Export Licence)
  ss "Ayra Sara" (Export Licence)
  Credit Rating Organisations
  Credit Rating Organisations
  Derelict Land
  Derelict Land

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

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN
LORD MACLEAN: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a Message from Her Majesty the Queen, signed by her own hand. The Message is as follows:
"I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament."

HEATHROW AIRPORT TRAVELLATORS
EARL AMHERST: 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 can confirm that the Airports Authority will allocate, from the £100 million to be expended on improvements to Heathrow, enough money to provide travellators for the whole length of the galleries leading to loading fingers used by passengers in all three terminal buildings; and if so when the work will start.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, the British Airports Authority have indicated that they consider it desirable to install moving pavements to serve as many passenger piers as practicable. It is not technically possible to do so in all cases. The £100 million includes this type of expenditure, both at Heathrow and at Gatwick.
EARL AMHERST: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for his Answer, which is only fairly encouraging, may I ask whether he would agree that there is considerable urgency, on behalf both of
468
the travelling public and of the airlines at Heathrow and at Gatwick, to bring these airports in this respect up to standards which are common practice at major airports.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I would agree with that, and it is my information that the British Airports Authority are anxious to do so. If the noble Earl wishes, they would be very pleased to write and give him more details.
EARL AMHERST: My Lords, I am much obliged for that reply. May I ask one further supplementary? Would the noble Lord agree that this represents a reversal of policy: that previously the request by B.E.A. to have travellators put in their new building was turned down by the Ministry?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, that may have been so at that time but, as I say, the £100 million does specifically include provision for these moving pavements.

N.H.S. REORGANISATION: PAYMENTS TO STAFF
3.11 p.m.
LORD REIGATE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what proposals they have for rewarding administrative staff in the National Health Service for the extra work involved in reorganisation, on the lines of the extra payments made to staff similarly engaged in local government.
THE MINISTER OF HEALTH, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, an agreement on payments for officers required by their authorities to undertake extra work and responsibility as a result of the preparation for National Health Service reorganisation was reached by the Administrative and Clerical Whitley Council this April. It was referred to the Pay Board, who, after taking account of supplementary submissions by the Council's secretariat, finally advised in October that the agreement was not consistent with the Pay Code for Stage 2.
LORD REIGATE: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that that is a very grave disappointment to those in the Health Service who have been loyally working this reorganisation for months, if not years; that it reveals a gross gap of inequity between the treatment afforded to them and to those in the local government service? What steps do Her Majesty's Government intend to effect to redress this grievance in the future; otherwise, do they realise they will face a very serious breakdown in morale at the time when they need the Service more than ever?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am well aware of the feelings that this decision has aroused. The Staff Side of the Administrative and Clerical Whitley Council saw my right honourable friend on October 23; he is now considering the points that were put to him and will shortly reply to the Staff Side. With regard to local government, the position here is that the payments to local authority officers are made under an agreement which was reached before the standstill. As to the future, I cannot anticipate what my right honourable friend will be replying to the Staff Side, but certainly this anomaly will no longer exist under Stage 3.
LORD REIGATE: My Lords, does my noble friend accept the Pay Board's astonishing decision that in fact there is no extra work involved?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I should not like to quarrel with the decision of the Pay Board. The Pay Board are an independent body and they have considered this matter with very great care, and I am afraid I cannot quarrel with their conclusion.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord appreciates—I rather think he does—that these people have been doing two jobs for many months. He clearly recognises that the people responsible for reorganisation of local government have enjoyed an award; they are receiving payment for the extra work they are doing. Those who are to be transferred from local government to the National Health Service are working alongside these people. Would it not be reasonable for the Government to make representation to the Pay Board that here is indeed a very special case, and since
470
the morale of those moving into the National Health Service is reaching such a low point, does he not agree that, in the interests of the Service, something needs to be done to improve that morale?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am aware of all that the noble Lord says, although I would not go quite so far as he does in saying that morale is at a very low ebb. Certainly the Pay Board are well aware of the position and how hardly it bears on certain officers in the National Health Service.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, the suggestion I made is that representations might be made to the Pay Board.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, the Pay Board are already well aware of the feelings of everybody.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that when his right honourable friend reconsiders this matter, which the noble Lord has just told us he will, he should also be told of the very strong feelings in all parts of this House that here is a serious injustice? Is he aware that these officers have done work for which other officers in local government service have been specially paid? Is he aware that, as we see it, this is simply a technicality that has arisen out of the very proper arrangements which have been made to control the increase of pay and incomes at the present time? Is he aware that we expect him to find a solution to this technicality causing this injustice?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I certainly take what my noble friend has said, and I am sure that the House would echo his words. I must say that I doubt whether it really is just a question of parity; I think that the Pay Board have other reasons for thinking that to make an exception in one case would make it difficult not to do so in many others.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, would the Minister confirm or deny that the Pay Board have made the statement that no extra work is involved?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I should not like categorically to make that statement. I know that the Pay Board have considered this matter with

471
great care, and have decided that this particular payment does not come within the Stage 2 regulations.
LORD REIGATE: My Lords, would it help my noble friend if I told him that the Pay Board have said that no extra work was involved, and that this was merely a part of the duties of this staff in preparing for their own departure?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I accept that if that is what they said.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, does the noble Lord think that Phase 3 will be any better than Phase 2 so far as these people are concerned?
LORD ABERDARE: Yes, my Lords; as I tried to indicate, there will be no difficulty in paying extra money in Phase 3 as from November 6.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, then is there any possibility at all, if it can be paid under Phase 3, whether work done over the past few months will be taken into account, and whether there may be any back payment for it?
LORD ABERDARE: No, my Lords, I regret that this is not possible; it cannot be made retrospective. Paragraph 130 of the Code makes it clear that no payment should be made after November 6, 1973, in respect of periods before that date if the effect would be to circumvent the requirements of Stage 1 and Stage 3.

CIGARETTE SMOKING AND HEALTH
3.16 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE: 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 since their Report entitled On the State of the Public Health states that after the publication of the report of the Royal College of Physicians there had been "an appreciable and sustained reduction in cigarette smoking. That ground was all lost in 1972.… It is manifestly not in the public interest that the cigarette should be so constantly presented as a desirable adjunct to sophisticated living;" what further
472
steps they propose to take to discourage this dangerous habit.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, we shall continue to advise the public, particularly the young, against taking up the habit of cigarette smoking and to urge those who are smokers to give it up. To those who cannot abandon the habit we shall offer as much advice as we can about ways of smoking less dangerously.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I am much obliged. The Minister is having a busy time this afternoon. Has he seen a recent newspaper report that it is the policy of certain brewers to sell cigarettes in their public houses in packets of not less than 20? Will the Government endeavour to persuade the brewers that if they must sell cigarettes they should at least sell packets of 10 for the benefit of people who are trying to cut down their smoking?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, cigarettes can be bought in many places other than public houses, and in fact over 80 per cent. of sales are in packets of 20. I think that it would be a little out of keeping for the Government to start advising brewers on how they sell cigarettes. I am surprised that such a distinguished member of the Liberal Party should suggest that we should interfere.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, since smoking is on the increase again, is there any way of protecting us folk who do not smoke and who find ourselves inevitably in a cloud of tobacco smoke, particularly in aircraft and other public places? Is it not time that something more was done to protect us?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I think that this is moving along the way that the noble Viscount and I would like to see. Certainly in my experience seats in aircraft are reserved for nonsmokers, which is something that never happend before.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, have we not had enough nonsense about cigarette smoking? If people want to kill themselves smoking cigarettes, why should they not?
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, but why should they kill me?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord is not going to suffer this terrible fate. All we are doing is to try to advise people of the dangers that go with cigarette smoking.
LORD LLOYD OF KILGERRAN: My Lords, does not the noble Lord realise that this is an international question, and at a meeting of the Assembly of the Council of Europe this matter was seriously considered for several hours? Does the noble Lord take any notice of what decisions are arrived at in the Council of Europe on this international matter?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am not sure that I know what the decisions were, but if the noble Lord will convey them to me I will see whether I can reply to him.
LORD LLOYD OF KILGERRAN: My Lords, I am much obliged.
LORD HALE: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that it would be better if the Government did not accept tax revenues from smoking, now that it has been proved to be deleterious to the public health? If they set an holiest example in this matter and transferred the taxation to lemonade, or something of a general health utility, would it not be to the common advantage?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I think that is another question, but I should have thought that the higher tax was a deterrent to smoking.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, would the noble Lord kindly like to make a distinction as between cigarette smoking and other forms of smoking—pipe smoking and cigar smoking? Is he aware that I have been smoking since the age of 13, and that I do not seem to be suffering from the deleterious effects to which my noble friend has referred?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite exceptional in very many ways.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, would the noble Lord consider the possibility of suggesting to the appropriate Ministry that the duty on pipe tobacco might be reduced in order to encourage those who smoke regularly to smoke pipes?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I certainly take note of that suggestion.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, following the supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, would the noble Lord the Minister agree that if people wish to kill themselves in their own way then at least they should not be misled? Would he therefore agree that the recent action of Courtaulds in by-passing the Hunter Committee and putting on the market a so-called "safer" cigarette is something which is extremely dangerous and could lead people to smoke many more cigarettes in the belief that it is safer to do so? Are the Government prepared to take action to stop this happening in the future?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, the noble Baroness will be aware that in another place on November 6 my right honourable friend answered a Question on this subject, in which Answer he deplored the fact that the company concerned had marketed these cigarettes before the relative safety of the product had been fully appraised. At the same time, he welcomed any move towards a proven less dangerous form of smoking.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, while declaring a past interest in Courtaulds, may I ask the Minister whether it would not be as well to hear Courtaulds' side of the matter before any action is condemned? May I furthermore ask him whether he would not agree—and I think he would, in view of what he has just said—that all non-smokers, of which I am certainly one, feel that if people must smoke it is probably better that they smoke a cigarette which is less dangerous than others?
LORD ABERDARE: Yes, my Lords, I accept what the noble Baroness says. In fact, my right honourable friend said that there was nothing to suggest that the smoker of the Courtaulds' product is in greater danger than the smoker of a tobacco cigarette and that he would have liked to welcome the Courtaulds' cigarette, but unfortunately the company went ahead before the Hunter Committee were satisfied that all the relevant tests had been carried out.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, having introduced the first debate in your Lordships' House after the First Report

475
of the Royal College of Physicians, and having viewed with dismay the feeble attitude of successive Governments in handling this problem, may I ask the noble Lord whether Her Majesty's Government would not agree that not to take the most stringent possible attitude and steps, even at the risk of a substantial loss of revenue, would be in fact to be guilty of wilful murder?
LORD ABERDARE: No, my Lords; I would not agree with that. In fact, I think the number of Liberals who wish to interfere with individual liberty is astonishing.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, would it be possible for the industry to be approached with a view to revising the existing Government health warning and to changing it to a form that would point out pictorially on cigarette packets the real hazards of cigarette smoking?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I think the warning is effective. I doubt whether there is anybody in this country who is not by now aware that cigarette smoking can be dangerous.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, would the noble Lord remind the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, that people who kill themselves by smoking cigarettes have other people who love them and who are financially dependent upon them?
LORD MAELOR: My Lords, could the noble Lord the Leader of the House bring this debate to an end as some of us are dying for the want of a smoke?
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, I do not think that I should let that opportunity pass.

EDUCATION (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
3.24 p.m.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confer on the local community for the benefit of which an educational foundation was endowed an option to purchase or otherwise acquire land or property disposed of by the governing body of that foundation. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read la.—(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
3.25 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN EARL ST. ALDWYN rose to move, That, in the event of the Channel Tunnel (Initial Finance) Bill being received from the Commons, Standing Order No. 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Tuesday next for the purpose of taking the Bill through all its stages on that day. The noble Earl said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper. I think that perhaps a word of explanation is desirable here. It has been agreed through the usual channels that this Motion should be taken. It is expected that in fact this Bill will be certified as a Money Bill, in which case your Lordships will not be deprived of any of the rights which you would otherwise have had. There will of course be ample opportunity to have a full discussion on the Second Reading of this Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That, in the event of the Channel Tunnel (Initial Finance) Bill being received from the Commons, Standing Order No. 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Tuesday next for the purpose of taking the Bill through all its stages on that day.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, I am sure the House is grateful for the explanation which has been given by the Chief Whip, but what has worried me about this matter is that this is a substantial Bill about a very important subject which concerns many of your Lordships, and from the explanation given by my noble friend I find it difficult to see why there should be a departure from the normal custom of the House. That custom is that in the case of a Money Bill the Second Reading is taken one day and, because there can be no Committee or Report stage, time is still left to elapse before the Third Reading is taken on a subsequent day. In view of the controversial nature of

477
this Bill and of the fact that it involves expenditure of something like £35 million as an initial allocation, it may well be that a number of Members of this House would wish to consider, at more leisure than would be the case under the procedure suggested, the arguments put forward by the Government during a general debate on principle on Second Reading. If there is a special reason why this course must be taken at this time of the Session, when we have very little real business before your Lordships' House, then, if I may say so, I think some special explanation should be given to the House, other than merely an ageement through the usual channels.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, may I support the point of view put forward? I believe that the House should be aware that we were promised massive information on this Channel Tunnel project—18 different documents, of which there have been only about four or five. The nation is rushing into the building of this Tunnel with unseemly haste. There is a local example underneath the shadow of Big Ben itself. The cost of the hole that we are digging under there is way over the estimate: it is now up to about £2½ million, when originally it was supposed to be only about a third or a half of what we are now spending. Consequently I think more time should be taken over these matters. We had enough of this with the Common Market debate, whatever point of view we took. Public money is being spent at a most difficult period and there is enough time in this House for another day at least to be given to this quite important topic so far as the taxpayer is concerned.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, it would in fact be possible to take the Third Reading on another day, but I would suggest to your Lordships that we pass this Motion and then, perhaps, have further consultation to see whether it is really necessary or not. I must take issue with my noble friend Lord Alport when he says that the House has very little to do. The House has got coming before it more Bills of a major nature than it has ever had in its history, and to say that we have little to do is really nonsense.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Select Committee on the House of Lords Offices be appointed and that as proposed by the Committee of Selection the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:
Lord Chancellor (L. Hailsham of Saint Marylebone),

Lord Privy Seal (L. Windlesham),

D. Atholl,

M. Cholmondeley,

E. Alexander of Tunis,

E. St. Aldwyn,

E. Selkirk,

V. Hanworth,

V. Hood,

V. Massereene and Ferrard,

V. Simon,

L. Aberdare,

L. Amulree,

L. Auckland,

L. Beaumont of Whitley,

L. Beswick,

L. Bethell,

L. Byers,

L. Champion,

L. Clifford of Chudleigh,

L. Davies of Leek,

L. Diamond,

B. Emmet of Amberley,

L. Fiske,

B. Gaitskell,

L. Gardiner,

L. Garner,

L. Granville of Eye,

L. Henderson,

L. Jacques,

B. Macleod of Borve,

L. Maybray-King,

L. McPherson of Drumochter,

L. Mowbray and Stourton,

L. Nugent of Guildford,

L. O'Hagan,

L. Orr-Ewing,

L. Platt,

L. Popplewell,

Ly. Ruthven of Freeland,

L. Sainsbury,

B. Seear,

Ly. Sempill,

L. Shackleton,

L. Shepherd,

479

L. Strang,

L. Teviot,

L. Trefgarne,

L. Tweedsmuir,

L. Wells-Pestell,

L. Wilberforce,

B. White.

—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SPECIAL ORDERS
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider all such Special Orders as are referred to them pursuant to the Order of November 6 and that as proposed by the Committee of Selection the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

E. Cork and Orrery,

E. Cowley,

L. Archibald,

B. Bacon,

L. Beaumont of Whitley,

L. Cawley,

L. Clwyd,

L. Fletcher,

L. Reay,

L. Stamp.

L. Stow Hill,

L. Teviot,

L. Wise,

—(The Earl of Listowel.)
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD My Lords, may I ask for some clarification on this matter? Is it not true that, under Standing Orders, any noble Lord can attend these Committees, that he can speak but cannot vote? Am I right in thinking that this falls under Standing Order No. 52 or 62?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, the answer to the noble Viscount is in the affirmative.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the second Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper. In doing so, may I say that although your Lordships will see that the
480
noble Lord, Lord Beswick, is proposed as a member of the Committee, as you know he is not continuing as Opposition Chief Whip. I should like to thank him for the kind things he said about me on Tuesday, and also to take this opportunity of welcoming his successor, the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe. I found her, as his deputy, a formidable advocate on behalf of the Opposition, and I have no doubt that I shall find her even more formidable in the role of Opposition Chief Whip. Nevertheless, welcome her and wish her every success.
May I also take the opportunity of advising the House that dinners will be available tonight, although I am afraid that it will not be possible for your Lordships to entertain guests.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed for the general supervision of arrangements relating to leave of absence, and that as proposed by the Committee of Selection the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:—

E. St. Aldwyn,

L. Ainulree,

L. Beswick,

L. Strang.

—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, may I thank the Chief Whip very much indeed for what he has said? I have myself always found him an extremely formidable opponent—and he is rather larger than I am, anyway. For six years the whole House has been splendidly served by my noble friend Lord Beswick. I am deeply grateful to my Party for electing me to this high office, and I should just like to promise that I will do my best to keep the very high standards that have always been at your Lordships' service. I am particularly looking forward to cooperation with the usual channels who, against all odds, manage to keep the arrangements in your Lordships' House ticking over.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to say a word of appreciation of the work that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, did as Chief Whip for the Opposition. We greatly admired him: we always got on extremely well and I found him very good. I am sure that

481
the same will apply to the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, and we are pleased to see her taking her place on the Front Bench.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SOUTHERN RHODESIA ACT 1965 (CONTINUATION) ORDER 1973
3.34 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, I beg to move that the Draft Southern Rhodesia Act 1965 (Continuation) Order 1973 which was laid before the House on October 17 be approved. As the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, is to speak after me, may I join with the remarks made by the Chief Whip and say that I welcome her very much not only for her ability but for herself.
My Lords, the purpose of this Order is to continue in force Section 2 of the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965. This section gives Her Majesty in Council power to take whatever measures are necessary to deal with the situation in Rhodesia brought about by the illegal declaration of independence. Among the Orders in Council made under this section are, of course, those containing the various sanctions measures. I know that this is a subject on which many noble Lords feel strongly, and that this is the eighth year in which this House has been asked to consider the renewal of sanctions. No doubt your Lordships feel a sense of frustration and of disappointment that, after so many years, we have still to find a satisfactory resolution of this immensely difficult problem of Rhodesia.
We must all, at times, feel discouraged by this long story. But I suggest that we must not allow this to influence our decision on a matter of such immense importance to Parliament and to Africa. We must surely cleave to the purpose that we all hope to achieve. We want to create conditions in which an independence settlement can be achieved which is broadly acceptable to Rhodesians of all races. Only by a settlement of that nature can we ensure that Rhodesia is able to take her place in the world, recognised in her own legal right, and that sanctions can come to
482
an end. Only a settlement of that nature will bring a solution to Rhodesia's own internal problems and secure for her a future that is prosperous and peaceful and stable.
When the Report of the Pearce Commission was publised last year, the Government thought it right to provide time for the people of Rhodesia to reflect on their own future. We continue to do all we can to encourage Rhodesians of every race to find a solution to their own problems. We as a Government are ready to help when needed; but at this stage we do not think we should launch some new initiative. If a satisfactory solution is to be found it must involve a reconciliation between all those, Africans and Europeans, who are going to have to live together in Rhodesia. Otherwise, no settlement will last.
Although I do not for a moment underestimate the difficulty of the task which faces the people of Rhodesia, I am glad to say that there have been some encouraging developments. During the past year contacts have gradually developed between the Rhodesian authorities and the African National Council. In July there was a meeting between Mr. Smith and the leader of the African National Council, Bishop Muzorewa. Mr. Smith has said that it is his policy, to use his own words, to "take the Africans along with us". On October 12, following the speech by my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary at Blackpool, Mr. Smith specifically confirmed in public that he was continuing his talks with African groups aimed at finding a solution to Rhodesia's settlement issue. At about the same time, the A.N.C. passed a resolution at a meeting of their National Executive Council unanimously approving Bishop Muzorewa's policy of continuing his dialogue with the Rhodesian authorities. Mr. Edson Sithole, the A.N.C. publicity secretary, then made it clear that the talks between the A.N.C. and the authorities would be continued in accordance with the vote of the A.N.C. National Executive Council. There have been other developments, too. For example, the A.N.C. and the Rhodesia Party, the European Opposition Party, have recently published an agreed list of twelve principles for a multiracial society. They are, I understand, to have further discussions.

483
My Lords, I think sometimes that those of us in this country, who live in quite different conditions, can underestimate the importance of the change which has taken place in the Rhodesian political scene during the past year. The tentative contacts begun last year have been developed into meetings between Europeans and Africans on their future. In this country we would consider such discussions normal, but in Rhodesia it means much that they have happened at all. It is against this background that we have to consider the Order before us to-day. While there is discussion in Rhodesia, and while there is any hope at all of reconciliation, surely the most useful action we in Britain can take is to hold the ring, so that there is the least possible disturbance from outside.
There are many things which can be said about sanctions, about their limitations and their shortcomings, and whether they should have been introduced in the first place. It is true that sanctions will not be the deciding factor in achieving a political settlement. South Africa and Portugal have never applied them, and some other countries have failed to enforce them. But sanctions do provide an important incentive to Rhodesians to reach a settlement, because their real impact is on Rhodesia's foreign exchange. If she is to attract investment, there must be confidence—and that means a return to normal conditions. Surely none of us likes sanctions. But under the United Nations Charter, member nations of the United Nations are required to obey mandatory decisions of the Security Council. As a Permanent Member we do not wish to be in breach of our international obligations. How could we be and still urge other nations to respect international law?—not least in another case much in your Lordships' minds: that of Iceland.
My right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, has always said that if he really felt that sanctions had finally failed in their purpose he would go to Parliament and to the United Nations and explain the need for a change of policy. That day could come. But I suggest that to do so now would certainly mean a strong emotional reaction, both in Rhodesia and outside that country. Above all, the hopeful discussions to
484
which I have referred would come to an abrupt end, because we should be sending the clearest sign to those Rhodesians who are trying hardest for reconciliation that we, for our part, had given up hope. That could only give heart to extremists. Let there be no doubt, my Lords, that there are in Rhodesia Europeans who argue that there must be no compromise, at whatever price, and there are Africans who argue that their only hope lies in violence. I believe that there is only one alternative in Rhodesia to the reconciliation which we are all trying to encourage. That alternative is ever-increasing violence; it has already happened this year.
We have a responsibility towards Rhodesia which I suggest we must do our utmost to discharge. If the time were ever to come when we had to conclude that we could do no more—that we had to give up our special responsibility and leave the problem to others—that would be, I suggest, an unhappy day both for Britain and for Rhodesia. Certainly that time has not come yet, and I hope that it never will. But it is important to be clear that giving up would not resolve any of Rhodesia's difficulties. Indeed, it would simply create even greater difficulties and dangers for the people of Rhodesia as a whole. For all these reasons I suggest that we must back those in Rhodesia who are trying with skill and patience to achieve a settlement. And we in this country must persevere. I therefore beg to move that the Order be approved.
Moved, That the Draft Southern Rhodesia Act 1965 (Continuation) Order 1973, laid before the House on 17th October, be approved.—(Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie.)
3.46 p.m.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, we on this side of the House support the Motion moved by the noble Baroness with her usual clarity and skill and with even more than her usual brevity. May I, before I start, thank her very warmly for what she said about me? I think I enjoy debating with her as much as anything I have ever done, so I am especially grateful for what she said.
My Lords, although we support the Government on this occasion I am always a little uneasy when I find myself in agreement with Her Majesty's Government.

485
But we must accept that often they are reasonable, occasionally they are right, and on this occasion they have over the years learnt, with some assistance from my Party on this side, the true nature of Mr. Smith and his régime. The old days of the ox-carts and the gallant pioneers, the days of Sir Edgar Whitehead, Sir Robert Treadgrove, even Sir Roy Welensky, are totally gone. They cannot come back again and it is no use living in the kind of world which thinks that they can.
As the noble Baroness said, this is the eighth year that this Order has had to be brought in. It is, in fact, my personal view that it might well be better to make sanctions permanent—of course, always to be lifted when an honourable settlement is arrived at—rather than having to debate this Order year by year. Many of your Lordships have said to me during last week, "What else can we say? We have used all the arguments on both sides of the House." This is only partly true. It is true that the passionately argued case against sanctions is as strong as it ever was and just as essential; but this year there are some new factors which strengthen the old arguments. Perhaps I may say, first of all, that the old point made on the other side, that sanctions are not really effective, is quite clearly not true. They are a major and increasing disadvantage to Mr. Smith, and especially I think because of the increasing disillusionment of the South Africans about Southern Rhodesia's viability—economically, militarily and indeed socially—without support from South Africa, which she can ill afford to give.
There is no doubt about South Africa's involvement. The South African Gazette referred the other day to Rhodesia as
"The strategic front line where our men are already fighting"—
For the first time in July this year six South African helicopters flew over Salisbury. But Dr. Vorster has never responded to Mr. Smith's desperate appeal for a sub-Sahara community where all resources would be pooled for the benefit of all; and as the noble Baroness said, it is the material resources and the financial commitments which are the greatest problem for Mr. Smith. So that, I think, is a new factor, especially since
486
the extraordinary closing by Mr. Smith of the Zambian frontier, which has left South Africa with nearly 2½ per cent. less trade with the rest of Africa than she had before. This has caused disillusionment, and indeed anger in South Africa.
Perhaps one of the most disquieting of all the new factors for the Smith régime has been the immigration figures. We on this side of the House said in the last debate that sanctions would make the figures of immigration, which in Rhodesia of course is white immigration, fall sharply. Last month there was a loss for the first time of 100 overall in white immigration, and since 1972 there has been a 64 per cent. drop in white immigration. This is particularly serious for the Smith régime because their whole social strategy is based on trying to do something about the proportion of a quarter of a million whites to 5 million Africans. So that this is extremely serious and it is serious in various detailed ways which your Lordships' House may perhaps not realise. For instance, the grave anxieties about the security situation, and the belief, I think, on the part of many of the security officers that the situation is almost irretrievable, has led to some of the most senior police and army security officers actually leaving the country. That, of course, is desperate for the Rhodesian Government, or régime as I should call it. The local businessmen are losing confidence and want to get their money out. There is a significant increase in currency offences, which is what that is all about. I should like to tell your Lordships what Mr. Allwyn Calder said in his presidential speech to the Association of Chambers of Commerce in Rhodesia:
"Likewise, commerce and industry is facing a position where many of our best young men are either leaving the country or talking of leaving… because the whole business climate is too restricted. We all know that a country's greatest asset is its manpower, and unfortunately we are losing some of our best young men."
That again is a serious position for the régime.
The Rhodesians are also faced with a major hydro-electric power shortage. Their senior professional engineers have left, or are leaving. The water levels are very low. The situation is also partly due to the Wankie coal disaster, and

487
very largely because their antiquated railway stock is incapable of moving sufficient coal supplies from the pithead to the thermal stations. Then may I refer again to the extraordinary closing of the Zambian border? This is now losing Mr. Smith 1 million Rand a month in railway revenue. This is a double loss, my Lords, because he was paid in foreign currency which is what he desperately needs. So there are a number of changes within Rhodesia which I think will help to make the régime more reasonable and, with the noble Baroness I hope that this will be so. Let nobody think that we welcome the breakdown of the economy. Rhodesia is a beautiful country, and it is an absolute tragedy that we have been brought to this situation; this we all feel.
My Lords, as the noble Baroness said, the situation is also changing in the outside world. I can understand the impatience of noble Lords opposite who feel that we are the only country in the world who are really imposing sanctions and that everyone else is getting away with it. But that is a complete misconception. The major sanctions-breakers are, of course, South Africa, Portugal and France. And there are other European countries among them, West Germany, Switzerland, Spain and Greece, and of course Japan, who have also broken them. But West Germany is now going to tighten up her enforcement of sanctions. There are strong indications that there is a change of approach in Japan. All the Scandinavian countries apply them, as do all the Commonwealth of Africa, most of the Commonwealth of Asia and the Caribbean t and as we all know, Canada does and now, as we saw at the Commonwealth Conference, which I think was the most helpful and constructive Conference we have had for years, Australia and New Zealand are applying them with severity.
Perhaps most important, my Lords, there is a tremendous groundswell in the United States against the Byrd amendment which allowed them to import chrome from Rhodesia. The Financial Times reported on October 18 that the House of Representatives Sub-Committee, with Administration approval, had approved legislation to re-impose the embargo on Rhodesia chrome imports.
488
So it is not just Britain who is doing this. Out of 121 nations in the United Nations only nine are still breaking sanctions, anyway officially. I said "officially" because of course there are cases of sanctions-breaking. We have all seen the recent case of the three Boeing aeroplanes which were flown in. I do not know whether the noble Baroness has any news about that matter for us. I should like also to ask her about the aeroplane "Tango Romeo"—such a delicious name—which is run by a firm called Affritain, which provides a regular air freight link between Rhodesia and Western Europe through Gabon. I believe that with the three new Boeings and the Affritain link about £5 million a year will be gained by the Rhodesian Government through the sale of meat and so on, and they will import a lot of valuable machinery. One would like to know whether the noble Baroness can bring any pressure on the French and Dutch Governments, and even Gabon. We wonder whether the Government have any plans about that?
Then, my Lords, there was the really extraordinary incident of the serving British Army officer in the Army in West Germany, a brigadier, who actually flew to Salisbury in order to apply for, and in the end to be given, a top administrative job in Rhodesia. We have not yet had time to discuss that in the House, but I should very much welcome a comment from the noble Baroness on that quite extraordinary incident. Then we should like to ask the noble Baroness about her reaction to the extremely helpful suggestion of a special United Nations Commissioner for sanctions, a commissioner who would have strong powers of investigation, of co-ordination of information and powers to institute proceedings against those most difficult of all sanctions-breakers, the multi-national companies. We should very much like to know whether the Government favour an idea of that kind, although the noble Baroness said she did not want to have any innovations. I was rather regretful about that.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: No.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: Well, my Lords, the noble

489
Baroness did say in the first part of her speech that she did not want to innovate new ideas.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I find myself saying to the noble Baroness that I was talking about the new initiative in reaching a settlement with Rhodesia.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, and I am delighted to hear that perhaps she is open to consider innovations. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, in one of his invariably helpful interventions at Question Time, asked the noble Baroness a couple of months ago to bear in mind that on sanctions,
"the end is to restore proper relations between ourselves and Rhodesia and to bring them back to the path of rectitude".
He went on to ask her to
"bear in mind that most of us are really much keener on that than on seeing the complete observance of sanctions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20/6/73, col. 1355.]
I am very sorry that the noble Lord is not in his place to hear me quote him. Although we know that Her Majesty's Government have loyally continued to impose sanctions, one sometimes gets the feeling that they are willing to wound but afraid to strike. I hope that the noble Baroness will say that her attitude is not that of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, and that the Government really want to increase the severity of sanctions in order to help get over this impossible situation as soon as possible.
My Lords, one wonders why the Government have abstained at the Security Council on Resolution 333 about extending sanctions. It has the most innocuous provisions in it, such as proposing legislation to prevent the insurance companies from covering air freight and passengers, and the same thing for marine insurance contracts. It is very disappointing that at the Security Council twelve nations should vote against it and only us, the United States—with chrome around her neck—and France should abstain.
Further, my Lords, the Government have told us how very much they want to have a co-ordinated foreign policy at the E.E.C. Some of us have been dismayed by the only sign of unity we have
490
seen, but I cannot understand why Her Majesty's Government have not taken up the question of sanctions breaking and the question of enforcing sanctions with the Governments at the E.E.C. I know that my right honourable and honourable friends in the other place have raised this question, and they have never had an answer. We should like an answer from the noble Baroness.
Of course, sanctions are not merely being effective in Rhodesia—though not fully effective—but they also, contrary to the belief of noble Lords opposite, are not a disadvantage to us economically. The good will we have throughout Africa, because of our honesty in observing sanctions, and because of the Pearce Commission, has made it easier for British companies to get on with their investment adventures there. There is no question about that.
The economic future of the Continent lies in Black Africa, with all the likelihood of new mineral deposits, and so on. If we were to throw away that good will and become political outcasts by lifting sanctions we should not have that whole future economic development in which we could take part. We have only to think for one moment about Nigerian oil, which is 10 per cent. of all the oil we use, to see that we must keep our faith—if only out of self-interest, let alone honour. When we consider that the value of our trade with the rest of Africa surpasses that with Southern Africa, we can see which side our bread is buttered.
I believe that the régime has its back to the wall. Again, I say it with sadness in a sense. But there is no question but that those of us who have friends and contacts in Rhodesia still, know that the Africans are showing a new confidence, a strengthening of their courage, especially in the rural areas. Freedom fighters have the support of the Africans, especially again in the rural areas. Police informers are far fewer, with very serious effects for the security forces. There are new parties growing up among the whites who are getting tired of the inferior and stumbling kind of government which the régime gives them.
I am very glad that the noble Baroness referred to the talks with Bishop Muzorewa, because I believe him to be a

491
good man, a great man, a man who continues to keep the confidence of the African people. This shows that Africans are willing to consider a phased approach towards democracy if—and it is a big "if"—the whites will agree to give them concrete guarantees that that will happen. Bishop Muzorewa and his colleagues, in and out of jail, are our best hope for a moderate solution in Rhodesia. However, the régime is getting tougher. The detainees are being worse treated. There are new ones being put in jail every day, even the peaceful lieutenants of Bishop Muzorewa like Arthur Chadzingwa. What is happening to Mr. and Mrs. Chinamanu, Garfield Todd, the Reverend Ndabadinghi Sithole, Joshua Nkomo, Robert Mugobe and David Modgimbomuto? They have been there for years and years. If there is anything the Government can do to bring pressure to bear to persuade the Smith régime to do something about that, it will go a very long way. We know that they are inflicting more and more harsh communal punishment—for instance, the removal of all medical supplies from disturbed areas. Doctors and nurses are entirely forbidden to practise in vast areas. Populations of Africans are moved forcibly in large numbers. There are new restrictions on African students, making a mockery of the multi-racial university.
I have spoken rather too long, and I have painted a black picture because I believe we have to understand the reality of the situation there in order to convince those noble Lords who still feel that we ought to lift sanctions. I should like to repeat to them the words of the right honourable gentleman, the Foreign Secretary, at a meeting during the Conservative Conference. He said:
"…The British Government of the day signed a resolution of the Security Council, which is binding on its Members, and we are permanent Members. We are in the habit of keeping Britain's word. We don't pick and choose which laws we obey, and which we don't, nationally or internationally."
I agree with the Government's intention to stick to their word and to keep on sanctions. But I beg them to go further. I beg the Government to withdraw their present proposals, not to leave them lying on the table, and to make sanctions more effective through international co-operation.
4.7 p.m.
LORD FOOT: My Lords, when the noble Baroness who has just sat down opened her remarks, she said that she felt some unease in finding herself in support of what was proposed by Her Majesty's Government on this occasion. If I may say so, with respect, she gave no signs of that unease during the course of her speech. But perhaps she will realise that it is particularly unnerving for me to find myself not only in agreement with Her Majesty's Government but also in agreement with the noble Baroness. I start with that disadvantage. It would be tedious to your Lordships if I were simply to try to underline what has been so admirably said, both by the noble Baroness from the Government Benches and by the noble Baroness from the Opposition Benches. I have no such intention. Speaking at this stage in the debate, before we have seen the artillery which is going to be directed at the Government—as I guess it will be, looking at the speakers we have ahead—speaking in this way in support of the Government. I am at some disadvantage, and It would be only right to confine myself to one point only, a point which I hope I shall be able to put in as uncontroversial a way as I can manage it.
Since I came into this House some six years ago, we have discussed the problem of Rhodesia over and over again. Some of those debates were of great and, indeed I do not think it would be an exaggeration to say, momentous consequence. I think in particular of two debates which took place in this House. One was the debate upon the provisional settlement which had been negotiated by Lord Goodman and had received the imprimatur of the Foreign Secretary and Mr. Smith, and which was presented to this and the other place for approval. On that occasion, what was presented to us and what was argued before us was this—it was a matter of great moment. It was argued that a provisional settlement had been negotiated which satisfied the first four Principles upon which successive Governments have acted. There remained only the fifth Principle to be fulfilled—the Principle of acceptability—and then this problem might have been solved. I and others did not agree that that provisional settlement complied with the four

493
Principles, but for my present purposes that is neither here nor there. That was what was argued and it was a serious argument. It was a momentous occasion when it was decided that we should have the acceptability of that settlement and the Pearce Commission was set up. Then, on the occasion when we had the Report of the Pearce Commission, with its conclusive reply that this was not what the majority of the people of Rhodesia approved, again we had a debate of momentous importance. What were we to make of it? Where were we to go from here?
If I may say so, the debate to-day is of quite a different order. I hope I do not denigrate the debate by saying that, in my view, it is a non debate. I do not say this because the outcome of this debate, if there is going to be a vote, is a foregone conclusion. Of course it is a foregone conclusion. We all know that if this Motion is taken to a vote there will be an overwhelming vote in favour of the Motion. But, as I say, I do not consider it a non debate on that account. It would ill become a member of my Party to denigrate minorities and say that they have not the right to be heard. But it is a non-debate, I suggest, in this sense: that on this occasion, on this Motion, we are not being asked to decide whether the policies that have been followed in the past by successive British Governments have been right or wrong. We are not being asked to decide to-day whether sanctions should ever have been imposed; or whether, having been imposed, they have been effective or not; or whether they can be strengthened. We are not being called upon to decide to-day whether there ought to be a new initiative and from whom it should come. We are not even being asked to decide to-day whether the adoption of the Five Principles upon which we have worked over all these years was an act of wisdom or not. We are being asked to-day to do something which is precise and simple. We are being asked to say whether we are going to approve of Section 2 of the Southern Rhodesian Act 1965 being continued for another year.
The noble Baroness from the Government Front Bench put in précis form what Section 2 of that Act says. With your Lordships' leave, I will read the precise terms, because I think it is
494
important that those who are unsympathetic to my point of view and that of the Government should understand precisely what they are being asked to do if they are asked to vote against this Motion. Section 2 of the Act says:
"Her Majesty may by Order make such provision in relation to Southern Rhodesia, or persons or things in any way belonging to or connected with Southern Rhodesia, as appears to her to be necessary or expedient in consequence of any unconstitutional action taken therein."
The next subsection goes on, without prejudice to the generality of that, to detail the fields in which orders can be made. I see that the noble Baroness is kind enough to nod to me that I have it right.
If that is what Section 2 says, and it is what we are asked to approve and to continue for another year what would be the effect if, by some extraordinary chance, this Motion were to be defeated today? It would mean that as from next Friday, November 16, in my calculations, this country would at a stroke divest itself of all responsibility for and all interest in the affairs of Southern Rhodesia. It would not mean a settlement. It would not be a settlement at all: it would be an abdication. And, what is more, it would be a unilateral declaration of abdication. It could not be the prelude to a settlement, because if this Government withdrew altogether from Southern Rhodesia and ceased to interest themselves or to accept any responsibility for Southern Rhodesia, there would not be any settlement to be made. It would preclude a settlement. It could not lead to further negotiation, because it would be giving notice to Mr. Smith that from that time forward he was relieved of the obligation of negotiating with anybody.
My Lords, I am not going to attempt to enlarge upon the wider and almost cataclysmic consequences which would follow from a negative vote of that kind in this House. I draw attention to only one consequence—and this is a matter to which I referred a year or two ago when we were discussing this subject. What I am concerned to inquire—and I make this inquiry in the hope of enlisting the interest of those who do not agree with us on this matter—is: what would be the effect of that negative vote and the abrogation of the 1965 Act upon the white

495
minority in Rhodesia? It has been said many times before, and was said by the noble Baroness from this side of the House today, that in the end both the white minority in Rhodesia and the people as a whole have a choice between evolution towards full democratic government, on the one hand or, on the other hand, a decline into bloodshed and untold chaos. That was the alternative that on the last occasion when we were discussing this matter in this House a year ago was presented to us by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. I agree that that is the choice. And of course, the likelihood of chaos and bloodshed supervening is related to the speed with which we proceed upon the course of evolution to democratic government. They are both interconnected.
How in the world, my Lords, will the forces of moderation and the impetus towards evolutionary advance among the white Rhodesian minority be sustained and assisted by a negative vote in this House this afternoon? The hawks will rejoice, and all the doves will be filled with woe. I regret to have to say this, in conclusion, but I am afraid that if any noble Lords in any part of the House seek to carry this matter to a Division tonight, then the vote will have no significance except this: that it will draw up a catalogue of those who, although their intention is entirely contrary and they are entirely sincere in their beliefs, are in fact the worst enemies of the white minority in Rhodesia.
4.19 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I address your Lordships with some doubt on this occasion as this is a contentious subject, but I do so in the hope that I may make some contribution to the debate. For this reason, perhaps I may be allowed not to follow the arguments put forward by previous speakers Before going any further, I think I should disclose that I have personal interests in Rhodesia.
May I begin by drawing your Lordships' attention to the origin of sanctions. I believe I am right in saying that they were imposed by the United Nations on the grounds that Rhodesia was a potential threat to peace under Chapter VI of the Charter—though at the time doubts were expressed as to the validity of this action
496
on the grounds that the correct procedure had not been followed and also because it was not certain whether or not Rhodesia was an independent State. If it were not, it did not come within the scope of the activities of the United Nations. Nevertheless, sanctions were introduced and for some seven or eight years they have gone on. There is still no sign of Rhodesian aggression. If that were the only ground for sanctions being imposed, I should have hoped that this country (which requested them) would have gone back to the United Nations and asked for them to be removed.
Much has already been said this afternoon of the other reasons why sanctions were imposed; but during all those years little has happened. There has been a stalemate during that time and sanctions, as has already been admitted, have not been particularly effective. I doubt that the cause of the black Africans has been helped; it is even possible that their advancement has been retarded. Last year it looked as though a breakthrough had been achieved, because all that was left after agreement had been reached between two Governments was the testing of African opinion, in accordance with the Fifth Principle laid down by the Government. Unfortunately, this came to nothing.
How accurately the Pearce Inquiry reflected African opinion, I think we shall never know. What we do know is that Lord Pearce's Commission took endless trouble and was scrupulously fair. It had to contend with a number of problems. There was considerable apathy and there was some pressurisation and even intimidation; but possibly the most difficult problem of all was the lack of understanding among many of the Africans. Perhaps I may quote one example which I know of. On a farming estate in which I have an interest, the manager (who, incidentally, is deeply anti-Rhodesian Front) was told that the Commissioners would be visiting to sound out African opinion there, and that his duty was to explain to them what it was all about so that the Commissioners would not have to spend too much time there. As a result, the Africans, when he explained matters to them, said to him, "Will you advise us?" He said, "No, I cannot. I am not allowed to" They said, "But you always do, and we value your opinion." But he replied,

497
"No, I cannot: you have to make up your own minds." Of the 80 concerned, some 75 decided that they were favour of the agreement and some four, who were schoolmasters, decided that they were against it. On the arrival of the Commissioners, when the "fors" and "againsts" were split up, they decided, upon being consulted, in exactly the reverse way—75 said they were against and the four schoolmasters decided that the arguments put forward by the Commissioners had swayed them in favour of the agreement. It is not unexpected, but it shows the problems that the Commission had to face. Perhaps such problems are inevitable when you are dealing with an inflammable and volatile race who, after all, have had little experience of the workings of democracy.
At this stage, as I understand it, Her Majesty's Government have said that they can do no more, that it is up to the Rhodesian Government to start talks with the African Nationalist Council, and then they will consider the results which are obtained. I wonder how many people are represented by this Council. I believe the number fluctuates a great deal, but I do not think it is fully representative of African opinion in Rhodesia at the present time. However, it is good news that the talks have started and that apparently conversations are still going on between the two Governments. It is difficult, in spite of what the noble Baroness said about these negotiations, for us to know this afternoon whether they are taking a fresh look at the previous agreement, or whether the Rhodesian Government are being asked to make further changes in the plan which would be more acceptable to the Africans.
At this stage we are asked to renew sanctions because, in the first place, the requirements of the Fifth Principle have not been achieved. I can understand the problem, but I wonder whether there is not a temptation, in these conditions, for the Africans to feel that as Her Majesty's Government have opted out at this stage, all they have to do is to go on saying "No", and that the longer they go on saying "No" the more concessions they will be able to wring from the Rhodesian Government. Of course, this could mean that the agreement receded into the distance, because there must come a point—a point which I would suggest would be
498
fairly close—regarding the agreement recently reached, with which neither the present Rhodesian Government nor any other in the foreseeable future would find it possible to come to terms.
We are also told that we must do nothing to upset the present talks and that if sanctions are not agreed to to-night we should be weakening the hand of Her Majesty's Government. I do not feel that this is true, in spite of the eloquence of the noble Baroness, because progress has been made over the years in the direction of helping Africans along. Indeed, it is remarkable how far the Africans have been brought along in the eighty years or so of the existence of the country. What made things difficult was the Declaration of Independence. I think that the Rhodesians then found themselves in a position similar to that in which we were in 1939, when Party affiliations were dropped and everyone rallied behind the Government in support of the national cause.
May I now say a word about the effectiveness of sanctions. The only serious sanction so far as I can see is the shortage of foreign exchange, and though this is obviously serious (as has been mentioned earlier) it does not appear to be crippling, because anyone who has been to Rhodesia recently will have seen that they are managing very well. When I was there earlier this year the only obvious shortage concerned Scotch whisky, but they have managed to make up for its loss by a new brew of their own. The people who suffer most are the Africans, because there is an ever-increasing number of them growing up, and if they are to find employment it is essential that Rhodesian industry should expand so as to be able to absorb the increasing numbers. At the same time, as less wealth is being generated, this will surely have the effect of slowing up the increase in education, housing and medical facilities, which in any case still have some way to go. On the political side, I think we should probably all agree there have been eight years of stagnation—eight years lost, with little or no progress.
I am sure your Lordships have a clear idea of what you hope to see in the future development of Rhodesia. Perhaps I may be allowed to give my view of what should happen. What I should like to see is steady progress to a multiracial State, the pace to be governed by

499
the capacity of the peoples to absorb the change. I also believe that this is the view of the majority of the Rhodesians of European stock. But, for reasons I have suggested, that view has been deferred. I equally think that as soon as an agreement can be reached we shall see a resurgence of those ideas.
May I now turn to two points raised by Sir Alec Douglas-Home at Blackpool in a debate concerning Rhodesia at the Conservative Conference. He said that if he could go to the United Nations and say that Her Majesty's Government were satisfied with a settlement with Rhodesia, namely (and I quote):
"to bring Rhodesia into a legal relationship with Britain"—
and later he said—
"and regain international recognition",
then he would have achieved what he set out to do. This surely is what all of us would desire and is also what is essential for the future of Rhodesia. The trouble is that I can see no grounds for thinking that the argument would appeal to the United Nations Organisation. Those of your Lordships who remember the debate during the discussion on the imposition of sanctions will recall some of the things that were said then, often by the representatives of countries who do not practise what they preached for Rhodesia. Nor do I see it appealing to the countries composing the Communist and Afro-Asian bloc.
The other subject that Sir Alec mentioned is trade with Africa. As I understand it—and this has already been mentioned to-night—he implied that Great Britain could not afford to lose £885 million worth of trade with what he called "Black Africa". I hope that I am wrong in this interpretation, because it seems to me to open up some very unattractive possibilities. Should Black Africa object to a Rhodesian settlement, would this influence the decision of Her Majesty's Government, especially in view of the significant part of our oil supplies which comes from Nigeria, and remembering certain recent events in the Middle East? While I appreciate that Her Majesty's Government face a difficult task in reaching agreement with Rhodesia, I do not feel, for the reasons that I have given, that they have made their case for the continuation of sanctions.
4.33 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: My Lords, I am happy to be the first to welcome the appearance and speech of the noble Marquess who has just sat down and to congratulate him. I need hardly say to him that he bears a name which is honoured and which has been listened to for countless years in this House as well as outside it. We have been accustomed here to listen to speeches under that name, full of thoughtfulness and wisdom as well as with passion and courage. If the noble Marquess had any personal qualms at entering upon this heritage himself as he came here to-day, I am sure that one and all would wish to set his mind at rest. He has, in his own idiom and in his own way, expressed his views with great courage and clarity of reasoning, and we welcome him. We look forward warmly to many other occasions in which he will make his own particular contribution to us.
From these Benches I almost have to apologise for making another intervention in this well-worn theme. As the Continuation Order comes up every year it is met by a yearly challenge, as if to suggest that this, constantly repeated like drops of water on a stone, will ultimately weaken our resolution. But I should like to endorse the views expressed in the first three speeches which would oppose that kind of suggestion. I do not feel the same embarrassment in agreeing with those three speakers, for Bishops are supposed to agree with everybody, and I should like to endorse their views, but I will endeavour not to repeat them more than is necessary. From whatever angle we approach this matter we all desire a settlement in Rhodesia. A settlement, in spite of the sound of the word, can never be a static thing. It has to deal with situations which will be bound to be on the move and developing. Therefore the settlement itself must be capable of setting the lines of future development in constructive ways. We desire a settlement in Northern Ireland, but it must be one which enables the different, the dissident, sections of that community to grow together. We desire a settlement in the Middle East, but it must be one which can promote new relationships and growing relationships between Jew and Arab. We desire a settlement in Rhodesia, but it must be one which takes into account

501
the future of all Rhodesians. In none of these or other cases do we desire a settlement that might seem to paper over cracks which, in their turn, would open out into chasms later. We all have in mind a desire for a Rhodesia in which white and black Rhodesians can work side by side in a growing development of the resources and the future of that country.
We have made it absolutely clear that we stand for a settlement in terms of the Five Principles which is acceptable to all the peoples of Rhodesia as a whole; and in the sending out of the Pearce Commission and our acceptance of its verdict we have formally endorsed that stand. No one supposes that it is easy to prove or attain full acceptability from so large and diverse a people, and the noble Marquess was right in pointing out the difficulties in that regard. There will be still a vast and fairly inarticulate number of Africans who cannot personally understand all the issues, just as at the other end of the scale there may be a small number of those who are sufficiently satisfied with things as they are not in their turn to promote any action. But in the middle there will be a growing section of the community—always the hope for the future in any community—who will be capable of understanding and responding, or criticising and resisting. Their influence is the one which f believe will count for most either way.
We were reminded in a speech of the Foreign Secretary, which has already been quoted, and has been referred to by the noble Baroness, of what might happen if the terrorists capture the support of this inner group in the middle, or just their acquiesence. Among the many pressures upon these people we have to include the likelihood that in Africa, as in the Arab world, the sense of solidarity between themselves and over and against other peoples is a growing factor. This means that any settlement must be seen to be acceptable and not an attempt to gloss over any unresolved difficulties or disharmonies. Above all, a settlement, if it is to be a settlement, must be worked out by the peoples concerned and not in any sense imposed upon them. I should not wish to repeat the heartening evidence, which the noble Baroness first cited, of signs that the talking has begun, the recognition that the African National
502
Council is both an articulate and, in a large degree, a representative body, and that through its Bishop leader it has begun to talk with Mr. Smith. The rise of small but vigorous other Parties, the fact that many people, individuals, black and white, are beginning to meet and talk together, all this in a sense is a sign, perhaps, that the log-jam is beginning to break up. But it would be obviously unwise to assume that this has got very far yet. I believe it is true that the most recent evidence before the Foreign Secretary gave no support at all to the idea put out in Mr. Smith's claim that African opinion has become more favourable to the earlier terms of the British-Rhodesian proposals. I do not think there is any sign that discriminatory legislation has stopped, or that the white pressures upon Mr. Smith are any less strong than they were.
The real question, almost the only Question, directly before us therefore is: what kind of step should we take to protect this flickering flame of discussion and negotiation which has begun, or how we can, in the words of that speech now quoted, maintain a calm climate in which they can work it out for themselves? Between people of different origins, of different history, of different cultures, the process of even talking together and coming together, as we know in other instances, is immensely slow; and I, for one, do not feel quite the same surprise or even disillusionment that we are on this same question for the eighth year in succession. Growing together is a long process and the patience which has been exercised already must continue.
From these Benches, therefore, I simply wish to speak in support of the Government as they stand firm in their present policy. The removal of sanctions at this moment would undo all the patient work which they and their predecessors have put into the Rhodesian question and would set back, perhaps halt, any prospects of the kind of settlement which we are looking for and for which we have stood. It is not for me, obviously, to attempt to calculte the effect of sanctions or the effect of their removal. It is quite clear, in any case, when we come to figures, that sanctions are difficult to calculate since they involve political as well as economic consequences. We all

503
desire, we must desire, the future prosperity of Rhodesia, but that prosperity must not have within it the seeds of future strife. If it is to be a true prosperity to look forward to, it must be built on sound political foundations.
We all feel also, surely, great sympathy for those citizens of Rhodesia whose lives are in jeopardy at this moment. Guerrilla warfare is a horrible weapon. It strikes more often at the innocent than the guilty. But we know all too well from our own experience in other ways that you cannot curb or remove guerrilla warfare solely by arms or repression; you must remove, so far as possible, the causes, the sense of injustice on which it feeds. None of us, surely, can doubt that the lifting of sanctions and any immediate prosperity that might follow to that country would not bring guerrilla threats to an end; it would stimulate them. Therefore, we are not taking good advice for all those people if we listen to voices which would woo us to a change of policy at this present time. I recognise that in work for a political settlement all things are not possible. Politics themselves are, if you like, the art of the possible, but they are not the art of the expedient. I would hope that in this long haul we shall not be judged in future, either by Rhodesia itself or by the United Nations—or even by ourselves—as those who have followed what is expedient, what relieves us now, what is the quickest way out of our own burden of responsibility, what supports one section even if it does that at the expense of others, in seeking that acceptable settlement which paves the way for a future for which we have, surely, quite unmistakably pledged ourselves in this country.
4.45 p.m.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I much regret to say that I feel obliged to vote against the Government—something I have very seldom done in 45 years; and I would hesitate particularly to vote against the noble Baroness, and in a sense indirectly against Sir Alec Douglas-Home whom I so greatly admire. But I felt if I was going to vote against the Government it was right that I should spend a few minutes in saying why. Since I have spoken two or three times on this sub
504
ject before, I will try not to go over that ground again. I will repeat just one observation; namely, that it seems to me perfectly right that this House should exercise its function of revision and, if there is to be a Second Chamber in the Constitution, we should be free, and feel free, to express here in this House our dissent with the other Chamber and with the Government. That seems to me quite right.
Before I deploy any arguments, may I say that it is a very real pleasure to me to meet again, and to hear again, an old colleague from the other place who sat with me there for very many years and who is now here as the Marquess of Salisbury. I greatly appreciated his speech here—not to me a maiden speech because I had heard him speak often before, but a maiden speech to your Lordships. Without dealing with the merits of his speech, I would say that he was as clear as ever, and I hope his words will be listened to both now and in the future. I should like to say how deeply I join with the Bishop in appreciating the advent here of a member of a line of persons who have taken such a powerful place in British history.
To refer to Rhodesia, Smith's Government—I do not hesitate to call it "Government", though the noble Baroness opposite must find another word; it is a Government; it is governing Rhodesia, and that is really what she is objecting to. It is there. It should be recognised, and every canon that is required for recognition seems to me to have been satisfied. I actually heard Sir Alec Douglas-Home, in his own voice on the radio, a week or two ago, justifying the recognition by Her Majesty's Government of Chile after five minutes of revolution, or it might have been fifty minutes. His very words in his own voice were to explain that the canons required for recognition were that the Government should seem to be in existence for long enough to make sure that it was the Government. I wonder whether they were there long enough to know whether they were the Government. But certainly Mr. Smith has been there long enough, and it is quite clear that he and his men do govern that country. Secondly, a condition is that it seems to have the support of the people, even if it is reluctant

505
support. I know the country very well although I have no financial interest there. I also know South Africa very well, and in both of those countries the overwhelming mass of the African people are law-abiding and recognise the power of the Government and wish to co-operate with them. Therefore there is consent, even if among the more educated men it may be reluctant consent. We also recognise Greece, although most of us do not like the Colonels. Why this double-faced behaviour? Is it Foreign Office obduracy or obscurantism, or what is it? There can be no real justification for this double-faced dealing with Chile, Greece and Rhodesia.
The noble Baroness, Lady LlewelynDavies of Hastoe, made a charming speech and she tried to say something new. I am going to try to say something new. One of the most powerful reasons for inviting this Government to change their mind now, and if not now, certainly in the next few months, is that they may not be in Office in a year's time. There may well be a General Election within a year. I myself think Mr. Heath is the best Prime Minister we have had for 20 years. In spite of his great difficulties he has done extraordinarily well. I have the utmost confidence that he will win the next General Election, in spite of the antics of the other Parties; but he might not, and it is certain that if he does not then the Labour Party will not remove sanctions for another five years, or maybe 10. So it is possible that this ridiculous situation might go on for even longer than the American colonies were kept in subjection hundreds of years ago. That is a good reason for the Tories to do what I would certainly like them to do, if they could only get themselves "off the hook". Why are they on the hook? Because Sir Alec himself, or his minions in the Foreign Office at that time, wrote the Five Principles on the flag, or on a piece of paper, and as I have argued before (and I will not argue it again) the Five Principles do not really apply.
Why is Rhodesia not to be recognised when Chile and Greece are recognised? Not because we disagree with the way the Rhodesian Government manages things. We disagree profoundly with the way Russia or Chile or Greece manage things. It is not that; it is because we feel we
506
have an obligation to provide the Africans who live in Rhodesia with one man, one vote self government sometime, and the sooner the better. Some people feel that the obligation is on us to do that. It is a useless operation, my Lords. If we gave the Africans a vote to-morrow—and that can be the only meaning of multi-racial government—at the next general election in Rhodesia they would vote black, and the moment there was a black government in Rhodesia it would stay there. The country would not have another election—why should it? The black Government would have the power to stay there, and it would stay there.
The only purpose in voting is to get power. Who enjoys the elections that are going on to-day, this Thursday? Only the Labour Party and the Liberal Party. Why? Because they want power; they think they might get a step further forward if they do well to-day in Brighton and Hove, Edinburgh, Berwick and Glasgow, Govan. The Tories do not want by-elections. Nobody in power wants elections if they can help it; they want to stay in power. In this country we know well enough that it is better to rely for a change of Government on voting rather than shooting, but they do not know this in Africa.
Every single ex-colony in the whole of Africa, whether it was British, French or Belgian, which has been started off with a Government and an Opposition and votes-for-all, has given it up. I do not blame them for this, because we tried to plant on them a system which took us hundreds of years to work out and which we have not yet really succeeded in working out properly. It is not to be supposed that our Westminster system suits them, because it does not; nor would it suit Rhodesia. So the very object that we have in mind, of giving them power to run a democratic system, would not be achieved. It is an illusion.
There is very little else to say, but perhaps I should just add that where these ex-colonies in Africa have given up voting systems and Parliament; they have replaced them with dictators, semi-dictators or one-Party States; nor are those Governments any better than the British Colonial Government was in the past. The British Colonial Government was a dedicated Government

507
which did its job extraordinarily well, and I do not think there is one country in Africa where there is a better Government now that it is black than when it was white. I am not saying that it must be worse, but in fact it is worse. There is now less freedom and less wealth in Africa than there was previously.
Therefore I feel that we should free the people of Rhodesia to go their own way. We should realise that the present Government would continue there, subject to the local pressures from the black Africans (which are not small and which would continue), and that that will in time cause the kind of movement towards the middle of the road and towards the kind of government by consent which we are beginning to see in South Africa at the present time. The South African Government, Old Testament type that it is, is nevertheless moving towards the middle of the road. It is taking three or four steps forward every now and then, and even if it has to go back a step or two at a Party conference it is still a couple of steps ahead; and that is what will happen in Rhodesia.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester concluded his speech by saying that we would not improve the lot of the Africans; we might make it worse, we might exacerbate the quarrelling and violence. On the contrary, violence arises out of poverty, misery and unemployment; it does not arise out of employment and better conditions, from better housing and a full belly. The black people of Southern Africa will do better on their own than they will if they are managed by people 6,000 miles away who know extremely little about them. It ought to he a lesson which this Parliament should understand, that one cannot govern a country 6,000 miles away if one has not the power or the will to govern it. I affirm that we have not the power to conquer Rhodesia; I affirm that we have not the will to do it. I am quite certain that the 4 million ex-Servicemen who have been my friends for 50 years, who fought with the Rhodesians in two wars, would not want to go and fight them, nor I believe would most of us. Therefore I say, let us vote against the Government. It will not topple Mr. Heath—I would not do that for anything—but it might warn him and the noble
508
Baroness and all the rest of them that they must not do this again.
4.59 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF WINCHESTER: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with the tributes which have been paid this afternoon to the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury. The late Lord Salisbury was once very good to me in this House and I am glad that another Lord Salisbury is sitting with us, particularly to-day.
My Lords, for eight years we have been playing around with Rhodesian sanctions and we have not in fact achieved anything in any way at all. Like most Members of your Lordships' House, when I decided that I would speak in the debate to-day I searched to see whether I could find something to say which had not been said before. We should perhaps ask ourselves the question, "Would the continuation of sanctions have any adverse effect within the United Kingdom, and, indeed, the Common Market countries?". Following this up, I must confess that I am not, and would not claim to be, an international politician, or a politician of any sort; but the thought which does occur to me is one that is much in the minds of your Lordships at present—the population explosion. We have in the world to-day the problem of feeding the population. The time will come when we shall wonder how we are going to feed the rapidly growing population. One might wonder what this has to do with Rhodesia, but in its own way it is relevant to Rhodesia, because the States in Africa are not manufacturing countries; they are producers of food, raw materials and industrial minerals. They are producers rather than manufacturers. That being the case, we must now consider what has happened in Africa up to the present time.
I think we should all accept that in Africa to-day those African countries which are independent have not in fact managed to maintain the industrial and agricultural standards set for them by their so-called imperialistic masters. If we are to feed ourselves we must maintain Africa, which I believe could feed Europe. Africa must remain in the hands of responsible government. In the past we have seen that States to the North of Rhodesia who have been independent

509
have quickly become one-Party States, and in some cases have very rapidly become military régimes. There have been civil wars. Unfortunately, as we have seen, they have had to call on the Western World to help to feed them because they have let their standards drop.
Another point I should like to bring to your Lordships' attention is a question that I am fairly concerned about—the Chinese presence in Africa at the present time. We know that the Chinese have entered Tanzania and are in Zambia, and are creating the Tanzam railway link. We also know that they have invested more in Africa in foreign aid than they have ever invested anywhere else in the world. It is interesting to notice that the Tanzam railway is being built on a completely different gauge from any other rail link in Africa at the present time, and therefore the current African rolling stock cannot be used on this link.
BARONESS LLEVVE LYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, if the noble Marquess will forgive me for interrupting, I wonder whether he is aware that the Tanzanian and Zambian Governments first asked the British Government for a loan of, I think, £80 million to help them build the railway. It is entirely our fault that the Chinese are doing it.
THE MARQUESS OF WINCHESTER: My Lords, I am aware of that. I am also aware that not only were the British Government invited to inspect, but also the United States Government, and, I believe, the World Bank also. This was all done independently, and all of them turned it down. If those bodies—and I believe they are respectable bodies—turned it down because it was not a viable proposition, how does it come about that the Chinese can say it is viable and build this rail link? We must think of the future. The art of good government must be to plan for the future. We must consider Europe's food problems. I am quite convinced that the Chinese are in Africa to stay. They will not come out. They say they will, but I find it interesting to note that every trained technician on this railway is also a very well trained soldier. We must think along these lines very seriously.
My Lords, turning to Rhodesia itself, we should consider the African people, which we are all trying to do. We
510
should try to consider exactly what they want. I have lived there and I know the African people; I should like to think that I know them fairly well. I know that what they really want is to be able to go to work in the morning and to come home at night and find their house intact. They want to be able to come home at night and find there their wives and children. They want to have the right to he able to educate their children to the standard required to run the country. They want their bonus every year. There are many things they want, and those things they have a right to have. We must not continue the present policy of sanctions and try to force the situation. I personally believe that the African does not want majority rule at this point in time. He wants the right to live in peace. There are in Africa, as everywhere else in the world, those who have and those who have not. I believe the present Government policy is trying to take away from those who have to give it to those that have not, but there is not enough. Consequently, there would be an even greater minority who will have and a larger majority who will have not. Every time we debate this particular subject the Continuation Order is passed. We are giving victory to a minority of intellectuals. Once they have got what they want they are not going to share it. I am convinced of this.
There is one other point T should like to make, and that is on the lack of communication between the United Kingdom and Rhodesia, and in fact the world. I think I have said it in the House once or twice before, but I have always believed that it would be so much easier, there would be so much less misunderstanding, if we had an Englishman in Rhodesia and a Rhodesian in England. But the world says "No," and we cannot do it. But we go even further—and this is what is so distressing. In the world of sport, in the world of the theatre, in the world of anything you like, people are not allowed to go to Rhodesia. If they do, they go at their own risk, the risk of possibly not being able to take up their careers as sportsmen or as a sports team playing in Rhodesia. When they come back to the United Kingdom, Germany, or anywhere else, they might not be allowed to play

511
again because they have broken sanctions. This is a lack of communication.
Surely what we should be doing is showing Rhodesia by example. Rhodesia sent a team, in all honesty, to the Olympic Games to play games. Why not? It was not hurting anybody. But no; the attitude was: Rhodesia must not take part or the world will pull out. This is unreasonable and ridiculous. In fact the whole situation is now becoming a farce. At the end of to-day I suppose the Order will be renewed once more, although I should not like to see it. The noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, said there is a possibility of a change of Government next year, in which case this situation might continue for another ten years or five years. In fact the sanctions debate will become an institution; it will come up regularly and people will be bored. But it is the people in Rhodesia, whites and blacks, I am concerned about. I am deeply concerned for them; and I am deeply concerned for the future development of this country, which I believe has great potential in the world.
What upsets me most of all is the action of the sanctions "busters", because on the one hand they are breaking sanctions and on the other they are standing up in the United Nations and saying, "Yes, we must put sanctions on Rhodesia". This is fair enough, yet in breaking sanctions, as they are doing, they are in fact blackmailing Rhodesia and the Africans whom they apparently seek to protect. What they are, doing is saying, "Rhodesia has a commodity and we want it, but if we are caught buying it we are liable to very steep fines." Consequently they will buy that product at a very reduced rate, one that is just economic. This is preventing the country from expanding and is hurting the African labourer, the very man they say they are seeking to protect. I should very much like to see an end to this.
I understand that talks are going on in Rhodesia, and I believe that by the lifting of sanctions we would create a better climate, an easier climate, for those talks to continue. I have in a small way taken part in causing them to come into being, Earlier this year I had talks with Bishop Muzorewa and I put to him the situation that there was no sense in his having so-called secret proposals which he was not
512
going to let anybody know. The Bishop replied that if he let out his proposals they would be rejected on the spot, and that would be the end of them. I suggested to him that in those circumstances it might be a good idea, in order to get rid of the political vacuum which has existed among the African people and their various parties, to talk to Mr. Smith, not on the question of a settlement at this point in time but on the question of trying to find a basis on which the two sides could start talking.
The Bishop was a little doubtful of this. However, I was pleased to see that some two days later, he announced to the Press that he would very much like to talk to Mr. Smith. Again I informed the Rhodesian Government that I thought Bishop Muzorewa was quite genuine in this wish, and asked them please to treat it seriously. I have not interfered in any way with the talks which have been subsequently going on. Mr. Smith and Bishop Muzorewa have in fact met two or three times. I cannot say exactly how many, and I have not inquired how these talks are going, because I do not think that at this time anybody is trying to demand anything; they are trying only to find the basis on which they can start talking. I still feel that what we need is a much calmer climate and I believe that this can come about, or be speeded up, only if sanctions are dropped.
5.16 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I rejoice in following the noble Marquess who has made the sacrifice and shown the public-spiritedness of a special visit here from Rhodesia to present his views to this House. I personally, from my visits to Rhodesia, know how he, using his independence and contacts, takes trouble to inform himself of conditions there. He therefore brings to this Chamber knowledge much greater than many who, as the noble Lord, Lord Fraser, said, will probably vote tonight in favour of this Motion.
The noble Baroness this afternoon, in introducing this Motion with her customary persuasiveness and unerring impeccable style, introduced a measure which is senseless, fallible and immoral. Why this slavish Conservative adherence to a Socialist folly of these several years ago, disapproved of at that time by the

513
present Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary? This Motion last year was bulldozed through this House with Socialist, with Liberal and with Clerical support, and the total vote gained for this measure was less than 40 per cent. Conservative. I suggest that if many of those who will vote tonight for this measure had been themselves recently for a look-see to Rhodesia they would be in the Not-Contents Lobby.
The noble Baroness yesterday unveiled a glaring Foreign Office blunder in contemporary international affairs denounced by the Socialist and Liberal Parties. There is no need for further comment than the description in that big headline by a leading daily, "Britain joins the anti-American club". Is there no reason why we should remember the umbrella of assistance by the United States during two world wars, Marshall Aid, and the existing presence in Europe? I think—and a great many more people, including American soldiers in the country, take the same view—that the Foreign Office are again wrong with this measure, as they have been wrong for so long. It is hypocrisy, as the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, said, to suggest that there is no law and order in Rhodesia. What do foreign countries think of Britain's governance of a small Province, with less than 5 per cent. of our population, and with some 900 dead in less than two years? The noble Lord reminded us that Rhodesia is the only country in Africa where the police are conventionally unarmed. There is no mutual presence here of responsible officials. Why do we withhold £10 million a year supplementary, available under the settlement funds for African education? Sanctions must increase industrialisation. The two million black African voters, mostly in rural areas, habituated to a tribal sysem and witchcraft, and liable to be subjected to intimidation are not yet ready, as the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, said, for government of this industrialised country.
If this House and the Foreign Office had respected the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, about Biafra, we should not to-day be worrying about the oil. I would remind the House that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, recommended the acceptance of the settlement. My latest information from Rhodesia suggests that there have already been eight
514
meetings between the Prime Minister and Bishop Muzorewa, that there is good progress with the membership of the pro-African settlement groups, the Forum and the Convention. Why not end this hypocrisy of responsibility without power? I would give recognition to Rhodesia. Again I would condemn sanctions, and if there is a Division I shall certainly record my vote against them.
5.24 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, in rising to speak in this debate, I should like to begin by assuring your Lordships that I have every intention of being rather brief, Five years ago, in June of that year, was the last occasion on which I spoke in a debate on this subject. I then deplored the policy of sanctions, and there is little to add to what I then said and the reasons I then gave. I denounced the policy as an uncivilised measure, interfering with the domestic affairs of a potentially great people. I do not want to reopen that argument again to-day, but I want to say a few words on the way I look at this situation, having had considerable experience of administration and of countries like Rhodesia. I want to make a few brief comments, and I am afraid that it entails inflicting on your Lordships a few rather home truths.
To begin with, I think one has to look at it this way—and I speak as an administrator. Democracy cannot be handed out like a gift, or merely by providing a Constitution and the formal symbols of democratic government. It has to have its roots in the people; in the habits, thoughts and customs of the people. Our form of rule has two sides: first, in checking the abuse of power and, secondly, a positive side in building a framework of government on the British concept. Premature insistence on "one man, one vote", and all the rest of the popular claptrap, will be merely using the forms of democracy in order to stultify its aims.
Success cannot be financed with a flow of words, and in sound administrative practice you must distinguish between ultimate ideals and present possibilities. In other words, you cannot "blueprint" an ideal. Rhodesia is an outstanding example of where general principles can be stated as an objective, but their detailed application must be modified by time and experience, with increasing correction and adjustment as time goes on. If only the

515
Rhodesian Government could be left alone to work this out, it is not an exaggeration to soy that the population of all kinds, of all races, would immensely benefit, both materially and spiritually. The only hope for a multi racial country like Rhodesia must lie in economic progress married to educational advancement. The steady elimination of racial differences would come, in the end, with a steady elimination of cultural differences. All this obviously takes time, and a lot of time, but the present policy of Her Majesty's Government seems to me to be an insistence on the suicidal imposition of impossible speed. I am convinced that even at this late hour an honourable settlement is possible.
Is it not time that the British Government stopped preaching about civilised methods and started practising them? To my mind, the calling in of the United Nations, on the plea that the domestic affairs of Rhodesia were a menace to world peace, was a shameful subterfuge of dubious justification under the Charter of the United Nations. When the accused de facto Government of Rhodesia was refused even the right to state its case to the Security Council, the mask of righteousness slipped and the face of prejudice peered out. Why, my Lords? It is reckoned that at least 37 members of the United Nations represent countries under the rule of minority Governments whose people have not the prospect of anything like as happy or as prosperous a future as the people of Rhodesia. This attempt to tighten the noose and strangle the economy of the country—one has only to look at it to see that—can surely bring only misery, unemployment and hardship to the very people whom the authors of this policy profess to be hoping to help.
My Lords, in Rhodesia you are dealing with men, not the Helots of Whitehall. Both in principle and in practice Rhodesia rightly claims the position of a free country; and I believe that but for this fixed denial the so-called Rhodesian problem—and granted, of course, sympathetic consideration with it—could have generated real advance towards a solution satisfactory to all parties. I do not myself believe in boycotts or sanctions as diplomatic instruments. The movement of Rhodesia rightly insists, and its Government insist, upon guiding its affairs so
516
that it can ensure the existence and the continuity of civilised government. Is that an unreasonable proposition to make to your Lordships? Differences of race, colour, culture and language present problems which are best settled by the people who are trying to found a State in which the standards of civilised government can be maintained in amicable agreement. I have always believed in justice and fair play, and in the many virtues which history has associated with British government, and I shall therefore register my vote against what I consider to be the fratricidal folly of sanctions.
5.33 p.m.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I made my maiden speech on the subject of Rhodesia in the debate on the Pearce Commission findings in 1971. That was two years ago. Precious little seems to have changed in those two years. Precious little seems to have changed in the last nine years, since U.D.I. Methods may have changed: Mr. Wilson met Mr. Smith on ships of the Royal Navy; my right honourable friend Sir Alec Douglas-Home achieved the miracle of sending a totally invisible Lord Goodman to Salisbury. Since then, there have been rumours of further contacts; but underlying all this history there has been the common policy of this Administration and of the last Administration. If I may be so bold as to say so to your Lordships, it is the only policy which, in any honour, any British Government could possibly have fulfilled or tried to fulfil, and that is the principle of the Five Principles.
As has been frequently said, the most important of all these Principles is the Principle that any settlement must have the consent of the Rhodesian people as a whole. At the risk of being repetitive, I cannot over-emphasise to your Lordships the importance of this Principle. Unless there is independence with the consent of the Rhodesian people as a whole, that independence is not worth the paper it is written on. We have seen several Constitutions which have turned out to be "scraps of paper", in the Kaiser's words. I regret to say that, as your Lordships are fully aware, the majority of those scraps of paper have been in Africa. These scraps of paper have been torn up either by the bayonets of over-promoted Askari sergeants or by the more subtly dictatorial methods of Boer farmers.

517
My Lords, the aim of Her Majesty's Government, and especially of my right honourable friend, as expressed by the noble Baroness in, as everybody says, her normally eloquent and kindly way, is to produce a working agreement between the peoples of Rhodesia, enabling them to become an independent, free and proud nation. What Rhodesia wants more than anything else is respectability and recognition of her independence. The only method that Her Majesty's Government have of influencing Mr. Smith's régime in this direction is sanctions. All of us think that it is not only in our interests but, above all, in the interests of Rhodesia that this respectable independence should be obtained.
As the noble Baroness has said, Mr. Smith is talking, albeit spasmodically, to Bishop Muzorewa and the African National Congress. The guerrilla campaign seems to be under control at the moment, but if the Rhodesian Government commands only minority consent, how long will that control last? After all, my Lords, the difficulty about racialist tyrannies is that the opportunities to be tyrannical are confined to a minority section of the population. In other sorts of tyranny, anyone can embrace the concepts of that tyranny, be it Fascism or Communism, the Greeks or whatever you might like to call it, and claw their own way to the top of their own particular nasty little heap. With the tyrannies of South Africa, of Burundi and of Rhodesia, this is impossible. After all, you cannot pretend to be a Boer when in fact you are a Zulu.
There is a terrible air of déjà vu about this debate. The list of noble Lords whom I might possibly call the rebel Peers, the Right-Wing of my Party, supporting people in rebellion against the Crown has always struck me as ironical; and I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies, who pointed out the great irony of Lord Forester, who is allowed to wear his hat in the presence of the Sovereign, then encouraging rebels against the Sovereign. Then there is Lord Coleraine, a great public servant who takes his name from one of the great loyalist counties of the United Kingdom, again supporting people in treason against the Crown. But that is the privilege we have in being a free country and a democracy. In parenthesis, perhaps it would be not too flippant to
518
point out that any noble Lord who is convicted of treason can claim the right to be hung with a silken cord. Another whose name appears on the list of rebel Peers is a new one—the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury. I must in all sincerity congratulate him on an excellent speech. I regret to say that I do not agree, as he obviously realises, with everything that he said; but his name is not new upon that list. His noble, marvellously able and great father was heard speaking up for the rebel régime four years ago.
My Lords, it must be the duty of Her Majesty's Government, it must be the duty of your Lordships' House, to try to help protect the Rhodesians from themselves. As I have already said, and as the noble Baroness has said, the only weapon we have is sanctions. As your Lordships know, and as was pointed out terribly movingly by the noble Marquess, Lord Winchester, what has been created by the European settlers in Rhodesia is something which is magic and which is a marvel. This has been created by the European settlers. The benefits brought to the Matabele and the Mashonu are enormous, but the benefits of civilisation and the survival of European settlement can only co-exist in Rhodesia with the consent and active co-operation of the African population. This is the purpose of sanctions; this is what sanctions try to get through the slightly provincial attitude of the mind of Mr. Smith and his Government.
When I saw on the Whip that we were to have yet another debate on Rhodesia, then in something like the words of Keats in another context:"My heart ached and a drowsy numbness pained my sense as though of hemlock I had drunk", as one could foresee all the old arguments of the rebels and all the old arguments for continuing sanctions being trotted out. My Lord, the arguments for sanctions have not been weakened and the arguments for successful rebellion have in no way improved. All I hope, admittedly with precious little optimism, is that we shall not have the same old arguments next year and the year after and the year after that. Mr. Smith could save us all this trouble—and his country's future, which is obviously infinitely more important—by making a generous statesmanlike agreement with Bishop Muzorewa. The reason I am not optimistic is that, unfortunately,

519
up till now Mr. Smith has not shown that he possesses the breadth of imagination, tolerance and Christian forbearance required of him to make such an agreement.
Nobody has suggested that sanctions removal would improve the chances of a multi-racial society. Several of your Lordships have said that they might improve those chances. The multi-racial society has been asked for by all of your Lordships. I shall vote to-night for a small chance rather than no chance whatsoever.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, as one of those who my noble friend Lord Onslow has described as a "rebel Peer" I rise to address you for a few minutes. It seems to me that the very fact that this is the eighth year this Order has come up for approval is a mark of the failure of the policy of sanctions—particularly when one remembers that the reason for sanctions has been varied time after time. As they have failed for one reason, another has been advanced for retaining them. I want to examine some of the different reasons which have been advanced from time to time for the maintenance of sanctions.
At first, we were told that sanctions were being introduced in order to bring to an end a rebellion against the Crown; and that, incidentally, this would be done in "a matter of weeks rather than months". That is what we were told at first. I remember the broadcast made by Mr. Smith when he declared U.D.I. I paraphrase his words, but he said something like, Her Majesty will still be Queen of Rhodesia; we shall still continue to sing 'God. Save the Queen'." I must say that I have often thought that it lies ill in the mouths of those who sing "The Red Flag" at the conclusion of their Party conference to call the Rhodesians rebels. That was the first reason given. Of course, it failed.
Then it was said that sanctions would bring down the Smith government "in a matter of weeks rather than months". What has happened? Sanctions have actually strengthened the Smith government and have brought the country unitedly behind the Smith régime, in much the same way as Hitler united this country against an outside threat—for that is how the Rhodesians regard our
520
attitude to them. They cannot understand this vendetta that is being continuously pursued against their country—an example of which we heard to-day in the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies (whom we all welcome to her new position on the Opposition Front Bench), when she made the first speech from the other side. So far as I could make out, she wanted sanctions to go on for ever, as part of the scheme of things. Sanctions failed to bring down the Smith régime; they consolidated Rhodesian opinion. Now it is said that they must be kept going as a bargaining weapon. Bargaining for what, my Lords? The longer they continue, the more Anglophobic will the Rhodesians become—and particularly among the younger generation, who have not the old loyalties. The more Anglophobic Rhodesia becomes the more she will be driven into the arms of South Africa. I do not believe that this is the sort of thing that people who support sanctions want to happen; but it is what will happen. I hate the idea of Rhodesia coming to loathe this country for the attitude we adopt to her.
Let us look at the present position in Rhodesia. The Rhodesian government are in charge of the situation; they maintain law and order and, as my noble friend Lord Onslow has said, they have got on top of the guerrilla movement. They could never have done that unless they had received the support of the black population in identifying the guerrillas. They have had the support of the black population in crushing the guerrilla movement. That is another indication of the multiracial support that the present Smith government have against the outside threat of the guerrillas and of ourselves. There is no apartheid policy in Rhodesia. There is the university, open to all, irrespective of colour; sport is open to everybody. Those chosen to represent Rhodesia in sport are chosen on merit and not on colour. There is no threat to peace. To say that there was a threat to the peace of the world was the biggest nonsense of all. It was humbug; and everybody knows it. What is required for the benefit of all races in Rhodesia is encouragement from Britain and the good will of Britain instead of antipathy. That is what I want to see.
I believe that under those conditions the blacks and the whites in Rhodesia

521
will hammer out a solution to their problem. Very likely they will found a State in Africa—something between the dictatorships of the North and the apartheid situation in South Africa to the South—which will be a model for Africa in the development of a multiracial society. That is what I plead for: that Rhodesia shall be given encouragement to go along that path and that there shall be no continuance of this policy of sanctions which is really no more than a continuing vendetta against Rhodesia and is regarded by them as such. For that reason I again oppose the reimposition of sanctions. I shall vote against the Order to-night for I believe in my heart that it represents a bankrupt policy which has been seen to fail over the last eight years, and it is high time we had the courage to change a policy which is seen so manifestly to be a failure in all it sets out to achieve.
5.49 p.m.
LORD GRIDLEY: My Lords, I shall not attempt to enter into any form of ribaldry such as that depicted by my noble friend Lord Onslow with regard to any noble Lords being rebels and hanged by a silken cord. To-night I rise with a considerable amount of agony for the simple reason that I do not think that so far the House has been fully aware that what we are discussing are the lives of all the Rhodesians, coloured and white, and the sort of Government which will give them a stable future. I am thinking of the Rhodesians in Rhodesia with the threat of terrorism on their borders and their feeling that unless law and order is created those who went out there years and years ago and created a fine civilisation in which the country prospered, and whose children—I am talking in this case of the Rhodesian white children—will have nowhere else to go, whose friends are there, whose education is there and whose future prosperity and security lie in that country. In that connection I would ask your Lordships this question: if all this was sacrificed to the turmoil which has taken place in certain parts of Africa, where would those settlers be to-day?
I would take up the issue with the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, who said that we on this side who had feelings of that kind should realise
522
that the past has gone. My Lords, the past has not gone in Rhodesia; it has not gone anywhere in the Commonwealth. The tradition of the past carries on, and it is just because of this tradition to-day that there are these difficulties which arise in trying to secure agreement in Rhodesia. In my experience, if I may humbly say so to your Lordships, in all the years in which Britain has been divesting herself of responsibilities overseas, a cardinal issue of the policy—and I would ask any noble Lord to challenge me on this—has been to hand over territories in a form of stability when the indigenous people were fully capable of managing and carrying out their own affairs.
I have had personal experience of this. Under a Labour Government we had trade union advisers in Malaya when we were facing a threat of Communist domination. It required a considerable amount of courage to carry on in those conditions, but I fully respect the sincerity with which the Labour Government of that day carried through those policies during that time to bring up people in the industries in Malaya, in the rubber estates and in the tin mines, with full responsibility for negotiating their own advancement. The same applies to other parts of the Commonwealth. Gradually, Britain evolved a pattern of government—and it was a heavy responsibility placed on us—a cardinal issue of which was that we would not (and I emphasise "not") give over any territory which in our opinion might succumb to disorder when we vacated it. That was our cardinal policy and it was followed universally throughout.
We are talking now about the continuation of sanctions. I did not follow the noble Lord, Lord Foot, when he said that if we voted against the Order to-night we should be voting against all our further interests in Rhodesia. It seems to me, my Lords, that what we have to consider now is what is going to happen if sanctions go on for another 12 months in Rhodesia. In that connection, I looked at a speech which I made a year ago. I will not repeat the arguments I made at that time, but I said then that I could not favour the continuance of sanctions for the simple reason that I considered that it would result in increased African nationalism and intransigence and make

523
the desirable point of getting to an agreement with Mr. Smith that much more difficult.
My Lords, I saw in a leader in the Daily Telegraph to-day that there is increased terrorism in Rhodesia and terrorism has hardened the outlook of African nationalists. Last year I spoke of the activities of the British Council of Churches, and after I had spoken in that debate somebody came to me from the British Council of Churches and accused me of representing facts in connection with Mr. Smith which they felt I had wrongly put forward to your Lordships. I do not wish to comment at great length on that, but I notice that to-day's Daily Telegraph, again in the same leader, supports the statement I made 12 months ago. In effect it says that the increased terrorism in Rhodesia amounts to evidence that the absence of a leading part being played by Britain, and her policy of leaving Mr. Smith and the Africans to negotiate between themselves, have resulted in the stirring up of trouble by African and other busybodies.
So, my Lords, I ask myself this: If it is true that Rhodesia faces a £60 million debt if sanctions were taken off to-morrow, if it is true that the economy is slowing down and that savings are vanishing in Rhodesia, and if it is true, as has already been stated by other noble Lords in this debate, that more white people are now leaving Rhodesia than are entering the country, then, of course, sanctions are succeeding—if that is what you want to happen to the peoples of Rhodesia. My Lords, I do not want that to happen to the peoples of Rhodesia. I try to understand some of their difficulties and the difficulties of coming to an agreement with the British people and with the British Government.
I know that noble Lords who may favour the continuance of sanctions may say, "Of course we do not want suffering to the people of Rhodesia, but we want Mr. Smith to come to an agreement with Rhodesian Africans". My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Minister of State, said in her opening speech that Mr. Smith was continuing his talks with Bishop Muzorewa. It seems to me that, quite irrespective of sanctions, Mr. Smith is doing what he considers is right to come to an agree
524
meat in a very difficult situation. I have tried to-night to convey to your Lordships the difficulties that face settlers and the difficulties of trying to come to an accommodation in a unique situation, and I do not think that a continuance of sanctions helps this at all. My Lords, it is for these reasons and from my experience that I find it impossible to support the Government with this Order.
5.58 p.m.
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON: My Lords, first of all I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Salisbury on his maiden speech. I do not think he can claim that it was not a contentious maiden speech but I must say that, after listening to the three speeches which preceded it. it was like the dawning of day. There seemed to my mind to be sanity and sense in what the noble Marquess said, albeit I sometimes feel that common sense is contentious.
My Lords, I have hesitated for many years before speaking on this subject because I felt I had not sufficient knowledge of it. But I must say that I share what I think a great many people in this country now have, a sense of frustration at this continuing conflict with Rhodesia which seems to me, at any rate from the British side, to have no real support among British people. There are many facets of the Rhodesian problem, quite a few of which we have gone into to-day, but I think it is the moral approach of those who wish to continue sanctions that is the least satisfactory. In the "league table" of wicked régimes I would say that Rhodesia is pretty low down. When one comes to régimes and Governments of which one disapproves, one cannot just bundle them all together. I do not think I need to elaborate on that aspect. The fact is that the really wicked rulers of countries, such as Russia and China, are not hounded and persecuted by the United Nations. I think it true to say that Israel and Rhodesia are hounded and persecuted by the United Nations. How ridiculous that is! How extraordinary an organisation this must be that holds up small countries such as Rhodesia and Israel to contempt, and hounds and persecutes them, while leaving the Soviet Union alone to persecute and imprison thousands and millions of people!

525
I do not think that we in this country have any moral right to criticise Rhodesia. We have our own problems. One problem that occurs to me, and it is one that seems to have existed for quite a long time, is that every time it gets cold, or threatens to get cold, the trade unions turn off all the lighting and heating. For young chaps like me that is perfectly all right, but for the old, the sick and the poor it is not funny at all. I do not think we can say that we are morally superior to the Rhodesians. I agree that the régime there is not ideal, but one must couple that with the fact that the rulers of Rhodesia face what will eventually be—indeed, what I imagine is now to some extent—a terrifying dilemma. The people there must solve it for themselves, and I do not see that anything we in this country have done or are doing has been of the least help in trying to solve the very obvious and difficult problem which the people there will, sooner or later, have to face. In fact, my Lords, step by step, as I see it, we drove the people there into more and more extreme attitudes. They saw their future and the future of their children, and even their lives threatened and put at risk by the meddling of Whitehall. Also they were constantly needled by the media, television and Press, in this country and by the high moral attitudes which have been struck by people who can afford to strike moral attitudes from the safety of Hampstead and Haywards Heath or somewhere like that.
I should like briefly to go into a little of the history of this matter. Just after the war, and just after I left the Services, the Government were encouraging ex-Servicemen to settle in Kenya. That happened; and then, some 15 years later, the same people were "sold down the river" for the sake of political expediency. They lost their land, their farms, and everything they had built up. To-day, in what was British East Africa we see a near-Nazi régime; in Uganda there is a racialist régime. We see a scarcely less racialist régime in what was Tanganyika, Zanzibar and Kenya. The people in those countries are not safe. If they happen to be Asians, they are liable to be deported. I have not heard of the Rhodesian Government deporting anyone because he was an Asian. My Lords, we can hardly wonder that the rulers of Rhodesia,
526
seeing what was happening in that part of Africa and in other parts of Africa, should take a lesson from the deplorable record of Government after Government in Britain, and should have said, "We do not want that here"?
I do not envy them their problems: I am glad that they are not mine. They have to live there. It is their land, their cities, their future which are at stake, and I think it ill becomes us to lecture them on morality from the safety and comfort of your Lordships' House. Who are these Europeans in Rhodesia who are supposed to be so wicked? They are a cross-section of our own people. Two noble Lords who are in the Chamber to-day, Members of your Lordships' House, are Rhodesians. I have no doubt that some of your Lordships have relations in Rhodesia. Are we saying that these people are so blind, so stupid and so wicked that they cannot see the racial and other problems with which they are faced? Cannot we give them credit, as our own people, for some intelligence, for some decency? I do not doubt that in time the black man in Rhodesia will have to achieve equality with the white man. But the method of achieving it is none the less an appalling human problem, and it may not be solved in a way we like. I do not see why it should be solved in a way that we want it to be solved. I do not see why we should expect every country in the world—as we seem to—however foreign, however remote, however different its problems, to adopt our very imperfect democracy. It is their country, they are their problems, and it seems to me a strange morality which expects them to lay their heads on the block in order to sooth tender consciences in Whitehall and Westminster.
On the political side, as was said by my noble friend Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, we have had the sorry spectacle of the Foreign Office impaled on its own spike. I do not think that is the first time that has happened. In its wisdom—or, more likely, lack of it—the Foreign Office saw fit to throw the Rhodesian issue to the wolves of the United Nations. What is the United Nations, my Lords, but the sum total of the Governments of the world most of whose methods at home are hardly nice by ally standards? We have got ourselves into a mess over this—and that, in my opinion, is putting

527
it mildly. If we do what I believe to be right over Rhodesia we shall probably lose more oil because of Nigeria. If we had done what was right over the late war in the Middle East we would now have petrol rationing. But I think that to-day there is in our policies such a total and cynical disregard of what is right that we are not entitled to lecture Mr. Smith or anybody else.
Finally, my Lords, there is the issue of rebellion against the Crown, which I think probably weighs more with noble Lords on this side of the House than the other issues. It is the most unfortunate aspect of this state of affairs, but do not think it can simply be left at that. People who for generations have been second to none in their loyalty to the Crown do not just rebel. There must be weighty reasons for them to do so; they do not do it for fun. Many of the Rhodesians, including Mr. Smith himself, left the security and comfort of their homes and farms to come to this country and fight for us in two world wars, and I do not think that such loyalty can be or should be taken lightly. It is not lightly thrown aside by those who have it. There is usually a good reason when people of this sort rebel against what had previously been sacred to them. I have been thinking about successful rebellions in various parts of the world, whether the result was right or not. There was the rebellion in America, the Russian Revolution, the French Revolution and a number of others. It seems to me that nearly all successful rebellions have been against Governments which have become weak, stupid and tryranical—all three. I am very much afraid that we must have a rather close look at ourselves because I think that, in relation to Rhodesia, this is what the British Government have become. We sought to impose on Rhodesia solution which suited us.
The Five Principles are not very memorable, but I thought I would quote one which is slightly more memorable than the rest. It is called "unimpeded progress towards majority rule". What exactly does that mean? One might say that it means what it says. I do not think that will bear examination. It seems to me that it could mean majority rule in 500 years time or in five months' time. It depends on the rate of progress
528
desired. If progress is not impeded—and this has something to do with friction, which I remember doing in science a long time ago—there could be majority rule to-morrow. I confess that the Principle baffled me; it quite clearly has not been successful as a principle.
To be very serious on this subject, if we had majority rule tomorrow what would happen? Again, my noble friend Lord Fraser of Lansdale brought this out to some extent. If we had majority rule to-morrow, we should probably have one election which would be fairly managed, and people would be able to vote for pictures of elephants, or something, as I think they did in Kenya. Once they had voted for the elephant, the tiger, the lion or the hippopotamus, that would be it: that would be the end of majority rule. As my noble friend Lord Fraser of Lonsdale said, once the chaps were in power they would stay in power. For this great principle we expect these people to put their jobs, their properties and their families at risk. They certainly would be at risk, because I think I should not be wrong if I said that the best that could follow majority rule now in Rhodesia would be mass expulsion, and the worst would be mass murder.
My Lords, was it really right for us to expect people to risk all this so that our democratic consciousness could be soothed? Let us admit that we have been wrong: it is the best thing we can do. We have been wrong before. Other people have been wrong. Let us once and for all leave Rhodesia alone. Let the people who have to live there and work there work out their own futures. God knows! it will be difficult enough for them, and it seems to me to be neither right nor moral that we should add to their difficulties.
6.13 p.m.
LORD FORESTER: My Lords, I am afraid I will have to ask you to listen to me for a few minutes because I have travelled 7,000 miles at a cost of some 600 dollars, and therefore feel I should justify that action. Mr. Smith wished me luck. I saw him the morning I left, but I am sorry to say he did not suggest paying my expenses!
I wish first rather to pull to pieces the very clever speech of the Foreign Secretary when he turned down our resolution

529
at the Conservative Conference. He certainly pulled the wool over the eyes of simple minded Conservatives, most of whom dwell in another place. I trust that we, my Lords, see a little further than our noses. The Foreign Secretary admitted his dislike of sanctions, but said that as the Labour Government had entered into a commitment with the United Nations a Conservative Government could not abrogate such an agreement even if they disagreed with it. Really, my Lords, what is the point of voting Conservative at a General Election to turn out a Labour Government—which I would have done if I had had the vote, but I have not—if the result is that the Government continuo Labour policies! I am quite sure if it were the other way round that a Labour Government would not observe such gentlemanly niceties.
But I really mean to be constructive and not destructive. As we heard from the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, the sole legal justification for the mandatory sanctions was the statement by the Labour Government that Rhodesia was a threat to world peace. I do not think any of us shook in our shoes over that. That is as palpably wrong today as it was then. So why could not our Foreign Secretary go in all honesty to the Security Council, say that Rhodesia is not a threat to world peace, and that Rhodesia is solely a British responsibility? Would that not clear the way for the removal of sanctions whenever he so wishes?
The next point was the Foreign Secretary's claim that the continuation of sanctions would provide the right atmosphere for talks between Mr. Smith and the A.N.C. Nothing could be further from the truth. If the British Government had said three months ago that in the absence of a settlement sanctions would go, the A.N.C. would probably have accepted those very reasonable terms which he and the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and the A.N.C. really felt quite happy about. As it is, when the Foreign Secretary said some time ago that sanctions would be continued, that made the attainment of the internal settlement in Rhodesia much less likely. This is actually a view which I am copying from Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith is getting through to the Africans, as has been said in many
530
speeches, but it does take time and patience.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Would the noble Lord very generously give way for three seconds? He says that Mr. Smith is getting through to the Africans. Then how is it that Mr. Smith made such a howling error as to think that the Africans would accept the Pearce Commission and tell everybody that they did so, if he is so on net with the Africans?
LORD FORESTER: The Pearce Commission would have come to a completely different conclusion if their task had been carried out in a sensible way. As I say, it takes time and patience. Any of your Lordships who have dealt with Africans must know that you ask them a question, they first say "No"; then you ask them again and they say "yes", and you feel rather happy; then you ask them again and they say "Don't know". So you are back to square one, and you start all over again. That is going on; it may finally lead somewhere.
The last point I wish to make is on the statement by the Foreign Secretary at Blackpool, that failing a settlement the terrorists would take the future of Rhodesia out of the hands of the Government and of moderate Africans. I take that statement as offensive; but it also saddens me to think that the Foreign Secretary is so completely misinformed. But, of course, that is not surprising when there is no line of communication—as the noble Marquess, Lord Winchester, said—between us and Rhodesia.
I can tell your Lordships a little about the terrorist situation as I live in the North-Eastern part of Rhodesia, which is supposed to be the sensitive area. Whether or not a constitutional settlement is made, there is no prospect whatever of the terrorists gaining control of Rhodesia. The security forces are in complete control, and the terrorists are now confined to a very small area right on the Mozambique frontier. There is a piece of Mozambique downstream from Zomba that goes over the Zambesi, and from that piece of Mozambique it is much easier for the terrorists to slip over as they do not have to cross a waterway. But they have really made no progress, and they have suffered casualties. In the 10 months since the incursions began, the security forces have killed 170

531
terrorists for the loss of 22. During that same period, 40 civilians were murdered, of whom 32 were Africans, many of the latter very brutally clubbed to death, which is an unpleasant way of dying. Small wonder that in those remote areas the chiefs, the kraal heads, the farmers and storekeepers, whose premises are often raided by terrorists, are longing for peace and are 100 per cent. for a settlement: and there are many more of them than there are members of the A.N.C.
My Lords, what is required is a massive injection of capital to develop and open up those remote areas with roads, dams, irrigation schemes and schools: these, and not constitutions, are the weapons to finally defeat the terrorists. The British Government, by denying to the Rhodesian Africans the enormous aid promised in 1971 by that constitution, have certainly not helped, to put it mildly. This is all done in the sacred name of helping the Africans, for whom the British Government claim responsibility.
I should like to tell your Lordships about an incident that happened not very far North of my farm about six weeks ago. The terrorists, I am glad to say, are getting rather short of manpower. So they have taken to abducting schoolchildren. They raided a school, shot the teachers and drove about 30 pupils like a drove of cattle North to the Zambesi. Luckily, the security forces were soon on their trail. They caught up with them, killed one or two, and got 20 of the children back. Another group of security forces rescued another nine children. They got back 29 out of the 30 children. Everybody scoured about for the thirtieth child, and about a fortnight later, one poor little girl, aged about 11, was found lying dead in the bush, having been chewed by hyenas. Who was the murderer? I leave it to your Lordships to think that one out.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord for one moment, while not accepting in any way the details of the story he has told, I should like to remind him of the treatment meted out to the Tangwena tribe by the Smith régime: the burning down of their huts; the taking away of their cattle; the burning down of their huts again; driving
532
away the old men into the mountains, and taking the children from their families and putting them in camps 200 miles away. There are many horrible stories that come out of Rhodesia, and I should not like your Lordships to think that the one to which we have just listened, as told by the noble Lord, is the only one.
LORD FORESTER: My Lords, I do know that the Tangwena tribe was offered a very much better slab of land than they had before.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I am sorry, but they have lived on their land for 300 years. As the noble Lord is well aware, it is a spiritual home as well, where their ancestors are buried. The land that they were offered was not their home. It was not better land; they did not want it; and the security forces have never been able to make them go to this very day.
LORD FORESTER: My Lords, I agree that they did not want it, but they were offered a good bit of land.
My Lords, the House has been most patient with me, and I hope I have been able to inject a little realism in the interests of Rhodesians, both black and white, because my fear is that the British Government will continue to be guided by expediency, such as Nigerian oil, and the true interests of the Rhodesian blacks will take second place to what they believe to be their own interests. I therefore implore your Lordships to vote against the continuation of sanctions. I know we cannot win and that those in another place have the last word, but it will be a gesture, and will let Rhodesians, many of whom still have much affection for the old country, know that they have some friends here.
LORD GRIDLEY: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to ask him one question. Like the noble Lord, I have experienced terrorism. Would he agree that on the question of acceptability by the Pearce Commission, Lord Pearce was operating in an atmosphere of terrorism; and does the noble Lord not think it is difficult to get the right answer in that atmosphere?
LORD FORESTER: My Lords, it was very difficult. But the trouble was that the A.N.C. had time to work things out. They had a couple of hundred stooges

533
who went round town after town; every black man looked very much the same to the Pearce Commission, and they did not know they were the same people.
6.27 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, my speech will be short—I will confine myself to seven minutes—but I am afraid it will not be sweet, at least, not to the Government. We now have the eighth year of this repetitive farce, and I have spoken on this subject often. The noble Baroness opposite raised the point of the removal of a tribe in Rhodesia; but I remember that when in Africa we had the most appalling massacres by African Governments—for instance, the slaughter of the tribes in the South of Sudan, where in one week, according to reports, 70,000 were slaughtered; the appalling slaughter of the Watutsi tribe, and I could mention many slaughters and massacres—the noble Baroness or her Party were not concerned about that.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, would the noble Viscount give way for three seconds?
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: No, my Lords, I will not give way for three seconds; but the noble Earl can raise what he wants to say at the end.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, it is quite untrue that we have never protested about all these massacres.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, if the noble Baroness has expressed regret about it, I apologise, but while I have been in this House I have never heard her Party express regret.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, when winding up for the Government on the gracious Speech, described the Opposition Amendment as "humbug". The eighth year of this Rhodesia sanctions Order is humbug, and in my opinion it is one of the worst examples I have ever known of double standards. I think it is a tragedy that it should be carried out by the British Parliament. It is extremely doubtful—and I have asked international lawyers and many other lawyers about this—
534
whether the Rhodesian sanctions Order, when it was first imposed, was legal. If it had been argued in an international court of law, I am quite convinced that it would have been proved not to be legal.
As we have heard from the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury—and I should like to congratulate him on his maiden speech; I was a great admirer of his father, as I am sure all your Lordships were—Rhodesia has never threatened anyone, least of all any African nation. I have never met a Rhodesian who does not agree that the Rhodesian Government must work towards a multi-racial society; but you cannot do that overnight. Rhodesia is working towards this. There is no question of blacks or whites being unable to have a vote: it is only a question of whether or not a person is able to use that vote intelligently. The Rhodesian Government is spending more money per head on African education than any African republic. Rhodesian Africans also enjoy a higher standard of living than is to be found in any African republic—and I have been in quite a few of them. In fact I have been in the oldest African republic and have seen that the standard of living there for the Africans is deplorable. That also applies to most of the African republics that I have visited. Rhodesia has never indulged in racial progroms, as have other African republics, and I am quite sure, as other noble Lords have said during this debate that they are, that if Rhodesia were only to be left alone things in that country would be far happier for the Africans as well as for the Europeans. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, remarked that we cannot remove sanctions from Rhodesia or that we cannot have a settlement with her because the Pearce Commission could not get a "Yes" to the Five Principles from the African population.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Viscount on this point? I did not say that. What I said was, I think, that the Pearce Commission arrived at the conclusion that the Africans did not want the settlement which was offered to them—and that is totally different from what the noble Viscount has been saying. I should like him, if he possibly could, to try to be accurate.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, the original mistake that was made occurred when these terms were agreed between the two Governments. They should never have been put to the population, because everyone who has dealt with Africans or with the negro races—and here I must say that I have had more experience with the West Indians, though I have some experience of the Africans—knows that they can be very easily intimidated. It is perfectly hopeless to ask an ignorant African who cannot read or write and has no notion of democracy for his opinion on a very complicated subject. After all, we in this country have not even asked our voters their opinions about the Common Market—and, my God! we spend enough on education here. What is it?—£5.000 million or £6,000 million a year—and we have not even asked our voters their opinion. But the average African has to speak through his headman or his chief, and to try to bypass this is perfectly hopeless. I remember trying to explain to my people in Jamaica the meaning of the vote. They roared with laughter and thought I was mad. So all this is really nonsense.
I see I have almost taken up my seven minutes, so I must hurry up. I have already mentioned intimidation. I am convinced that one reason why the Africans said "No" was because they were frightened by their Communist masters. They had this great intimidation put on them, and of course the last thing their Communist masters wanted was that this agreement between the two Governments should become a fact, because had it become a fact there would have been no fertile ground in Central Africa for sowing Communist propaganda. Had it not been for this, everything could have been very happy. I think the agreement was very fair to the Africans, and if only it could have come about happily the whole affair would be in a far better position than it is now.
We have heard something about terrorists, and so on. A friend of mine has recently come back from that part of Africa and she tells me that the quantity of Chinese arms and the extent of Chinese influence which is to be found in both Zambia and Tanzania is quite amazing. The noble Marquess, Lord, Winchester, was quite right in saying that
536
the Chinese, in building the railway, are not building it as a viable operation but have far more sinister objectives in view. I should also like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Forester, said about the most appalling cruelties committed against the African population by the terrorists. If this matter goes to a vote, I could not vote for the Order: my conscience would not allow me to do so. Before ending, I should just like to say that I object to what the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said, about those noble Lords in this House who do not vote for the Order being treasonable. Really, my Lords, I have never heard such utter rot in all my life. It is monstrous. I really think that the noble Earl ought to apologise to the House. Having said that and having overrun my seven minutes, I shall sit down.
6.36 p.m.
LORD STRANGE: My Lords, I must apologise for making only a very short speech indeed on this occasion, because I have been speaking on this subject for eight years—and that is a long time to speak. I am a Royalist and not a rebel. At the very beginning of all this I made up my mind that Rhodesia should not be a Crown Colony, and that it must have been very badly run or it would not have got into the mess that it did get into. My opinion has never altered. It should not be a Crown Colony: it should be made into a Commonwealth country. I believe that the noble Baroness spoke earlier of new initiatives to try to get it into the Commonwealth in some way, because then they would have the Queen as their Head—and she is the finest Head that you could have in the world to-day. All countries throughout the world adore our Queen. They want to have a leader, and a leader who is not always doing what they do in America. In other words, they do not want a Head of State who is a President and whom some people want to put in gaol. They do not want a man such as a certain country in Africa has who smashes people with sledgehammers and things like that. They want a beautiful woman who could rule their country through inspiration.
In the Commonwealth now there have been meetings. The countries are getting together; they are becoming a great force and are becoming more like what the British Empire should have been. The

537
Commonwealth people, in the last year, have come to a greater understanding of each other's problems. They are linked together, or some of them are, by a common language. We are crazy if we go on now with this kind of spite and hatred—against whom; against what? I do not know what it is all about. I have no hatred against anyone else. I know that the Africans are a very fine race and they are charming people. They are great fighters and they are like white men. My authority for that statement, I believe, is Rider Haggard. At any rate, that is what I was brought up to believe, and I am prepared to believe it. I do not see why we should go on bullying them any longer. I trust that things will not go on as miserably as they have been going on, bringing up all these hate stories. But I see that "Himself" is back, and I promised to speak until his Lordship returned.
6.40 p.m.
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strange. He was even briefer than his norm. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Foot, is not in his place. I would not try to dispute his legal knowledge. I certainly would not attempt to emulate his eloquence, which is the prerogative of his family. But I would claim to know a little more than he does about the procedures of Parliament. He instructed us that this was not a debate on the merits of Government policy over the past eight years towards Rhodesia, but simply a debate on whether or not we should continue sanctions. If the noble Lord had been here I would have reminded him of the Motion on which the Chamberlain Government fell in 1940. The Motion was, "That this House do now adjourn".
This debate, which theoretically is simply on this narrow issue of renewing the sanctions Order, if it is to make any sense at all is a review of the whole policy of the two Governments towards this so far intractable problem of Rhodesia. My noble friend Lord Onslow—and I am sorry he is not in his place—made a most interesting speech. I was interested, too, by his uniform: he was wearing a pink shirt just as I am wearing a blue one. It may be of some consolation to him to know that there was a time in my life when I too wore a pink shirt and that therefore there is
538
still hope for him. One thing I can say is that neither of us is likely, I hope, to wear a black shirt.
If this debate is, as I have argued it is, a review, and in my judgment an indictment, of the policy of two Governments over eight years, that indictment is mightily reinforced by the speech of the new Labour Chief Whip, because everything she said was really a criticism of the policy that her Government and this Government followed. She said that the Smith Government had become less liberal, not more; that the lot of the African was less good, not better; that the general attitude of the whites towards the blacks was not so good as it had been. To anyone who has followed the Rhodesian debate over these years, these things followed from Government policy as surely as night follows day, and the imposition of this policy of sanctions, of putting Rhodesia into a state of siege, was bound to produce—it could have had no other result—the results which the noble Baroness says have been produced.
My noble friend Lord Onslow said he was repentant but was not convinced as firmly as ever of the value of the Five Principles. I should like to ask him to reflect on this question, and I ask my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie if she will reply to it: what is it about the principle of majority rule which is so valuable that we have to sacrifice so much to it? Does my noble friend equate the principle of majority rule with freedom? Does she equate it with democracy? If so, she is surely wrong. Majority rule means freedom, means democracy, only if there is a clear acceptance, the clear implication, that at any time the minority may become the majority. But that has not occurred anywhere in Africa where independence has been given. My noble friend Lord Winchester, who made another most impressive speech to-day, pointed out last year that, of the 32 African States—not only parts of the British Empire but parts of other Empires—that had achieved independence, 28 had reverted to dictatorship, and most of them to military dictatorship. If that is the result of majority rule, why in the name of God do we spend year after year in enforcing that upon the unhappy people of Rhodesia?

539
My noble friend Lord Onslow rode another of his favourite hobbyhorses about the Right-Wing Tory, the rebellion and so on. Of course Burke was not a Right-Wing Tory; he was a Conservative. But he opposed the Government of the day on the rebellion of the American Colonies; and he was right. But it is a fact, and we cannot get away from it, that Rhodesia is in rebellion against the Crown and has been in rebellion against the Crown for eight years. I suggest to my noble friends Lord Onslow and Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie that there are two ways to deal with the rebellion: one way, and the best way, is to crush it if you have the will and the power. The other way, if you lack the will and the power, as my noble friend Lord Fraser of Lonsdale said earlier, is to come to terms with it. But the one thing you cannot do—and I mean by that that you cannot do it effectively and cannot do it profitably—is to lecture it.
My Lords, a great deal of fun has been made of the expression "kith and kin", but in fact the British in Rhodesia are our kith and kin: they are people of the same blood, with the same inherited tradition, with the same sense of fairness, the same sense of justice. I think it is true to say of Britons wherever they live, whether in this country, in Africa or in Australia, or anywhere else, that when they are left alone and allowed to find their own way they are tolerant, generous, up to a point imaginative, and friendly. But when someone tries to bully them and run them around they become something quite different. They become pigheaded, sullen, unreasonable, careless of their own interests; but dogged and determined, and never willing to give in. It is not just a coincidence, in my judgment, that two Governments have tried to bully the British in Rhodesia, with entirely counter-productive results; and the same two Governments have tried to bully the trade unions in this country, with equally counter-productive results. The fact is that the Englishman is not going to put up with that.
It is all very well to say that sanctions are beginning to bite. I have no doubt that they are beginning to bite. I have no doubt that Hitler thought tile bombing of London was beginning to bite. But
540
British people do not give way because they are bitten; they dig their feet in; they dig their toes in; they stand fast; they go into their laager. And the policy that we have followed for the past eight years, and the policy which, as I understand it, the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies, would like us to follow for the next 80 years, has produced—
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? This is the second time this has been said. What I said was that we should keep sanctions on until we have an honourable settlement. I did not say for years and years, or for 80 years; but until we have the prospect of an honourable settlement.
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Baroness for her interjection not only because, as she knows, I would not willingly misrepresent her, but also because she has reminded me of a part of my argument which had slipped my mind. What is an "honourable settlement"? We know what my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir means by it; we know what my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary means by it. They mean what they call the great prize: recognition by the British Government, followed by enthusiastic recognition by the rest of the world. I am sorry to say it, my Lords, but I think that both my noble friend and my right honourable friend are living in a fool's paradise.
Earlier in the debate we had a speech from my noble friend Lord Salisbury which impressed the whole House by its courage and its skill. He intervened in a debate which was of its nature controversial. He did it, in my judgment, in a way which could offend no one; which showed a shrewdness, a clear-headedness and fairness of mind that all of us had to applaud. Those were qualities which reminded me, as they must have reminded all of us, of his father whom we so much admired and loved in this House. But my noble friend Lord Salisbury, in referring to Sir Alec's speech at Blackpool, commented on that passage in it in which he said that any friendly contacts that might be going on between the Smith Government and Bishop Muzorcwa and other groups of Africans would be ruined if pressures were relaxed upon Rhodesia. My noble friend pointed out, with absolute justice, that exactly the opposite

541
would be the effect; that so long as these pressures were continued, so long would the Africans put up the price. I do not see by what system of logic my noble friend will be able to controvert that.
However, I want to go back for a moment to this great prize: legality accorded by the British Parliament, recognition enthusiastically accorded by the rest of the world. How can my noble friend believe that? Can she believe that any settlement which by any conceivable stretch of the imagination could be acceptable to the Smith Government would be welcomed by the Afro-Asian bloc in the United Nations? Let her reflect for a moment upon the position of Portugal. Nobody doubted, nobody disputed, the fact that Portugal was the legal ruler of Goa. India invaded Goa and brutally wrenched it away from Portugal. There was not a squeak from the United Nations. Can anyone doubt that Portugal is the legal Government of Mozambique? Did that stop the malice and venom of The Times newspaper last summer when it sought to prevent the visit to this country of the Prime Minister of a member of the NATO Alliance? Of course it did not. And surely we must recognise, if we are honest with ourselves, that this idea that Her Majesty's Government's putting the stamp of legality (in Sir Alec's phrase) upon a settlement will be greeted with enthusiasm by the United Nations is a pure dream. I think my noble friend is living in a dream world. It is a pure dream.
My Lords, I promised to be short and I have already exceeded the time I had intended to take, but there is one thing more that I should like to say. This afternoon my noble friend Lord Winchester referred to the gradual encroachment of Chinese Communism into Africa, not for reasons of trade but simply for reasons of power. My noble friend Lord Onslow—I am sorry to drag him into this so much—said that nothing had changed in the past year; the same old arguments were going round and round. But one thing has changed, and it is this: in the past few days we have been passing through the Valley of the Shadow of Death and we cannot say with any assurance that we are through it yet and that this miracle worker called Kissinger is in fact going to solve the problem of the Middle East. But if he does solve it I think one thing is cer
542
tain, and that is that the Canal will be reopened and there will be a Russian naval presence in the Indian Ocean. Do Her Majesty's Government want to see Russia in command of the seas in that part of the Southern Hemisphere, and China in command of the land? Because if they do not want to see that, they had better change their policy, and change it pretty quickly.
The United Nations—I am sorry to have to say this because I was one who had a good deal to do with its foundation—deserves the respect of none of us. Its only purpose in this crisis has been as a sort of cloak for the negotiations of the super-Powers, a kind of machinery for providing an international force which will only be fully operative if in fact the super-Powers agree among themselves. I smell in the air today, as I think other noble Lords must do, the smell of the late 1930s when long after it was clear that the League of Nations was powerless and impotent we relied upon the League of Nations. So to-day, long after it is clear that the United Nations is not even what the League of Nations was, which was an honest endeavour to find a solution to the problems of peace and not a conspiracy to destroy peace—even today we are falling into the same trap and putting our faith in the United Nations.
What depressed me most about the speech of my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie—and a great deal of it depressed me—was her attitude of supine fatalism. She said, "Oh no! we must not interfere. Oh no! my right honourable friend must not take any part in this". My noble friend Lord De L'Isle, who is not here—and if he were here would not agree with me—compared the attitude of Her Majesty's Government to that of Pilate, and I think if ever there was a case of Pilate washing his hands of his responsibilities that case is now. If the Government really want to get a solution to this problem they must take a hand in negotiation, and I can think of no reason why they do not take a hand, except that they are too craven to do so. They have had their fingers burned once and they do not want it to happen again.
My Lords, this may be a bad time to review our policies towards Rhodesia and to change them, but there will never

543
be a good time; and unless the Government face up to this issue, if not to-night then within the next few months, they will incur a terrible burden of blame and shame. If some of my honourable friends and I go into the Lobby against them to-night it will not be, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, would say, to sustain an illegal régime; it will be to show to the Government, to show to my noble friend and to show to my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary that we cannot have this again and that the responsibility is his. He cannot shuffle it off on anonymous Africans in Rhodesia.
7.8 p.m.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, I must apologise to your Lordships because I had not intended to speak and I shall speak for only, I hope, less than five minutes. But there is one major point I wish to make. It is terribly unfortunate that there has been here in the past—not so much to-day—a great deal of idealism and emotion on the side of those who want sanctions. I believe it would have been possible to get a settlement previously, and a settlement which is probably the best that we could hope for. I should like to say two things. The first is that I personally am in favour of continuing sanctions as the best we can do at the present time, but I should like to ask all those who are in favour to listen carefully and to think again about some of the very pertinent points that have been made by those who have been termed "the rebels".
Finally, I appeal very strongly to the Government that when—and I hope it will not be too long ahead—they can and do take an initiative in trying to negotiate some new terms, they will not be bound by the letter of the law so far as the Five Principles are concerned. I hope very much that those who have been so strongly in favour of sanctions will take a broader view and, if I may say so, a more knowledgeable view of the problem faced in this sort of situation, and not a purely emotional and idealistic view.
7.10 p.m.
LORD GARNER: My Lords, if I may intervene briefly, I have nothing new to say on something which really has become an annual marathon, but I just
544
want to mention that 30 years ago I was Private Secretary to a very distinguished Secretary of State. Four years ago when I made my own maiden speech, that Secretary of State was kind enough to pay me some kind compliments. I should like to return the compliment today and say how deeply impressed I am sure we all were by the maiden speech of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, on this subject. From time to time one caught the timbre of a voice very familiar to us.
Rhodesia has caused me in my career as much anguish and anxiety as any problem with which I had to deal. I have no easy solution to give this evening, but I do have the impression that the debate so far has been rather one-sided. I recognise the deep sincerity of all those who feel doubts about the present policy and about the Motion before us. I was particularly impressed by the speech we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine. His speech was most impressive and powerful. It is not a speech I would wish to comment on straight away at all, but one which is very much to be thought over; this I should like to do.
My Lords, I simply wish to make three points: first, that from listening to the debate, I think there has been some confusion from time to time between the international recognition of a foreign country and the question of granting independence to a previously dependent territory. There are obvious ground rules in diplomacy for the recognition of a foreign country, but they do not apply here. The context is quite different from the granting of independence to a former dependent territory. In the case of Rhodesia, it is solely a matter for Britain and this Parliament, and that is what all the argument over the last eight years has been about. Secondly, I notice an occasional tendency to equate Rhodesia with the European minority in Rhodesia and to talk as if the minority really meant the whole, just as I think sometimes one hears people talk about Rhodesia, equating it with the black majority. Obviously, any ultimate solution must take account of the needs of both peoples equally. Thirdly, one has heard the argument that the Africans are incapable of expressing an opinion, and of being responsible for administering the country. I do not wish

545
to enter into any detail on that argument, but it is a strange commentary on some of the statesmen who, not long ago, were sitting round the conference table with the British Prime Minister at the Heads of Government meeting in Ottawa. Many of them came from Africa and made a very distinguished contribution.
All I really want to say is that having thought about these problems very deeply, and not feeling any comfort about the situation in Rhodesia itself, I am satisfied in my own mind that the policy of the Foreign Secretary is moderate, patient and fair, and ought to be supported.
7.14 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, I share the general sense of disappointment within your Lordships' House that it is necessary once again to discuss Rhodesia in this particular context. Also like the noble Baroness, I share the sense of frustration, recognising that whatever one may say on either side of the issue we are unlikely to alter opinions. Like the noble Baroness, I am not discouraged with the present situation as it confronts Her Majesty's Government, the British Parliament and the peoples of Rhodesia. I have now spoken on every single debate since Rhodesia achieved U.D.I. and many of the faces and names are all too familiar. If I may say so, so are their speeches. I think it was last year that we noticed for the first time the absence of, as I like still to recall him, "Bobbity" Salisbury, from sitting where the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine is, speaking with very great sincerity and with conciseness, making the case against not only the Government which he supported, but the Labour Government that preceded them. Therefore, it was with very great interest that I observed that a Marquess of Salisbury was on our list of speakers to-day, and I listened with great attention to what he had to say. I should like to congratulate him very sincerely on his maiden speech. To me, the point that came through particularly clearly, bearing in mind the close and intimate connections of the noble Marquess with Rhodesia, was his reference to the Pearce Commission. He said that the Pearce Commission had been scrupulously fair in their judgment. I think that was generally recognised, although on occasions it has been challenged. I thought
546
the Report of the Commission was quite clear; namely, that a substantial number of Africans did not accept the proposals that had been worked out by Mr. Smith and Her Majesty's Government, and therefore, quite clearly, so far as Her Majesty's Government and the British Parliament were concerned, the Fifth Principle, the test of acceptability, had been carried out and it had been found that there was not a substantial majority in support of the terms.
The noble Lord, Lord Gridley, speaking with his long experience in a colonial territory, spoke of the conditions under which previous Governments have given independence, the ability to be able to govern, the ability to maintain stability. But the noble Lord forgot the cardinal point, if I may say so, which is that it was at the wish of the people concerned. This is still the cardinal issue in terms of Rhodesia. What are the wishes of the people of Rhodesia? I believe that one day Rhodesia will wish to become a sovereign independent country. I would rejoice if they were so; but I am certain that no British Parliament, with all its previous requirements. could grant independence to Rhodesia unless it was satisfied with the constitution and that the desire of the people of Rhodesia was that such independence and such constitution should be granted.
LORD GRIDLEY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way over that point. He said it was always a cardinal issue in the granting of independence that we respected the wishes of the people concerned. I absolutely agree. On the other hand, we always insisted from our own point of view on coming to the decision that they were fully able in the circumstances to assume responsibility. It was not only one side. We did not just give it to them when they wanted it. We would judge when it was right to hand over.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I would not disagree with the noble Lord. I can speak from my own experience of seeing Fiji, with its racial problems, into independence. One is delighted to see that as a consequence of that freely entered into independence, the two or three communities there are developing and are being successful. Like the noble Lord, Lord Foot, I think this is not the occasion to go into the whole question of

547
the past of Rhodesia or what terms and conditions we should seek to-day. The point is whether we should proceed with the policy of sanctions. I would only ask the House to recall the circumstances under which sanctions were imposed. Here we had an illegal rebellion, the seizure of power by a minority. We had a choice (did we not?) of either taking military action or taking economic action or condoning that rebellion. Parliament decided, quite rightly, that they could not condone it. I speak now with care; even the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, who has been a passionate opponent of the previous Government's and the present Government's policy on sanctions, has disapproved and never condoned the illegal act of seizure of power. We then have force or economic methods. We have all rejected military force. Therefore, we fall back on what is perhaps a very crude method, economic sanctions. The question now is whether we should raise them because of the failure over eight years to achieve a satisfactory settlement.
I would agree with the noble Baroness that there are very interesting and hopeful signs in Rhodesia; the fact that the two sides are talking, that white and black politicians are talking, is something which did not exist some two or three years ago. That, I think, is a credit to the policy of pressure upon the régime. I would agree with the noble Baroness that there are hopeful signs. But, equally, my noble friend Lady Llewelyn-Davies was right when she said that things are more difficult. Undoubtedly, the African is being hurt by the application of sanctions, but, as the African leaders have said on repeated occasions, this is a price that they are prepared to pay for the achievement of equality within the Rhodesian State. I have asked myself the question: if we were to raise sanctions would there be such a transformation, would there be a gradual evolution to the sort of society we would wish to see in Rhodesia? I must say that I do not believe, in the climate of Rhodesia, that this is likely.
I have always taken the view in terms of Rhodesia, as in South Africa, that it is not entirely racial conflict between white and black, although that exists. The basic fear of the white community is the economic consequences of the black reaching parity, and I must say that one of
548
the worst resentments towards the black coming up is to be found not within the farming community or within the managing director community, but within the artisan community, the new Rhodesians who have gone to Rhodesia to find a society and a standard of living that is unobtainable in nearly every other country of the world. In those circumstances, I think it would be idle to believe that the lifting of sanctions would create a new atmosphere, that all these pressures and resentments would be lifted and that the African would find a genuine place in Rhodesian society.
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I entirely agree with what he said about the artisan community and their fear of the erosion of their standards of life. But does he not think that if sanctions were lifted, while it might not have any effect on them it would have an effect on the rest of the white community and that in general you would get a much more liberal attitude than you have to-day?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have considered this, and those of my noble friends who knew me in the time when I was in the Commonwealth Office and the Colonial Office know my attitude. I have anxiously considered whether, if sanctions were lifted, such a response would be seen. I do not believe that this is possible. I would say that if there was a chance I might even take it. But one must also consider what would be the consequences not only in Rhodesia but throughout Africa, throughout the Commonwealth, if at this moment we were to raise sanctions. It would be, as I have said on many occasions, condoning the Smith régime, its illegal seizure of power, and what many Africans, and we on this side, believe to be the oppression of the majority people in Rhodesia. I have looked at this; I have given anxious thought to it, but I believe it would be utterly wrong to-day to raise sanctions.
Sanctions are having an effect economically; the pressures are undoubtedly there. I share the view with the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary that there is this pressure and it is creating a need for talks. I have no doubt at all that the Government are entirely right in asking for these sanctions to be continued

549
for another year. My noble friend Lady Llewelyn-Davies wondered whether we ought not to have permanent legislation. There would be much to be said for it; certainly we might avoid a debate next year and maybe the year after. But I think personally that this would be wrong; I think it would be wrong within the terms of the Rhodesian situation. I believe, despite the opportunity of noble Lords to oppose, that it is right that once a year the voice of at least the three main political Parties should go out—I believe supported by the vast majority of the people of this country—sending a message of encouragement to both sides in Rhodesia, the whites and the blacks, that they should continue their negotiations and continue their efforts to find a settlement satisfactory to both. Because if at the end of the day they do not reach a negotiated settlement there can only be one consequence in Rhodesia, too terrible to imagine, a situation of blood, murder and deprivation. The responsibility lies not with the British Government; it lies with the Government of Rhodesia and the people of Rhodesia peacefully to reach a solution. If Her Majesty's Government can at any time intervene to mediate and help, in response to their request, then I hope that the Government will always be ready to move and provide the services of a very fine Civil Service, greatly experienced, not only knowledgeable but at heart absolutely right.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I did not want to interrupt the noble Lord earlier. At the beginning and again at the end of his speech he referred with some regret to the fact that this question comes up every year. Am I not right in saying- that when the policy of sanctions was originally introduced, it could not have been got through Parliament except on the basis that it was to be reconsidered annually?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I think it was a decision taken by the Government of the day that it would be wrong to have permanent legislation, because if you impose permanent legislation it is perhaps a recognition of failure.
7.29 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, despite the fact that this is the eighth year we have debated sanctions—not my eighth year in
550
this House, I think only my third—nevertheless, I have found the speeches quite fascinating. Although much of the argument was inevitably the same, whichever side it happened to come from, I think it is right that we should debate this yearly. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd—and not, as suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies, that we should perhaps have sanctions extending over five years.
The noble Lord, Lord Foot, who is of course a great Parliamentarian, reminded us that we are discussing a rather narrow point about Section 2 of the Rhodesia Act. But the results, as he said, of removing Section 2 from that Act would mean, in effect, that the British people would be abdicating their responsibility to Rhodesia. However much we all want to see an end to this apparently unending problem, I believe that we have to face the fact that we have a responsibility. To abdicate that responsibility is indeed a very great step to take. I agree with my noble friend Lord Coleraine that this is an opportunity to look at where we have got to with our policies, and to see whether it is right to have a change in policy. I should like to join with all those who have congratulated the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, on what, if I may say so, was a quite remarkable maiden speech. We all had great affection for his most distinguished father. He was, in fact, godfather to my daughter. It is very good to hear that voice again, although of course I regret that he is following the same policy as his father.
My noble friend Lord Salisbury raised a question which is of great interest, and it was also raised by my noble friend Lord Coleraine who, however much I profoundly disagree with him, nevertheless is one of the most attractive speakers I have ever heard. This is a very important question. My noble friend Lord Salisbury suggested that if a settlement was achieved in Rhodesia, then the United Nations, and 'particularly what lie called the "Afro-Asian bloc and the Communist bloc", would be unlikely to endorse any settlement. This was echoed by my noble friend Lord Coleraine. I would say to him that I think that both noble Lords are too over pessimistic. We must remember that the Commonwealth Heads of Government, meeting

551
in Ottawa, including the Afro-Asians represented there, showed the most encouraging moderation and realism towards Rhodesia. I believe that if we did get a settlement which was acceptable to African and European alike within Rhodesia then, although I am sure that some would disapprove, if they basically were in agreement I believe that the United Nations would accept that fact.
Naturally, opinions differ as to how we can achieve a settlement. There are many who consider that we should, for a variety of reasons, give up sanctions and formally recognise Rhodesia. My noble friend Lord Fraser of Lonsdale asked how we could recognise the Government of Chile and yet not recognise Rhodesia. As was so clearly put by the noble Lord, Lord Garner, the two questions are quite different. Chile is a sovereign State, and in fact complies with the necessary criteria for recognition, while Rhodesia is not; she is still, by our Constitution, a British colony.
It is suggested that from the Rhodesian point of view sanctions have in fact had the wrong result; that they make Europeans resentful; that they harm Africans more than Europeans, and that they are ineffective because the Rhodesian economy can survive sanctions, whatever the difficulties. I would agree with my noble friend Lord Coleraine that there is a danger that sanctions unite Europeans. I think that is so, but I also suggest that they still have a necessary, if regrettable, effect because all Rhodesians know that they cannot really develop their economy unless sanctions are removed. That is one of the reasons why most Rhodesians realise that a settlement is essential. Of course, it is true that the Africans suffer from sanctions, particularly in loss of jobs. If I may say so, I thought that the speech of my noble friend Lord Winchester, who has just come from Rhodesia to join us in this debate, was very moving in describing to us the difficulties which Africans experience with sanctions. On the other hand, we have to remember that the Africans themselves proved clearly to the Pearce Commission that they were prepared to put up with these disadvantages in the interests of their future position—a point put by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd.
552
It is perfectly true that there are leaks in sanctions, and everybody knows this. The noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies, asked me certain specific questions on sanctions, which I should like to answer. She asked me first about the three Boeings that managed somehow to arrive in Rhodesia. So far, one German company has been prosecuted, and investigations in Switzerland are not yet complete. She also asked me about Tango Romeo and the meat trade. Mr. Eddy, of the Sunday Times, has given a full exposition to the Sanctions Committee on this, and the Sanctions Committee have written to several countries asking for explanations. The noble Baroness asked me about a certain gentleman who has been offered a lucrative job in Rhodesia I understand that the Secretary of State for Defence is considering this particular case. She also asked me whether Her Majesty's Government were in favour of a United Nations Commissioner for Sanctions. An appointment of such a person has now been made. He has wide economic experience, as was asked for by the Sanctions Committee. I should like to refute the suggestion that has been made that no other country, except perhaps ours, has tried to make sanctions work. Sanctions breakers have been prosecuted, and Rhodesian cargo has been seized in other countries. Recently some major trading nations have shown considerable interest in improving their domestic controls, and are determined to do so.
Naturally Her Majesty's Government consider, not only every year but throughout the year, with the greatest care, whether any shift in policy is advisable and could influence this complex and seemingly intractable matter. It is true that, while we have responsibility for Rhodesia, we have but a limited ability to influence the situation. The policies of the previous Government in relation to Rhodesia were circumscribed by these realities in just the same way as are the policies of this Government. I would make it quite clear, in particular to my noble friend Lord Coleraine, that the Government are ready to help in the search for a settlement in Rhodesia, whenever we judge that it would be useful to do so. We do not rule out for the future the possibility of some closer British involvement.
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am delighted to hear that the Government are willing to intervene when they think that the situation is suitable. What I should like to ask the noble Baroness now is, how in the world are they to know when the situation is suitable when they have no representation there?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, although obviously it is a disadvantage not to have formal representation in Rhodesia, nevertheless there axe other ways in which we can find out what is happening. The noble Lord will remember that my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, gave an enormous amount of time and careful thought to the 1971 proposals. When they were not accepted after the Pearce Commission, we concluded that perhaps no settlement would really last unless all Rhodesians, whether African or European, would try themselves to come together and to have at any rate a foundation of agreement. We shall hear when that foundation has been achieved. It may well be that that might be the time to have some closer British involvement. I would say to my noble friend Lord Grimston that this is just exactly what we have been trying to do. He asked us whether we would encourage Rhodesians of all the races. This is exactly what my right honourable friend has tried to do. My Lords, I said in opening this debate that we should not underestimate the importance of the change which has taken place on the Rhodesian political scene during the past year, and I suggest that at least in part that change derives from the fact that over the past year the British Government have sought to avoid too close a direct involvement and have, instead, encouraged Rhodesians to discuss their future together. Even my noble friend Lord Barnby said that there is good progress towards a settlement, as indeed did my noble friend Lord Gridley.
My noble friend Lord Milverton, whom I always respect as a very great administrator, said that we must distinguish between what he called ultimate ideals and present possibilities. My Lords, that is exactly what we are trying to do, because at this moment, as I understand it, the majority of the Africans within Rhodesia are not asking for "one man,
554
one vote" now. That is not the question at issue. The Europeans themselves have accepted that one day there will in fact be majority rule. We want majority rule not just because it is a form of constitutional advance but because we think there should be unimpeded progress towards majority rule. We are very well aware of certain dangers which were mentioned by both my noble friends Lord Coleraine and Lord Milverton, but we are convinced that there are even greater dangers in permitting the perpetuation of minority rule and the failure to provide an outlet for the legitimate political aspirations of Africans. Above all, what we are seeking to do in getting a settlement is to lay the foundations for unimpeded progress towards a multi-racial State.
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Onslow spoke about the Fifth Principle, as indeed did my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, who I am glad to say supported sanctions although understood that he was not in favour of the Fifth Principle. But, of course, we are committed by the Fifth Principle not to accept a settlement until we are satisfied that it is acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole. We feel that that is right. The Pearce Commission found that it was not acceptable. I admit they said there was some intimidation, but they said it was not decisive and that it did not make them feel that they could change a "No" into a "Yes". We still feel that we must abide by the Fifth Principle. My noble friend Lord Gridley said that if we gave up our responsibility now there would not be disorder because there was already disorder so far as the security situation is concerned in Rhodesia. He maintained that it was completely under control—and I am glad to say that I believe that is so at the moment. But we are not saying that there would be disorder within Rhodesia only: what we are saying is that there would be great chaos and conflict all around Rhodesia, and indeed in Africa as a whole.
My noble friend Lord Forester—and might I also welcome him from Rhodesia, even at that great expense which he described to us—said that he thought it was ridiculous that sanctions were imposed because the situation was described by the Security Council as being a threat to the peace. My Lords,

555
being wise after the event, although we voted against it at the time, I think we felt that the imposition of mandatory sanctions under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter was perhaps unwise. We believed it was a dispute which should have been settled between Rhodesia and the United Kingdom; but the fact remains that, now having the responsibility of office, we are faced with United Nations mandatory sanctions, and, as I sought to explain in my opening remarks, as a Permanent Member of the United Nations we cannot say that we will not carry out mandatory sanctions imposed by the United Nations when at the same time we ask other countries, such as Iceland, to obey international law.
My Lords, I was very glad when the noble Lord, Lord Strange, said that he hoped that Rhodesia would one day become a member of the Commonwealth. We hope so, too, but we want that to happen in a way which would give her the best start as a member of the Commonwealth. We want the races within Rhodesia to come together and to come
to a settlement that is broadly acceptable to them. Then, we in this Parliament should be able to grant an Independence Charter to Rhodesia and then go to the United Nations and say that we have discharged our task and ask for the lifting of mandatory sanctions. But, my Lords, until that comes we must not be discouraged because progress is so incredibly slow. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester rightly said—and I quote his words:
"Growing together is a long process".
While none of us can underestimate the difficulties which remain, without doubt some considerable progress has been made. Many Rhodesians of all races are genuinely trying to find a reconciliation together, and I suggest to the House that they deserve all the support that they can get from this country. That is why I ask your Lordships to support this Order.
7.47 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 73; Not-Contents, 33.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Eccles, V.

Merrivale, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Amory, V.

Falkland, V.

Northchurch, B.

Amulree, L.

Ferrers, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Balfour, E.

Foot, L.

Onslow, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Fortescue, E.

Peddie, L.

Belstead, L.

Gardiner, L.

Piatt, L.

Beswick, L.

Garner, L.

Polwarth, L.

Bristol, L.Bp.

Garnsworthy, L.

Redcliffe-Maud, L.

Brockway, L.

Gowrie, E.

Reigate, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Rochester, L.Bp.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Grenfell, L.

St. Aldwyn, E, [Teller.]

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hailes, L.

Sandford, L.

Cathcart, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebor L. (L. Chancellor.)

Shepherd, L.

Chichester, L.Bp.

South wark, L.Bp.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hanworth, V.

Strathcona and Mount Royal.L.

Colwyn, L.

Henley, L.

Courtown, E.

Janner, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Cowley, E.

Limerick, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Llewelyn-Davifes of Hastoe, B

Tweedsmuir, L.

Derby, L.Bp.

London, L.Bp.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, B.

Digby, L.

Lyell, L.

Wakefield, L.Bp.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L

Macleod of Borve, B.

Windlesham, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Drumalbyn. L.

Mansfield, E.

Wolverton, L.

Durham, L.Bp.

Maybray-King, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Barnby, L. [Teller.]

Craigavon, V.

Headfort, M.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Ferrier, L.

Killearn, L.

Bolton, L.

Forester, L.

Kindersley, L.

Bourne, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Greenway, L.

Mar, E.

Clancarty, E.

Gridley, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Coleraine, L. [Teller,]

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Milverton, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Salisbury, M.

Strathclyde, L.

Newall, L.

Somers, L.

Thomas, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Poltimore, L.

Strange, L.

Winchester, M.

Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, may I inform the House that in view of the brevity with which your Lordships have spoken to-day, dinners will not now be available. Food will be available in the bars for those who want it.
I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.

NORTH WALES HYDRO ELECTRIC POWER BILL
Committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
House adjourned at five minutes before eight o'clock.