Sitting of 26 April 1978

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

    Neutron Bomb
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, in view of President Carters decision to defer development of the neutron bomb, he will make it his policy that in no circumstances will Great Britain consent to the storing or deployment of neutron bombs in Great Britain.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Dr. David Owen): President Carter has made it clear that his ultimate decision will depend on how the Russians respond to his call for them to show restraint in their arms programmes and force deployments. The Government support this position. No question of storing or deploying the neutron bomb therefore arises at this time.
    Mr. Jenkins: I am glad to hear that from the Secretary of State. I am sure that many of us on the Government Benches will agree that he should be encouraged to continue to resist the pressure put upon him by the Opposition to agree to the development of this nuclear weapon—a weapon which would have only disastrous consequences, resulting in national suicide and a possible end to European civilisation. Although President Carter has said that the Soviet decision not to proceed with the neutron bomb is not a matter of significance, does not my right hon. Friend recognise that if the Soviet Union, depressed by this response, were to decide to develop the neutron bomb, both he and the President would regard it as a matter of considerable significance? In view of that, will my
    1352
    right hon. Friend welcome the Soviet decision now?
    Dr. Owen: I do not hold the same view as my hon. Friend about the significance of the neutron bomb. I believe that it is a development of an existing weapons system. I think that it was a balanced judgment and a right judgment not to deploy it at present, because the Soviet Union had attached a great deal of importance to it. Much of this, I believe, was propaganda, but the fact that the Russians had attached importance to it meant that we had to take it into account in creating the right climate for disarmament this year with the United Nations' Special Session. I am hopeful that it will contribute to improving the climate for disarmament.
    Mr. Speaker: I must appeal to hon. Members not to ask long supplementary questions.
    Mr. Pattie: Does not the Secretary of State think it odd that his hon. Friends who are campaigning against the neutron bomb are campaigning against a smaller, cleaner nuclear weapon? Therefore, may we infer that they are in favour of bigger and dirtier weapons? Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the neutron bomb is, in fact, an anti-tank weapon, and that there is therefore no question of its ever being deployed in the United Kingdom?
    Dr. Owen: It is true that the main military argument for deploying the neutron bomb is that it would deter a concentration of tanks. That is the main significance of the military argument. I think that the arguments about clean and dirty bombs are very difficult. None of us wants to see nuclear weapons deployed, ever but we must recognise that this is part of our system of deterrents, and, while it is, we must look at the modernisation of the weapons system. At this moment I believe that both qualitatively and quantitatively any increases in nuclear weapons should be avoided.
    Mr. George Rodgers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that possession of a neutron bomb, by its very nature, would imply that we were committed to first use of nuclear weapons in the event of conflict? Is this not a horrifying prospect, and will he bear it in mind in future discussions?
    Dr. Owen: My hon. Friend has put his finger on the main argument against the neutron bomb, which is the question whether it would reduce the nuclear threshold. That is a serious argument. A lot of what is being said about the actual technical arrangements of the bomb is not so serious. Personally, I think that the whole question of first use of nuclear weapons is a very delicate decision, which could only ever be taken under strict political control.
    Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Will the Secretary of State condemn the action of France in going ahead with the neutron bomb? Is he prepared to make a clear condemnation today?
    Dr. Owen: As I understand it, the French have categorically denied that they have let off a neutron bomb, or that they have any intention of so doing.
    Mr. John Davies: Will the Foreign Secretary say whether he thinks that the European Powers have adequately expressed their views to the United States on this major subject? Bearing in mind that, as has been said, the neutron bomb represents a potentially very important defence weapon against an overwhelming build-up of conventional armaments by the Soviet Union on the central European front, which directly affects the interests of Europeans, have he and his colleagues in Europe adequately briefed the United States on their views?
    Dr. Owen: There was the closest consultation on this, and over quite a long period of months. The final decision was taken by the President, as was inevitably right, and I think that in taking that decision he was influenced by the feeling that there was a more optimistic climate for disarmament measures. I share that optimism. I believe that 1978 will see a SALT II agreement and a comprehensive test ban agreement, and I am also hopeful that we shall have progress in the MBFR talks in Vienna.

    Africa (Soviet and Cuban Presence)
    Mr. Rifkindasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will now raise at the United Nations the continuing presence of Soviet and Cuban military personnel in Angola and Ethiopia as a potential threat to world peace.
    Mr. William Sheltonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise in the Security Council of the United Nations as a threat to world peace the presence of Russian and Cuban troops in the Horn of Africa and the continuing fighting betwen Ethiopia and Eritrea.
    Dr. Owen: The Government have made clear their concern at the scale and nature of Soviet and Cuban military involvement in Africa and share the view of the OAU that disputes within Africa should be settled by African States themselves. We have made it clear that we believe the Security Council could play a helpful role provided there were sufficient international backing to make it effective.
    Mr. Rifkind: Does the Foreign Secretary seriously doubt that if 17,000 British or American troops had been in Angola or Ethiopia the matter would have been raised in the United Nations months ago as a threat to world peace? Does he accept that brave speeches at banquets at the Mansion House are no justification for not raising the matter at the United Nations, where it really makes a difference? What has to happen before the present British Government will raise this matter in the Security Council?
    Dr. Owen: A sovereign country is entitled to ask others in to defend its borders. I think, therefore, that we have to make a distinction between the presence of Cubans in Ethiopia, in relation to Somalia, and any involvement of the Cubans in the internal issues of Ethiopia involved in Eritrea. In that case I have made my views very clear—that I think it would be totally unjustified. But it is a very dangerous precedent to establish that no sovereign nation can invite in troops from outside. That is something that we would not wish to hold.
    Mr. Litterick: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that at a recent meeting held in this building with an all-party group of Members and the Cuban Ambassador, the ambassador made it clear to the Members present that should Ethiopian troops set foot outside the territory of Ethiopia, Cuba would withdraw all military personnel from Ethiopia, just as Cuba did from Somalia when Somalian troops invaded Ethiopia?
    Dr. Owen: I have received that assurance, and I am grateful that there has been no major territorial incursion across the Somalia-Ethiopia border, but the Cubans have got to recognise that hitherto they have been supporting the Eritrean freedom fighters and that it would be a major change of policy if they were now suddenly to involve themselves in military disputes. I detect that they are having discussions with the Eritreans—I note that it has been reported in Havana—and I hope that they will use their influence to mediate to get a negotiated settlement.
    Mr. Blaker: Having just returned from Namibia, may I put to the Secretary of State a question which arises out of the presence of the Soviet and Cuban forces in Angola? Now that the South African Government have accepted the Western plan for Namibia, will the Western Powers be pressing the Soviet Union to use its undoubted influence with SWAPO, which operates from Angolan bases, so that SWAPO will also accept the Western plan and renounce its policy of intimidation by assassination?
    Dr. Owen: I welcome the South African decision, and I hope that it is followed by SWAPO. It is fair to say that Angola has, throughout, played a constructive role in the discussions. It obviously made no secret of the fact that it supports SWAPO, but it has indicated that it would like a negotiated settlement, and that is hopeful.
    Mr. Grocott: Faced, however, as he is, with increasingly bellicose noises from the Opposition about the presence of Soviet troops in various countries, does my right hon. Friend ever receive any concrete suggestions from the Opposition Front Bench on how those troops should be removed?
    Dr. Owen: It is important to keep the whole question in proportion. I am very worried about the effects of Soviet troops in Africa and the ability to switch the balance of power in Africa very rapidly, as happened in the Horn of Africa. On the other hand, we have to recognise that they have the right to be in Africa, as we do. What I object to is that the Soviet influence in Africa, as in other parts of the world, is not devoted to the welfare of the citizens through development aid and through humanitarian help, but a large portion of their financial effort and backing is made through military supplies.
    Mr. Luce: Whilst fully supporting the Foreign Secretary's speech at the Mansion House, in which he condemned the destructive Soviet and Cuban military intervention in Africa, may I say to him that it is deeds rather than words that will carry credibility with the Soviet Union? Will he now tell the House, particularly in the light of President Brezhnev's speech recently, in which he said that Soviet military intervention in Africa would be stepped up, what action the British Government propose to take to expose at the United Nations the nature of the Soviet and Cuban threat to international peace in the Horn of Africa and in other parts of Africa?
    Dr. Owen: One can go to the United Nations but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there is very little point in going to the Security Council—which is what we envisaged over the Ethiopian and Somalian dispute—if that means having the whole of the African group against us. The OAU has played a useful and important role in mediating between Ethiopia and Somalia. We have to get this whole question in proportion. Our best way of combating Soviet influence in Africa is not to put ourselves in the wrong, and not to do what a lot of Opposition Members wanted me to do, which was to support Somalia when it put its troops into the Ogaden.

    China
    Mr. Michael Spicerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any plans to meet the Chinese Foreign Minister.
    Mr. MacFarquharasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek to pay a visit to China.
    Dr. Owen: I have renewed my predecessor's invitation to the Chinese Foreign Minister to visit the United Kingdom. I also myself hope to visit China before too long. Our relations with China are increasingly important and substantial.
    Mr. Spicer: In view of the fact that the Republic of China is one of the few countries that is currently taking seriously the international military threat posed by the Soviet Union, have the Government

    1357
    given any consideration to an anti-Soviet defence pact with the Chinese?
    Dr. Owen: The question of a defence pact does not arise. The Chief of Defence Staff will pay an official visit to China from 27th April to 3rd May. This will be the first visit of a United Kingdom Chief of Defence Staff to China. The purpose of the visit is to have a broad exchange of views on defence matters, and I welcome it.
    Mr. MacFarquhar: Before my right hon. Friend meets the Chinese Foreign Minister, will be undertake to investigate the possibility of presenting proposals to him for a cultural agreement, perhaps on the lines of that between France and China, which would regularise the very welcome exchanges between this country and Peking? Will he also undertake, before that meeting, to talk to representatives of the Sinological community in this country, such as the British Association for Chinese Studies, to make sure that those people in particular get the most out of any such agreement?
    Dr. Owen: I shall certainly look sympathetically at the suggestions that my hon. Friend has made. It is my intention to improve our relations with China. They have been steadily improving, and there is room for more improvement, for greater commercial exchange, and for greater cultural, scientific and technological exchange. I wish to deepen our relations with that very important country.
    Mr. Aitken: In view of China's close geographical and diplomatic links with Pakistan, will the Foreign Secretary consider organising a diplomatic initiative to ensure that the former Pakistan Prime Minister, Mr. Bhutto, gets a fair trial and is also given more humane treatment than would appear to be the case at present?
    Dr. Owen: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his ingenuity. The House knows that I have had discussions about this issue with the President of Pakistan's foreign affairs adviser. I think that at present the question is under appeal.
    Mr. Norman Atkinson: Will the Foreign Secretary now give an assurance that although he will do everything possible to improve our relationships with China, it will not be at the expense of our relationship with the Soviet Union?
    Dr. Owen: My hon. Friend asks a serious question. It is not in the interests of this country to make such a dramatic shift in our policy that would alienate the second most powerful country in the world. However, I do not think that the Soviet Union would have any standing in intervening in our willingness to improve our relationship with China. We shall make our decisions on that relationship on their merits and on what is in the best interests of Britain.
    Mr. Welsh: What steps is the right hon. Gentleman taking to encourage contacts and understanding between the United Kingdom and China outside Government level? Is he aware of the threatened cut-backs in Chinese and Asian studies at Scots universities? Will he encourage his colleagues in the Department of Education and Science to provide funds to ensure that these important studies are maintained?
    Dr. Owen: I shall consider that. There was a long tradition of Chinese expertise in Britain which may well have tended to dwindle in recent years. It is important to ensure that it is built up. My hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar) is a distinguished example of someone who understands and knows China extremely well.

    Middle East
    Mr. Waltersasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's attitude on progress towards peace in the Middle East.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Frank Judd): I have nothing to add to the reply my right hon. Friend gave the hon. Gentleman on 22nd March.
    Mr. Walters: As the present contacts between the United States Government and the Governments in the area do not appear to be making satisfactory progress, does the Foreign Secretary consider that this might be an opportune time for the European Community to bring forward an initiative aimed at bringing the negotiations back into the international arena? Will the hon. Gentleman take the opportunity to confirm what is now generally agreed, namely, that it is essential, in order to have a

    1359
    settlement, that Palestinian rights should be recognised?
    Mr. Judd: Heads of Government and Foreign Secretaries discussed this matter during the recent meeting of the European Council. After that meeting the Presidency gave a full account of the discussion to the Egyptians and others. The Egyptians expressed themselves as well satisfied with that which had taken place. Of course, we recognise that the interests and needs of the Palestinians are factors that have to be taken into account if we are to get a lasting settlement.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: What contribution to peace in the Middle East was the Israeli invasion of the Lebanon, bearing in mind that several thousand people were killed and over 200,000 were made refugees? Would it not seem to indicate that Menachem Begin, the Israeli Prime Minister, is as great a terrorist now as ever he was?
    Mr. Judd: Anyone with an ounce of compassion must be concerned about the suffering that preceded it. We, together with other members of the Nine, have called upon the Israelis to withdraw from South Lebanon in accordance with the resolutions passed at the United Nations.
    Mr. Michael Latham: Why should Israel be required to rely upon great-Power territorial guarantees? What use are those guarantees to Israel, compared with secure and defensible frontiers?
    Mr. Judd: The only lasting and effective solution to the dispute between the Arabs and Israel will be found by the Arabs and Israelis working together and committing themselves to guaranteeing the future effectively.
    Mr. Raphael Tuck: Am I not right in thinking that neither the West Bank nor the Gaza Strip is the recognised territory of any sovereign State but that both are part of the Palestine Mandate, an international trust, and, therefore, subject to negotiations as anticipated by Resolution 242, which requires changes to provide secure and recognised borders?
    Mr. Judd: Resolution 242 requires secure borders but also calls upon Israel to be prepared to withdraw on all three fronts.
    Mr. David Watkinsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise at the United Nations Security Council as a threat to peace in the Middle East the continued presence of Israeli troops in Southern Lebanon.
    Mr. Judd: No, Sir.
    Mr. Watkins: In that case, will my hon. Friend take the opportunity to press the United Nations for action to ensure the return to their homes with full compensation of the 200,000 refugees created by this Israeli military operation, bearing in mind that that would set no precedent since this would be entirely in line with United Nations resolutions in regard to refugees in this part of the world for 30 years, although none of them has ever been implemented?
    Mr. Judd: The humanitarian problems facing refugees in this area must be a major consideration for us all. But the first priority, to which we are all committed to find a solution, is to re-establish peace and security on that frontier.
    Mr. Henderson: Does the Minister feel that it would be appropriate at this stage to remind the House of the provocation that Israel suffered, which led to the incursion into Lebanon? Does he also feel that it would be useful if those who are pressing this matter today were to call for these States to recognise Israel as a State and to give guarantees that there will be no future incursions of a terrorist nature across Israel's borders?
    Mr. Judd: No one can condone the terrorist activity that preceded the invasion of South Lebanon. Indeed, this Government have made plain how disgusted they were by the whole episode. If we wish to find a lasting solution in the Middle East, a willingness by the Arab States to recognise Israel's right to existence and to guarantee it would help forward that solution, without doubt.
    Mr. Hooley: Does my hon. Friend agree that perhaps there is a prior right of recognition of the Palestinians, whose land has been stolen.
    Mr. Judd: I have already said, in answer to a previous question, that the

    1361
    legitimate rights and interests of the Palestinian people are factors which have to be taken into account if we are to find a lasting solution.
    Mr. Rifkind: Further to the question posed by the hon. Member for Aberdeen-shire, East (Mr. Henderson), does the Minister agree that the demand for an evacuation of Israeli troops from Southern Lebanon would become unanswerable only if there were sufficient guarantees that such an evacuation would not lead to a renewal of terrorist incursions into Israeli villages?
    Mr. Judd: I agree that the greater the speed with which the United Nations interim force in Lebanon can be put in place with the resources at its disposal to make its work effective, the more convincing will be the case that there will be no threat or danger to security in that area.
    Mr. Litterick: Does the Minister agree that, given the persistence and the threat of war in the Middle East during the last 30 years and the present wretched situation in the Eastern Mediterranean, the policy followed by the United States, the USSR, France and the United Kingdom of supplying large quantities of armaments to every nation State in the Middle East has proved to be a disastrous failure for the peoples of the Middle East and that the United Kingdom is in duty bound to take some initiative to put an end to this murderous traffic?
    Mr. Judd: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that any nation which exports or sells arms to any part of the world must take fully into account the political considerations of such activity and whether it is likely to lead to greater prospects of peace and stability or to disrupt the prospects of stability in particular areas.

    World Commodities Centre
    Mrs. Chalkerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in view of the economic importance to the United Kingdom of the presence in London of the headquarters of international commodity organisations, when he will state his decision on sponsorship of the establishment in London of a world commodities centre, so that the organisation already in the United King
    1362
    dom will have a clear picture of how to deal with its present accommodation problems, and also so that other new commodity organisations, such as copper, will have inducement to establish their headquarters in London in the future.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Evan Luard): My right hon. Friend received the executive heads of the London-based commodity organisations last month, when they presented him with a useful memorandum setting out their difficulties. He has instructed his officials to work on this question urgently. Ministers will be meeting to consider the matter when the necessary preliminary study has taken place.
    Mrs. Chalker: I declare an interest, Mr. Speaker. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that other European Governments are actively encouraging likely new commodity organisations to set up in their capitals? Further, is he aware that we shall have to offer real incentives to persuade such organisations to come to Great Britain and to sort themselves out in a beneficial way to the British economy?
    Mr. Luard: We are very much aware that other countries are anxious to attract these organisations to their capitals. That is one of the reasons why we have taken the proposal seriously. I agree that it is an important and imaginative idea. That is why we have been having discussions with the heads of the organisations. That is also why my right hon. Friend has seen the heads of the organisations, and why we hope to be able to reach a conclusion shortly.
    Mr. Ioan Evans: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Parliamentary Association for World Government, which is an all-party group, has been encouraging the project? Is he further aware that there is a need for urgency? Does he agree that it would be a great thing if a world commodity trade centre were set up in London, which would lead to international co-operation and bring great economic benefit to Britain?
    Mr. Luard: I am aware of the association's interest in this matter. I was involved in it myself at an earlier stage. One of the proposals is precisely to establish a single world commodity centre in

    1363
    this country. That is one of the matters that we are discussing with the commodity organisations.
    Mr. Crawford: If such a centre were to be established, would not Aberdeen be a better place for it than London?
    Mr. Luard: One of our assets—this answers precisely the supplementary question raised by the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker)—is that London is an extremely attractive centre for these organisations, for various reasons. London happens to be an important commercial centre and a centre for commodity markets. I do not think that Aberdeen can provide a suitable alternative.
    Mr. Henderson: Rubbish.
    Mr. John Davies: I support the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker). I add that an early intervention may be necessary, bearing in mind that our past experience of giving great and deep thought to these matters over a protracted period has sometimes landed us without the baby that we wanted to get. Does the hon. Gentleman recall the problems that we had with the European Patent Organisation and our regrets that ensued from our rather late entry into the discussions?
    Mr. Luard: We are well aware of the urgency. I think that the House will agree that we have treated the matter with some urgency. It is only a few weeks ago that the commodity organisations presented their proposal to us. We have a specific, concrete proposal, which we are considering as urgently as we can.

    Hong Kong (Corruption Charges)
    Mr. Terry Walkerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the latest charges of corruption in Hong Kong.
    Mr. Luard: On 7th April 20 serving Hong Kong police officers, four retired police officers and two Customs and Excise inspectors received summonses to appear in court on corruption charges. The Hong Kong Government remain determined to eradicate corruption from the territory. In this they have the full support of Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. Walker: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the whole status and
    1364
    credibility of Hong Kong is undermined by these charges of corruption, especially when they concern police officers? Will he ask my right hon. Friend to have talks urgently with the Hong Kong Government to ensure that we get to the bottom of the corruption in Hong Kong?
    Mr. Luard: I entirely agree that this is a major and serious problem. I assure my hon. Friend that we are in continuous contact with the Hong Kong Government on the matter. He may be interested to know that there have been 260 prosecutions and 130 convictions of police officers on corruption charges since the Independent Commission against Corruption was established three or four years ago.
    Sir P. Bryan: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the commission has had a dramatic effect on corruption in general, and especially on syndicated corruption?
    Mr. Luard: I believe that the commission believes that it has largely eradicated large-scale syndicated corruption of the sort to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I think that there has been a significant change in Hong Kong as a result of the commission's activities. It would be an incredible task for it totally to eradicate corruption in a place such as Hong Kong, but there has been substantial progress over the past three years or four years.
    Mr. Hal Millerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent dismissals from the Royal Hong Kong Police, and on the present state of morale of that force.
    Mr. Luard: Notices of compulsory retirement under Colonial Regulation 55 were served on 118 officers of the Royal Hong Kong Police force on 7th April 1978. The force reacted calmly to this action, and continues to carry out its duties effectively.
    Mr. Miller: Will the Minister confirm that since those events there has been a very welcome reduction in the crime rate and an increase in the confidence of the public in the Hong Kong police force? Further, will he tell the House what recommendations the Home Office police team in the colony has made and what is being done to give effect to them to

    1365
    increase the administrative back-up for the force?
    Mr. Luard: I confirm that generally the situation in Hong Kong regarding the police and public support for the police are very satisfactory at the present time. I think that recent actions have helped to bring about that situation.
    The report of the police team is not yet available. One of the objects of sending out that team was to help to restore morale within the police and to help generally in the improved organisation of the police force in Hong Kong.
    Mr. Ronald Atkins: Is the inadequacy of the Hong Kong police force a reason why child labour continues to be employed on a large scale and why so many sweat shops continue to exist in Hong Kong?
    Mr. Luard: I think that my hon. Friend knows that the regulations governing the employment of child labour and other conditions of work in Hong Kong have been progressively and dramatically improved in the last year or so.

    Gibraltar
    Mr. Albert Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if any progress has been achieved during the recent discussions between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Spain concerning Gibraltar and the outstanding differences between the two countries.
    Mr. Judd: My right hon. Friend has nothing to add to the report on his meeting with the Spanish Foreign Minister on 15th March which he gave to the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis) on 22nd March.
    Mr. Roberts: Does my hon. Friend realise that we understand the strategic value of Gibraltar? Does he appreciate that this sordid business has gone on since 1704—over 250 years ago? Does he further realise that the true indigenous people of Gibraltar are Spaniards? Does he agree that it is high time that we came to an amicable arrangement?
    Mr. Judd: Our basic position remains unchanged. Naturally we want to see the best possible relationships between Gibraltar and Spain, but as a Government we are not prepared to envisage any
    1366
    developments which will not be endorsed by and are not acceptable to the people of Gibraltar.
    Mr. Farr: Will the Minister confirm the last point that he made, namely, that no change whatsoever in the status of Gibraltar can take place without the wholehearted and total support of the people of Gibraltar?
    Mr. Judd: Our position is as it has always been. We are not prepared to envisage any changes which are not acceptable to the people of Gibraltar.

    Moscow
    Mr. Greville Jannerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will seek to pay an official visit to Moscow.
    Mr. Luard: My right hon. Friend has no present plans to do so.
    Mr. Janner: As my right hon. Friend is not planning to go to Moscow at the moment, will he now protest at the continued imprisonment of members of the Moscow-Helsinki monitoring committee? In particular, can he tell the House anything of the fate of Anatole Shcharansky, who has been held incommunicado for over 12 months?
    Mr. Luard: My right hon. Friend and the Government generally have made known their concern on these questions many times in this House and on other occasions. During the Belgrade conference there was prolonged discussion about matters of this kind. We are well aware of the situation of Mr. Shcharansky, and opportunity is taken on appropriate occasions to make known our concern.
    Mr. Boscawen: In view of the fact that 4 million or 5 million individuals inside the Soviet Union can and do listen regularly to the BBC, will the Minister ensure that, within the resources available for overseas broadcasts, greater priority is given to the size of transmitters and other facilities for the BBC to continue its transmissions there?
    Mr. Luard: I agree that the facilities and transmitters available to the BBC's overseas broadcasts are matters of considerable concern to us. These matters were commented on in the CPRS report about overseas representation. I assure

    1367
    the hon. Gentleman that discussions are going on with a view to improving those facilities.
    Mr. Heffer: Will my hon. Friend ask the Secretary of State, when he goes to Moscow on some future occasion, to tell the Russian Government that many Labour Members want peace, friendship, detente and the best possible relations with the Soviet Union but that it is impossible for us to understand why ordinary working peole who want to create free and independent trade unions, separate from the State—free in the sense that we understand trade unions—are sometimes put in mental institutions and arrested for trying to do something which in this country and in most countries in Western Europe is accepted as normal procedure?
    Mr. Luard: I fully agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that the Soviet Government will take note of the views that he has expressed today and on previous occasions in the House on this question. The use of mental institutions as a means of imprisoning or keeping out of action people who express their own opinions, and, above all, people who simply try to perform the task of trade union leaders, is totally unacceptable to us in this House. I know that my right hon. Friend has heard what my hon. Friend said and will take account of it.

    Rhodesia
    Mr. Kenneth Lewisasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in discussions with the United States Government on securing agreement on policy on Rhodesia.
    Dr. Owen: Mr. Vance and I spent several days together in Africa recently and had further discussions this week. We are in complete agreement concerning our joint policy towards Rhodesia and will continue to work closely together in our efforts to achieve a negotiated settlement.
    Mr. Lewis: As one who previously did not oppose sanctions against Rhodesia, may I ask the Foreign Secretary whether he thinks it is time for himself and the Government to take an initiative at the United Nations to get sanctions removed against Rhodesia in order to give sup
    1368
    port to the now multi-racial Government there, especially in view of the fact that there is need for a counterbalance against the forces surrounding Rhodesia?
    Dr. Owen: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's stand on this issue, but I do not think that it would be wise to take the course he suggests. Apart from anything else, it would not be accepted by the other member States. Furthermore, I do not think that it would be justified on its merits. I believe that that issue would have to be faced, as I have already said to the House, if we were satisfied that the Fifth Principle had been carried out, if there had been a transfer of power, and if a new Government had been elected and independence established. In those circumstances we would have to decide whether to recognise and whether to lift sanctions.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Despite the time, I intend to call one more hon. Member from the Government side and then the Opposition Front Bench speaker, and I shall add the time taken by them to the end of Question Time.
    Mr. Newens: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the internal settlement was brought about by the Smith regime only as a result of pressure brought to bear by the Patriotic Front? Would it not be a recipe for continuing war and disaster in Southern Africa if we were to withdraw sanctions or go any way towards recognition of that so-called internal settlement?
    Dr. Owen: I have no doubt that there have been a number of pressures which have brought about the movement that has taken place—in which, I regret, the need for armed fighting and a continuation of such fighting has been a factor. But I do not think this House should underestimate the effects of United Nations sanctions. I believe that after a period of 12 years they, too, have begun to bite.
    I agree with my hon. Friend that we should pursue a negotiated settlement, and I believe that it is possible to achieve this on the basis of a United Nations presence, a neutral administration and fair and free elections. What has happened in the last day or so in Namibia gives me some ground for thinking that

    1369
    we may be able to achieve the same sort of agreement in Rhodesia.
    Mr. John Davies: I applaud the efforts of the right hon. Gentleman and the United States Secretary of State, Mr. Vance, to secure a peaceful solution in Rhodesia. However, does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that his persistent commitment to the Anglo-American plan is bound to undermine the potential fruition of the settlement reached between Mr. Smith and the three black leaders? Will he please now give some kind of support to ensuring that that which represents at present by far the most likely system to bring peace to that country will be carried forward with help and not with hindrance?
    Dr. Owen: It is not my job to hinder anybody. My job is to try to seek a wider measure of agreement. One way of achieving that agreement is to bring about a cease fire. I keep coming back to the issue of a ceasefire because that is the crucial element that is missing in the internal settlement. That requires the participation of all the nationalist leaders in negotiations. Without it, I believe that there will be continued conflict and that it will be very much harder to hold fair and free elections, harder to get international acceptance, and certainly harder for Zimbabwe to become a prosperous independent country.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

    Council of Ministers
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet his EEC colleagues; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Alan Lee Williamsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects the next meeting of the EEC Foreign Ministers Council to take place.
    Mr. Spearingasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to attend a meeting of the Council of the EEC.
    Dr. Owen: The next EEC Foreign Affairs Council meeting will be in Brussels on 2nd May.
    Mr. Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend tell the Common Market leaders in this run-up period to these "phoney" direct elections, which are supposed to take place next year, that there is another softening-up process beginning in the use of slush fund moneys in the Common Market to attract political activists and rank-and-file members from all political parties in this country with the offer of free holidays to the Common Market on supposed fact-finding visits? Is it not remarkable that among all the talk of economy in this country there is never any shortage of money for Common Market brainwashing?
    Dr. Owen: I hope that my hon. Friend will accept one of the invitations that have been sent out. If he has not had an invitation, I shall try to exercise whatever influence I have.
    Mr. Skinner: Some people have integrity.
    Dr. Owen: These are meant to be informational visits.
    Mr. Skinner: I am not going on the "gravy train."
    Dr. Owen: It is an opportunity for a two-way exchange of views. If my hon. Friend, with his well-known views, goes to the EEC, he may win some converts.
    Mr. Williams: Will my right hon. Friend confirm whether, at the next political co-operation meeting or a subsequent meeting, consideration will be given to co-ordination of European policy in respect of the worrying situation in the Horn of Africa?
    Dr. Owen: Yes, Sir; this matter is discussed in political co-operation meetings. There has recently been a tendency to hold political co-operation meetings, if not formally at least informally, at every meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers. This is a welcome development. The subject has been discussed in the past, and I am sure that it will be discussed fairly soon.
    Mr. Spearing: In view of the increasing importance of world trade, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether, when he next meets his colleagues in the Council of Ministers, he will tell them that there are an increasing number of people in this country who view the EEC's world trading

    1371
    practices as similar to those adopted by the European trading States before 1914, particularly in dumping surpluses of grain, sugar and milk products irresponsibly on the world market? Does he agree that these practices are not international in the sense in which that word has always been understood in this House and in this country?
    Dr. Owen: Our general aim on the common agricultural policy is progressively to reduce real support prices in respect of those needed by efficient producers to bring about a better balance of supply and demand. We would like to see an even tougher approach than the Commission has proposed for products in structural surplus, particularly milk.
    Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that in any fishing negotiations with third countries the 50 miles around our shores will not be used as a bargaining tool?
    Dr. Owen: The hon. Lady can be assured that we will uphold the interests of the fishing industry. We have never seen fit to trade this off in relation to any other EEC issues. We have treated the matter on its merits and have held to our position. We shall continue to do so.
    Sir D. Walker-Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman use the occasion of this meeting to seek to secure from the Council of Ministers positive and unanimous action to secure provision, in the renegotiation of the Lomé Convention, of a condition making the receipt of economic aid conditional on the observance of the fundamental human rights enshrined in articles 3 to 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
    Dr. Owen: I have long made clear to the House that that is the objective of Her Majesty's Government. We may have some difficulty in persuading all our Community partners, but it is an anomalous situation, to say the least, and very disadvantageous for the Community that there is no legal way to end aid to a country that may have committed flagrant abuses of human rights. All we are saying is that if the Community were to act in unanimity, it should be able to review a commitment entered into under the Convention. That should be one of the objectives in the renegotiation of the Lomé Convention.
    Mr. Fernyhough: When my right hon. Friend attends this meeting, will he remind his European colleagues that since we joined the EEC our trade deficit has grown to over £10,000 million, which is equivalent to what we have had to borrow from the World Bank? Is it not time that the Community began to live up to what its members told us would happen to our economy if only we joined?
    Dr. Owen: We are concerned at the relative contribution that we pay in comparison with other Community countries, particularly when taken against our relative wealth. One way of achieving this is to improve our own competitiveness and sell more. We need to examine some of the financial arrangements that bear very heavily on this country.
    Mr. Hurd: Will the right hon. Gentleman say something about the Community's attitude on Turkey, which is now becoming increasingly important? In particular, what is the view of Her Majesty's Government and our partners about the supply of arms to Turkey by the United States and her European allies, including ourselves?
    Dr. Owen: Turkey is a member of NATO and as such has to be considered in a special category, but I think that there are concerns—this has certainly influenced arms policy—that Turkey has had difficult relations with another associate in NATO, and in particular there is the problem of Cyprus. I think that we should take these issues on their merits. We should look at Turkey as a member of the Alliance and consider what are its genuine defence needs as a part of that Alliance. Too great a linkage of these issues would be dangerous, but I am not saying that we can totally ignore some of these other political factors.

    Middle East
    Mr. Hicksasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent consultations he has had with fellow Foreign Ministers in the member States of the EEC about the Middle East.
    Dr. Owen: I am in regular contact with my colleagues of the Nine about developments in the Middle East.
    Mr. Hicks: In view of the contacts that European leaders had with the Governments of the Arab States and Isreal following the recent European Summit, and the difficulties that the American efforts appear to be running into at the present time, will the Foreign Secretary reconsider the statement made by the Minister of State earlier this afternoon that the time is not appropriate for a major European initiative in order to bring the whole subject back into the international arena?
    Dr. Owen: I do not think that it is the right time for a major initiative. I think that the dust needs to settle and that people need to consider carefully what compromise they think is necessary in the present situation. There is no case for an initiative at this moment. There is a case for serious thought about the consequences of not entering into serious negotiations.
    Mrs. Jeger: Will my right hon. Friend say a little more about consultations with EEC colleagues concerning Cyprus, particularly in view of the fact that both Greece and Turkey are anxious to come closer to the Community? Surely this is a major matter that should be discussed among EEC members.
    Dr. Owen: It is discussed, and I do not rule out the possibility that we shall feel it right to take some action at some stage. But at the moment the main responsibility—it is a very difficult one—rests on the Secretary-General of the United Nations in deciding whether to call another meeting for inter-communal talks on the basis of the proposals put forward by the Turkish Government.
    I do not hide from the House the fact that I do not believe that as yet we are approaching an eventual settlement, but I think that both sides should hesitate very seriously before refusing to enter discussions. In international affairs there is very little advantage in refusing to discuss and to come to the negotiating table. I recognise that this is a decision for them—and only for them—to make, but I urge negotiations even if it is entered into without any great sense of optimism.
    Mr. Brotherton: Having earlier this afternoon heard the Foreign Secretary's hon. Friend condemn terrorism in the Middle East, may I ask the Foreign Secretary, the next time he meets the EEC
    1374
    Foreign Ministers, to make it clear to them that Her Majesty's Government equally condemn terrorism in Rhodesia?
    Dr. Owen: I have made it clear that I deplore terrorist acts anywhere in the world. If the hon. Gentleman has not heard that, he has not been a very frequent attender in this House.
    Mr. David Watkins: May I bring the subject back to the Arab-Israeli conflict and remind my right hon. Friend that we have all been waiting 30 years for the dust to settle, and that there is no evidence that it is likely to settle without some initiatives?
    Will my right hon. Friend take an opportunity to advise his EEC colleagues that, in view of their countries' very great commercial involvement in the Middle East, they should be concentrating their minds more on some positive political approach to the cause of peace?
    Dr. Owen: Activism in international affairs is always easy to undertake, but I believe that there are times when it is wiser to let these issues be resolved by careful thought. It is well known that there is a major area of disagreement on the interpretation of Resolution 242 of the United Nations and on whether it applies to all three fronts—the West Bank, Sinai and the Golan Heights. In the judgment of Her Majesty's Government, it was always intended that it should apply on all three fronts. I believe that until that issue is resolved it will be very difficult to get into serious negotiations.

    Economic and Social Committee
    Mr. Haselhurstasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to attend a meeting of the Economic and Social Committee of the Community.
    Mr. Judd: None, Sir. The Committee normally invites Ministers only from the country holding the Presidency.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Would it not be appropriate for the Secretary of State to attend such a meeting in order to demonstrate the British Government's support for the valuable work done in this institution in recent months under British chairmanship, not least in bringing together unions and employers to discuss common problems at EEC level?
    Mr. Judd: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that observation. The Government attach the greatest possible importance to the work of the Committee. We are anxious to make sure that, when the new generation of representatives on the Committee is appointed later this year, it will be as strong a team as ever, demonstrating that we want to do all we can to help forward its work.
    Mr. MacFarquhar: Even if my hon. Friend does not visit the Committee, will he suggest that it should initiate a discussion on the relationship of the negotiations on textile imports from Portugal to the prospects of Portuguese entry into the EEC? In view of the Government's determination that Portugal should be assisted in this entry, does my hon. Friend agree that every prospect of easing the sales of Portuguese textile goods to EEC countries should be facilitated?
    Mr. Judd: The members of the Community are well aware of the problems facing the Portuguese Government in managing their economic recovery, but the precise arrangements that we can work out in the economic and trade spheres, and the rest, depend very much upon the major strategy that the Community has adopted on multi-fibres and generally on its trading arrangements with the outside world.
    Mr. Dykes: Since the Economic and Social Committee often discusses financial statistics, will the Minister remind it that, allowing for all adjustments, the total net contribution by the United Kingdom to the Community budget last year was one-sixth of the total amount of debt interest paid by the United Kingdom Government on the IMF loans and rescue package, which has saved this country over the last few years?
    Mr. Judd: What should be well understood in this country, and, indeed, in the rest of the Community, is that we are very significant net contributors to the EEC.

    President of the Commission
    Mr. Crawfordasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to meet the President of the EEC.
    Mr. Judd: My right hon. Friend expects that he will meet both the Danish President of the Community Council of Ministers and the President of the Commission at the next meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council on 2nd May.
    Mr. Crawford: Now that a precedent has been set, will the Minister tell the President of the EEC that no one from Scotland or England can be elected to the European Parliament unless he or she has at least 40 per cent. of the votes of his or her total electorate?
    Mi. Judd: I am sure that all concerned are well aware of the hon. Gentleman's point.
    Mr. Christopher Price: When my hon. Friend meets President Andersen and President Jenkins, will he ask them about the arrangements that are being set on foot to monitor Europe's agreement on firms in South Africa, so that we can make this code of conduct really work and have a policy on South Africa that links up with our policy on Rhodesia and Namibia?
    Mr. Judd: The code of conduct adopted by the Nine is a very practical and significant step forward. We are anxious to see it applied effectively and, indeed, would like to see its principles extended to other countries in the OECD, beyond the Community itself.
    Mr. Ian Lloyd: Since no national policy is likely to succeed on the very vexed question of shipbuilding, will the Minister, when he next meets the President of the EEC, ask what is the latest thinking of the Economic and Social Committee on this question, in particular on the disastrous competitive national shipbuilding subsidy race?
    Mr. Judd: It will be interesting to have the comments of the Economic and Social Committee on the human consequences of policy on this front, but this is a central issue for the Ministers themselves.
    Mr. Hoyle: When the meeting takes place with the President, will my hon. Friend please draw to his attention the effect that the German trading position with this country is having on our economic prospects? We are running a deficit with Germany which is greater than that with any other country. Will my hon. Friend ask what measures the Germans are taking to remedy this state of affairs?
    Mr. Judd: As the meetings earlier this week demonstrated, the Governments of Germany and of this country are determined to work together in trying to find a way forward. We share a great deal of common concern in our analysis of the situation. We are both determined to see the issues of unemployment and inflation tackled. Above all, we want to generate growth. If we are to do this successfully, it will be important to work with the Community as a whole.

    Portugal (Membership)
    Mr. Arnoldasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to receive the opinion of the European Commission on the Portuguese application for membership.
    Mr. Judd: We expect the Commission's opinion on the Portuguese application to be submitted to the Council in May.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I promised three minutes' injury time on this subject.
    Mr. Arnold: Does the Minister agree with Mr. Natali, the Commissioner for Enlargement, that Portugal will need a transitional period of at least 10 years? Does he also agree with the Commission's view that enlargement will inevitably mean a greater use of majority voting procedures in the Council of Ministers?
    Mr. Judd: There are obviously considerable economic considerations, both for Portugal and for the Community as a whole, with regard to Portuguese accession to the Community. A transitional phase will be necessary. The precise time has vet to be worked out, but it may well have to be a considerable period in order to enable Portugal to become fully and effectively a participant within the Community.
    We are not convinced about the question of majority voting. For us, there will always remain major issues of national importance on which it should be recognised in the Community that we can proceed sensibly only on the basis of consensus.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Is my hon. Friend aware that the EEC is already preparing measures that discriminate against Portu
    1378
    gal, before its entry? It is taking action in respect of fortified wines, tomatoes and fish, which are the only viable industries that Portugal has. This is indirectly affecting the British consumer because of the tariffs that the EEC intends to put on those goods. Will my hon. Friend look at this very carefully before he supports any suggestions that Portugal should be maimed in this fashion?
    Mr. Judd: Certainly the British Government have no desire to maim the Portuguese economy. We well understand the problems with which that country is confronted. Of course, until Portugal accedes to the Community it is a fact that she has to be treated as part of the general arrangements between the Community and the outside world. I hope that we can move forward steadily and effectively with accession—which Portugal is keen to achieve—so that we can treat her as a member of the Community and not as a country outside.
    Mr. John Davies: I realise how serious and difficult are the economic problems that arise in connection with the admission of Portugal—indeed, also Spain and Greece—into the Community, but will the Minister bear in mind how immensely important it is to Portugal, from a political point of view, that early admission should take place? The sustenance of the rather early bud of renewed democracy in that country needs constant help. Will he bear this closely in mind?
    Mr. Judd: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. From the Government's point of view, the whole purpose of enlargement is to underpin the process of democracy and the democratisation of Western Europe as a whole. We understand the importance that the Portuguese Government and people attach to accession. We shall be playing our part, as the British Government, in speeding that forward as rapidly as we practically can.
    Mr. MacFarquhar: In view of that answer, which I welcome, will not my hon. Friend go a little further and show more flexibility on the issue of current economic negotiations with Portugal? Does not he realise that it would be disastrous if we rigidly adhered to the fact that Portugal is now a nation outside the Community in order to enforce certain things upon her textiles and other exports to

    1379
    the Community which might lead to an economic war from which Portugal would suffer, so that entry would probably not take place?
    Mr. Judd: I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall try to be as imaginative as we can during this period of adjusting Portugal to membership of the Community. It is essentially a process of adjustment. I agree that during this period it would be very silly to take steps that were punitive in their approach to the Portuguese economy.

ARMED FORCES (PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT)
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the announcement by the Prime Minister during an interview with Mr. Julian Haviland on 'News at Ten' last night, Tuesday 25th April, that members of the Armed Forces have security in their jobs".
I have given notice to the Prime Minister that I would be making this application. I have received from Independent Television News a transcript of the actual broadcast last night from which I quote the Prime Minister's words. He said:
"I think the important thing for the Services is that they have got a firm undertaking from now until 1980 together with security in their jobs—you know there are a lot of people who won't have that and won't have the security of their jobs as well. So you've got to balance all these factors out."
The matter is specific because it is a specific quotation from a statement which the Prime Minister made justifying his belief that members of the Armed Forces ought to be content with the 14 per cent. pay increase announced yesterday. It is important because it represents a critical departure from the current Ministry of Defence practice of terminating prematurely the engagement of members of the Armed Forces, which the Minister of Defence wishes so to terminate, irrespective of whether the Service men concerned are thrown into the pool of unemployed people, and because no announcement of this important change of policy was made in conjunction with the announcement of the pay increase
1380
either in Parliament or elsewhere within the knowledge of Parliament.
I submit that this is such a major change of policy, and such an important announcement by the Prime Minister, that it ought not to wait until Prime Minister's Questions tomorrow but should be debated this very day, so that the Prime Minister can have the opportunity of making in the House the statement of the change of policy which he made in the interview on Independent Television last night and so that he may be questioned by hon. Members upon that statement without another day going by, which might result in confusion and disappointment within the Armed Forces.
Mr. Speaker: Following his customary courtesy, the hon. Gentleman gave me notice before 12 o'clock that he would raise this matter this afternoon and that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the announcement by the Prime Minister during an interview with Mr. Julian Haviland on 'News at Ten' last night, Tuesday 25th April, that members of the Armed Forces have security in their jobs."
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Order but to give no reasons for my decision.
I have listened with great care to what the hon. Gentleman has stated in his application, but I fear I have to rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

BILLS PRESENTED

  IRON AND STEEL (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. Secretary Varley supported by Mr. Secretary Millan, Mr. Secretary John Morris, Mr. Secretary Booth, Mr. Secretary Dell, Mr. Joel Barnett, Mr. Gerald Kaufman and Mr. Les Huckfield, presented a Bill to increase the limit on the aggregate of sums borrowed by, or paid by the Secretary of State to, the British Steel Corporation and sums borrowed by the publicly-owned companies; And the same was read the First time; and ordered

  1381
  to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 111.]

  DEER
  Mr. John Farr, supported by Mr. Ben Ford, Mr. Peter Hardy, Mr. Stephen Ross, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. W. Benyon and Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson presented a Bill to repeal and re-enact with amendments the Deer Act 1963 with respect to England and Wales and Northern Ireland to prevent the poaching and the illegal taking, killing and injuring of deer in England and Wales and Northern Ireland; to control the sales and purchases of venison in England and Wales and Northern Ireland; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 5th May and to be printed. [Bill 112.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Ordered,
That the Social Security (Overlapping Benefits) Amendment Regulations 1978 (S.I., 1978, No. 524) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[[Mr. Foot.]

BRITISH RAIL CATERING
3.39 p.m.
Mr. Giles Shaw: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to denationalise catering facilities provided by British Transport Hotels Limited for British Rail; and to make consequential provisions in relation thereto.
Let me begin by stressing that in recent times British Rail has shown a much greater sensitivity to the need to improve standards and performance of British Rail catering both on certain station buffets and on trains. But the fact remains—in my view it is a principle which is not easily bucked—that British Rail primarily exists to run an effective and efficient railway service, which demands a much greater concentration of effort on capital projects to improve track, trains and allied engineering services than it does to maintain an efficient kitchen and dining car or a wide variety of food in a station buffet. Hence it has been obvious for many years that the catering side of British Rail is very much the Cinderella of the outfit.
This apparently embarrassing conflict was well set out in a report by British Rail executives in evidence to Sub-Committee A of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries in February 1977. In an interview with that Committee on 8th February 1977, the director of British Rail responsible said:
"These two aims of satisfying the customer and keeping marketing costs down to manageable proportions are sometimes in conflict, not surprisingly, and one tries to achieve a balance by sensitive judgment of priorities … This balance between a service and the cost of providing it is something which is regularly under review. In fact, there has been over recent years an ongoing—and it is still going on—respecification of the train catering requirement to meet changed eating habits."
The first purpose of this Bill, therefore, is to relieve British Rail of the embarrassment of seeking to be responsible for two aspects of travellers' requirements which are so frequently in conflict.
I do not consider that the catering facilities of British Rail should be regarded as a marketing embarrassment when it might be possible for them to be operated by the private sector as the major objective of a business. Secondly, in terms of economic performance, the whole House would be anxious to see

1383
that British Rail should continue to take developments which lead to profitable business.
From the latest public figures available, catering on stations generated a surplus of £1·2 million before paying rentals of £0·6 million. But train catering showed an operating net loss of £2·4 million in maintaining catering service facilities on more than 900 weekly trains. Therefore, the overall position of catering on stations and on trains is one of running at a very substantial loss.
Perhaps the House should understand that catering is one of the activities carried out by a subsidiary of British Transport Hotels Ltd., the subsidiary being known as Travellers-Fare. At the end of 1976, BTH operated some 181 station and catering units. But it also had 55 operating units in the hands of tenants. So the idea of franchising in respect of British Rail's operation is far from new. Indeed, it is established.
It will be a second objective of my Bill, therefore, to encourage this trend to franchising which has been examined frequently as a possible solution to British Rail's station catering problems. For evidence of this, I turn to the Central Transport Users' Consultative Council, in whose 1977 annual report the matter of franchising was discussed. I quote from page 10 of that report:
"To the Sub-Committee's suggestion that where train catering facilities appeared to be uneconomical they could perhaps be provided by the franchise system, the Board"—
the British Rail board—
"replied that the standards specified by the Passenger Business could not be guaranteed if the train catering was fragmented in this way. The Committee decided that the Sub-Committee"—
of the Transport Consultative Committee—
"should investigate the advantages or disadvantages of using the franchise system for train catering."
It is only right equally to inform the House that the Sub-Committee to which I referred examined this possibility and gave some reasons why in its view it might not be possible. Amongst the reasons given were, first, that the private entrepreneur might consider the risks too great in view of the lack of storage and refrigeration facilities and the lack of sufficient detail regarding trade levels,
1384
secondly, that of having to operate as self-employed with all the problems of VAT regulations, thirdly, that trade union opposition was most likely, and, fourthly, that choosing a suitable route for an experiment might be difficult.
I submit that these are not sufficient reasons for deciding that a franchising arrangement for British Rail catering cannot be run and manned. It is this lack of flexibility which formed part of the criticism of British Rail by the Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries in its report in 1977.
The answer was in part clear—that such flexibility required readapting the system, and that would require modification of existing vehicles and capital reinvestment. None would deny this as being necessary, but the point is that catering services are regarded as being so low on the list of priorities that their chances of getting a slice of British Rail's investment cake are very slim, and the travelling public today are being served in ancient rolling stock under an inflexible system.
I do not see why this should not be livened up by a healthy injection of competition. Clearly, the most fruitful ground for this to occur would be on railway station buffets and other catering services where there are increasing signs that Travellers-Fare, while seeking to modify its menu and pricing, is still offering fairly unappetising services.
Why is it that many station buffets close at 8 p.m.? Why is it that many do not open before 10 a.m. on Sundays? It is largely because these institutions are run as part of a greater institution, namely British Rail, and are not run by normal competitive criteria which would provide keener services for the travelling consumer.
It would be possible to attract the public to eating in railway station restaurants if their service and pricing were improved. Such is the case on the Continent. Many gourmets descend on the Gare de l'Est in Paris and other French stations primarily for eating rather than for travelling purposes. Although within the British Transport Hotels there are many first-class hotels, they tend to be those less associated with their proximity to railway services than with their

1385
proximity to leisure activities such as golf at Turnbury or Gleneagles. The principle here is quite clearly that to tailor a package to the holidaymaker and tourist is good, but that to tailor a package to those who happen to travel on British Rail is very difficult and unprofitable. In my view, the public deserve the best catering available whenever they travel, and they have been expressing concern in increasing numbers that the standards have slipped badly.
I am aware that the management of British Rail has just announced for a temporary period a reduction of some prices of British Rail foods. The cost of coffee and biscuits has dropped from 29p to 24p and that of coffee and cheese sandwiches from 51p to 44p. A standard cup of powdered coffee plus hot water will now be 15p instead of 17p on most services. However, anyone who has the good fortune to consume it in a railway dining car will find that it still costs 24p. That is because the menu describes the cup of coffee as being "freshly made".
There has been a clear tendency for British Rail to concentrate on the expense account diner instead of on the travelling family. But even the business man must be getting a little doubtful when he is served grilled salmon maitre d'hotel at £3·85 or with chicken stanley at £3·40, so called because it is presumed to be chicken.
Then, of course, there are wines from the British Transport Hotel cellars, located in Derby, I believe, including the new French table versions vin blanc, vin rouge and vin rosé, which are the Freeman, Hardy and Willis amongst viniculturists.
The matter of principle which causes most concern remains the extent to which British Rail should enjoy the monopoly of catering services to its passengers as well as the monopoly of selling them tickets and travel. As the Price Commission said in paragraph 153 of its recent report, the British Rail board—
"are actively developing station trading facilities including the development of franchise arrangements. The catering service on trains is currently being reviewed."
I accept that it is a necessary provision. But it is clear that it is seen as a marketing cost designed to hold and guarantee business when it could and should be seen as a marketing oppor
1386
tunity in its own right. That is why the development of franchising, which the British Rail board apparently is considering, should be taken further and why it should become by Act of Parliament a requirement that it seeks alternative sources of capital to run and develop the catering services for the travelling public on British Rail.
Just as British Rail offers Gold Star weekend packages at their hotels, it surely could offer an inclusive meal ticket for family snack facilities to enable Awayday returns to become a more attractive form of travel to a wider number of people.
This Bill, therefore, will be in the interests not only of British Rail, which seeks to eliminate losses and yet is confined by restraints on capital expenditure, but also of the travelling public, who will be able to obtain better pricing through competition, a wider variety of foods and from station services a source of catering which could and should become a matter of local interest and pride.
I commend the Bill to the House.
3.49 p.m.
Mr. Richard Buchanan rose—
Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member wish to oppose the Bill?
Mr. Buchanan: I do, Sir.
Throughout the period that the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) has been in the House, I have served on various Committees with him and have formed a high opinion of his ability and have appreciated his pleasant personality. It is therefore more in sorrow than in anger that I oppose the Bill, because he is stooping to the tedious repetition of the anti-nationalisation argument perpetuated by the Conservative Party.
The hon. Member is seeking the denationalisation of British Rail catering. Which part? Does he mean the hotels which make a profit, the station buffets which make a profit, or the train catering which makes a huge loss? There are no prizes for the answer to that one.
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is acquainted with the realities of the situation. It is true that British Rail catering makes a loss. The hotels make a profit of about £850,000, the station buffets about £750,000. But there is a

1387
loss on train catering of £2,300,000, which is less than 1 per cent. of the Inter-City passenger revenue. Its impact on the generality of passenger fares is minuscule. To say that passengers who do not participate in the catering subsidise those who do is arrant nonsense.
One can consider our own Refreshment Department. One of its great handicaps is that it can never estimate the needs. On a running three-line Whip, the Dining Room might be empty. On a one-line Whip, when it seems that hardly anyone is about, the Dining Room might be packed. A similar impossibility of gauging needs leads British Rail, particularly on its trains, into this deficit.
We seldom hear complaints about similar losses on airlines, simply because a meal is included in the marketing package. If the catering were costed separately, I am sure that it would show quite a loss.
The hon. Member said nothing about withdrawing catering from British trains, but the last time that private enterprise dabbled in a nationalised industry, if a line or service did not pay, it was simply chopped off. How bitterly today we regret the lines in the North of Scotland which were chopped off by the Beeching axe.
The withdrawal of train catering would be a sure loser. I do not see private enterprise, under any franchise, taking this on. It would mean extensive and expensive reinvestment in dining cars and in kitchens.
Many of us have for long advocated a considerable reinvestment in British Rail and will continue to do so. There is to be an investment in new rolling stock, including dining cars and kitchens. Most of the outdated vehicles should be scrapped. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, who is present, will take note.
The staff of Travellers-Fare, who have been ridiculed, do a magnificent job on trains. They work in very cramped and difficult conditions. British Rail has speeded up its service. My journey to London used to take 10 hours. I would get on a sleeper at St. Enoch's and I could read my book for a few hours, fall asleep and wake up in London. Now I am there only a few hours. The Travellers-Fare people have to try to serve two meals in that short time. They
1388
often have to do so on trains travelling at 100 miles an hour and therefore swaying considerably.
Travellers-Fare has consistently shown a better economic return than similar organisations on the Continent and in America. The only one that makes any profit is the Swiss.
British Rail is taking steps to improve its service across the board, including its catering provision—as it always does. Reorganisation is taking place. Travellers-Fare has been incorporated into British Transport Hotels with a remit to exploit every opportunity for the successful expansion and development of the business. New services such as the Gold Star menu are proving popular and the experimental reduction of buffet prices and an improved range of food are boons to the travellers. Station buffets are being refurbished and we are told that dining cars will be refurbished. If they are out of date, they should be scrapped.
Who in private enterprise would take on rail catering? There is one claimant in the field—Sir Charles Forte, who hoisted himself into the top ten individual contributors to the Tory Party with a contribution of £25,000. He is a man who believes in profitability. Was it entirely accidental that Sir Charles Forte staked his claim on the very day on which the Egon Ronay survey produced the most damning report on motorway cafeterias run by his organisation? Or was it a desperate device to divert attention from his predicament? I think that that is what it was—and this Bill is an equally transparent manoeuvre by the supporters of the Tory Party.
With all the difficulties inherent in catering on trains, Travellers-Fare services have improved immeasurably and will continue to do so. Station buffets pay and provide a good service. As I travel from Euston to Glasgow, I should hate to go into a buffet at either end and find some of the conditions that Egon Ronay found in motorway cafes.
Let us take Newport Pagnell—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, you take it."] Egon Ronay spoke of an indefensible state of neglect, badly worn carpets, dirty seats, sluggish table clearing and a clutter of rubbish and cigarette ends. Nor would I appreciate going for a meal or a snack in the dining car if I found, as Egon Ronay did in the motorway cafeterias,

1389
that sausages were inedible, the fish was stale, the pea soup was lurid, the hamburgers were tough and there were watery carrots. And those were among the more complimentary remarks. That is what the hon. Member for Pudsey wants to introduce to British Rail.
Sir Charles Forte has a monumental task cleaning up his own organisation. Let him begin with the motorway cafes.

Division No. 191]

AYES

[3.58 p.m.

Adley, Robert

Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

Pattle, Geoffrey

Alison, Michael

Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

Percival, Ian

Arnold, Tom

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Hodgson, Robin

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

Holland, Philip

Raison, Timothy

Berry, Hon Anthony

Hooson, Emlyn

Rathbone, Tim

Biggs-Davison, John

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Blaker, Peter

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Rhodes James, R.

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Ridsdale, Julian

Brotherton, Michael

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Rifkind, Malcolm

Buchanan-Smith, Alick

Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Buck, Antony

Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Knox, David

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Clark, William (Croydon S)

Lamont, Norman

Sims, Roger

Cope, John

Latham, Michael (Melton)

Sinclair, Sir George

Crouch, David

Le Marchant, Spencer

Skeet, T. H. H.

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

Drayson, Burnaby

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Speed, Keith

Durant, Tony

Lloyd, Ian

Spence, John

Dykes, Hugh

Loveridge, John

Stanley, John

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Luce, Richard

Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

Eyre, Reginald

Macfarlane, Neil

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Fairbairn, Nicholas

MacGregor, John

Stokes, John

Fairgrieve, Russell

MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

Stradling Thomas, J.

Farr, John

Marten, Neil

Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Mates, Michael

Tebbit, Norman

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Mather, Carol

Temple-Morris, Peter

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Mawby, Ray

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Fookes, Miss Janet

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Townsend, Cyril D.

Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

Mayhew, Patrick

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Miscampbell, Norman

Wall, Patrick

Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

Molyneaux, James

Walters, Dennis

Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

Monro, Hector

Weatherill, Bernard

Glyn, Dr Alan

Moore, John (Croydon C)

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Goodhart, Philip

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Wiggin, Jerry

Goodhew, Victor

Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

Winterton, Nicholas

Goodlad, Alastair

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

Younger, Hon George

Gray, Hamish

Neave, Airey

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

Newton, Tony

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Grist, Ian

Nott, John

Mr. Giles Shaw and

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

Mr. Michael Neubert.

Hampson, Dr Keith

Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

Hannam, John

Parkinson, Cecil

NOES

Allaun, Frank

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Campbell, Ian

Doig, Peter

Armstrong, Ernest

Canavan, Dennis

Dormand, J. D.

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Cant, R. B.

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Atkinson, Norman

Carmichael, Neil

Dewar, Donald

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Cartwright, John

Edge, Geoff

Bates, Alf

Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

Beith, A. J.

Clemitson, Ivon

English, Michael

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Cohen, Stanley

Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

Coleman, Donald

Evans, John (Newton)

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Conlan, Bernard

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

Corbett, Robin

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

Cowans, Harry

Flannery, Martin

Bradley, Tom

Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Cryer, Bob

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Buchan, Norman

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

Forrester, John

Buchanan, Richard

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

Deakins, Eric

Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

I would oppose the Bill on those grounds.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and Nominations of Select Committees at Commencement of Public Business):
The House divided: Ayes 135, Noes 164.

Freud, Clement

Lyon, Alexander (York)

Sandelson, Neville

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

Sedgemore, Brian

George, Bruce

McCartney, Hugh

Sever, John

Golding, John

McElhone, Frank

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

Gourlay, Harry

MacFarquhar, Roderick

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Graham, Ted

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Silverman, Julius

Grant, John (Islington C)

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

Skinner, Dennis

Grocott, Bruce

Madden, Max

Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Snape, Peter

Harper, Joseph

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Steel, Rt Hon David

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

Hayman, Mrs Helene

Maynard, Miss Joan

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Heffer, Eric S.

Mendelson, John

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Hooley, Frank

Mikardo, Ian

Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

Horam, John

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

Mitchell, Austin

Tilley, John (Lambeth, Central)

Huckfield, Les

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Tuck, Raphael

Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Newens, Stanley

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Hunter, Adam

Noble, Mike

Ward, Michael

Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Watkins, David

Janner, Greville

Palmer, Arthur

White, Frank R. (Bury)

Jeger, Mrs Lena

Parker, John

Whitlock, William

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Parry, Robert

Wigley, Dafydd

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Penhaligon, David

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Perry, Ernest

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Kelley, Richard

Price, C. (Lewisham W)

Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

Kerr, Russell

Price, William (Rugby)

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Radice, Giles

Woodall, Alec

Kinnock, Neil

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Woof, Robert

Lambie, David

Robinson, Geoffrey

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Lamborn, Harry

Roderick, Caerwyn

Young, David (Bolton E)

Lamond, James

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Rooker, J. W.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Litterick, Tom

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Mr. Leslie Spriggs and

Loyden, Eddie

Rowlands, Ted

Mr. Nigel Spearing.

Question accordingly negatived.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  INNER URBAN AREAS BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  4.10 p.m.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not wish to challenge your selection of amendments, which, in any case, I am forbidden to do, but in relation to New Clause No. 8, which stands in my name, I wish to raise the issue of the way in which hon. Members are treated in respect of the selection of amendments.
  The new clause was an attempt to revise Section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 which is the only programme available to the Government for giving money to local authorities to help with the problems of New Commonwealth immigrants living in their areas.
  At a time when everyone in the count-try is concerned about the state of race relations and all the major parties agree that there should be a positive response to the difficulties of race relations, it seemed an appropriate moment to try to widen the sphere of Section 11 in order to obtain better assistance for minority groups in this country. It was with that in mind that I chose the opportunity of this Bill to table the new clause.
  In order to bring it within the terms of the Bill, I specifically limited it, by the first paragraph, to an amendment relating to the special areas of need under Clause 4(4) of the Bill. I thought that it was in order and would be called.
  However, one of the learned Clerks has advised you that it is out of order because—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to confine his point of order to me. It is not customary in the House to refer to my advisers.
  Mr. Lyon: I shall do that, Mr. Speaker. The new clause has been ruled out of order on the basis that it is outside the Money Resolution. I take exception to that view. I do not believe that it is outside the Money Resolution.
  The difficulty is that I have no means within the procedure of the House to bring
  1394
  that to your attention unless I go to see the Clerk, before he makes his decision, in order to find out whether the new clause is in order. The result is that the Clerk has to be approached, has to consider the matter and has to get in touch with the hon. Member.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I have just told the hon. Member that he should refer to me. The Clerk does not decide which amendments are called. I decide that. The hon. Gentleman must direct his point of order to me or resume his seat.
  Mr. Lyon: I shall direct the rest of my remarks to you, Mr. Speaker. Recognising that you are the final judge, I did my best to get in touch with you. The only way I can get in touch with you is to raise the matter on the Floor of the House or to see you before the Bill comes before the House.
  The only opportunity I have of doing that is immediately before the debate, because the selection does not take place until 12 o'clock on the day of the debate. I came to see you at the earliest convenient opportunity and was told that you were not available for discussion.
  I do not wish to suggest that that was a lack of courtesy to me. I am simply seeking to say that when hon. Members have a matter of first importance—as this is—affecting 2 million people in this country on the major issue of race relations and want to have it discussed at the most convenient opportunity on a Bill of this nature, the only way in which they can make representations to you is by raising the matter on the Floor of the House—even though we know it to be incapable of a positive response because the rules of order of the House make it impossible to challenge your selection at this stage.
  I am seeking to find a way by which we can make a positive application to you about a legitimate disagreement of interpretation on the advice on which you act in regard to what is and is not in order in relation to a particular amendment.
  If the new clause has been ruled out of order because it is thought to be outside the Money Resolution—on an interpretation of the resolution which the House might not accept—surely it is right that hon. Members should be allowed

  1395
  to put their case to you when there is an opportunity of changing the selection.
  The result of the procedure of the House is that I have not been consulted about what my intention was within the new clause or about any suggestion to you that it might be outside the Money Resolution. I have not been given an opportunity to amend the new clause so that it was brought within the terms of the Money Resolution if, indeed, it was outside those terms.
  4.15 p.m.
  All this means that we cannot discuss this issue of first importance although there is a new clause on the Order Paper, signed by more than a dozen hon. Members, including two Privy Councillors and the Chief Whip of the Liberal Party, on an issue that is supported by hon. Members in all parts of the House. The result is that freedom of debate on this central issue is denied to us. That is a matter of real importance to the House, and I hope that it might be considered.
  I hope that, even at this late stage, you may find it possible to allow us to debate New Clause No. 8, but I recognise that, under the Standing Orders, I am not able to make that request to you directly. However, I hope that you might still reconsider your attitude.
  Mr. Speaker: I understand that the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) called at my office at 2.5 p.m. today and asked to see me. That was just before I got ready to come into the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman also sent a message of which he is aware.
  I should remind the House that it has never been the practice of my predecessors or myself to see hon. Members about the selection of amendments. I do not see those who put down the amendments or those who would have preferred them not to be put down. If I did, we would enter into endless arguments. The life of the Speaker would be intolerable if every time I had to consider the selection of amendments, I had a disappointed hon. Member wanting to argue the case or a Minister who did not wish the argument to be heard coming to see me to say that I should not have selected an amendment.
  The hon. Gentleman said that he was not consulted. Hon. Members never have
  1396
  been consulted when they table amendments.
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: Why not?
  Mr. Speaker: Am I expected to ask hon. Members what they intend by their amendments? Of course not. The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) has been here for three years, or is it four years—
  Mr. Canavan: Four years.
  Mr. Speaker: If he stays here as long as I have been here, he will find that it is not the custom for the occupant of the Chair to send for hon. Members to ask what their amendment means. The Clerk's Department is available for advice, but it is not for the Clerk's Department to take the initiative. It is for hon. Members who feel that they have some doubt about an amendment to go to the Clerk's Department. I am sure that I can say unhesitatingly that, as hon. Members will have experienced, they will get the help they look for.
  Mr. Canavan: Sometimes.
  Mr. Speaker: In regard to New Clause No. 8, the hon. Member for York said that two Privy Councillors and the Chief Whip of the Liberal Party had signed it. But even if every hon. Member had signed it, I could still not select it—and not merely because of the Money Resolution. I note that subsection (3) seeks to repeal Section 1 of the Local Government Act 1966. That section gives the Secretary of State power to make grants to certain local authorities over the whole country.
  The Bill is confined to inner urban areas, and the new clause is also out of order because it seeks to repeal a power that affects areas that are not within the scope of the Bill.
  Mr. Stephen Ross: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I take it that your remarks in relation to New Clause No. 8 apply also to New Clause No. 7, which is in the names of myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends? Without challenging your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but because there is frustration that we are not to be able to debate this matter this afternoon, would the Minister indicate what his attitude

  1397
  would have been had these new clauses been called?
  Mr. Speaker: Of course not. We are not going to debate amendments which are not called. If the Minister is allowed to give one argument, others will wish to be allowed to give others. There is no argument about the selection of amendments. That is the responsibility which the House has given to me. If I had to argue every time an hon. Member's amendment was not selected, we should never get through the Report stage of a Bill.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You said in your ruling that it would be impossible for the Clerks or yourself to approach hon. Members about what they mean by their proposed amendments. However, the Standing Orders of the House say that the Speaker or Chairman of the Committee can ask the hon. Member in the course of the debate what is intended by the amendment in order to make a ruling about whether it is in order. If that can be done on the Floor of the House, surely it is possible for the Clerks to approach Members about amendments which they regard as being out of order, so that there can be a proper discussion about it before they give any advice to you.
  Mr. Speaker: I disagree with the hon. Member. I do not believe that we should put on to the Clerks of the House the responsibility to chase hon. Members if they believe that their amendment is out of order. When the Order Paper appears and the Clerks or my advisers see what hon. Members wish to present to the House, their responsibility is to give me their advice. But it is my decision at the end of the day. It is my decision on each of the amendments. I suggest that we should now continue with our business.
  Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not dispute your ruling, but I ask you to seek to ensure that the procedures are improved in the future. It is the function of the House to scrutinise legislation and to ensure that the real issues are discussed. In relation to this and many other Bills, the consequence of the procedures of the
  1398
  House, of which we appear to be prisoners, is that we frequently find that we are discussing not the real issues but those which are much less important. I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to discuss with the appropriate Committee of the House ways in which we could have rulings about the selection of amendments early enough to enable discussions to take place.
  You, Mr. Speaker, suggested that Ministers might come to you and say that they do not want a certain amendment discussed. I suggest that you should give them very short shrift if they do that. If there is an issue to be discussed, it is for the House to discuss it. Matters which are relevant should not be ruled out of order when they are the real issues. This has occurred on other Bills. I hope that you will do what you can to ensure that the House has the opportunity to fulfill its real functions.
  Mr. Speaker: I am the servant of the House. I want to do my best. The hon. Member's amendment is clearly out of order for the reason that I have explained—the repeal of Section 1 of the Local Government Act 1976.
  Mr. Frank Hooley: On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker. I notice that the first group of amendments is a disparate group covering a wide sphere. I hope that a separate vote on Government Amendment No. 3, will be permissible.
  Mr. Speaker: Yes, it is bound to be.

  INNER URBAN AREAS BILL
    New Clause No. 1

      DECLARATION OF, AND CHANGES IN, INDUSTRIAL IMPROVEMENT AREAS
      '—(1) The provisions of the Schedule to this Act shall have effect as respects the procedure for declaring areas to be, and for making changes in, industrial improvement areas.

      (2) In this Act "industrial improvement area", in relation to a designated district authority, means an area declared to be such an area by that authority.'—[Mr. Guy Barney.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Guy Barnett): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this we may discuss Government New Clause No. 2—Grants for converting or improving buildings—and the following amendments:
      No. 7, in Clause 3, page 3, line 36, after section', insert Commercial and'.
      No. 13, in page 4, line 13, after second 'of', insert 'Commercial or'.
      No. 14, in page 4, line 14, after 'into', insert 'Commercial or'.
      No. 18 in page 4, line 27, after 'created', insert 'or retained'.
      No. 34, in Clause 12, page 8, line 33, at end insert
      '"Commercial" has the meaning given by Classes I, II and III of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1972'.
      No. 36, in page 9, line 1, leave out from 'building' to end of line 6 and insert
      'means any building used for the purposes of manufacturing goods or providing services or of carrying out operations ancillary to this'.
      We may also discuss Government Amendments Nos. 3, 6, 8, 11, 12, 22, 44, 35, 39 and 42.
      Mr. Barnett: With New Clauses Nos. 1 and 2 and the related group of amendments we are seeking to clarify the operation of Clause 3 by separating out the definition of an industrial improvement area and the two types of assistance that can be given in those areas. In addition, we are introducing a number of changes to the actual provisions. Some of these changes were pressed on us in Committee, and although we were unable to accept them then, we now consider that there are a number of useful improvements that can be made. As we discuss the various changes that we are putting forward, the House will appreciate that the work of the Committee was well worth while and that we learned a good deal from the arguments that were advanced from both sides of the Committee. We have taken full cognisance of the useful suggestions that were made.
      This group, particularly Amendments Nos. 3 and 22, also provide for the powers in these clauses and throughout the Bill to be capable of exercise by county councils, as well as by district councils. This reinstates the provisions to this effect which were deleted in the Standing Committee.
      1400
      It might be useful to the House if I describe briefly the purpose of each amendment.
      Amendment No. 6 deletes subsection (1) from Clause 3 so that New Clause No. 1 can provide specifically for the declaration of industrial improvement areas by reference to the procedure in the Schedule. Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 delete the building grant provision from Clause 3 to pave the way for their replacement by New Clause No. 2. The remainder of the old Clause 3 will then deal only with the loans and grants for environmental works in industrial improvement areas.
      Apart from these rearrangements, the only change to Clause 3 is to amend the wording in subsection (2) with Amendment No. 8. It seemed from the discussion in Committee that using the words
      "the amenities of the area or of buildings in the area"
      might give rise to some doubt. We are therefore seeking to replace that phrase with the simpler concept of the carrying out of works being of "benefit to the area". This brings Clause 3 into line with the other clauses in the Bill where the designated district authority in deciding whether to aid works must consider whether they will benefit the appropriate area. The same formula is also used in subsection (1) of the New Clause No. 2 and similar wording is used in the proposed amendment to the Schedule—Amendment No. 39.
      The other changes of substance are in New Clause No. 2. Hon. Members will see that subsection (2) of the new clause refers to grants being given for works to industrial or commercial buildings. We had considerable discussion of this point in Committee and an amendment was carried to the definition of industrial building to include warehouses. We so long as the industrial improvement area is primarily concerned with industry—we deal with that point on Amendment No. 39—it is reasonable to provide for grants to be paid for works on any industrial or commercial building. This will cover offices, shops and service trades as well as manufacturing industry.
      This goes somewhat wider than the amendment carried in Committee, but it emphasises our concern—which was expressed by the Secretary of State on Second Reading—that all forms of

      1401
      employment should be assisted and encouraged in these areas. The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) has tabled amendments on the same lines. I hope that he will be satisfied by our amendments.
      The second change that hon. Members will notice is the addition in subsection (3) of the new clause of the words "or preserved". The limit on the grant that can be paid is now related to the number of jobs that are "created or preserved" in the improved or converted building.
      Again this is a point on which we were pressed by the Committee and the opinion was expressed that there was no need for such a grant limit at all. We think that it is right for there to be such a limit on the grant to avoid extensive subsidy to unnecessarily expensive projects. However, one of the main problems of inner city areas is that firms, particularly small firms, are often forced to close because of the difficulty of funding improved premises at a cost they can afford.
      The grants provided under this clause will now be available to such firms which could, with assistance, survive if they improved their existing building. The grant will not simply act as an indiscriminate subsidy propping up failing firms, because the firms will still have to match the grant with their own investment.
      I notice that Opposition Members have put down an amendment, Amendment No. 18, with a similar effect to this change, and I therefore hope that they will be able to support this Government amendment.
      4.30 p.m.
      There is one further, minor change in the new clause. By including in subsection (5) the wording "intended for use" we seek to ensure that grants will be available whatever the existing use of a building so long as it becomes an "industrial or commercial" building.
      Amendment No. 35 makes consequential changes to the definitions in Clause 12.
      Amendment No. 39 revises the wording of paragraph 1 of the schedule to reinstate the requirement that an industrial improvement area should be an area that is predominantly industrial, although in addition it provides that an area zoned for industry can also be made an Indus
      1402
      trial improvement area. We also reinstate here the requirement that one designated district authority should consult the other before declaring an industrial improvement area. This is consequential upon the restoration of the counties in Clause 1, achieved by Amendments Nos. 3 and 22.
      In addition, perhaps I should refer to a minor consequential amendment, Amendment No. 44, which arises from the rearrangement of Clause 3. The order-making power relating to the limit of building grants is now in the new clause.
      I need also to refer to Amendments Nos. 33 and 22, which make possible the exercise of the powers of these clauses and the powers throughout the Bill by county councils as well as district authorities. As members of the Committee will recall, we had an extensive debate on this subject. I emphasised then, as I do now, that our inner cities policy is founded on the principle of co-operation between different levels of government—central government, county authorities and the districts. Each has its part to play acording to its resources and statutory functions, although quite clearly on many matters the district will be in the lead. This co-operative approach, enabling concerted action to be taken to tackle inner city problems, finds its highest expression in the seven partnerships. But all inner areas need the same concerted approach. So it is completely against the spirit of co-operation to exclude the counties from the scope of the Bill.
      I realise that concurrent powers have sometimes resulted in friction between authorities. But I believe that the clear need to take effective action in our inner city areas, and the co-operation that this implies, make it necessary and desirable for the powers in the Bill to be concurrent. I might add that we need flexibility in the Bill to take account of local needs. Circumstances vary across the country. In some areas county authorities have taken the lead in promoting industrial economic development and in others the districts have taken the lead. This amendment enables the Bill to cover either case. We also need the extra resources that counties can bring to the problems of inner areas.
      On industrial improvement areas in particular, the procedure for their

      1403
      declaration requires one authority to consult the other before making the declaration. In the unlikely event of authorities failing to agree, the Secretary of State's power to negative the declaration of an area provides an opportunity for the dispute to be resolved.
      We had an extensive discussion in Committee on the exact wording of this part of the Bill. It was suggested that it should read
      "and the council of the county or region which includes that district".
      I gave an undertaking to examine the wording closely, and I have done so. I am satisfied that this wording does exactly what is wanted. The present amendment enables both tiers of local government independently to exercise the Bill's powers. It does not require them jointly to exercise the powers which the substitution of "and" for "or" would entail and it does not permit the Secretary of State to select only one tier for the exercise of the powers.
      I am sorry to have gone on at such length. In these main amendments we seek to take notice of the representations that were made in Committee and elsewhere about clarifying the wording of provisions relating to industrial improvement areas as well as improving and extending the powers in various ways. I very much hope that they have the support of the House.
      Mr. Michael Alison: I begin by thanking the Minister for his kind and courteous reference to the Committee proceedings, and I congratulate him on ensuring that the fair words have also buttered the parsnips. He has produced some solid changes as a result of the Committee proceedings.
      If the debates in Committee enlightened the Minister, as he said, I do not want to be unduly partisan in claiming that if he looks at the column inches of print in the Official Report he will discover that most of the speeches were made by my hon. Friends and myself. I am sorry that there was not one Liberal on the Committee to help us in this improving process. Perhaps the Liberals will be able to help us a little today.
      I want to question one or two matters and to probe a little the provisions that the Minister has put forward. I start by
      1404
      concentrating on the reinstatement of the county, which is a very important matter. We had an interesting debate on it in Committee. The Opposition's decision to support the amendment of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) to eliminate the county was based very much on the uncertainty we felt on studying the drafting of the clause and the meaning of "or" in the context. There was the question whether it meant "and" and so on.
      The Minister has been kind enough to write to me and to other members of the Committee at some length, making the position crystal clear. But while reaffirming that we have no intention of resisting his attempt to reinstate the county, I ask the hon. Gentleman and the House to reflect a little on the real dilemma that we face.
      In explaining to me and other members of the Committee why it was desirable that the county should have, as it were, collateral powers with the district, the Minister referred back to the form of words in the Local Government Act 1972, where the phrase "local authority" has a variety of applications, depending on the context in which it is used. But I think that it is also true to say that in that Act there are various schedules in which specific powers are allocated to specific local authorities, so that the interchangeability of the words "local authority" in that Act was rationalised by the fact that the specific local authorities had specified powers.
      As I understand it, the difficulty here is that making the district council and the county council interchangeable activating authorities in the context of the Bill means that the county will be able to interfere and do things on its own initiative in an area which is normally the preserve of the district, an area in which, under the Local Government Act 1972, the district has designated, specified and exclusive powers. As a result of the way in which this Bill has been drafted, it will be possible for the county on its own initiative to make decisions affecting the local government district in which the district council has specific powers and in a sense to override it, duplicate it or take an initiative which is against its wishes.
      There is a safeguard that the Minister has introduced in Amendment No. 39 which provides for consultation between

      1405
      designated authorities. The Minister has said himself that there is a fail-safe mechanism within the narrow context of the declaration of industrial improvement areas in that the Minister's sanction must be secured and his veto can be exercised. If there is a real clash the Minister can step in and resolve it.
      I do not think that this is totally satisfactory. If he has to step in to make a judgment of Solomon in respect of competing claims whether to designate an industrial improvement area, difficulties will arise. The county may want to designate part of a district and a district, for its own very good reasons, may not want that designation.
      For example, Leeds City Council may, for very good reasons, not want an industrial improvement area in part of the Leeds district. The council—quite legitimately—might want to do its own slum clearance and to reinstate the area in a different way from the inner urban area philosophy. On the other hand, the West Yorkshire County Council may want part of the Leeds district designated as an industrial improvement area because it wants to built up industry and commerce in that area. The result would be a straight clash of views, and the county view would in a sense, override that of the district council. If the Minister comes in as a sort of Solomon, he is bound to outrage one side or the other and obviously it is not very satisfactory that we should provide for this kind of operation.
      Clause 2 is even worse. It says that a designated district authority may be satisfied with
      "the acquisition by any person of land situated within the designated district or within the same county …".
      It may be that the district council in a designated area, for reasons best known to itself, does not want a particular development to take place in inner urban area terms. It may not want a particular individual or group of individuals to come into that district and acquire land. If this occurs, that person or group wanting to acquire the land will go to the county, and the county, without any obligation to consult, can give its full range of support to that outside body, under Clause 2. This can be against the wishes of the designated district council.
      1406
      There is no provision in the clause for consultation. This is a hazard, because there is a real likelihood of the county stepping in and taking the initiative which the district council wants to resist. There is a further paradox here. Although the Minister is responsible for designating districts under Clause 1, it is actually possible under Clause 2 for a county to launch the whole Clause 2 process in a non-designated district. The clause says:
      "the acquisition by any person of land situated within the designated district or within the same county …".
      If the Minister has not designated a particular district, because it is in the same county, the county can still go in and start Clause 2 operations in a non-designated district. This is a very curious situation in which the county can short-circuit the provisions of Clause 1.
      4.45 p.m.
      Mr. Hooley: In fact, there is precisely such a collision of view in South Yorkshire at present. The county, for good reasons, believes that it should attack the serious problems of dereliction and unemployment in the Dearne Valley. It is giving this very high priority. On the other hand, the Sheffield District Council, not unnaturally, takes a somewhat different view of the priorities. It thinks that its own inner urban area problems should be accorded priority. If the county and the district have concurrent powers it is clear that there will be very serious collisions about the order of priorities. The possibilities for the county to be obstructive, unco-operative and awkward are virtually infinite. This is the kind of danger which my amendment in Committee sought to avoid, but which the Government are trying to bring back again.
      Mr. Alison: I understand the hon. Member's point in relation to Sheffield and South Yorkshire. Under the Clause 2 powers there cannot even be a clash because the county has full powers to override the district and go ahead and make facilities available to entrepreneurs. It can launch Clause 2 powers in a district adjoining the designated district of Sheffield if it wants to do so.
      There is a dilemma here because the country has an important contribution to make and because of this we shall not resist the new clause. However, the Minister must reassure us that he has thought through the kind of problem to

      1407
      which the hon. Member for Heeley has referred. I hope that the Minister will consider the apparent looseness in Clause 2 and perhaps think about it again with a view to amending it in the House of Lords.
      I move from the possible clash of interests to a couple of other points that I wish to make briefly on New Clause No. 2. We welcome the Minister's very helpful installation of the commercial dimension in the Bill. I am sure that this is right and I am grateful to him for listening to our arguments in Committee. I believe that this will make the Bill more powerful and effective.
      I hope that the Minister will tell us how the scheme will operate in respect of New Clause No. 2. I draw his attention to the amounts of grant available here. The particular points are raised in Clause 3 (5)(a) and (b) where it says:
      "The amount of a grant under subsection (4)(b) above shall not exceed—

      (a) 50 per cent of the cost of carrying out the works; or

      (b) £1,000, or such other amount as may be specified in an order made by the Secretary of State, for each job which, in the opinion of the authority, is likely to be created …"

      I put a hypothetical case by way of an illustration. Suppose the conversion of a building was likely to cost about £500,000. That is not an unreasonable sum in respect of a derelict large, old building which needs conversion and modernisation. Suppose that about 100 jobs were likely to result from the conversion—either new jobs or the preservation of existing ones or a combination of the two. On the basis of £1,000 per job, the lesser of the two amounts—50 per cent. of the conversion cost, or £1,000 per job—is £100,000 for 100 jobs. That is a long way short of 50 per cent. of the cost of converting the building.
      It may be that some better balance can be struck here. What is not quite clear is the number of new jobs created which are relevant. For example, are the jobs involved in the construction firm engaged in the business of converting the building relevant jobs? If that is not so, I fear that the lower figure is always likely to be the one that will be chosen. The value of the jobs created is almost certainly likely to fall a long way short.
      1408
      I fear, of the cost of converting some of these old buildings.
      However, the Minister may be able to reassure us that he thinks that the figures are meant to be virtually interchangeable, so that one is not much of a loser by one or the other, and one gets about the same amount. I suspect, particularly if the jobs involved in the actual conversion process are discounted and one ends up only with consideration of new jobs or preserved jobs in a different kind of work, that there will not be enough incentive to get people to launch into a major conversion project.
      Incidentally, will the Minister explain, in passing, why we are limiting ourselves to grants only in respect of this range of operations, the conversion, extension, improvement and so on, whereas for the amenities section it is to be grants and loans? It is a technical point. I do not quite remember from the Committee stage why we are limiting ourselves in this way.
      I do not want to detain the House too long on points of detail, but I am afraid that it is inevitable when we are considering complicated new clauses and provisions. I should like, finally, to turn the Minister's attention to Amendment No. 39, just on a further point on the declaration of industrial improvement areas. It follows on from the change made in the new clause by which we have introduced the commercial dimension.
      Why is it that, having introduced the commercial dimension in New Clause No. 2, we are going back to a form of words in respect of industrial improvement areas which seems, prima facie, once again to exclude the commercial dimension? We are confronted here with areas which would be predominantly industrial areas, as being those which can be susceptible to an industrial improvement area designation. But it is the heart of the argument about the commercial dimension that one may very well want to attract a general, mixed, balanced development of employment in a locality by majoring on commercial development, if that is relevant, or on industrial development—whichever is the most relevant to that locality.
      It may be an inhibiting and limiting factor to say that one can carry out the commercial dimension, which is being brought forward in the new clause only

      1409
      in an industrial area. In a sense, that seems to be a contradiction in terms, because a lot of the commercial attraction of coming into a particular locality in a district such as Leeds, for example, might well be that one does not want necessarily to settle in a predominantly industrial area for the purposes of building one's new office blocks and so on, but one would rather like to develop one's office blocks adjacent to—not too far away from but not necessarily cheek by jowl with—new factories that are being erected simultaneously.
      It is difficult to understand why the Minister has insisted on reintroducing the concept of the predominantly industrial feature of the industrial development area provisions of Clause 3 when he has also given us the commercial concession, as it were. I can see some clashes arising here, because the commercial folk may very well not want to try to move in on an industrial area. It may be exactly the reverse of the kind of environment that they are seeking to create—for example, to attract white-collar workers. In a city such as Sheffield, for example, which has long been trying to attract white-collar jobs, to make it a balanced industrial and commercial environment, I am not sure that it would necessarily be helpful to be landed with this rather limited designation, as supplied in the change to the schedule in Amendment No. 39.
      Those are the queries to which I immediately give expression on behalf of the Opposition. They are mostly queries, but my hon. Friends may well have other points to raise, so perhaps the Minister could give us a considered view of all these matters.
      Mrs. Barbara Castle: I, too, welcome the changes set out in New Clause No. 2 and the extension of the provisions of the Bill to cover commercial buildings and the preservation of jobs and not merely the creation of them. But, of course, these extended provisions make designation even more valuable. That is why I am sorry that the Secretary of State is not present this afternoon to fulfil a promise that he made on Second Reading. In New Clauses Nos. 1 and 2 we are restating and slightly extending the basic provisions of the Bill with regard to the designation of areas
      1410
      and the declaration of industrial improvement areas. We are starting again, as it were.
      On Second Reading on 9th February, my right hon. Friend told us about the decisions and the selections that he had already made, the seven partnership areas and 15 other areas already identified for treatment under clauses such as these. He went on to say:
      "I envisage that a number of other districts with serious problems of urban decay will also be designated, and I intend to make a statement about this further selection of authorities during the later stages of the Bill's passage."
      Today we are on the remaining stages of the Bill. My right hon. Friend is not here. I have no doubt that he has much pressing work to do. But it means that we are not getting the further statement that we were promised before the Bill leaves this House at this stage of its parliamentary passage.
      The more I have studied the Bill and what my right hon. Friend has said, and, indeed, what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said this afternoon, the more vividly clear it has become to me that other areas qualify for this kind of assistance on the kind of criteria that have been spelled out during the discussions on the Bill.
      Having listened to my right hon. and hon. Friends, I might have imagined that the Bill was almost tailor-made for my own constituency from the criteria that have been laid down and that we are repeating in the new clauses. Blackburn is certainly predominantly an industrial area. It is an area which has, tragically, suffered economic decline, which has left it with intensified social problems and considerable areas of dereliction. There is a population imbalance. Its unemployment rate is above the national average. As I think all hon. Members know, it is the centre of considerable racial tension. Indeed, it has been the centre of the leadership of the National Party in its campaign, and the chairman of the National Party was one of my opponents as a parliamentary candidate at the last two General Elections.
      The racial tension is intensified by the employment problems and environmental problems from which Blackburn is suffering. It is struggling against a depressing physical environment. That is why, as long ago as last February, I wrote to my right hon. Friend welcoming his willingness, as

      1411
      stated on Second Reading, to enlarge the number of authorities that he was prepared to announce as being designated, and asking him to realise that the problems of the inner urban areas are not confined to the large urban mass areas. The problems appear vividly in areas of smaller scale, which proportionately, have even greater urban problems.
      Mr. Michael Morris: Is the right hon. Lady saying that the proportion of the problems in her constituency is greater than that of those in the centre of Liverpool?
      5.0 p.m.
      Mrs. Castle: No, I am not saying that. I am not trying to devalue the nature of the problems in Liverpool. I am saying that when my right hon. Friend on Second Reading said "I intend", he was not saying that he was merely considering. He said:
      "I intend to make a further statement about this further selection of authorities".[Official Report, 9th February 1978; Vol. 943, c. 1694.]
      He was accepting the argument of some of us that in microcosm some of our constituencies have problems of almost equal intensity.
      I give the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) an example. In Blackburn we suffer from industrial dereliction in proportion to our population on a scale that is even greater than in some of the more dramatically derelict inner city areas. That is why I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend realised that we are dealing not merely with one or two major cities but with a problem that is of the same sort as that in many other inner city areas.
      In Blackburn we are left with the relics of the textile age. I cannot imagine any area that would be able to benefit more obviously, or would act more quickly as an industrial improvement area, than that part of my constituency where, lined up along the derelict side of a choked up canal, there are old mills that have fallen or are falling into decay. There are many examples to show that Blackburn has all the qualifications of an industrial improvement area.
      In the post-war period my authority has done remarkable things to pull the town up by its own bootstraps. Thanks to
      1412
      the Labour Government, we have had the advantage of being scheduled as an intermediate area. We have not been scheduled as a development area. I recognise that Merseyside would have prior claims over Blackburn in that respect. However, this Bill deals with inner urban areas struggling with the problems of dereliction and needing industrial revitalisation and environmental revitalisation, and that describes my constituency. We have done a great deal, and we are yearning to do a great deal more, given the powers, the opportunities and a little extra help. What we have achieved shows how much more we could achieve. We in Blackburn believe that there may be inner city areas that have already been scheduled and given powers but may not use them, whereas, Heaven knows, we would.
      Will my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State convey to his right hon. Friend my regret that he has not been able to be in the Chamber this afternoon to announce the additional list? I shall forgive him, provided that he is actively and sympathetically considering adding Blackburn to the list.
      Mr. Stephen Ross: I add my welcome to the new clause and the Government's conversion to my idea of including commercial buildings within the Bill's provisions. I referred to the matter on Second Reading and I have made personal representations to the Secretary of State. However, I congratulate those hon. Members who pushed the matter in Committee. If that had the effect that has been described this afternoon, it is to be welcomed.
      The hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) made some relevant comments about the contents of the clause. I have some queries to put to the Minister. When tabling my amendment I had in mind the mixed-use type of property that abounds in inner parts of London and elsewhere. In talking about London, let us take Covent Garden as an example. That is an area where a scheme to demolish a few acres has, thank goodness, been rescinded and where a fair amount of renevotion is taking place. It is to be hoped that in that area we shall be able to bring back some of the small businesses that flourished in years gone by. I recognise that some of them have never left the area.

      1413
      I presented to the Secretary of State a case prepared by a local housing association that pointed out how it could create living accommodation over the many shops in the Covent Garden area by getting help from the housing corporation or from local authorities. It came unstuck when it tried to deal with the commercial sector, namely, the shops.
      As hon. Members will know full well, that type of property does not lend itself immediately and appealing to insurance companies and pension funds. Those organisations always look for the first-class sort of investment. They regard secondary and tertiary locations as not being the type of investments for which they are looking. Very often such schemes are too small in size. Further, small businesses are often regarded as not being good covenants. Often small businesses are not prepared to enter into the pre-let arrangements that multiple companies find acceptable. The problem has been to provide help for those whom everybody would like to see succeed by getting additional finance to allow them to purchase. There has also been difficulty in dealing with the commercial side of the operation. There is help available on the residential side but not on the commercial side. I believe that the clause will meet that position.
      The Minister has said that the clause will include shops. The hon. Member for Barkston Ash quoted some figures, and I have seen schemes that are in a fairly forward stage. In Covent Garden there are schemes ranging from £65,000 to about £500,000. If the money is to be restricted to the number of jobs that are created, there will be difficulties, but I take heart that in subsection (3)(b) there is reference to £1,000 per job created
      "or such other amount as may be specified".
      We may visualise a service industry in that area doing a worthwhile job but not employing more than five or 10 people. If it is to be £1,000 per job created, £10,000 will not go very far in a scheme of anything up to £500,000.
      I hope that the Minister will have more to say about that. Obviously, 50 per cent. of the cost of guaranteeing the work would be more than ample. It is probable that those concerned could get away with less and take a loan from one of the other sources that I have indicated, provided
      1414
      that matters are well under way with the initial grant.
      If that can be explained, together with the point that was raised on Amendment No. 39, which seems to contradict the commercial definition, I think that the clause will meet the point that many of us have been making and will go a long way to bringing in parts of inner London, Birmingham and other cities where there are literally hundreds of empty shops in inner urban areas that could be put to some other use—for example, manufacturing or servicing.
      Such premises could be used for the repairing of wireless sets. They could be put to a useful purpose, but there must be the finance available to obtain such premises, renovate them and enable them to be offered at rents that people can afford. The initial starting finance has not been available. I see the clause as meeting that very desirable need, but if it is to be restricted to the lower amount, I do not think that it will go far enough.
      Mr. Eddie Loyden: I did not have the privilege of serving on the Committee, but I have tried to follow what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) said about New Clause No. 1. I welcome the moves that have been made in Committee and since to introduce industrial and commercial interests into the Bill. But I express some of the fears which have been advanced by the hon. Member for Barkston Ash about the conflicting interests and the problems which may emerge.
      I do not want to argue the parochial attitude of Liverpool, because it is one of the cities involved in the inner area programme. Part of my constituency is also involved. There is a great deal of industrial decay and land left idle in my constituency because of the decline of industries in the area. There is also a need, because people desire to remain in the area, for a decanting system of housing. Looking at the possibilities of the twin interests pulling at the centre, I see conflicts arising and a certain amount of delay and argument occurring when those two interests are seen as not being complementary the one to the other.

      1415
      We have to be cautious about allowing control of inner area policies and activities to extend into the more remote hands of the metropolitan county. The present agency arrangements could satisfactorily meet the interests of both the metropolitan county and district council. These arrangements have worked reasonably well when the county has acted as agent on behalf of the district or when the district has acted as agent on behalf of the county on the kind of work which requires collaboration. However, difficulties could occur if the interests of the county were in the commercial development of an area in which housing and so forth should have priority for available land.
      Looking at the Bill as it has come from Committee, I think that to a large extent our expectations have been met. But I have one or two worries if the area of activity is to be extended. I should prefer to see the involvement of organisations which, in my locality, have already taken positive steps to involve themselves in thinking about and presenting the needs of the inner city areas in terms of industry and the refurbishing of the fabric of cities.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) referred to the designation of certain areas. I think that we should regard the inner area programme as being complementary to the other activities and designations which are taking place in industrial cities.
      We see this measure not as an alternative to special development areas or to the other steps taken by the Government, but as complementary to deal with particular problems in some of our major industrial conurbations.
      I hope that the Minister will pay due regard to the fears of people about widening activities, to the county and will consider what arrangements may be made for the district to be designated and for the county to act as an agent when required by the district. I think that would simplify the arrangements and overcome, to a large extent, the possibility of confrontation between the two authorities if there is no agreement on any particular project. I hope that the Minister will bear those matters in mind.
      5.15 p.m.
      Mr. Michael Morris: I think that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) made a particularly poignant contribution. I take the point that the solicitations from the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) may be valid, but I could probably make as strong a case for the derelict shoe factories in the centre of Northampton. However, that is not the problem that we face. The problem facing the nation is that some difficult inner city areas need the concentrated attention of the Government and Government money through the agency of local authorities. I think that the House would do well to concentrate its mind on that aspect and not to get deflected into the arguments of different constituencies.
      I spoke on Second Reading, but I was not privileged to serve on the Committee. In a sense, I am somewhat disappointed at the large number of Government new clauses and amendments. We know that a number of detailed constultants' reports on inner city urban areas were prepared prior to publication of the White Paper. The new clauses and amendments seem to suggest that there was not the depth of thinking and preparation that there should have been. I suggest that this may lie at the door not of the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, but of the Under-Secretary of State for Industry who, unfortunately, has departed from the Chamber.
      Having said that, I welcome New Clause No. 2 and the addition of the word "commercial". I believe that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment attended the initial meeting of the partnership area of Islington and Hackney. Therefore, he will know that unless "commercial" is added to that area, the whole concept will have no validity. If Islington and Hackney are to survive, they must survive as extensions of the City of London. It is in the general commercial concept—in terms of their office and quasi-office and craft context—that they are likely to revive as inner London boroughs. Therefore, the new clause is to be welcomed.
      I think that the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) about the seemingly restrictive nature of AAA versus B should be

      1417
      taken on board by the Government and, if not this evening, at least in another place, thought about very seriously.
      I should like to comment on two other amendments. First, Amendment No. 22, which deals with the county councils. I find myself, not for the first time, in agreement with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley), as I was on Second Reading. I have the experience, which not many hon. Members have, of having a development corporation in my constituency. The lesson that all of us learn when we have a development corporation in a new town working alongside the district council and county council is that it achieves a single mindedness of approach to a problem. The buck stops at the development corporation. It the county and district do not combine and act—in my constituency they do—the development corporation can get on with the job.
      The great danger that I sense—I suspect that the hon. Member for Heeley also senses it—is that if the county council is to be involved, no one will know where the buck stops. There will be consultations between one and the other and no decisions will be taken. If I were an industrialist who was asked to go into the deprived areas—for example, some of the derelict areas of Liverpool which I do not claim to know as well as the hon. Member for Garston, but at least I have taken the trouble to visit them—I should want to go to one office and know that I could get a decision and that no one would change it at a different level of local authority.
      I understand that the county boroughs are chafing at the bit to get more decisions taken at district level. I believe that, despite having had the counties wiped out in Committee, the Government should pull them in again here on the Floor of the House.
      Mr. Hooley: The matter is even more complicated than the hon. Gentleman suggests. Not only are the two tiers of local government involved, but seven or eight Government Departments. The size of the committees that will consider these partnership programmes is quite staggering.
      Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. Furthermore, he did not mention the fact that nobody from the
      1418
      private sector has yet been invited to participate. If they were so invited, it would make those committees even larger. I believe that the chambers of commerce should be invited.
      I do not sit for a Liverpool constituency, but I notice that the council there has a membership of 41 Labour, 41 Liberal and 17 Conservatives. That suggests that if one can get a decision out of the district council, that is enough for anybody.
      I turn to Amendment No. 39, which is an important amendment with wide implications. It is a pity that the Under-Secretary of State for Industry has left the Chamber in this crucial debate, and I hope that somebody from that Department is taking note of this debate. I understand that the Government are saying that these areas must be designated as predominantly industrial areas. My experience in an older industrial town is that by far the most successful renovation of old shoe factories has taken place in non-conforming areas. They are no longer metal bashing factories or factories of a noisy nature. They have been changed to different forms of factory, but they are now renovated and are making a contribution.
      The tragedy is that where an area has not been regarded as an area of dereliction and where old factories are still standing they may well be of a non-conforming nature, but what we must do in the Liver-pools of this world is to stop the rot. That rot has been setting in fast. Figures published in the Press today show that unemployment in Liverpool is rising, although it has fallen in the rest of the country.
      I do not think that Amendment No. 39 addresses itself to that problem. We have to be single-minded and use every possible means to ensure that employment is stabilised in these crucial and desperate areas. If that does not happen, unemployment will continue. The amendment is good so far as it goes, but I urge the Government to examine these points, if not today, when the Bill reaches another place.
      Mr. Douglas Jay: We are now dealing with a wide group of new clauses and amendments, and I welcome them so far as they go from the point of view of some of the London areas.

      1419
      My hon. Friend the Minister does not need me to urge on him the seriousness of some of the problems of industrial dereliction and unemployment in the inner London areas. For these reasons the changes in the Bill are very welcome. However, from the point of view of those whom I represent in Wandsworth—and the Wandsworth Borough Council covers my area—the people there would have been glad to be granted even more concessions.
      I wish to take up some of the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). I had understood that in the later stages of this Bill a statement would be made about the designation of further areas. The Secretary of State in a letter dated 1st March to the Wandsworth Borough Council made the following categorical statement:
      "I shall be making a statement about the further selection of designated districts during the later stages of the Bill's passage."
      I do not know how much longer my hon. Friend expects the Bill to take in passing through Parliament. Those who served on the Committee will know the answer better than I do. The serious point concerns whether the Minister intends to make a statement today or at some stage in the Bill about the further designation of areas, because that is what we were virtually promised. Perhaps at some stage he will tell us when that statement will be made.
      Mr. Guy Barnett: Perhaps it will save the House further trouble if I say something on this topic. This matter has been raised with justification by several hon. Members.
      My right hon. Friend intended as soon as possible to make a statement about the full list of designated authorities. It is fair to add that if this Bill passes through this House today, it will then go to another place. I suppose one could regard that as the "passage of the Bill". I know that, if possible, it was my right hon. Friend's intention to make a full statement on the list by the time we considered Third Reading. Unfortunately, it has not been possible for him to do so because there are difficult decisions of judgment that still need to be made. I know that he hopes to make such a statement within a week or so, but not today.
      Mr. Jay: If we can take it as an undertaking that a statement will be made while the Bill is in its passage through the other place, although we shall feel a little disappointed, we shall at least be reasonably satisfied.
      Mr. Alison: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that in pressing for designation of further areas, there is one small fly in the ointment. The resources available under the Bill have been predetermined and fixed. If further candidates wish to dip their spoons into the soup, there will be smaller helpings for existing candidates. There is an inhibition on the extension of the list.
      Mr. Jay: I appreciate that, but as the area which I represent is to receive nothing at all, that argument does not carry very much weight with me.
      This is not the place to argue in a parochial sense the place of particular areas. Nevertheless, in view of what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn and by the Opposition on the subject of Hackney and Islington, I must remind the Minister of the representations which have already been made to him. It is puzzling to many people in South London that he should have included in the partnership or designated areas the boroughs of Lambeth and Hammersmith and left out the whole of Wandsworth—an area that comes between the other two boroughs.
      I shall not argue the case now because in his letter of 1st March the Secretary of State said:
      "While no final decision has yet been taken on additions to the list, I certainly accept that Wandsworth has a strong case for designation."
      It will come as an acute disappointment to those in the area—an area which suffers a great deal of industrial dereliction and unemployment—if the Secretary of State fails to include Wandsworth in the list.
      Mr. Anthony Steen (Liverpool, Waver-tree): Perhaps I may help the right hon. Gentleman. The problem is that the Government have refused to define an "area of special social need", despite attempts by the Opposition to elicit a definition. We tabled an amendment in Committee to identify an area of social need. It appears rather as a chameleon because it changes shape and moves round the country. Until the Government define

      1421
      what they mean by that phrase, I feel that they will be making the wrong decisions and that the constituency of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) will be neglected as a result.
      5.30 p.m.
      Mr. Jay: I understand that there is no definition, but in the past I had a good deal to do with scheduling areas as development areas, and although there was a general phrase in the legislation, there was never a precise definition. Nevertheless, I think that the areas selected received general public acceptance.
      The particular problem in London at the moment is that there is no possible social, economic, statistical or other definition which could be produced to include, for instance, Lambeth and Islington but not Wandsworth. However, I do not wish to labour this point in that sense, because I think that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who represents a South London constituency—and what is more a constituency bordering on the river, which is where many of the derelict areas are—understands the point perfectly well.
      Although we are considering here the Inner Urban Areas Bill, there is also a Private Bill relating to Greater London Council powers, which is not before us this afternoon and which we cannot now discuss but which has some bearing on the proposals in this Bill. The point that I wish to make is that those in my area, including the local authority, attach very great importance to the powers in the GLC Bill. I hope that whatever further improvements are made here—and some have been made already—my hon. Friend will not use the argument that what he has done in this Bill is a good reason for not proceeding with and not enacting the powers proposed in the other Bill.
      Mr. Steen: I think that the Minister must by now know some of the arguments that were deployed in Committee aimed at showing that in many ways the Bill was a puff of smoke, had no substance, and would be unlikely to help the areas which it was supposed to help. But in welcoming these amendments, I do not think that it would be constructive of me at this stage to attack the Minister on all the matters which I raised in Committee—certainly not at this stage, anyway.
      1422
      I should like first to reiterate the points which have been made from the Labour Benches about the areas of special social need and the need to define a little more exactly why certain areas are included and other areas are not. We had a very interesting and lengthy debate on this very point in Committee, and the Minister will remember that I moved Amendment No. 2, hoping to identify the areas of need by specific reference to matters such as areas with unemployment above the national average, with housing stock older than the national average, with more than average lack of basic amenities, with earnings below the national average, with significant numbers of single-parent families, with indictable offences above the national average, and with more than proportionate numbers of unskilled and semi-skilled workers.
      The Minister resisted any definition, and as a result that is the difficulty in which he will place himself and the Government as he gets more and more demands that one area or another should be included. I ask him to look again at the whole thinking behind the Bill, for unless he can specify the criteria by which he includes one area and not another, he may be choosing the wrong areas.
      In my constituency, in Liverpool, as I have indicated in Committee, the needs are not in the inner part of it. They are on those vast, soulless council estates built by successive local authorities, and in which the social needs are far greater than in the inner areas. For this reason, the needs of the outer area are becoming synonymous with the needs of the inner area, if not overtaking them in that sense.
      Perhaps the Minister will look again at the need to define the criteria by which help will be given. If he does not do this he will find that while he is fiddling, Rome will burn. While he is looking at the problems of the inner area, the population will be moving out, and there will be nobody left in the inner area. The real areas of social deprivation, these vast council estates—the sort of area which surrounds our major cities—will be neglected. That is my first general point.
      The Minister's aim is to bring back industry and jobs to the inner areas. That is the whole thrust of this series of amendments and new clauses. The Minister will remember my comment about 80,000 jobs having been lost in the inner

      1423
      area of Liverpool, to be replaced by 100,000 jobs in the outer area. I said that it is no good talking about reviving industry in the inner area unless we can bring back some of the skilled men who are now in the outer area. I do not want to deal now with the problems which will be created in the outer area by bringing these skilled men back into the inner area, but unless they are brought back there will be insufficient skilled labour to operate the small firms and businesses which the Minister is trying to interest in coming back into the city.
      The Minister will remember that in areas such as Liverpool there is so much vacant and derelict land, belonging to the city council and to nationalised industries, that unless he can persuade these bodies to release their land holdings at a viable price, it will be no good offering grants and loans and assistance, because none of the small firms will be able to borrow enough money to buy the land which is hoarded by nationalised industries and local authorities, and which has been hoarded for a decade or more. In the event, the main thrust of the amendments and the new clauses would be lost.
      It is no good offering people loans if the cost of the land is prohibitive. There is no point in offering them land on which to build factories if they have not the skilled staff with which to operate those factories.
      I should like to draw the Minister's attention to a firm in my constituency which has written to me in exasperation, at a time when the Government are committed to a revival of the inner city and to creating more jobs and bringing new life to the inner city areas. The letter states:
      "We are a small manufacturing company employing…14 people. Our present premises, which are rented on lease, are becoming inadequate".
      The company would like to expand its business and create new jobs. It has found suitable accommodation and would like to move. It was under the impression that it would be eligible for a Government grant for the purpose. However, it now learns that the grant is available only if it actually moves into a new building, and not if it moves into an old building.
      I hope that the Minister, when he replies, will help me with the problems of
      1424
      this company. It must be one of many such companies wanting to move from one building to another and unable to wait until the Government build an advance factory. In any case, the company would not be able to afford that.
      Will the Minister deal specifically with the question whether the Bill will allow the company to move from one building to another, as it wishes, and whether the Government will help it to do so—or does it have to move into new premises in order to qualify for the grant?
      Mr. Mike Thomas: I do not want to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, Waver-tree (Mr. Steen) but rather some of the earlier speeches and particularly that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay). I also come from a constituency which borders on a river and with very serious problems adjacent to it, as I think he well knows, and I have studied the GLC Bill, to which he referred.
      I recognise that the present position is one of very great difficulty. I do not say this in any spirit of "Pull up the ladder, Jack—Newcastle is all right". That is not the feeling I have. It is simply that with the Inner Urban Areas Bill, the GLC Bill, the Act dealing with the Tyne and Wear, and so on, we are getting into the most almighty confusion about inner area support of various kinds. We ought to bear that in mind, perhaps, when looking at the provisions of the Bill.
      As the Minister will know, I served on the Committee. It would only be right to give an unreserved welcome to the changes proposed in New Clause No. 2 in particular. Both from the point of view of the co-operative movement—whose interests I represent in the House—and from the wider purview of the retail trade—with which I share the distinction of being a member of the all-party group with the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg)—the provisions, including commercial buildings, are very welcome indeed. We are grateful to the Government for them and for the amendment of the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) with regard to the precise definition to be used for the word "commercial".
      I know the perils of quoting one's own speeches, but in this instance it is perhaps

      1425
      justified. While thanking the Minister for this major concession, I would draw his attention to the speech that I made in Committee when I said:
      "If my hon. Friend"
      —in this case I was referring to the Under-Secretary of State for Industry—
      "says that this is the thin end of the wedge, I say in reply that that is precisely what I intend. I want that wedge to be in and the gap to be opened up. I do not hide that. I say it straightforwardly to him. It is a very tiny wedge, with a very tiny end, and it has been inserted a bare millimetre."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 16th March 1978; c. 399.]
      That was certainly the case with the original amendment in Committee.
      It is fair to say that the millimetre has become at least a centimetre, possibly a little more, by the inclusion of New Clause No. 2. However, when replying to the debate can my hon. Friend perhaps give some hope to the distributive trade that this particular development signifies a change in the Government's thinking. Can we hope that this is a real change of heart? I hope that we shall now see a genuine conviction on the part of the Government that distributive and retailing activity is just as important—not only in inner cities—as the creation of jobs in manufacturing industry.
      I shall not rehearse all the arguments again. I said in Committee, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright), that a man who drives a fork lift truck and puts pallets in a heap—whether he is doing it in the warehouse of the North Eastern Co-operative Society or in the workshops of C. A. Parsons Ltd in my constituency—is still a man doing a job, being paid a wage and supporting his family on it.
      This is a welcome change in the direction of ending the discrimination that we have seen against the distributive and commercial sector. I hope the Minister can give us some assurance that this will be extended and that this small measure we have today is not the extent of it.
      I want to refer to one other matter. In this regard I believe that the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) and Isle of Wight have rather missed the point. I refer to the question of jobs. Of course, the provision in the Bill is there and, of course, it is intended to relate the grants to jobs precisely because
      1426
      one of the concerns we have about almost all other forms of assistance to industry is that at the end of the day they help most of all the capital intensive industries. We know that we do not particularly want capital intensive industry in inner urban areas. We do not want major chemical plants or oil refineries, or other plants of the sort that have done rather well under the regional assistance schemes. We want smaller operations that will provide genuine jobs.
      I make no complaint about the provision relating to the number of jobs to be created. However, I think that the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight missed the point. I very much welcome the inclusion of jobs to be preserved.
      Mr. Stephen Ross: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman's comments, but does he not think that £1,000 per job will be far too low a sum to enable some of these commercial developments and renovations to take place? After all, he is welcoming it on behalf of the retail trade. I have no objection to this being related to jobs. I agree with that entirely. But £1,000 is mentioned, and if that is the sort of sum which the Secretary of State has in mind, I am afraid it is peanuts and just will not work.
      5.45 p.m.
      Mr. Thomas: With regard to these matters, a balance has to be kept. The object is to go for projects that are to some degree labour intensive. If the amount of money available per job goes up too dramatically, again one gets back into the business of encouraging capital intensive operations. A figure of £1,000 may be too low—no doubt many of us would wish that it was £2,000, £3,000 or £4,000—but there has to be a question of balance.
      I should like to ask an important and detailed point which we did not seem to deal with properly in Committee. What exactly is a job? The Minister shook his head when it was suggested that construction jobs would be included. He will know that in the area I represent, as in other development areas, there is very great concern with regard to people receiving grants having their operations in existence for a short time—perhaps one, two or three years—and then in time of difficulty closing down the plant in the assisted area and withdrawing to their

      1427
      central headquarters which may be somewhere else. We know that there is some mythology about that. It perhaps does not happen as often as some people think. Nevertheless, it is a genuine concern. It seems to me that by putting the business about jobs into the Bill the Government are inviting the question, what do they mean by this provision?
      If in reply the Minister were to say that there will be a general relationship to some general calculation about how many jobs are created or preserved, that is fine. But I would then say to him that I am not entirely sure that I see the point of putting it into the Bill in this form. If he does not say that, then some more detail must be given to us. If it is not construction jobs, is it jobs that are created for a year, two years or five years? Will there be a time limit? The Minister knows the sort of questions that I have in mind. I hope that in his reply he will cover them rather more fully than he did at the outset.
      I repeat the welcome that I gave to the amendments and new clauses that we are now discussing. We are grateful for them. We know the work that my right hon. and hon. Friends have put in to take account of the points that we made in Committee. The response we have had is magnificent and direct, and we much appreciate it.
      Mr. Timothy Raison: The two points made by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas) are both valid and relevant. The first was to stress the importance of the retail industry. I am sure that that is absolutely right. The second was to ask exactly what is meant by "jobs" and whether New Clause No. 2 refers to short-term jobs or long-term jobs. That is also a point on which I should like to hear the answer.
      I should like to say a little more about jobs. I am not sure that what I want to say will be welcomed by every hon. Member. I accept the need for inner city policy and for public resources to be directed to bringing about some kind of effective inner city policy. I also accept that the key to a successful inner city policy must be some kind of economic revitalisation in the area concerned.
      1428
      There is a school of thought which says that one cannot hope ever to make these areas into reasonably dynamic areas in terms of their contribution to the national economy and that one has to regard the inner city areas as being areas of dependence on the rest of society. There are quite plausible and rational arguments for putting forward that point of view, but I believe that it would be a disastrous point of view to put forward. Above all, it would be disastrous because of its effects on morale.
      I accept that we want to think in terms of economic revitalisation. I also accept the point that small businesses have an important part to play in these areas, if we are to bring that revitalisation about. But the note of warning I should like to sound is that I do not accept the case for continuing job subsidisation or for creating wholly dependent economies. I do not accept the case for shoring up the obsolete or even the obsolescent. There is a real danger that the kind of provisions embodied in New Clause No. 2 could be used for these purposes.
      It might not be a declared statement of policy on the part of the Government, but I believe that the risk exists. There is already in this society an exaggerated creation of what I would describe as bogus jobs. I feel this particularly strongly because there are so many genuine things which still need to be done in our society if only we could afford to do them. So I hope that when New Clause No. 2 talks specifically about providing £1,000 or whatever it may be to create jobs, it will not be interpreted as a licence to create jobs which are not genuine jobs in their own right.
      There are many arguments against what I describe as phoney jobs—jobs which are not justified by their economic contribution to society. For one thing, they reinforce the poor productivity which is the scourge of the country's economy at the moment. From time to time, the Prime Minister says that he cannot understand why productivity is not going up because, after all, more people are beginning to be in work. But he overlooks the fact that so many of the people now in work are not fulfilling productive jobs but are there as part of a job creation programme. Although it may be that in the short term there is a case for some of them, in the long term there is no case

      1429
      for them which solves either the country's problems or those of the inner cities.
      If we mishandle this kind of policy, there is a risk that we shall lead people to despise work. If we create jobs which are not valid jobs, people may say "This is not really a serious operation. It is a way of getting a bit of money at the end of the week." But I believe that it can help further to undermine the forces in society which are already causing a lot of our trouble. However, I do not think that it will check the demoralisation in these areas to create bogus jobs. What is more, of course, it will waste resources. As I have said already, there are plenty of things which need doing. To use resources purely for job creation is a waste of resources which can be applied elsewhere.
      I hope that the Government and the local authorities will bear in mind these lessons and see that what they have to do with the aid of this Bill and New Clause No. 2 in particular is to create what I describe as a real inner city economy. To some extent, this will be done by measures quite outside the scope of the Bill and quite outside the scope of the local authorities. It will be done by our general tax policy, our general planning policy, and so on. Probably all of us will admit that those factors will have much more to do with the strength of our inner cities than any specific inner city measures will ever have.
      The question is whether I am being very depressing and damping to the possibility—[HON. MEMBERS: "Realistic."] My hon. Friends say that I am being realistic. I think that that is right, but I also think that in some ways there is more opportunity in the inner cities for genuine economic revival than some people give them credit for. There are realistic opportunities, and I have been struck, when talking about them to business men as well as to others over the past year or so, by the fact that quite often business men are more optimistic than some of the academics and other pundits. However, they are optimistic only if the principle adopted is a realistic horses for courses principle rather than a generalised and unthought-out principle of saying "Let us have jobs for the sake of jobs".
      I take the well-known example of the dockland area of London. That is an
      1430
      excellent example of an inner city area. I am struck by the fact that one business man to whom I have talked, who is concerned with development, and so on, makes the point that at the west end of the dockland area at any rate there is a great deal of scope if one says, roughly speaking, that it can provide a cheaper version of the City of London. It is very near the City of London, and a lot of businesses like being in or near the City of London. What deters them from being in the City of London is that they can get there only at very high cost in terms of rent and so on. The dockland area lies immediately beyond the City and, if we could find a way of enabling rents to be reasonable in that area, I can well believe that it could have a considerable commercial attraction for a number of firms. I give that as just one example of the scope for horses for courses policy.
      When we are talking about the kinds of businesses which may be appropriate for inner city areas, there are a number of other factors at which we must look. It must be said that one of them is wage levels. We have to accept that in some parts of the country businesses have been priced out of inner city areas partly because wage levels have been pushed up to an unrealistic height. That is a fact. Another one is the problem of land prices. This will come up in a later debate, but I am sure that it is critical to the revival of our inner city economies and that we have to find a way of breaking out of the present absurd situation.
      There are two specific measures about which we should be thinking. One is the simple and basic market measure of seeing whether we cannot get land auctioned off, especially publicly held land. That provides the best possible chance. To go back again to dockland, we all know that the Port of London Authority and the gas board are sitting on great tracts of land for which they have no real use and which they are not selling largely because of the Community Land Act and its adverse consequences but which they sit on in any event because public bodies love sitting on land. They cannot bear parting with it. They are very good at inventing spurious reasons why they might want to use it one day. But I do not think that they have genuine reasons, and a bit of chivvying and firm action on the part of the Government could force them

      1431
      to disgorge land. I think that the best way of getting rid of it is simply to auction it so that it goes to people who want to make use of it.
      Failing that, there is a case for what is called the reduction factor—the introduction of a "no hope" element in land values which would say realistically "This land will not get anywhere unless it is brought into operation as part of an inner city policy. Therefore, let us accept that its value is less than the value attributed under current valuation procedures." That could help to get the inner city economies going, and it is that sort of area at which we should be looking.
      Obviously it will help if we have labour intensive employment. But I do not think that we can carry that too far as a dogma. Provided that the wage rates are not too high, labour intensive employment will often prove to be the appropriate form of employment as well as being beneficial to the local population. By and large, it will be good if these forms of employment are directly consumer oriented rather than what might be described as old-fashioned industry oriented. Obviously, it will be advantageous if they employ women, numbers of immigrants and numbers of not very skilled people. I sometimes think that the prototype inner city firm is Grunwick, which meets all those criteria.
      If we are realistic about this and we allow natural forces to operate, perhaps with a little encouragement here and there, we shall do very much better than we shall by adopting the generalised notion that jobs should be created and maintained at all costs.
      How does this come back to New Clause No. 2? I am not saying that I am against the clause. I do not think that it is a mistake to write it into the Bill. However, this provision about job creation in it has to be watched with the very greatest care. If this Bill turns out merely to be a job subsidisation effort, I do not think that we shall help the inner cities. Instead, I think that we shall perpetuate the demoralisation and economic decay which afflict them, and we shall be barking up completely the wrong tree.
      Mr. Geoff Edge: I intend to confine my remarks to New Clause No. 2. Although the reference
      1432
      to commercial buildings is to be welcomed, I do not think that it goes nearly far enough. Underlying the Government's thinking there is still the mistaken notion that we can attract back into inner city areas manufacturing employment which will generate new jobs and a new inner city economy.
      At a time when the number of manufacturing jobs in the long term, is falling in all the developed countries, it is an illusion to believe that we can attract manufacturing industry back into the inner cities on a substantial scale. That does not mean that some firms, especially small firms, cannot be encouraged to locate in the inner city areas, and I see that later today we shall be discussing an amendment designed to help small firms. The fact remains that the economies of our inner cities are more and more dependent on commercial activities rather than on industrial activities.
      Hon. Members may ask why I quibble about commercial buildings being included in the clause. I do so because they have to be commercial buildings in industrial improvement areas. There are many areas in our great conurbations where whole town centres, predominantly commercial centres, are decaying. Is it the case that because these areas cannot reasonably be classed as industrial improvement areas they will be denied aid? Will these areas of commercial decay be able to benefit under the new clause in the same way as industrial areas? If the answer is "No", the Bill's impact will be very small indeed. We cannot possibly hope to revive the inner cities without encouraging a considerable growth of commercial activity.
      6.0 p.m.
      Mr. Steen: Following the hon. Gentleman's argument, would one not have to rejig regional development aid? At the moment, it is geared to building on green field sites and creating jobs there, which militates against rebuilding the inner city community, with all that derelection and vacant land. Unless one rejigs regional aid, the Bill will make no contribution to rejuvenating the inner cities.
      Mr. Edge: I agree with the hon. Gentleman completely. What is needed is a re-examination of regional aid so

      1433
      that it considers not only the economies of regions but the great disparities within regions. The contrast between the poverty of the inner cities and other parts of a region can be just as great as that between an area in the South-East of England and the development areas. That sort of fallacy still underlies much of the Government's thinking, not only about the Bill but about their whole regional economic policy.
      I should like an assurance that the Minister will define—there is no definition in the Bill at the moment—an industrial improvement area so that commercial areas which are in decay can benefit as much as predominantly industrial areas. Without that assurance, the effects of the Bill will be very limited.
      Mr. Andrew MacKay: I support the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Edge). Many areas which are in need of attention are not included among the designated areas. My own constituency of Stechford has been left out of the designated area within Birmingham, yet some parts in the Alum Rock end of the constituency have areas of terrific deprivation, particularly where commercial enterprises have left and nothing has replaced them.
      I, too, congratulate the Minister on bringing commercial enterprises into the Bill. Is this a change of policy? Several hon. Members have rightly said—I do not think that we are misinterpreting Government policy—that in the last few years commercial enterprises have not been encouraged as much as manufacturing and industrial enterprises. Many of us regret that, for two reasons in particular.
      First, the Bill's objective—we all agreed this in Committee—is to encourage jobs in the inner cities. I believe that as many new jobs could be gained in the commercial sector as in the industrial. Throughout the country, therefore, it is just as important, if not more so, to encourage commercial enterprises.
      Secondly, the growth areas in our economy and in other industrial economies are not so much in manufacturing as in commercial areas. So if we are looking for real jobs—not artificial jobs, but jobs that will last—we must look more to this sector.
      1434
      Another objective of the Bill is to encourage people to return to the inner cities. People have left most cities in great numbers. This is unfortunate. Apart from the resulting dereliction there, they have to live somewhere else. Again and again, decent countryside and ex-green belt land has been used unnecessarily for development and house building. We should have encouraged both private and public builders to build in the inner cities.
      Mr. Steen: Has not my hon. Friend put his finger on the point at issue in the Bill? He is talking about the demolition of the inner cities by the local authority which resulted in this mass exodus of the inner city population in the last 10 years. The question is how to get those people back. Surely, unless the Government say something about the artificially high land values caused by hoarding by public authorities after demolition programmes, whatever is done about industry or jobs will have no effect, because that land is locked into the public sector. Surely that is the key to this argument.
      Mr. MacKay: As usual, my hon. Friend, with the far-sighted vision which the House has always recognised in him, has beaten me to it. I had intended to make that point. To continue on the theme of encouraging people back into the inner cities, we shall not get people to live there voluntarily without plenty of facilities, including good shops and plenty of jobs. The two must go hand in hand.
      We shall not solve any of these problems in this Bill or by other means until we solve the problem of the high cost of land in many of our cities. I am afraid that much of that land is owned by State bodies—local authorities, the Government or nationalised industries. For various reasons, they are hanging on to it. One reason is the Community Land Act and the development land tax.
      But there are other reasons. First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) said, these bodies are very acquisitive. They like to hold on to land and have no incentive to sell. The Government should give them such an incentive. They should instruct them to sell, preferably by public auction.
      Mr. Edge: To whom?
      Mr. MacKay: I believe that at public auction the land would go to many construction companies, which would be only too pleased to have a profitable venture to build factories or houses within the city. Alternatively, the local authority could do the same. Declaring an interest, as a builder in Birmingham, I believe that private enterprise would do it more cheaply and effectively.
      Mr. Joseph Dean: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that before the Community Land Act land values in the inner cities on normal slum clearance rocketed to astronomical heights when the market was left free and prices were supposed to level out? Under that system, prices went to all-time records. Would not the effect of returning to that system, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, be the same?
      Mr. MacKay: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has taken that argument to its logical conclusion. There was a boom then, but prices later fell again. The reason that they have gone up again now is the shortage of land because of the Community Land Act, brought in by the hon. Gentleman's Government.
      We must encourage all State bodies to sell land in the inner cities so that this Bill, which I have broadly supported in Committee, will be effective. I know that we will all appreciate hearing from the Minister on this point and about further encouragement to commercial enterprises, not just in the designated areas but in other areas which need assistance.
      Mr. Hooley: The grouping of the amendments has made the argument somewhat diffuse, but I want to concentrate on one point touched on by the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison), my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) and others. This is an argument about the designation of one tier or two tiers as the effective partnership of programme authorities for the central Government in carrying out the purposes of the Bill. This argument was raised in Committee. I argued then that the districts were disignated and that it was undesirable that there should be confusion of responsibility between the two tiers of local government. It is well known that the present system of local government is regarded as highly unsatis
      1436
      factory and as having caused many problems since it came into effect.
      One of the major problems has been the overlapping of responsibilities between the two tiers on matters such as planning, highways and recreation. In the Bill, the Government are perpetuating this kind of difficulty, storing up a lot of trouble for themselves and undermining the effectiveness of what they want to achieve. I fully support what the Government want to achieve. I support many of the amendments in this group through which the Government are trying to improve the Bill. There is no quarrel on the main principle. However, on the mechanics of it, I remain unconvinced that it is sensible or efficient to have dual responsibility—apart from the fact that about half a dozen or a dozen Government Departments are involved at central level and they will have to negotiate with two tiers of local government.
      This is not a personal eccentricity of mine. It is not a whim, or an academic argument; it is a real fear on the part of one of the great cities of this country which I have the honour to represent—namely, Sheffield—that concurrent powers would diminish the effectiveness of the Bill. There has been much friction in the past about concurrent matters, and there will be friction in the future if the Bill is enacted.
      The Committee, perhaps reluctantly, agreed with my view. It took out the provision relating to the concurrent arrangement and agreed to an amendment that I proposed. Unfortunately, in Amendments Nos. 3 and 22 the Government are asking that we should go back to the original very unsatisfactory position. Oddly enough, the hon. Member for Barkston Ash seemed earlier to underline my argument. He pinpointed the various difficulties—not only in Clause 1 but in Clause 2—which will arise if we continue with this concept of concurrent powers. He went on to say that he would nevertheless accept Government Amendments Nos. 3 and 22. I am sorry that he has had as much difficulty in making up his mind in the House as he did in Committee—though in Committee he came to the right conclusion in the end, so it is possible that I shall be able to persuade him to come to that conclusion again and oppose the amendment. There is no dispute in any part of the

      1437
      House that the Bill is concerned with inner urban areas. We are concerned with the central part of the major cities of England and Wales and, possibly, Scotland.
      It is clear that the authorities which have the direct day-to-day responsibility for the problems of the major inner city areas are the district councils. In certain metropolitan areas they are concerned with housing, personal social services and education, which will impinge greatly on the rejuvenation of the inner cities that is to be accomplished partly by means of the Bill.
      6.15 p.m.
      I do not know what advantage will be gained by complicating the administration and consultation process by dragging in the county authorities. As was pointed out, cogently by the hon. Member for Barkston Ash, it appears, if his construction is correct, that in some cases counties can take the initiative and interfere with the inner urban areas on certain matters, contrary to the interests or the wishes of the district councils concerned. That is unlikely to happen, though, judging from some of the friction that has arisen between the two tiers, it is not entirely out of the question. Nevertheless, there will clearly be a built-in possibility of conflict and friction if the Government reject the wisdom of the Committee and insist on reverting to the original arrangement.
      This is not a personal eccentricity of mine. The authorities in South Yorkshire—Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield—made a clear statement of their views. They said:
      "The problems of the inner urban areas are concentrated in relatively small geographical areas and the solutions to the problems should lie within the district council. It is the district council which has the responsibility for the local plan exercise within the framework of the county council structure plan.
      The types of problems to be found in these areas include industrial and housing obsolescence and a declining population faced with social and personal difficulties associated with the lower income groups. The need is to make these communities more prosperous and industrial regeneration is one of the keystones of this policy. An energetic district council is in constant touch with the existing industrialists within their area and is able to respond quickly to approaches made by prospective developers."
      1438
      I echo the comments that have been made that if a business man has to become involved in arguments with a district council, a county council, the Department of the Environment, the Department of Industry, the Department of Transport, the Treasury, and so on, by the time he has gone through that rigmarole he will have lost interest, or forgotten what he intended to do in the first place. The statement from Sheffield and other authorities continued:
      "It is strongly conteded that in metropolitan areas only district councils should become designated districts. If county councils were also to become designated authorities, the difficulties which have arisen in South Yorkshire in the exercise of concurrent powers would be likely to be extended and intensified with results that would probably hinder rather than assist in overcrowding some of our local problems."
      There is considerable force in that argument. I have already mentioned the powers that districts have—metropolitan districts at any rate—in housing, education, social services and local planning. But there is a strong current of opinion that certain powers should be switched from the counties to other cities not in the metropolitan areas, such as Nottingham, Derby and Hull, which lost their status of borough counties under the new arrangements. It is now generally believed that they should take back some of the old powers that they had in housing and other matters.
      Whether or not Conservative Members accept this trend, the trend exists. The argument will be difficult to resist. It is fantastic that there should have been taken from great cities such as Nottingham, Derby and Hull powers which they exercised effectively for years, and that those powers should have been given to some more remote county authorities.
      Mr. Raison: The authorities to which the hon. Gentleman refers have housing powers.
      Mr. Hooley: My information is that the counties have the housing powers. I may be wrong. There are other powers which these cities want restored to them and which, I believe, in time will be restored to them. That will strengthen the case for having one tier instead of two tiers involved in administration of the Bill.

      1439
      The Bill recognises the problem because in Clause 7 on the subject of planning it is suggested that on certain planning points the district can go ahead even though the structure plan of a metropolitan county has not been approved by the Secretary of State. The Bill acknowledges that there is a difficulty in a concurrent power system and tries to overcome it by saying "We shall allow them to ignore the statutory power and the statutory procedure which the upper tier, in strict terms, possesses."
      I have some evidence that other authorities besides South Yorkshire share this view. I understand that they include Leeds, Liverpool, Bolton, Sunderland, Nottingham and Oldham. If that is correct, we have in Leeds, Sheffield and Liverpool, three of the greatest cities outside London in the United Kingdom supporting the argument.
      I have received a letter from the chief executive of Sheffield, saying:
      "My understanding is that the Government will seek to reintroduce concurrent powers on the basis that, firstly, economic development for inner city areas requires co-operation and co-ordinating action between the two tiers of local government. Secondly, that in some areas county authorities are very active in promoting industrial development and, thirdly, that more resources can be brought to bear when county authorities are involved. These arguments suggest to me that government have entirely missed the point that we have been trying to make. The whole history of concurrent powers, particularly in relation to industrial development and promotion, shows that the keenness of both tiers of local government to get involved leads only to confusion, conflict and duplication."
      That is not the argument of a politician; it is an argument put by a man who has executive responsibility for running one of the biggest cities in the United Kingdom. His considered view is that the provision that the Committee deleted would have been likely to lead to serious difficulties, and that it would be much better to have a one-tier arrangement.
      I welcome many of the Government's amendments, but I cannot accept that Amendments Nos. 3 and 22 are necessary or desirable. I believe that the Committee was wise to alter the original form of the Bill.
      Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: This has been a long and interesting debate on a collection of items, and I start with
      1440
      three specific questions so that the Minister will have time to get the appropriate advice before he applies.
      The first question concerns the concurrent powers given under the proposed amendments to designated authorities. Will it be possible for an applicant to go first to a district that is a designated authority to obtain a grant or loan and then to go to the county which will, by then, have become a designated authority with concurrent powers? As far as we can see, there need be no consultation on individual applications to designated authorities, and the amendments appear to give complete discretion, within the figures, to the designated authorities without the need to refer back to the Minister.
      Secondly, I should like to refer to our proceedings in Committee. I asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment whether, if he were going to exercise certain powers under this schedule which were, in general, the opportunity to revoke a particular proposal, he would at least say that the decision would be taken not in his name, but by a Minister himself. He replied:
      "I shall certainly consider it with a view to trying to respond to the hon Gentleman later."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 9th March 1978; c. 307.]
      I hope that "later" will be today, and I should be grateful if that point could be clarified.
      My third question concerns the position that will arise if the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) fails when he divides the House—I cannot assure him of our support—and the amendments to which he is opposed are passed. I take the hypothetical case that my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) has put on various occasions, namely, West Yorkshire, which is a county, and Leeds City. I understand that if there is a disagreement on a proposal that originated from the city, no cost would fall upon the county.
      However, if there is a disagreement and the city is overruled and the county proceeds, am I correct in assuming that the precept put upon all the authorities within West Yorkshire will fall not merely on Leeds—which, having objected to having a particular section designated, will still find that it has to pay—but upon all the other authorities on which West Yorkshire

      1441
      would precept during the rateable years when the payments have to be made?
      I welcome the repentant sinner and I shall be quoting at length the words of the Under-Secretary of State for Industry, because he was clearly utterly opposed to any intention of widening the definition in the Bill to include commercial activities.
      Mr. Mike Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is being most unfair.
      Mr. Finsburg: I do not wish to be unfair. If the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas) wishes to defend the Minister, it would have been helpful to the Minister to have had his support at an earlier stage in Committee. The hon. Gentleman was also a late sinner, but I was not going to quote him because, in the end, he voted correctly and helped us.
      Mr. Mike Thomas: I ought to inform the hon. Gentleman that my conversations with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary do not accord with the hon. Gentleman's comments. I found a ready response and I am glad that the matter has turned out as it has.
      The hon. Gentleman's approach is a little churlish. I hesitate to describe his attitude to me as churlish, since I may be thought to have some direct interest in the matter, but he knows that I was unable to be at the Committee on the first occasion when an amendment was moved because I had to be in my constituency. I made clear before and after that occasion that I had not wished to be absent, but that I had no choice. Indeed, I think that the hon. Gentleman was good enough to accept that, and it is a little unkind of him to return to that theme.
      Mr. Finsberg: I had not intended to include the hon. Gentleman in my remarks, but, by trying to defend the Minister, he brought some of this on himself. However, I shall not pursue him.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Industry said in Committee:
      "It would be anomalous if assistance were to go to all commercial activities in the inner cities, including inner cities in the non-assisted areas, but not to those activities in the assisted areas generally, but which must continue to have priority. That is why I am most reluctant to go beyond what I think is a generous definition."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 7th March 1978; c. 246].
      1442
      In fairly similar words, he repeated that opposition on two later occasions. There was no movement at all and when we gained our minor victory the Committee voted against the Minister's advice.
      6.30 p.m.
      In this way and in the Minister's whole attitude in Committee we had little or no help. As I shall show later, he paraded before the Committee his well-known antipathy towards the EEC when we were discussing the amendment to save jobs. But he is never prepared to stand up and do this in a way that would mean that he might have to choose between his views and his Government portfolio. I was trying to persuade him to say this more clearly. We often suffer because the hon. Member makes remarks from a sedentary position. I was giving him the chance to say something, but I see that he does not intend to rise.
      It is important that we get the facts on the record. I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash said earlier. We have had nothing but co-operation from the Minister from the Department for the Environment, who understands these problems.
      The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), who supported our view about commercial operations, was not, alas, on the Committee. But the representative of the non-official Opposition shared our view. That was one reason why we were able to register one success on this issue. I welcome the robust view taken by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight. We thought that the idea would help to attract industry back to the inner cities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) said at length, if one converts old factories into new places of work but nearby there is nowhere to shop, there will still be a derelict wilderness. That was one of the reasons why we tried to introduce opportunities for service industries and commerce. This has certainly improved the Bill.
      The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) chided the Secretary of State for not keeping his promise to announce his further list of authorities to participate in the pork barrel. We had a fair answer from the Minister, when he was pressed by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay). I am surprised that neither of those right hon.

      1443
      Members realised that if there was to be an announcement, the timing would be more suitable and that it would be made a day or two before 4th May instead of being lost during the Report stage today. I hope that I am not assuming anything, but I shall be surprised if this list is not announced a day or two before 4th May, in the hope that it will have some effect on the local elections in those areas that are having elections.
      I noted what the right hon. Member for Battersea, North said. He does not mind depriving Lambeth or Hammersmith of its limited share if Wandsworth gets something, because it now receives nothing. That is what the right hon. Member said in answer to an intervention. I understand his feelings. I could make the same case and demand that Camden be included because Hackney and Islington are to receive money and Camden is not. But one should not be so ungenerous in a limited Bill when there is a limited amount of money. One should not try to deprive one area in an attempt to get a slice for oneself.
      Mr. Jay: The hon. Member is being unnecessarily provocative. That is not what I said. I said that similar areas should have similar treatment. I should have thought that he would agree with that.
      Mr. Finsberg: I do agree, but there is no provision for more money. If there were 40 areas sharing £80 million and one added another 40 areas, one would deprive 40 areas of half their money in order to give something to the other 40. If the Minister had said that the amount of money and the number of areas were to be doubled, it would be logical. I might have been trying to be provocative in certain cases but not to the right hon. Member for Battersea, North, whom I describe as a friend outside the Chamber. But that was what the right hon. Member was saying. He might not have intended to say that. I should not wish to assign any impure or improper motives to him.
      Mr. Henley: It is silly to suggest that the amount of money has been determined for all eternity. What is important is that we are establishing a framework for bringing assistance to these areas. At present, £1 million is all that we can afford, but it is within the pro
      1444
      vince of this Government—I am sure that they will continue for a long time—to increase the amount as new needs and new areas are established. It is absurd to argue that we are cutting up a finite cake which will remain the same for ever.
      Mr. Finsberg: That is a fair point. But this is the amount of money that has been allocated. If the Government name more areas, it would be consistent at the same time to produce more resources. Much of this is a transfer of money which has been already allocated. Far more money is being spent in the inner areas of London by the GLC, for example, than all the money that is proposed in the Bill. I am sure that the hon. Member for Heeley accepts that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) said, there is a smokescreen, but I welcome the provision
      Mr. Steen: I should like my hon Friend's view on two issues. First, does he realise that it is not a question of £80 million or £100 million more? Some of that money will come from the outer wards and will be diverted from the domestic rates to pay for the shortfall in the inner rate bill. Secondly, is my hon. Friend aware that in Liverpool the amount of money that has been taken away already through the reduction of improvement grant finance from the Government and local authority mortgage loans is about the same as the money which is now being offered by the Government in the shape of partnership money and that provided under the Bill? There is hardly any new money for Liverpool. It is either diverted money from the outer areas to the inner areas or the replacement of money which the Government have taken away in the last three or four years.
      Mr. Finsberg: If what my hon. Friend said in his second question is right—and I take what he says as fact—on 4th May the deprived city will be able to register its view of what is being done to it. The local people can do far more than I can do today and they may take along with them some fellow sinners.
      My hon. Friend was correct in his first point. This is reflected in the rate support grant and the elements that make it up. There is an extra disadvantage.

      1445
      an extra canister of smoke, in that argument.
      The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East spoke of building a co-operative supermarket to try to create more jobs. I go along with him on that. But I wonder whether building a supermarket, which is capital intensive whoever builds it, will bump up against the limitation about which my hon. Friends have spoken—the £1,000 job related to the overall total cost. I wonder whether that figure might be an inhibiting factor. It might have been wiser to have a larger figure. I appreciate that the power that the Minister is taking will enable him to designate a different figure in certain circumstances. I merely put to the hon. Gentleman that that is a possible danger that he may not have realised.
      Mr. Mike Thomas: The hon. Gentleman and I are largely at one on these matters, as he knows. But I did not refer to a supermarket. I talked more about the distributive warehousing facilities, although I agree that shops and supermarkets are also a possibility. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is better to have this power available for commercial building than not to have it at all, so I beg him not to be too churlish.
      Mr. Finsberg: Certainly. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is agreeing with me. I do not think that I am agreeing with him necessarily. It is a case of the chicken and the egg. We agree. Let me put it that way.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) did a helpful analysis of the dangers, which have been expressed on many occasions in the House before, of the creation of "phoney" jobs. As I think he said very fairly, the real danger is the attitude that it may create in the minds of those who have "phoney" jobs. This is the worrying factor that we shall not know about for a long time.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. MacKay) analysed the problems that existed and gave us the helpful views of a Member from an inner city.
      The hon. Member for Heeley reverted to the argument with which he convinced the majority of the Committee, although
      1446
      he will recall that I was not convinced and I abstained on that issue. There was a certain amount of confusion on this matter in the Minister's mind. He was good enough to send a three-page letter to all members of the Committee because of the problem he caused us by telling us that "or" meant "and" and "and" meant "or". He was trying to be helpful.
      Alas, when this happened and I tried to put forward certain other interpretations we were not able to have a debate on a selected amendment. But I am glad to know, and the House should be glad, that "and" is not always identical with "or". If it had been, that would have created a large number of problems for many people. I think that this is one of the reasons why some of my hon. Friends felt that to try to clear the matter up they should support the hon. Gentleman's amendment in Committee. I think that the Minister has now cleared up the discrepancy. Certainly, I believe that what is now proposed is correct, that the powers should be concurrent and both authorities should have the right to designate according to the particular needs of the area.
      We have discussed a substantial number of amendments. I think that all, perhaps with one exception, are helpful. I am not certain whether the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Edge) will press the Government on his Amendment No. 36. He certainly received a degree of acceptance and support from my hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree. It struck me as a helpful sort of amendment. It adds to the sort of argument that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and I put in Committee, together with his hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright), to try to widen the scope of the provisions.
      The widening of the scope of this Bill must, as the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East said, take it more than a millimetre—indeed, more than a centimetre. It will force the Treasury to think very carefully about a wide variety of matters where so far it has been prejudiced against commerce. This is a very important first step. The amendment would take us one stage further.
      The debate has been useful. Many questions require an answer. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer them

      1447
      and clarify the various issues that have been raised.
      6.45 p.m.
      Mr. Guy Barnett: Inevitably, with such a wide range of amendments and new clauses grouped together, we have had a diffuse but very interesting debate. A number of very important points have emerged, as they did in Committee.
      In a way, I was surprised by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley), although I recognise his feelings on the issue of the counties. The hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) also raised the matter, in view of our amendments to restore the powers of counties under the Bill.
      I want to emphasise to the House, and particularly to my hon. Friend, that one of the reasons why we have been insistent on this point is that, for the very reason that the Local Government Act 1972 exists, there is a range of powers and responsibilities in the hands of the counties. There are also resources in the counties' possession which are valuable for the operation of inner city policy. It would be absurd to deny those counties with a contribution to make to inner city policy the ability to make it, and particularly to do so on the grounds that in certain parts of the country there appears to be such hostility, suspicion or whatever between the two levels of local government as to make it impossible for them to co-operate.
      The assumption behind some speeches on this topic today was that the only consequence of allowing powers to the counties would be constant confusion and overlapping, and that presumably inner city policy would suffer as a result. I deny that, certainly on the basis of the two partnership committees that I chair. I have seen no evidence of such a thing happening so far. I suppose that it might happen in the future, but everything in the shape of co-operation has taken place. In both committees, because they are London authorities, the Inner London Education Authority has also been involved and has co-operated.
      We must accept that if we are to do the sort of job that needs to be done in the inner cities we must have a measure of co-operation, and that must extend
      1448
      beyond local government. Some hon. Members spoke today as though they did not want Government Departments to be involved, because it would mean that too many people would be sitting around the table at partnership meetings for anything to be done. I have chaired several partnership meetings, and on the basis of my personal experience I can assure hon. Members that this is not so. We need the active participation and involvement of statutory authorities, whether at central or local government level, in order to do the job that needs to be done.
      I suppose that the fact that we need all that assistance and co-operation could be a criticism of our present system of government, but that is not what we are here now to change. We must take the system that we have and accept that many powers under the Local Government Act are concurrent in precisely the same way as the powers in the Bill are. For example, the powers in the Local Authorities (Land) Act 1963 are similarly concurrent. Clause 2 is founded on that Act. There is no restriction in the 1963 Act requiring a district council to act in its own area. It can carry out works outside it for the benefit of its district. There is no restriction on counties either, nor any requirement for consultation. But, of course, any works requiring development will require planning permission.
      This is not a new idea that we have invented. We must accept that concurrent powers exist as between the two tiers of local authorities. The present partnerships have led the way by showing that co-operation is possible and desirable. I hope that in those other areas where districts are designated there will be co-operation.
      There is another point. The assumption has been made by some hon. Members that it is the district that is the relevant authority, yet in terms of industrial development there are parts of the country in which the county has taken the lead. In those areas it clearly would be damaging to leave the county out of the Bill.
      The hon. Member for Barkston Ash raised the question of consultations with regard to the powers contained in Clause 2. He may have exaggerated his case, on the ground that Clause 2 concerns the giving of loans at commercial rates. It

      1449
      would hardly be thought necessary for a bank that wanted to give loans to a particular company to have to consult the local authority, and I do not think that if a local authority is providing loans at commercial rates it should be necessary to write into the Bill the requirement to consult. However, obviously consultation between the two tiers of local government would be highly desirable.
      We have had an important and useful debate about the commercial aspect of the new clause. I emphasise one point. The suggestion has been made that somehow the Government are at last changing their policy towards the acceptance of commercial activity as respectable and important in the inner cities. The Under-Secretary of State for Industry has been criticised for his attitude in Committee. I quote him quoting himself, which he did in Committee. He said:
      "We do not have a lingering prejudice, as the hon. Member suggested, because assistance is available under the service industry scheme to any non-manufacturing activity which has a genuine choice of location and which chooses to move to or expand in the assisted areas."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 16th March 1978; c. 401.]
      Hon. Members can read the rest of the quotation for themselves. What, in effect my hon. Friend is saying is that there is no prejudice against commercial activity; indeed, there is encouragement of it.
      Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Does the Minister agree that immediately after that, on the advice of the Under-Secretary, Government Members voted against the commercial amendment before them?
      Mr. Barnett: The hon. Member is being a little ungenerous, in view of the amendments that we have moved this afternoon. To expect the Government to respond immediately to powerful arguments advanced in Committee would be quite unreasonable. We have considered the arguments carefully and have come forward with amendments on Report which I know the Opposition are more than anxious to accept.
      The suggestion has been made that we should have commercial and industrial improvement areas. It has been said that commercial activity will provide more jobs in inner city areas than will manufacturing industry. Hon. Members have claimed that if we are interested in jobs we should think about this suggestion. We had an
      1450
      interesting speech from the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) on the whole question of job creation, but there is no time for me to go into that now. The House should take account of the highly successful series of conferences that have taken place for small business firms in various parts of the country, centred on the inner city areas with which the Bill is concerned.
      There has been very active and ready response from small firms, and interest of local authorities and others in the ways in which small firms could be encouraged to operate in inner cities. Some of the lessons that we have learned from the conferences are highly relevant to the ways in which small firms can help to provide jobs in inner city areas.
      The reason why we held these conferences was that small firms tend to be labour-intensive. Had Opposition Members spent a morning last week, as I did, going around Hackney, which is part of the partnership area that I chair, they would have seen the number of small manufacturing jobs that are available, and the small operations that take place, sometimes in difficult circumstances. They would then realise that there is potential in manufacturing industry and also commercial industry. But it is in manufacturing industry that one can hope to provide many of the jobs that are needed in inner city areas to lower the level of unemployment.
      Mr. Edge: Can my hon. Friend produce one vestige of statistical evidence to support that claim? Can he produce one example of an inner city area where manufacturing employment has increased?
      Mr. Barnett: Not without notice. Also, it is not my responsibility to produce that evidence. I simply said that there are many firms operating successfully in the area that I visited recently, in spite of relatively little assistance, and a great many problems created by congestion and other difficulties. Much of the evidence that we have had shows that with a more helpful attitude from central and local government more can be done. I am not in a position to produce the evidence that my hon. Friend requires, and if I were to do so I am not sure that it would either prove or disprove the case that he puts.

      1451
      Naturally, in a debate of this kind one expects to listen to speeches such as those of my right hon. Friends the Members for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), who put the case for their areas. The Secretary of State and I have had many such representations from all over the country from those who wish to use the powers contained in this Bill. The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) rather spread himself on the question of how little money would be available. It is the powers that will be of value to the authorities, in enabling them to do the job that needs to be done.
      Mr. Steen: When the Minister talks about money, surely he is talking about powers to borrow, because that is what the Bill is about.
      Mr. Barnett: No, not necessarily. My two right hon. Friends raised the question of the designation of their own districts. I apologise for the fact that the Secretary of State is not in a position yet to announce the full list of designated districts. We hope to do so as soon as possible. I know that an undertaking was given that this would be done during the passage of the Bill and there was general expectation that it would have been done by today. However, there are inevitable difficulties in making the sort of decisions that need to be made about designations.
      One of the difficulties is that, however many lists one publishes of the sort of factors that need to be taken into account—racial tension, unemployment, dereliction, quality of the environment and the degree of industrial decline—there is still a large element of judgment entering into the final decision. However accurate the statistics, judgment is necessary for two reasons.
      The first is that if there is racial tension in Blackburn, for example, it may be a factor of great importance. But for quite different reasons Newcastle is a partnership area, and it is an area that has no significant racial minority. Despite this it has been made a partnership area, because other factors have influenced us in making that decision.
      7.0 p.m.
      Mrs. Castle: First and foremost, as I pointed out in my speech, all the factors operate in the case of Blackburn.
      1452
      Secondly, if, as my hon. Friend says, it is primarily a matter of giving people powers to do something that they want to do, what is the difficulty? Why withhold powers that can enable people to achieve the ends that the Government want?
      Mr. Barnett: The answer to that is that if one gives powers to certain authorities and not to others, one gives a distinct advantage to the authorities that are given those powers in being able to retrain, preserve and attract jobs to their areas on an intra-regional basis. Therefore, the decisions on which particular districts are designated are important, because designation will give them the edge over other districts in the area in their ability to attract more jobs, industry and activity into their own areas. That is the reason for that.
      As I have said, it is difficult to cover the whole range of issues that were raised during the debate, but I ought to deal specifically—because it relates to an undertaking that I gave the hon. Member in Committee—with the issue that the hon. Member for Hampstead raised again this afternoon. I refer to the question whether Ministers in person would be involved in the decision about the revocation of an industrial improvement area.
      The answer is that I looked at this issue very carefully and decided that, on the whole, it would be wrong for me to give any such undertaking that Ministers would always be personally involved in such a decision. That is not to say, of course, that the Minister, whoever he might be, would not be answerable for whatever decision was made. Indeed, we shall issue clear guidelines to local authorities about the size and type of areas that we would expect to be declared as industrial improvement areas, and each declaration will be looked at to ensure that it conforms to these guidelines. I do not expect that many declarations will have to be cancelled, and, as always, officials will be given a clear indication of what cases will have to be seen by Ministers personally.
      However, I think that to give that kind of indication here and now would be quite wrong. Indeed, I think that decisions of that sort are probably invariably taken on the basis of the experience of the working out of a particular piece of legislation. Therefore, I do not think that I can undertake to provide an answer

      1453
      to that particular question, certainly not in the way that the hon. Member wants.
      I do not want to detain the House for longer than I can help. A number of detailed points have been raised in the debate—
      Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I specifically asked at the beginning whether, by going to the two sets of authorities that designate, one could get two loans, and whether, by the system that is now being proposed, the county, by precepting upon all the districts, would be able to get money from the district which itself had not wished to designate.
      Mr. Barnett: Briefly, the answer is that the county precept would, indeed, fall on all the local authorities in the county. The answer to the other question is "Yes", it is indeed possible for an applicant to get loans and grants from both tiers of local government, but we should ensure by directions that the maxima are not exceeded in total. I hope that answers the specific question.
      I recognise that other detailed questions were asked, some by the hon. Member for Barkston Ash in an interesting speech. Perhaps I may undertake to write to him dealing with the specific issues raised. I also say to him and other hon. Members that I was very grateful indeed—as will be my right hon. Friend when he reads what was said—for the kind remarks made about the degree to which we have been able to respond to the criticisms and suggestions made in Committee. I genuinely meant what I said about the quality of the debate in Committee, and I think that today's debate has been useful and interesting, as well.
      In the light of all that has been said, although inevitably a range of opinion has been expressed, I hope that our amendments and new clauses will be accepted by the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time.
      Mr. Stephen Ross: On a point of information, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask whether it is proposed that I shall be allowed to move my amendment, No. 34? As I see things now, we do not have a definition of "commercial".
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. We go through
      1454
      the Order Paper in the way in which it is printed, in accordance with the Bill. When we come to Amendment No. 34, the matter will be dealt with.
      Clause added to the Bill.

    New Clause No. 2

      GRANTS FOR CONVERTING OR IMPROVING BUILDINGS
      '.—(1) Where a designated district authority are satisfied that the carrying out by any person of any works mentioned in subsection (2) below on land situated within an industrial improvement area would benefit that area, they may make a grant to that person for the purpose of enabling him to carry out those works.

      (2) The works referred to in subsection (1) above are as follows—

      (a) the conversion, extension, improvement or modification of industrial or commercial buildings; and

      (b) the conversion of other buildings into industrial or commercial buildings.

      (3) The amount of a grant under this section shall not exceed—

      (a) 50 per cent. of the cost of carrying out the works; or

      (b) £1,000, or such other amount as may be specified in an order made by the Secretary of State for each job which, in the opinion of the authority, is likely to be created or preserved as a result of the carrying out of the works,

      whichever is the less.
      An order tinder this subsection may make different provision for different designated districts.
      (4) Subsections (6) and (7) of section 3 above shall apply in relation to the making of grants under this section as they apply in relation to the making of grants under that section.
      (5) In this section "industrial or commercial building" means a building in use or intended for use for industrial or commercial purposes.'—[Mr. Shore.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause No. 3

      ORDERS SPECIFYING SPECIAL AREAS
      '.'—(1) Where any arrangements have been entered into under section 4(1) above as respects a designated district, the Secretary of State may, subject to subsection (3) below, by order specify the whole or any part of that district as an area as respects which the powers conferred by sections 5, 6 and (Grants towards loan interest) below shall be exercisable by the designated district authority, or, as the case may be, either or both of the designated district authorities with whom he has entered into those arrangements.

      1455

      (2) In this Act an area so specified in relation to a designated district authority is referred to, in relation to that authority, as a "special area".

      (3) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under subsection (1) above enabling a designated district authority to exercise the powers conferred by sections 5, 6 and (Grant towards loan interest) below as respects a special area except with the consent of that authority.'—[Mr. Guy Barnett.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government Amendments Nos. 19, 21, 23, 24, 25, 33 and 37.
      Mr. Hooley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are you not putting the Question on Amendment No. 3?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The answer to the hon. Member is the same as that which I gave to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) a moment ago.
      Mr. Barnett: The new clause and the amendments that go with it split the original Clause 4 into two, so that provisions that enable the Secretary of State and Ministers to enter into arrangements are separated from the provisions for specifying special areas. The aim is to clarify the meaning of each part of the Bill. The wording of the new clause follows the Bill as originally published, with a reference to
      "either or both of the designated district authorities"
      and thus reinstates two lines that were deleted in Committee, consequential on the removal of counties from Clause 1.
      The purpose, as I have said, is to clarify the Bill. We think that it is necessary to separate the provisions that enable the Secretary of State and other Ministers to enter into arrangements with local authorities and other bodies from the provisions that enable the Secretary of State to specify special areas. The new clause also restores some words that were deleted from Clause 4, to which I have just referred.
      I come now to Amendments Nos. 19, 21, 23 and 33. In his speech on Second Reading, my right hon. Friend explained that the purpose of Clause 4 was to give statutory recognition to the partnerships and other arrangements that Ministers might have with local authorities in order
      1456
      to tackle inner city problems. He said then:
      "Even though there is nothing at present to stop Ministers from entering into such arrangements without statutory authority, we thought it right to give them recognition in view of the possibility that the Minister's participation in the development of a programme or partnership might be said to conflict with his statutory responsibilities, for example, those relating to planning or compulsory purchase."—[Official Report, 9th February 1978; Vol. 943, c. 1695.]
      While all the partnerships established so far have involved my right hon. Friend or Ministers acting on his behalf, it is just conceivable that arrangements might be entered into which did not involve any Secretary of State—unlikely, but perhaps it is conceivable.
      These amendments give to all Ministers involved in co-ordinating arrangements for the purposes of alleviating special social need in an inner urban area, whether the Secretary of State is involved or not, the same protection as the original wording gave to Ministers involved with the Secretary of State in such arrangements.
      I hope that this is sufficient explanation of the new clause and the amendments.
      Mr. Alison: I am obliged to the Minister for his explanation of New Clause No. 3, which at first sight appears to be a similar provision to that which already exists. However, it allows me to touch on a point which was of some concern when it was considered in Committee and which has not been fully and satisfactorily explained in the debates that we have had so far. I make the point now as it gives the Minister notice that I shall want to raise the matter when we come to another part of the list of amendments and new clauses.
      There is a curious division between the lesser and the greater luminaries in the local authorities, or the "needs world". if I may so put it. I refer to the areas of special social need to which reference is made in the first two lines of Clause 4. Those areas of special social need are then designated. However, we have the curious hybridity in Clause 4 that is reflected in another part of the Bill. In Clause 7(5) that is made clear, where it is stated:
      "This section shall apply in relation to a district (other than a designated district) … which the Secretary of State has entered into arrangements under Section 4(1)."

      1457
      It seems that that is the dog that does not bark in this plot. It is the Holmesian dog that does not bark. This is the area of special social need that fails to be designated. That is for reasons that are entirely within the gift of the Minister. He has the power of designation under Clause 1 and yet there is held to be—Clause 4 makes this clear—such a thing as an area of special social need that does not get the benefit of designation.
      I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to throw light on the problem. Why is it that we have to have the rather shadowy area of special social need that is contained in the first two lines of Clause 4, an area of special social need existing in any inner urban area, which nevertheless fails to get designated and, therefore, fails to get any of the benefits or provisions for which the whole of the rest of the Bill makes provision? This undesignated area of special social need is a shadowy entity, but there is no doubt that it exists. As I have said, that is made clear in Clause 7(5) where it is stated:
      "This section shall apply in relation to a district (other than a designated district)."
      Why is it that we are having to include in Clause 4 some elaborate provisions for a special area—the special area is the subject of the new clause—when we have within the same clause a non-special area that is still held to be one of special social need? Special social need is referred to for both sorts of district, that which is designated and that which is not. However, those areas that succeed in becoming designated become, as it were, special, special areas of social need. I hope that the Minister understands the problem with which we are landed.
      There is the paradox that the whole of Clause 4 deals with areas of special social need but we find that within such areas there shall be an area of special social need, which is one that is a designated district. That is what we are designating as an area of special social need by the new clause, but that does not alter the fact that the beginning of the clause refers to two types of area, one designated and one not. Both types of area are referred to in broad terms as areas of special social need.
      The position is slightly confusing and muddling and it would be interesting to know why the Minister wants to include in Clause 4 the second-class citizen
      1458
      of social need, the area of special social need which occurs in Clause 4(1) but which does not go on to be included in the designated group. What is it that the Minister hopes to do in such areas? What special powers will they enjoy? Why is it that we have to have the rather hybrid feature of Clause 4, with the rather muddling designation of speciality applying to both groups? I hope that the Minister has the nature of the problem.
      7.15 p.m.
      Mr. Guy Barnett: At this stage I shall not attempt to answer all the questions that the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) has asked. I shall deal with some of them at a later stage. Part of the answer to the question that he has asked lies in the confusion that has existed in several hon. Members' minds about the meaning of "area" as opposed to "district". He will note that the beginning of the clause reads:
      "If the Secretary of State is satisfied that special social need exists in any inner urban area … he may … enter into arrangements ".
      Later in the proceedings, if I have the opportunity to do so, I shall give the hon. Gentleman the explanation to the problem that he has presented. I shall try to make the position as clear as possible at that stage.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause No. 4

      GRANTS TOWARDS LOAN INTEREST
      '(1) Where—

      (a) a designated district authority are satisfied that the acquisition by a small firm of land situated within a special area, or the carrying out by such a firm of any works on land so situated, would benefit the special area; and

      (b) a loan is made to the firm (whether by the authority or by any other person) for the purpose of enabling it to acquire that land or, as the case may be, carry out those works,

      the authorities may, in respect of such period and by such instalments as they may determine, make a grant to the firm towards the interest payable in respect of that loan.
      (2) Subsections (6) and (7) of section 3 above shall apply in relation to the making of grants under this section as they apply in relation to the making of grants under that section.
      (3) In this section "small firm" means an industrial or commercial undertaking which

      1459
      has no more than fifty employees.'—[Mr. Guy Barnett.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The clause gives an additional power in partnership areas. Clause 6 enables partnership authorities to help firms that rent premises in a partnership area, but there was no corresponding assistance for firms that intended to build or buy premises. The new clause will enable local authorities to give some assistance to such firms. It allows the local authority to make interest relief grants, subject to any direction from the Secretary of State, to firms that employ fewer than 50 workers. We felt that such a limitation was appropriate, as we see the Bill primarily as assisting small firms that have local links and are settled in inner city areas. Firms have to be already trading in the partnership area before they can receive grants.
      These grants will thus be an incentive to firms to buy the premises that they occupy, to extend them, or purchase other premises in the partnership area. They are not intended, in the first place, as incentives to firms from outside to come to the partnership areas, as there may, in the latter case, be a conflict with regional policy. Accordingly, a firm will have to be established in the partnership area for a minimum of 12 months before it becomes eligible for a grant.
      Mr. MacKay: The Minister will be aware that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I are pleased that small businesses are being specially treated. However, I am slightly disturbed that they have to be in the designated area for 12 months. I was also disturbed to hear the lion. Gentleman say that the reasoning behind the decision was not to upset any existing regional policy. Surely it was sufficient that we should designate certain areas of our inner cities as derelict areas in need of attention. That was sufficient reason to encourage firms to go into those areas. Whether such designated areas happen to be within one of the Government's development areas is really irrelevant.
      Surely we proved in Committee and on Second Reading that the object of the exercise is to improve the dire situation in certain of our large deprived inner city
      1460
      areas. Birmingham, for example, is technically in the so-called prosperous West Midlands, or once prosperous West Midlands.
      Many parts of Birmingham are in the designated inner urban area, but others are not, as I pointed out earlier today. These are areas where there is considerable dereliction. They are areas where there is great need for Government assistance. They require new industry and jobs, particularly from small firms. It is a pity that in New Clause No. 4, which in other respects is worth while, we cannot encourage new small firms to set up in areas such as the inner areas of Birmingham.
      I come back to the general point about small businesses. I hope that the Minister does not think that I am being unduly churlish in saying that this Government are a Johnny-come-lately to small businesses, whereas the Opposition have for many years encouraged the virtues of small businesses.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Bob Cryer): Could the hon. Gentleman say which Government instituted the Bolton Committee of Inquiry on Small Firms, which made recommendations to the then Government of the day, some of which were implemented? Will he outline which Minister called for the Bolton Report, and the year?
      Mr. MacKay: To counter that, I ask the Minister: who brought in capital gains tax? Who brought in many complicated bureaucratic measures which caused small businesses a great deal of difficulty in operating and discouraged them from starting? Without wishing to go too far down that road—it is an interesting argument, but I suspect that it is not relevant to the new clause—I ask the Minister: which Government failed to raise the level of VAT exemptions? We refer back to the Labour Government.
      Mr. Cryer: Will the hon. Gentleman say which Government brought in value added tax? Will he state the limit for the exemption from VAT? Does he accept that there is an EEC limit, which is fixed at about £10,000 for exemption purposes? I am sure that he would not like to go outside the general directions laid down by our EEC partners.
      Mr. MacKay: It surprises me that the Minister, of all Ministers, is loth to go outside the EEC guidelines. I recall many examples when this Government have gone outside such guidelines.
      Referring to the more general topic of VAT, of course the Conservative Government brought in that tax. VAT, as such, is not a tax that will adversely affect small businesses. It will affect them only if the exemption level is too low and brings in firms that are unable to afford the clerical staff to cope with it. I think that the Minister is fully aware of that fact.
      Returning to my theme about small businesses and the Government being a Johnny-come-lately to seeing the benefits of the small business community, nevertheless the Opposition are delighted that at long last the merits of small businesses have been seen.
      I believe that small businesses are the best potential employers of the future. They are most likely to take on fresh workers, to move into inner city areas and to assist in livening up and rejigging such areas. I believe that they should be encouraged. To this extent, I am naturally grateful to the Minister for moving the new clause after the representations that we made in Committee.
      When the Minister winds up the debate on the new clause, will he tell us why we cannot give encouragement to small businesses to move into designated areas in our inner city areas, particularly areas which are not already associated with the Government's regional development programme?
      Mr. Alison: We are delighted that the Under-Secretary of State for Industry—the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer)—should have become such a passionate partisan of the small business enterprise that he leaps to the defence of the Government's record. This is an excellent conversion. We are delighted that he has taken that attitude. But he and the Government remind me of a gang of ruffians who come upon an unfortunate member of the public, throw dirt all over him, and then come forward with a patent cleansing fluid to get rid of it. I suggest that it would have been better not to have upset small businesses at the beginning in the way that they have been upset. We should not then need all these
      1462
      special provisions which are now being brought forward.
      I want to concentrate on the new clause moved by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment. We are pleased with it and congratulate the Government on the step that they have taken in this direction.
      I should like to ask the Minister some questions. It may be that he cannot answer them on the spot, but perhaps he will take advice and let me know the answers in due course.
      First, what is the meaning of the term of art in the new clause—
      "a grant to the firm towards the interest payable"?
      Does that give us any idea of the extent to which the grant covers the total interest? Is it meant to be a small proportion, or the totality? It is a term of art.
      It is relevant to ask this question because, unless we know the extent of the words "towards the interest payable", it is difficult to work out whether the Government are giving something which, from the point of view of the small business, is preferable to the powers already available in Clause 5 where provision is made for a total holiday in respect of interest and principal for two years. It is not possible to know whether it is better for the small business to go for the interest and principal-free loan for two years, which is clearly the full extent of the loan or interest payable for that period, or to go for the provisions of New Clause No. 4. It would be interesting to have some clarification on this matter.
      I should be glad of the Minister's illumination on the question whether the small business is likely to be better off with this contribution towards the interest payable not only in respect of the alternative that seems to be provided in Clause 5 but the alternative provided in Clause 6, where grant is payable towards rent under a lease. Again, it is a term of art. We do not know how far the grant goes. There is some overlap in the provision made here between the new clause provisions and those in Clauses 5 and 6. That is the first little group of questions, that I ask the Minister about the new clause.
      The second part of the new clause refers to enabling a small firm to carry out

      1463
      works on land. Given that, under the new clause, acquisition is a clear-cut opportunity for a small business, it is also able to get relief on loan interest in respect of works carried out.
      We tabled an amendment to a later part of the Bill—unfortunately, it has not been selected—in which we attempted to explore the question whether there were any means by which what can broadly be called working capital might be the subject of some assistance. Perhaps the Under-Secretary—the hon. Member for Keighley—could throw some light on this matter, either by an intervention or indirectly in some other way. He will know that for any firm the installation of plant, machinery and equipment in buildings is an important part of the cost element in setting up business in any part of the country. It is landed not only with the acquisition cost of acquiring a new building or site or of conversion or adaptation costs of a kind for which the new clause makes provision, but, if starting de novo, with the problem of working capital provision and, in particular, the installation of plant, machinery, equipment, and so on.
      7.30 p.m.
      It will be interesting to know whether the "works" referred to in line 7 can be stretched to include the installation of plant, equipment and machinery and whether the loan funds available to the small business to make those installations will be subject to interest payable under the terms of the clause. It would be of great advantage to a small firm if such working capital could be provided for.
      I wish to refer to the use of relief for small businesses in the acquisition of land. This is one of the special features of the new clause, namely, that loans made to enable small businesses to acquire land are to be subject to the relief given by the clause. The interesting fact is that although many parts of the Bill make provision for loans or grants in respect of various operations carried out on land, this is the only example in the Bill of special help given towards the acquisition of land.
      The only acquisition provision in the whole of the Bill, so far as I can see, is contained in Clause 2. Land acquisition under that clause relates to loan finance which is at a level of 90 per cent. but
      1464
      which must be carried out at full commercial rates, with no special subsidy. All the other grants and loans available in the Bill relate to things done on land, acquisition having been completed in some shape or form. This is a unique case in respect of the small business in a special area under New Clause No. 4, in which special help is given towards the loan charges involved in land acquisition.
      Have the Government thought through this matter? Do they believe that it is only the small business that is in need of special help in land acquisition? I suspect that the cost of land acquisition in inner urban areas is one of the greatest disincentives to firms of any size set up in those areas. The problem in inner city areas is that often the local authorities own much of the land and may be prevented by statute from disposing of that land at a rate which reflects its real value because of the level of the cost of acquiring that land. Therefore, for businesses of any size—large, medium or small—the problem of the high cost of borrowing for land acquisition bears on them all.
      Uniquely, the Minister intends to give relief to the small business for land acquisition. Has he deliberately decided that all other scales of land acquisition by medium-sized businesses or anything larger than a business employing 50 employees will not be available for relief, and has he ruled out the possibility of any special relief to businesses of any size who wish to have help when seeking to buy high-cost local authority land in inner city areas? These costs, for historical reasons, can be very high.
      Small business will now obtain relief under the new clause. This will be of great help, but why is the Minister limiting the help to small businesses? Will consideration be given—if not here, in another place—to the extension of help towards land acquisition in special areas for businesses with over 50 employees?
      Mr. Guy Barnett: I shall do my best to answer the detailed questions put to me by the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison). I am not sure that this is the best way of dealing with some of those detailed matters.
      The hon. Gentleman asked an earlier series of questions about New Clause No. 4. Designated districts are those with special social need which will benefit

      1465
      from the powers in Clauses 2 and 3. Secondly, arrangements can be made under New Clause No. 4 as regards districts with special social needs—districts which need a concerted effort but which may not need the powers in Clauses 2 and 3 so much, if at all.
      Clause 7 can apply to both designated districts and districts with arrangements. The powers in Clauses 5 and 6 can he exercised only by designated district authorities. They are unlikely to need the powers in Clauses 5 and 6 if they do not also need the powers in Clauses 2 and 3, and this applies to those which have arrangements. Clauses 5 and 6 are exercisable within a special area decided by the partnership and geographically defined by the Secretary of State by order.
      Mr. Alison: The Minister pinpoints the rather nebulous entity called "the arrangements". Has he any idea what sort of area an "arrangements area" would be? Is it bound to be inner urban? Is it bound to be an industrial area? Will he give an example of what the Government have in mind?
      Mr. Barnett: Presumably, it is an area with arrangements that is not designated. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an answer since no such area now exists. Therefore, I do not think the question arises. It has been included on the assumption that at some time in future such a situation might exist.
      Let me now deal with the other issues that were raised. The grants in the new clause are grants towards interest payable. The Government intend to prepare detailed proposals which will be included in directions under the Bill. The Government do not intend to give powers to local authorities to grant-aid the installation or purchase of plant and machinery. That is definitely excluded from the Bill.
      I cannot at the moment deal with the other detailed issues raised by the hon. Gentleman, but by way of explanation on the points he made about plant and machinery, and also in answer to the speech made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. MacKay), I wish to make it clear, as did the White Paper, that inner city policy is added as an intra-regional dimension to existing regional policy. It is not a denial of regional policy and therefore has to be seen in that context.
      1466
      The powers in the Bill—and this applies particularly to the point about plant and machinery—have to be conditioned by the need to maintain present regional incentives but also the offer of assistance to firms which are already in the inner city areas and which by the nature of their business need to remain in them. In general, small firms are less mobile than large ones and more suited to inner city areas. That is the reason why in the new clause we have made this special provision for the small firms.
      Mr. Tony Durant: I apologise to the Minister for not being here at the beginning of his remarks. The Bill was progressing rather slowly, but suddenly took a leap forward and caught me unawares. I wish to make only one or two points, some of which have been touched on already.
      A large part of the inner city land that we are now discussing is owned by local authorities, as has been pointed out. I believe that this is a major problem, because they are unable to sell always at complete market cost. This is often set by district valuers and may not be of use from the point of view of small businesses. A large amount of the land is also owned by nationalised industries, and there are problems which arise in divesting them of the land.
      I particularly wanted to comment on the reason that the Government have suddenly arrived at the figure of 50 people for a small business. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State, who deals with small businesses, can tell us. Is this his optimum number which he has now decided represents a small business? What will happen if the firm expands, as is obviously the intention, and the number increases to 60? Does the position remain the same concerning the loan? If, after six months of successful business, the firm takes on 10 more people, does that make a difference to the loan position? It is not entirely clear in the clause as it stands. I believe that this is an important point if the measure is to be introduced.
      This is a timid approach to the problem. It is as though the Government, with a sudden blinding vision, realised that something had to be done in the inner city areas about small businesses, which are the key to the problem, and decided to settle on 50. What will happen if a

      1467
      firm develops quickly, going from 50 to 60, and then to 70 or even 80 people?
      This is, of course, only a very small beginning and it will not make a lot of difference to the present position, especially bearing in mind the price of land within inner city areas, which is a matter that planners ought to look at. Indeed, they are partly responsible for the situation in the inner city areas from the point of view of land development.
      I particularly ask the Minister to comment on the figure of 50, because this is a key point, I believe, in the whole of the development.
      Mr. Peter Morrison: I had been waiting for the Under-Secretary to rise from his place. As the Minister in charge of small businesses, I had hoped that he would answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant) as to exactly what is the Government's policy towards small businesses, and how small businesses are defined.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) said, the clause is very welcome, but the fact is that the definition of a small business as comprising 50 people goes far wider than the clause itself. It would be very interesting to know whether this is the Government's definitive way of describing a small business. I am sure that many people listening to the debate would like to know the answer.
      7.45 p.m.
      Mr. Cryer: We seem to have a plethora of Ministers answering points on this fairly narrow clause. The figure of 50 is a definition for the purposes of the Bill. We have made a judgment that this is the sort of size of firm—the smaller small firm—which is most likely to benefit from the provisions under the Bill.
      The definition of 50 has been used previously. The Department of Employment used it when it introduced the small firms employment subsidy as a pilot scheme in the special development areas only. Subsequently it was extended. It is hoped that the scheme will be starting in July this year and it will extend to the more generally accepted definition of 200.
      It is generally wise to try to avoid narrow definitions. As has been pointed
      1468
      out, once we start on definitions, we tend to create anomalies in all sorts of ways. But we hope that this definition will prove satisfactory.
      If a small firm of fewer than 50 people applies for a loan and is granted the facility, and then expands, the facility will still be retained, but a firm with a larger number than 50 will be excluded from applying. I think that should clarify the position.
      It is a fairly narrow Bill for a fairly narrow range of purposes. It has been tailored for that specific sort of purpose. We think that in this context it is relevant and right at that sort of figure.
      It does not bind the Government in any way to a definition—as the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Morrison) suggested—over a wider range of legislation. In general, as I have indicated, it is probably better to avoid definitions if at all possible. As the hon. Gentleman will know, where we have a preferential rate of corporation tax, and a lower rate, it is applied right across the board. If, for example, Imperial Chemical Industries were to make a profit of £50,000 or less, it would qualify for the lower rate of tax. But, of course, it is very unlikely that that would be the case, and it would be the small firms which would benefit. In that situation the legislation is general and avoids the difficulty of definition. But in the circumstances of the Bill it seems to me that a definition is useful, important and necessary.
      Mr. Durant: Am I correct in understanding that if a firm, having benefited under the loan arrangement, expands beyond 50, it will retain the loan? I should like that to be absolutely clear from the Minister.
      Mr. Cryer: My understanding is that the firm will retain the loan if it completes the formalities and obtains the loan before it numbers 50. I emphasise that the formalities must be completed within the definition of the legislation. If it is outside the definition, quite clearly it will fail.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause No. 6

      ASSISTANCE IN ESTABLISHMENT OF CO-OPERATIVE AND COMMON ENTERPRISES
      'Where a designated district authority are satisfied that it would be to the benefit of the designated district to assist persons wishing to establish a co-operative or common ownership enterprise, as defined in the Industrial Common Ownership Act 1976, they may make a grant or loan or both to such persons to facilitate the establishment of such an enterprise.'.—[Mr. Clemitson.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Ivor Clemitson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      I want to argue very briefly that co-operative enterprises—I use that term in a broad sense to include co-operative and common ownership enterprises, as defined in the Industrial Common Ownership Act 1976—have a peculiarly important part to play in any renaissance of inner urban and inner city areas.
      We have heard a great deal in the last few mintues about small firms and the relevance of small firms to the inner urban areas. We may not all be Socialists yet, but apparently we are all followers of Schumacher.
      Co-operatives are not, of course, necessarily small, but it is obviously in the small enterprise sector that they have a peculiar relevance. The enemy of small firms is not, I believe, the Government, as a number of Conservative Members keep trying to tell us. Incidentally, in propagating this kind of mythology they do a great deal of harm to small businesses. I do not believe that the Government are the enemy. What causes the end of small businesses in many cases is the big firm taking over. That means often either the complete demise of the small firm or the physical removal of the small firm, or parts of it, through a process of rationalisation. This can have shattering consequences for inner urban areas.
      The co-operative type of enterprise has a great inbuilt advantage in this respect, for it is far less likely to be taken over. Again, co-operatives retain their profits within the local community. They do this in two senses. First, co-operatives re-invest a high proportion of their profits. Indeed, the experience is that where co-operative enterprises have a certain per
      1470
      centage of re-investment written into their rules, the members of the co-operative or the common ownership enterprise regularly determine to re-invest a higher proportion than is required by their rules. In so far as profits are distributed, they are distributed within the local community and not to some distant sort of rentier shareholders.
      Another important point is that co-operative enterprises involve local people in the management and running of a major and significant part of their lives. It seems to me that the run-down of inner urban areas has as much to do with attitudes and morale as it has to do with the actual physical run-down of those areas. Giving people the opportunity and the confidence to participate, manage their own lives, take decisions and exercise control is a very important element in building up the confidence of people in inner urban areas.
      Co-operative enterprises give a great opportunity for the tapping of energies, enterprise and ideas. One of the tragedies of our society is that so much talent goes untapped and undeveloped. One of our great challenges is to devise ways in which that talent is enabled to develop.
      Co-operatives, therefore, provide a very good way of developing new enterprises. Surely we all are agreed that what we want is new enterprise in inner urban areas. Co-operatives have so often been associated with the attempt to rescue failed companies. Here is a great chance for the development of entirely new enterprises.
      But co-operative enterprises cannot develop unless they have resources available to them—resources of money, expertise and skilled advice. It is in this particular area that the new clause seeks to provide some help. Co-operative enterprises have not only an important but also a vital role to play in the rejuvenation of inner urban areas. I therefore hope that the Government will see their way clear to accepting the new clause.
      Mr. Stanley Newens: I support the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, East (Mr. Clemitson) in favour of the new clause. Although I represent a new town, like my parents and grandparents before me I was born in the East End of London. Having spent a significant part of my life

      1471
      living and working there, I am deeply concerned about the decline of that area, as I am about the decline of all inner city areas.
      During recent months—and in connection with this Bill—a considerable amount of discussion has rightly taken place about the part that can be played by small enterprises in regenerating inner city areas. Like my hon. Friend, I believe that this Government have done more to assist small businesses than have the Conservative Opposition, despite the fact that they have consistently made a noise about it.
      As a result of my social background, I probably have a much greater contact with small businesses than do many Conservative Members. I assure them of that before they start challenging me on the point. I am quite prepared to discuss the matter with them. I suggest that far more damage has been done in the past by the Conservatives' lack of concern about small business men. The Conservative Party is really concerned with the interests of big business.
      In these circumstances we would do well to nay tribute to what this Government have done and, in particular, to what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry has done in his capacity.
      Mr. Durant: Will the hon. Gentleman take it from me that some of us resent his remarks, because we are in small businesses ourselves? We resent his implication that every Conservative Member comes from big business and is not interested in small businesses. I happen to be in a small business. I have 20 employees, which I think is about right under the definition. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there is widespread resentment at the way in which this Government have behaved towards small businesses. I should like him to give tangible evidence of what this Government have done to help them.
      Mr. Newens: If I took it upon myself to endeavour to give a long catalogue of all the things that this Government have done, I am sure that Mr. Deputy Speaker would rule me out of order. There is no need for me to do so, since I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will take up that point.
      1472
      I should like to make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that I am by no means suggesting that there are not Conservative Members, like himself, who are deeply concerned with small businesses. I wish to make it clear that I have no desire to criticise him. What I did say is that this Government have done more for small businesses than have the Conservative Opposition.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That does not appear to me to be directly related to the new clause. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will direct his mind along those lines.
      Mr. Newens: I shall certainly return to the subject, as I am anxious to do, but as I had been challenged I felt it necessary to make it clear that the Conservative Opposition have done very much less than have the Government for the category of people whom we are discussing.
      A great deal of attention has been focused on private enterprise. In many respects that is absolutely right, but we should not overlook the possibility of creating other forms of enterprise where that opportunity exists. The new clause raises the issue of assisting co-operative or common ownership enterprises. In the past, many successful co-operatives were created throughout the country. However, like all small businesses, many of them in the manufacturing sphere suffered a high rate of mortality over the years. Today it is very much more difficult to establish any small business, whether it happens to be a private or a co-operative enterprise.
      It is, therefore, important that co-operatives, just as much as private enterprises, should be eligible for the support that the Bill provides. Many of the arguments in favour of co-operative and common ownership enterprises were recently advanced during the Second Reading of the Bill to set up a Co-operative Development Agency. I do not intend to take up the time of the House by repeating them tonight. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, East, I believe that they have a particular relevance to the situation that exists in inner urban areas.
      Not only would the new clause provide designated district councils with the power to establish co-operatives; it would, by its very existence, draw attention to an alternative form of enterprise.

      1473
      Co-operatives and common ownership enterprises can be formed by those seeking employment without waiting for an entrepeneur to come in and without taking the responsibility entirely upon oneself as an individual. Local authorities, therefore, ought to encourage and nurture co-operatives just as much as small private enterprises. I believe that in no way should we prefer one to the other. We should support them all equally. I hope very much, therefore, that the Minister will accept the new clause. I believe that it will in no way detract from the important purposes of the Bill. Indeed, in my view it will strengthen them.
      8.0 p.m.
      Mr. Peter Morrison: I was interested to hear what the hon. Gentleman said, and I agree with a great deal of it, but what, in his view, is the difference between a co-operative, as he describes it, and a partnership, such as a group of lawyers or accountants?
      Mr. Newens: I do not wish to enter into a legal discussion, but in my view all those forms of enterprise, including partnerships, should be encouraged if they are likely to provide, in any locality, the possibility of developing a useful manufacture or service to the community and providing employment. Obviously there are differences between different forms of enterprise. However, I do not wish to differentiate between them in this debate. I am concerned only with the necessity of supporting them all where they have a useful social purpose to fulfil.
      Mr. George Rodgers: In recent months, there has been a surge of interest in small firms and their capacity to provide employment, and certainly co-operatives and common ownership enterprises are usually small and labour intensive. It would therefore be unfortunate if provision were not made in this Bill for the encouragement of such ventures.
      Co-operatives and common ownership enterprises, by their very nature, are community based and unlikely to uproot themselves, as has too frequently been the case with subsidiaries of major companies which have moved out from city centres to the outer areas and decided when times were hard to abandon and
      1474
      close down their periphery enterprises in favour of the central ones.
      Profits which are generated by co-operatives will circulate locally, as my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, East (Mr. Clemitson) pointed out, and they will have a real impact on revitalising their local communities—the run-down urban areas—because they are rooted in their own localities and utilise and develop local talents and abilities. These abilities might well have lain dormant and neglected or even withered away for lack of encouragement and opportunity without the existence of the co-operatives.
      It is sometimes claimed that the record of common ownership enterprises or co-operative industry has not been entirely successful. But the record is remarkably good, bearing in mind that a great number of such enterprises were created from the wreckage of collapsed private companies. This is hardly the ideal lannching ground for new endeavours. Despite that, a high proportion have flourished and many more will do so, given opportunity and sufficient support. If the terms described in New Clause No. 6 are incorporated into the Bill, I am sure that they will prove a very worthwhile investment.
      The real hazard to the growth of a small firm is the ability of a large firm to gobble it up. On occasions, of course, it can be to the mutual advantage of both firms to become one. The expertise of the big company with its marketing knowhow and its many outlets can serve the interests of the pushing and enterprising small manufacturer. But sometimes Big Brother in the shape of a large company can effectively destroy the potential challenge of the newcomer.
      Common ownership enterprises and co-operatives have an inbuilt protection against the asset stripper because the enterprise cannot be sold and cannot be sold out by a handful of individuals. The whole work force is the controlling ownership. Instead of labour saving capital, capital saves labour, and in fact labour saves labour. This is surely a very healthy arrangement and one which will appeal to workers throughout the country.
      The proposed clause should be accepted with enthusiasm. Its implementation will give a thrust to community

      1475
      involvement and community enterprise. I believe that the support that should become available to co-operatives and common ownership enterprises as a result of the acceptance of the clause will prove a first-class investment to British industry and to the British people.
      Mr. Nigel Spearing: Clause 2(1)(a) and (b) as the Bill is drafted at present refer to
      "the acquisition by any person of land"
      and
      "the carrying out by any person of any works on land so situated".
      Those of us who put our names to this new clause, while not thinking that the Bill excluded co-operatives, wished specifically to include them in the Bill's provisions.
      My hon. Friends have made out an admirable and complete case for doing so, and all that I can do is add a few remarks from personal experience in the East End of London about the position in which we find ourselves today.
      My constituency covers exactly half the designated dockland area of London, which I hope will be an entirely designated area. One of the problems which arise with the increasing pace of industrial change is the frequency of redundancy. It is fair to say that throughout London we can see the beginning of a new phenomenon. It is that a few people who have been made redundant and who have known each other in their place of employment get together in a partnership or in a co-operative. The area here is perhaps not one that we can define exactly in terms of practical operation, although I have no doubt that the lawyers will be able to tell us which is which. But these people get together and create a new enterprise very often based upon genuine partnership, working together, and usually on a combination of skills which otherwise would not come together and which, if apart, might not exist on their own. This is not infrequently done by people who have part professional skill and part manual skill.
      I am thinking specifically at the moment of a small firm in my constituency. If those involved in such an enterprise manage to patent some device or if the combination of skills which they possess has great promise or great poten
      1476
      tial, it is not infrequently the case that they are offered capital. But they are offered it on terms which they are unwilling or relucant to accept. It may be that the people who are offering the capital want the patented device. It may be that they want the combination of skills and experience which the partners or the putative co-operative possess. They do not very often want to set them up in business as it stands. That is the experience which is not infrequent, not only in London but in other parts of the country. It is the problem of the takeover or of the people with the capital saying "Very well. We will set you up, but not in the East End of London." A small firm in my constituency has been offered money to set up in Egypt because of the skills that the principal operators possess. I am afraid that the flight from this country of manufacturing talent is frequently caused by an approach of that kind because the ways in which profit can best be made are very much along those lines.
      It may be that this is a danger to manufacturing of all types, whether they be co-operatives, small businesses based on private enterprise or even the larger firms. But in the inner areas we must make it at easy as we can for these enterprises to remain, and I believe that this clause will provide one more possibility whereby they can remain.
      Unfortunately, in East London and, I suspect, in most other nineteenth century areas of industry, people with skills are made redundant. Therefore, there is at least a potential in terms of skill. There is also a potential in terms of space. One has only to visit some of these areas to see factory after factory—some of them quite modern—for sale or for lease. There is no doubt that the space is there.
      As we were reminded earlier in a reference to the late Professor Schumacher, the optimum size of unit for certain products can be small. There is also the possibility of using people for part-time employment, especially the assembly skills of ladies who have domestic responsibilities. That might also fit into a possible co-operative structure.
      I am not saying that the new clause will suddenly create a new type of enterprise, but I hope it will. Ten years ago, few people thought that the housing associations had much to contribute. I

      1477
      am not saying that they are uncontroversial today, and many of us were sceptical of a new form of ownership being brought in at great speed. They have developed, however—although there are still arguments about the way in which some of them have done so.
      I hope that the new clause will at least provide a potential. If those responsible for operating the Bill use it wisely, the human potential in the older areas will be made productive. I do not say that that will happen, but it could happen and it sometimes has. The new clause will provide the specific facility and to that extent, one hopes, will encourage universally desired developments.
      If the Minister feels that the wording is not all that it might be, no doubt he will say whether he accepts the principle. The draftsmen may say that this provision exists in Clause 2(1), but that is implicit and it should be in the Bill explicity.
      Mr. Reginald Eyre: We on this side recognise the serious situation, described by a number of Labour Members, in so many older areas in London, the Midlands and the North. To set up new enterprises which will create wealth and new jobs, individuals must show initiative and enterprise. We welcome those qualities. The forms of organisation referred to in the new clause, particularly common ownership, are acceptable variations on the forms of private enterprise which are essential.
      My hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Morrison) made a valid point when he said that he saw these organisations as the equivalent of small partnership firms. We are interested in these proposals and I hope that the Minister will consider them positively.
      Of course, we would not accept any discrimination in favour of these organisations which led to unfair competition. I see that some Labour Members agree with that. Therefore, I hope that the Minister can explain the reference to the Industrial Common Ownership Act 1976. Will that affect the position that I have just described?
      Subject to that assurance, and to the acceptance of the principle that there should be no unfair competition, we welcome any organisation which will encourage initiative and responsibility and the
      1478
      creation of new products and jobs in these urban areas.
      8.15 p.m.
      Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to my hon. Friends who have supported the new clause, but I do not want to bolster their hopes that such a clause might be widely used for converting existing small firms into co-operatives. The reason is the Government's excellent record in assisting smaller firms. Perhaps fewer such firms can now convert to co-operatives.
      The Government's recent record in relation to small firms includes the preferential rate of corporation tax at 42 per cent.; the 100 per cent. relief for small firms—and for medium and large ones—for investment in plant and machinery; the 50 per cent. special valuation for capital transfer tax; the relief for losses in the first three years for unincorporated associations against losses in the previous three years, so that they can be carried back—this is particularly useful when firms are starting up; the extension of the small firms information centres and counselling service; the extension to £10,000 for exemption from VAT; and the simplified scheme to be introduced over the coming months.
      All these things are extremely valuable, together with such additional services as the Department of Industry provides, such as special nursery units in the assisted areas, of which we are building a larger programme than this country has ever seen before.
      Even with their own Industry Act, the last Conservative Government failed to follow their fine words about small firms by building suitable advance factories. There is a credibility gap between what they say now and what they did then.
      I share the concern which has been expressed that adequate assistance should be available to encourage co-operatives and common ownership enterprises. The Government are actively encouraging the setting up of such bodies. We supported the Industrial Common Ownership Act brought in by my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins), who is of course here tonight since he takes a deep interest in co-operative endeavour. We have just introduced the Co-operative Development Agency Bill, which has gone through Committee and will shortly be back on the Floor of the House. Both those Bills were widely welcomed.

      1479
      In addition, such enterprises benefit from the various general powers for assistance to industry, including the Industry Act 1972 and this Bill itself.
      The Government have no doubt that co-operatives and common ownership enterprises can be assisted under the Bill on the same basis as any other organisation. Assistance is available to "any person" and under the Interpretation Act, "person" embraces any corporate or unincorporated body. Consequently, I am happy to accept the principle of the new clause.
      Some local authorities are assisting co-operatives under Section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972, but a provision in this Bill along the lines of the new clause would give a clear and specific power to designated district authorities for this purpose. No doubt the Co-operative Development Agency would consider, in the light of the experience of the use of such a power, whether similar specific powers should be available to local authorities generally. Hon. Members no doubt remember that the CDA will have a requirement to review all legislation applying to co-operative organisations.
      However, the Government need to consider the drafting of the clause. We also want to insert provisions into the Bill such as those in other clauses to enable the local authority to impose conditions, for example to ensure that the money was used for the purpose applied for and to enable the Secretary of State to make directions on the exercise of this power. I think that that ought to answer the point made by the Opposition spokesman. We want to make sure that the Bill falls into line with other legislation and has the same qualifying amendments to the principle of the clause. In addition, the powers of assistance in the Bill were notified to the EEC Commission to comply with all our obligations under the Treaty of Rome. Any substantial addition such as a clause along the lines of the new clause would also require to be notified to the EEC.
      I note my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) moaning and groaning in the background. His constant critique of the EEC does not go unnoticed. However, we are a member now. It was said earlier that I had
      1480
      raised one or two points in Committee about the EEC. All I do is draw hon. Members' attention to the facts of life that we have to notify the EEC about certain matters that we operate in the United Kingdom. These include such items as regional assistance and assistance to industry. If there are any alterations, we shall have to notify the EEC of them. This is something that we must face now that we are members.
      If my hon. Friends withdraw the new clause, I shall undertake that the Government will introduce their own clause embodying the principle of my hon. Friend's clause when the Bill reaches the House of Lords. I am grateful to my hon. Friends for moving their clause and I hope that they will accept my assurance on that basis.
      Mr. Clemitson: May I say how grateful I am—and I am sure that I speak on behalf of my hon. Friends—for what the Under-Secretary has said, for his undertaking and for the assistance that he has given and continues to give to the principle and practice of co-operation? I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause No. 9

      VOLUNTARY ORGANISATIONS, COMMUNITY GROUPS AND NEIGHBOURHOOD BODIES
      "(1) In designated districts and in districts as respects which arrangements have been entered into under section 4 of this Act, the district council shall involve voluntary organisation community groups, and neighbourhood bodies actively involved in the designated areas.

      (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) above the district council shall co-opt representatives of non-statutory organisations to any committee or working party concerned with the implementation of the Act."—[Mr. Steen.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Steen: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      This Bill is marked by the fact that it tends to concentrate on the mechanics of government and local authorities—administration and bureaucracy—and not to concern itself with the needs of people. The Bill is about improving the quality of life of people living in the inner parts of our great towns and cities.

      1481
      The subject of people has hardly been mentioned by the Government. It is as if people were unimportant, and did not exist. The importance of the thrust in the Bill is that it should involve itself with the plight of the disadvantaged in our principal cities.
      We have heard about plans, districts, buildings and grants—everything but the human being. If the Minister is intent on defeating the new clause it may illustrate to the country and thousands of voluntary organisations and community groups the sincerity of the Government about the rights of the individual and those living in inner cities and the many neighbourhood community organisations and groups that have grown up to represent interests, feelings and aspirations in our major towns and cities.
      I hope that the Minister will reflect on the impact that this may have on the thousands of people engaged in voluntary work and community activities who have a lurking suspicion that the Government, although they talk about their concern for the individual, have, by their performance, particularly in the Bill, demonstrated that they have no regard for the problems of people and are more concerned with macro-economics. That process is less important to the Government than these grandiose schemes and plans.
      I remind the Minister of the importance in this country—in this respect it is different from many of its European neighbours—of the voluntary spirit and voluntary work which is the touchstone of our way of life. Yet, even though there have been many attempts by my hon. Friends to improve it, the Bill still makes no mention of the part that voluntary work will play in the rejuvenation of our inner cities. It is as though the Minister feels that it is not necessary to mention it because he regards it as insignificant and unimportant.
      The Government have talked about partnership, and it is important to ask them to realise that to many people this may be no more than another weasel word. The Government have been particularly good at putting forward weasel-worded projects that imply that they are doing something but which, at the grass roots, show them to be doing nothing. There are grandiose words, such as "partnership"
      1482
      —a word that immediately conjures up the idea of sharing and a feeling of togetherness.
      However, when we look at the partnership, we see that it is a cruel joke, an empty and hollow laugh. The Government pretend that they care about the community and are sharing and going into the problems of the inner cities with the whole community, but in reality it is clear that they have no such intention.
      It is particularly curious, because the Government's White Paper, which had so much meat and sense in it, has been translated into hard legislation that misses all the finer nuances and profundities of the White Paper. We are presented with a shallow and empty Bill.
      The White Paper said:
      "The regeneration of the inner areas is not, however, a job for central or local government alone. A new and closer form of collaboration is required between government and the private sector, between government and the community including the various representative organisations in the cities and bigger towns, with the voluntary bodies, and above all with the people living in the inner areas. It is their welfare, immediate and longer term, which must be the ultimate touchstone for success."
      That was put most movingly and profoundly, and it is a cruel joke that the Bill has not one touch of humility. It will not involve the people living in the inner cities, let alone the voluntary bodies, community groups, residents' and ratepayers' associations. It gives them no part in the taking of policy decisions. At the crunch point, they are nowhere to be seen.
      Not surprisingly, Liverpool, which is one of the partnership cities, has tried, without much success, to rectify the situation. Hon. Members should realise that when we talk about the partnership cities we are considering only seven cities—and not the whole of those cities but small areas and pockets in those cities. In some places we are concerned with perhaps only one-eighth of the total land area.
      The word "partnership" is a misconception and a contradiction in terms. These are not partnerships, but small pockets in the major conurbations which the Government have singled out for what they call special treatment. It is worth mentioning the sick joke about special treatment, because without the involvement of the private sector and voluntary organisations the Bill is unlikely to bite.

      1483
      8.30 p.m.
      I return to the question of the small areas. In Committee the Minister was unconvincing about the way in which the partnership areas were chosen. He has been equally unconvincing today. In Liverpool it appears that the "inner city" includes an area five miles from the inner city. The outer city is included in the term "inner city". In Liverpool it seems that the areas that have been selected are the hard-core Socialist areas. It appears that the large soulless council estates on the edges of the city are not selected. They contain one in eight of our population and, according to the report "One in Eight" produced by a local voluntary organisation, the real problems exist in those areas.
      Large parts of the inner city have been demolished and the population has moved out. That population is now found in the large council estates which form an are round the city. That is true of many of the large cities involved in the partnership arrangements. The populations have been displaced from the inner areas to the outer areas. When the Minister talks about the inner city he is really talking about the outer city, because that is where the population now is. By concentrating on something that has reduced in terms of population and effectiveness the Minister is making provision for the wrong place. Having done that in Liverpool, he has tried to have the best of both worlds. As a result of pressure from some of his hon. Friends who represent the other Liverpool seats, the Minister, after announcing the inner city partnership, declared another area five miles from the inner area as part of the inner area partnership.
      I know the area well and I cannot see why he has included that area and not the vast, soulless and impersonal council estates where all the social problems are to be found. If the Minister has read about this subject he will realise that experience in American cities shows that the demolition of the inner city does one thing only; it transfers the problems and the people to wherever they are moved. Knocking down houses does not knock down the problems. Having knocked down the houses, instead of following the people and concentrating the help on them in the areas to which they have
      1484
      moved—the green field arcs around the cities—the Minister is putting the money, 10 years too late, in the wrong place. We have a Bill which has missed the boat. It is concentrated in the wrong place at the wrong time.
      The Government are as committed as I am to involving the community. They committed themselves, in paragraph 103 of the White Paper, to a new and closer form of collaboration.
      May we now explore what happened in Liverpool? First, when the partnership was declared over a year ago much activity occurred. The Secretary of State was photographed in the main High Street and he was seen waving to the crowds. He said that he was going to rejuvenate the inner area. He attempted to establish a partnership committee. Naturally, more people wanted to sit on the committee, more committees were set up and more bureaucrats were created. One would have thought that the individual in the community and the voluntary organisations would have been included somewhere in the proliferation of committees which were being set up.
      The fact was that the Minister thought it unwise to involve the voluntary organisations and the people. Perhaps he thought that they might have too much to say, or was it that as they might be the very people who would be affected by the decisions of the partnership arrangement they were the last people one would want to involve?
      Not surprisingly, in about November of last year the voluntary bodies—by which I mean all non-statutory organisations—decided to form their own conference, so we have not only all the Government committees but a new conference of the voluntary bodies. A total of 177 people attended a meeting on 17th December last year. One hundred and fifty-three of them were from voluntary organisations, including community centres, settlements, community groups, youth organisations, social welfare organisations, community arts projects, community health councils, advice centres, voluntary housing associations and the rural preservation societies. None of those organisations had been involved at any time, in any way, in the partnership committees that had already been established to help just such people.

      1485
      The regional director of the Department of the Environment said at the conference:
      "The Government has made a commitment in its inner cities policies and we have now reached the stage for putting this into practice. In Liverpool those of us concerned with the partnership agreement do want now to establish arrangements for drawing in the voluntary and community sector."
      He continued by quoting the Government White Paper, which said:
      "It is impossible for the Government to succeed without the involvement of the community."
      I emphasise those words. He added:
      "Although much thought was given in the drafting of the White Paper to community involvement and the role of voluntary organisations, the White Paper itself gives no guidance as to how the involvement should be formalised."
      One would expect that by the time a White Paper was prepared the Government would have worked out how they would involve the community in the running of the project.
      The regional director went on:
      "The Government has no intention of dictating either to local authorities or voluntary groups the job of establishing where the greatest need arises, and working out the best ways of deploying resources is primarily for local authorities to decide, working in close harmony with Government and the statutory agencies."
      The conference concluded that that was the position at that date.
      What has happened in the Liverpool partnership? It is as well to explain the committee structure. The committee is something like the Tower of Babel. There are more people than one can imagine all falling over one another down the main high street to attend partnership meetings. First, we have the chairman, who is the Secretary of State for the Environment himself. Then we have the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer), who is the Under-Secretary of State for Industry. We have the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding), representing the Department of Employment. We have the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science, the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes). There are officials from the Department of Health and Social Security and from the Department of Education and Science.
      1486
      Those are not all we have on the partnership committee. We have the leader of the city council and the deputy leader. We have the leader of the Conservatives and the leader of the Liberals. Then, of course, there is the county council representation, with the leaders of the Conservative and Labour groups. There are also area health authority representatives. That is just one of the partnership committees.
      Of course, all these people are very high-powered and they turn up only occasionally. Not surprisingly, the real partnership committee has met only twice in one year. Nothing much has happened, except for those two meetings, and many people think that there have been two meetings too many. The partnership committee having been set up without representatives of voluntary organisations or people living in the inner city area or community workers, an officer steering group was then appointed. This group consists of the chief executive from the Liverpool City Council, together with the city solicitor, the city treasurer, and the city planning officer. At county level there is the chief executive, the county treasurer, the county planning officer, and the county solicitor. There are also the regional director of the inner cities directorate from the Department of the Environment and a whole bevy of officials from various Government Departments, as well as the area health authority representatives.
      That is why correspondence to these peoples is so seriously delayed. They are all too busy attending these meetings, and they have not got time to attend to the pressing business of rejuvenating Liverpool. They are all tied up with these committees.
      The officer steering group decided that it could not really work out what needed to be done, or how to cut the non-existent cake, which I shall come to later. It then set up working groups, and these groups included groups on the economy, housing, the physical environment, leisure, community and recreational facilities, the social environment and transportation. On each of these working groups not one voluntary organisation was represented or one local individual involved.
      On the economy group, the city treasurer is chairman, and there are other members. On housing, there is the deputy

      1487
      city solicitor. On physical environment, the city planning officer is chairman. On leisure, community and recreational facilities, there is the officer responsible for recreation and open spaces. On social environment, there is the director of social services and on transportation, the county planning officer.
      All these working groups have to meet, and when they meet they do so entirely with officials. They talk with officials and prepare papers which they do not circulate. Then they report back to the officer steering group, which has more meetings in camera and which then refers back to the partnership committee. But that is not all. There are other committees—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. The only one who seems to be missing at the moment is Santa Claus. I do not see that giving all the details of the existing committees is strictly relevant to the new clause that the hon. Member is proposing.
      Mr. Steen: May I explain, Mr. Deputy Speaker, how this falls on all fours with the new clause? The new clause is an attempt to involve the people in the existing committees. In Standing Committee the Minister said that if we involve more people it means more committees. I do not think that we need more committees—there are too many already. The Minister can change the constitution of the committees by involving the community.
      I suggest that there is no need for the officer steering group. If we do need some sort of steering group, why is it not possible to involve the people who run the settlement houses, the community associations, and the residents' groups in the inner cities? If we cannot do that and we must have a steering group, why do we need working groups of all the chief officers? Why can we not have working groups of the organisations that are playing a part in the partnership areas? If we cannot do that, why can we not at least involve them in the determination of the decisions in the partnership area?
      I recognise that this is primarily seen as a partnership between central and local government and I recognise that the Liverpool City Council has agreed not only to the setting up of all those committees but to an inner area sub-committee of about 18 councillors. There is
      1488
      also a policy and finance committee and the Liverpool City Council meeting, all these committees determining and discussing the partnership arrangements.
      My first plea is that with all that myriad of members of the committees—as Mr. Deputy Speaker said, Santa Claus; that is what it looks like and how it appears to local people—it looks like complete cloud-cuckoo-land.
      8.45 p.m.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. For the accuracy of the record, I said that the only one missing was Santa Claus.
      Mr. Steen: I am much obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      I think that the Minister must get the message right away how cynical the Liverpudlians are about whether that partnership committee will have any relevance to anything going on in the inner city, and whether the people on partnership committees have really got the local grass-roots feelings about what is actually happening. By the very nature of the jobs of the people serving, they are so far removed from the day-to-day realities of the city's life that it is highly likely that when they produce their findings it will be seen that they are totally out of touch with what needs doing.
      However, I must move on, because really what is in issue is not only the nature of the committees and the role that they have to play but what they are actually doing with what finance. That has regularly cropped up and it is important now to clear that out of the way.
      As I understand it—perhaps the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—for these partnership committees, which are dealing with the whole gamut of the Bill as it affects the partnership area, the first sum of £11 million was for construction work, and that was for the period 1977–79. That was primarily loan sanction, so that really the local authority was asked to borrow about 66 per cent., and it would have to pay it back. So here we have a poorish local authority, the City of Liverpool, being actually told that it can borrow more money, to become poorer.
      Then we have £30 million given to the inner city partnership programme over three years. That is £10 million a year, as I understand it. But that, again, is not a gift. It is 75 per cent. Government grant, but that is only towards interest

      1489
      charges, so, again, the local authority is being told "If you want to take up this £30 million you will have to borrow, and you will have to borrow the lion's share of it."
      Then we have only £2·5 million under the urban aid programme for next year, and £1·8 million for derelict land—the Minister knows my views on the amount of derelict land that there is on Merseyside—and there is some money for the construction industry, again.
      In my calculations, all that adds up to is less money than the Government have already taken away in the shape of reduced grants to the local authority over the last four years, so that at the most the Government are replacing that which they have taken away, by letting the local authority borrow money that it has not got and so make itself poorer, in one of the very areas which is already poor. By doing that, they are excluding any of the people living in the area, so there is no chance that they will get any idea of what the Government are up to.
      This was realised by the voluntary bodies. In February this year they held their second partnership conference. They were already alive to what was going on. They took the view that they should take some initiative. That is the strength and importance of the new clause. The voluntary sector, in the shape of Dr. Boaden, who is the lecturer in social administration at Liverpool University, then said that the partnership arrangements were fundamentally between local government and central Government. Between December and February the voluntary bodies began to become aware that the Inner Urban Areas Bill would not be amended and that the Government had no intention of involving the voluntary organisations. Dr. Boaden said:
      "Therefore, the voluntary sector will have to earn their entitlement to participation in order to have their say in how partnership works."
      What a confession to be made at a conference that was attended by 147 people, with 123 representing voluntary organisations—namely, that the Government were not prepared to communicate with them and were not prepared to involve those on the partnership committees, and that they would have to become pressure groups. Is that what the Minister wants from the Bill? Does
      1490
      he want to create conflict? Is his aim to create strife among the community by excluding them from the whole participatory process? That is how the whole matter is beginning to shape. The voluntary organisations feel that they have been taken for a ride.
      I use the term "voluntary organisations" in the widest sense to mean all those in the community who feel that they are not part of the statutory sector but have something to offer. I am amazed to find that the Press releases that the Department of the Environment has issued from time to time—I refer to the one that was issued on 15th December, especially—are geared towards what the Government will do and how many meetings the Ministers will chair. We are told that the Secretary of State, for instance, will chair the Minister-Member level partnership committees in London Dockland and Liverpool, and that the Minister for Housing and Construction will chair the partnership committees for the partnerships in Birmingham, Manchester and Salford. There is not a word about voluntary organisations.
      We are told that the Under-Secretary of State will chair partnership committees in Islington and Hackney and that the Minister for Housing and Construction will be responsible for the oversight of the other cities that have been invited to prepare inner area programmes.
      The whole structure is Government-based and full of bureaucracy. Not a mention is made of those who are involved in the areas.
      Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend is making an extremely important and valuable contribution. Is he able to tell me how many members of the Liverpool voluntary group would be represented by the local council of social services. Would they all fit within that umbrella? Could they be represented by one National Council of Social Service officer, or would they fall rather more outside the umbrella of the council?
      Mr. Steen: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, as his intervention shows that we are thinking in the right direction. It is too easy to try to umbrella all voluntary effort and to say that someone from the local council of social services

      1491
      will be able to represent all the organisations. That is rather like suggesting that to have somebody from the unions means that all the unions will be represented.
      The National Council of Social Service will be a step in the right direction but in the minds of many in the various organisations the council is the establishment. If we are to have a representative from the establishment organisation, it would be as useful and constructive to have one or two other members from different facets, especially those to do with young people and settlements. To have three people representing the non-statutory sector would be a vast improvement on the exclusion of all people from outside the statutory sector.
      I am not seeking to push the private sector on the Minister; I want to have more people on the committees. I firmly believe that those in the private sector have a great contribution to make within the structure, and that if they are not represented we shall miss out. The Minister will miss out and the Government will miss out if it is put outside the structure. That will create conflict and hostility between them and us.
      That is the point that I was making 10 years ago when dealing with the first urban aid programme circular, and with all the successive urban aid programme circulars when I was directing a national voluntary body. Until the eighth circular the voluntary sector was not given its due, and its importance and relevance appeared not to be recognised. Naturally, local authorities tended to give their money, especially under capital grants, to the local authority schemes first. Only over six years or seven years has the balance been corrected. It seems that we are making exactly the same mistake as with the urban aid programme in 1968. If the Minister wants to learn from mistakes, he should put matters right after the second meeting and not wait until the scheme has been going for very much longer.
      We need a change of heart by the Minister which will not consist merely of empty phrases but will have some reality. In Committee the Minister poured scorn on my suggestion that we should have voluntary organisations on the committees. He paid tribute to their great work
      1492
      but would not put them on any of the committees. He said that we have enough already. I do not understand his thinking. If those living in the localities are not involved, on what authority do the Government seek to impose upon them?
      If the Government are not sensitive to the people who are living in an area, by what right do they believe that they know what is needed? I believe that the new clause is desperately needed because, if the elaborate committee structure continues to exclude those who are living and working in an area, clearly there will be an increasing gap between what is needed and what takes place.
      That is why, on 13th March, some six weeks ago, I asked the Secretary of State, in a Written Question, about the conclusions and the priorities that had been drawn up at the second Liverpool inner city partnership meeting. He replied:
      "I chaired the second meeting of the Liverpool Partnership Committee on Friday 10th March.
      The Committee discussed key issues and priorities. It agreed that to improve the quality of life for those who live and work in the inner city, so as to minimise the outflow of population, must be the overall objective."
      How can it be the overall objective of the Government to stop the outflow of population, which they say is the principal objective of this partnership committee, if the very people who are living there are told that their views are of no interest?
      Mr. Loyden: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, for instance, in the Garston constituency not only has the community council been very much involved in the partnership, but that, at the level of the community council, there has been an exchange of ideas. Therefore, the views of those people are certainly being expressed regarding the inner area partnership. Therefore, there is a direct involvement in that sense—it may not be much as the hon. Gentleman and I would like—with the community in the Garston area. I am sure that that obtains in the city centre as well.
      Mr. Steen: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman missed what I was saying. Before he came in I covered the range of the problems. Earlier I was talking about the National Council of Social Service and whether it would help if it

      1493
      was represented on these committees. The community council is another body. That is a step in the right direction. The community council and the National Council of Social Service are very much established bodies in the vein of local authorities, and the people serving on them, I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree, do not necessarily truly represent the kind of grass roots interests which he knows exist in Garston and which have a very different approach to matters from that of the professionals who are employed by many of these established and well tried voluntary bodies. But this is certainly a step in the right direction.
      In answer to my Written Question the Minister sought to minimise the outflow of population as one of his prime aims. Yet, curiously enough, he is doing nothing to stop it. By refusing to redirect the regional grants to the inner areas and by refusing to find some incentive to get the skills back from the outer to the inner areas, there is no chance of stopping the flow outwards. The outflow is caused primarily by lack of jobs and homes.
      Despite the Secretary of State, at the Habitat Conference in Vancouver in 1976, saying that we have pensioned off the bulldozer in Britain, it is clear from what is going on in some of our major cities that it has not got round to the bulldozer itself. It is still demolishing buildings and, as it demolishes them, people move outwards. Therefore, until the Minister blocks the bulldozer from demolishing another house, the population will of necessity move outwards. So long as he allows derelict and vacant land to be hoarded by local authorities and nationalised industries, we shall not get new industries building on land which would attract people back from the outer areas to work in the inner city.
      9.0 p.m.
      I am puzzled by the view of the Secretary of State that his aim is to minimise the outflow of population, when all the things he has done—which are minimal—will do nothing to halt that outflow. The Secretary of State's Answer continued:
      "Measures to improve employment prospects would make the most impact."
      Nobody would disagree with that.
      "Other priorities in the physical and social fields were also discussed. Specific proposals
      1494
      will be developed for the committee to consider at its next meetings ".
      We do not know when its next meeting will be.
      "The committee also agreed on arrangements for consulting voluntary organisations as the work proceeds, including the establishment of a central information point on the partnership and the production of a news-sheet."—[Official Report, 13th March 1978; Vol. 946, c. 27–8.]
      All the Government said in that parliamentary Answer six weeks ago about voluntary bodies was that they would be consulted as these partnership committees continued and that there would be a central information point, with a newssheet. In other words, that is all that the private non-statutory groups merit. I hope that the Minister, in his reply, will give us more information than we were given by the Government six weeks ago, because that earlier reply was not good enough.
      The view of the voluntary bodies is that this Government, in common with all other Governments, make wonderful overtures and are full of friendly noises to those who are not part of the bureaucracy, but when it comes to giving up a little of their power and sharing it, they say "No."
      The Minister cannot say that he is ignorant of what is needed to tackle urban deprivation. In the past 10 years successive Governments have spent about £100 million of taxpayers' and ratepayers' money in exploring a vast number of experimental projects with a view to identifying the problems and causes of urban deprivation and recommending how best they can be tackled.
      It may be as well to remember what has taken place since 1968, because what has happened today is merely a repeat of all that we have had before. In 1968 we were told that the problem involved "pockets of poverty". That was the whole basis of the Government's approach. There was a "pockets of poverty" theory which started with the urban aid programme. That programme sought to divert money from the rural areas to the urban areas. What was needed to do that was some jiggery-pokery that would mean that the shire counties would be worse off and that the urban areas would be richer.
      That was the start of the switch of the rate support grant which made so many

      1495
      rural areas squeal, but which the Government propose should continue. But the urban aid programme has continued and has flourished. The Government are now committed to increasing that programme to a sum of £125 million—and they will do that only by diverting more money from rural to urban areas. The White Paper makes clear that there will be no new finance.
      In 1968 we had the "pockets of deprivation" theory, and we have returned in a full circle to that same situation, but in 1968 it very much involved the Government only. The Government said "We shall set this up with the Home Office and no voluntary bodies will be involved."
      Perhaps I can remind the Minister what was said in 1968. The present Prime Minister, who was then Home Secretary, said that the purpose of the urban programme was to
      "provide for the care of our citizens who live in the poorest or most overcrowded parts of our cities and towns. It is intended to arrest, in so far as it is possible by financial means, and reverse the downward spiral which afflicts so many of these areas. This is a deadly quagmire of need and apathy."—[Official Report. 2nd December 1968; Vol. 774, c. 1107.]
      The first urban aid programme circular went out to the local authorities and to deprived areas to make bids for the money which the Government intended to put up in the form of loans. It was said that
      "The Government propose to initiate an urban programme of expenditure mainly on education, housing, health and welfare in areas of special social need."
      That is the same phrase that is used in the Bill. It was used 10 years ago and is still related to the same areas.
      The circular continued:
      "Those were localised districts which bear the marks of multiple deprivation",
      —that expression has now gone out of fashion—
      "which may show itself, for example, by way of notable deficiencies in the physical environment, particularly housing; overcrowding of houses; family sizes above the average; persistent unemployment; a high proportion of children in trouble or in need of care; or a combination of these. A substantial degree of immigrant settlement would also be an important factor, though not the only factor in determining the existence of special social need."
      1496
      In 1968, therefore, there was exactly the same picture as we have today, except that things were not quite so bad then. One thing which can be said about poverty programmes is that they have accelerated the poverty. There was the view in 1968 that we could conquer the problems of urban deprivation by tackling the pockets of deprivation. It is rather like a spring cleaning exercise, in which one goes into a small area and cleans it up, expecting the problems to disappear over a much wider area.
      It was not simply the urban aid programme which concentrated on the "pockets" theory. The community development project also concentrated on that theory. The Minister will remember the aim when that project was set up contemporaneously with the urban aid programme. The community development project was based on three assumptions. The first was that it was the deprived themselves who were the cause of urban deprivation—
      Mr. Guy Barnett: The hon. Gentleman has an important new clause down for our discussion, but I have difficulty in understanding that what he is now saying has anything to do with voluntary organisations, which is the subject of the new clause.
      Mr. Sheen: I am most grateful for the intervention. I had hoped that the Minister was following my speech. This is rather advanced social philosophy, and I hope that I can explain exactly where I am going. What I am saying is that—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It may be a matter of history, but I was wondering whether we ought to be considering what happened 10 years ago. I have no desire to interrupt the hon. Memeber for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) in his thoughts, because I am comforted by the knowledge that he has probably only another two minutes to go before completing his 45-minute speech.
      Mr. Steen: I shall try to consolidate the history, because, as you rightly pointed out, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that has perhaps only some bearing on the new clause. But it has an important bearing, and the importance of it is this. The community development project, the urban aid programme and the educational priority areas experiments, all in the late

      1497
      1960s, concentrated on the pockets of deprivation theory. This was that the Government, together with local government and a whole army of professionals on deprivation, could descend on pockets of poverty and solve all the problems alone. The one thing that was learned from those experiments was that those problems cannot be solved if the people who make up the problems are themselves excluded.
      It will be recalled that there was a series of projects, of which the community development project and the educational priority area experiment were but two. There were many other projects which flowed from there. There were the neighbourhood projects, the quality of life schemes, the inner area studies, and the urban deprivation unit, together with a department dealing with community programmes. There were also the urban guideline studies, the transmitted deprivation theory, and the quality of life theory. Then there was the comprehensive community programme and the GLC deprived areas programme. Now the EEC has joined in with its own programmes to tackle cycles of deprivation.
      What I am trying to give, in a very short summary form, is the global picture that we have in this country of urban deprivation getting worse, in spite of these multi-million pound projects which have taken place throughout the last decade, which have concentrated on various aspects of poverty, but which have all pointed to the same conclusion, namely, that it is not money alone that is needed but the process by which the community is involved in tackling its own problems. Some people have called it self-help, but it is the total involvement of society in tackling its own difficulties rather than bringing up by train from Whitehall troops of Government officials and Ministers to walk down the local high street, hold a meeting and then go back again.
      That is the one thing that these experiments show. Perhaps the Minister will have the humility to realise that these £100-million schemes should have taught us something—that the Inner Urban Areas Bill repeats all the mistakes. It is something like a T. S. Eliot poem—we have been here before, there is nothing new in it, and it is doing nothing that is likely to solve the problem.
      1498
      I move on from the history and concentrate on how the new clause will help. What it really aims to do is what the director of the National Council of Social Service so vividly pointed out in a pertinent letter which he wrote to members of the Committee. He said:
      "I am writing to you about the progress of the Government's inner cities programme. Since the publication of the White Paper Policy for the Inner Cities', the NCSS has been monitoring the inner cities programme through a network of voluntary organisations in each of the seven partnership areas and the fifteen programme authority areas. Our current concern is the progress being made towards the involvement of local communities and voluntary organisations as a part of the inner cities programme; an involvement that the White Paper seeks to achieve. (Paragraphs 34, 35, 103).
      The initiative for revitalising the inner areas of cities lies with central and local government, yet the programme will make little long term impact unless it gains the support and commitment of the local community, voluntary organisations, trades unions and local bust ness communities. Although Ministers have called for this broader partnership in the planning and implementation of inner area programmes, in practice there are severe difficulties in gaining this involvement in most of the partnership and programme authorities. The major concerns expressed to us by local voluntary organisations can be summarised as follows:

      1. There have been long delays in seeking the involvement of local organisations and community groups. It has not been sufficiently well understood that this needs to take place from the outset to be successful.

      2. The timescale imposed on local authorities by the Department of the Environment for drawing up their inner area programmes for the next three years is so tight that firm proposals are being required by June or July of this year, leaving insufficient time for consultation and involvement.

      3. Ministers have not pressed the local authorities to establish an adequate framework for the involvement of local communities and voluntary organisations. Apart from Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Islington, Leicester and Sheffield, which have developed such a framework, in volvement has been piece-meal.

      4. With few exceptions, the quality and quantity of information being made available by local authorities is inadequate for local organisations and local communities to identify opportunities for involvement and make a proper contribution to the planning I rocess.

      5. In most of the areas, local councillors have not been adequately briefed on the background work being carried out, and cannot act as an effective link between local communities and the authority."

      If that is not a damning criticism of the Government by a national, independent voluntary organisation—co-ordinating all

      1499
      the voluntary organisations in the country—I do not know what is. I hope that the Minister will take very seriously the comments of one of the largest and oldest co-ordinatory bodies in the country, because these five points encapsulate and symbolise the cry from the voluntary organisations over the last decade that Government do not involve them or consult them in the decision-making process which affects the cities.
      It is strange that a Government who so closely identify with the shop floor should in this case be baulking at the involvement of the community. Here are a Government committed to helping the underprivileged and the deprived, yet this Bill, which is supposed to help them in the worst areas of deprivation, decides that they should be excluded from the way of helping them.
      The Minister may reject this as poppycock, but I hope he realises that what I have been saying is reality. He may have been briefed by his bureaucracy to believe that what I am saying is not so, but I have got this information straight from the rock face and from the grass roots. What I am saying happens to be true.
      I ask the Minister to explain why, after all these months, he has not attempted to incorporate a new clause into the Bill and whether, if he cannot accept this new clause, he will undertake to draft one to provide that the voluntary bodies have a much greater say in the running of partnership committees.
      9.15 p.m.
      By now the Government ought to have learnt that participation, which is at the root of most of their legislation and is the basis of many Government reports, in practice is not taking place. If the Government want participation, they must be prepared to trust people. We are beginning to find, however, that when we have a Government which do not trust the people, that Government do not do their best for the people. They do not hear or understand their cries of concern. Unless those cries are heard, however much money and however many officials the Government devote to any given cause they will not get it right.
      The results of many urban experiments show that it is not the money which matters. What matters is the process by
      1500
      which conclusions are reached. It is for that reason that this clause is of such crucial importance. Without it, the Bill might as well never have come before us, because it is of no consequence. The Government must not think that merely setting up a bit of machinery, giving a few loans, geographically dotting a few spots round the country and having a debate in this House will have any consequence for the people living in those areas. People know that it is a sick joke. In this clause, I am trying to prevent its becoming too serious a sick joke. If that should happen, despite all my efforts, people will no longer trust any Government to help the most deprived areas.
      The Minister can no longer hide behind his fine words. The public must be told the truth—that this Bill will have no impact on the lives of people living in inner city areas and most certainly will not rejuvenate those areas. If people are not allowed to play a part in the discussion and decision-making process, there is unlikely to be any improvement.
      When the Minister rises to reply to this debate, let us remember that he is breaking faith with the people of our inner city areas if he does not give them an opportunity not merely to be heard but to be involved in all that is to happen there. If he rejects that wish, he will be turning his back on them and saying that they are of no consequence.
      Mr. John Sever: I shall attempt to put to the House one or two observations on the situation which applies in Birmingham, and I hope that I shall be a little more expeditious in doing that than the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) has been in representing the interests of his city.
      I was fascinated to hear the hon. Member for Wavertree refer to the lack of co-ordination which seemingly exists in his city among Members of this House, the local authority and what he described as the grass roots community. I wish that before beguiling us with such a long speech he had spent a little time discussing this measure with the Conservative leader of the Birmingham City Council. I do not think that these two people agree with each other, and the speech of the hon. Member for Wavertree would

      1501
      perhaps have been more credible if he had argued the same case for two cities which are controlled by the same political party.
      We must recognise that a considerable amount of authority must be given to local authorities in determining what should happen in the work done by the inner city partnership committees. In Birmingham, the Conservative-controlled city council decided that it would not take on its partnership committee representatives from the very areas that we are discussing.
      Several members of the local authority have an interest in representing inner urban areas. I probably have a unique experience in representing an inner core area both here and on the Birmingham City Council, and I live in the middle of a partnership area. So perhaps I have some idea of local people's views.
      Therefore, informally, I asked the head of the local authority to extend the membership of the partnership committee to include not only one representative of opposition parties but some who actually lived in the areas under discussion. He refused. I asked him publicly, because both I and my constituents were getting upset. Again he refused.
      In some desperation, I asked the Minister of State, Department of the Environment, whether local authorities could be encouraged to extend the membership in the light of representations by local councillors or Members of Parliament. His reply, in effect, was that we should ensure that local authorities take the representation on these committees into their own hands. As one schooled in local government, I accepted the tenor of that argument, although the committees in local authorities controlled by the Conservative Party did not apply that practice.
      Mr. Eyre: Has the hon. Gentleman thought of asking the Minister to invite an Opposition Member of Parliament to serve on the partnership committee?
      Mr. Sever: I have no doubt that if that question were asked, the Minister would give a fair and reasoned answer. Presumably hon. Members have the right to ask such questions tonight. It seems as though someone might.
      Mr. MacKay: I am trying to follow the argument. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that in Birmingham the Conservative local authority should co-opt to serve on these schemes a member of the Labour opposition group? That is a reasonable suggestion, but is it not equally reasonable, when the Minister is having consultations, to invite Opposition Members of Parliament? The hon. Gentleman cannot have it one way only.
      Mr. Sever: I was not discussing whether the Conservative-controlled local authority should invite Labour Members, but certainly it should invite representatives of the areas concerned. Because those in the areas recognise the value of Labour representatives, they happen to be the same individuals, but that is coincidence.
      Mr. Steen: I agree entirely. That Conservative council should be asked to involve local people, just as the Labour council in my city should. The more people involved at the right levels, the better.
      Mr. Sever: I was going to deal with that question in my next remarks. The hon. Member has suggested that thousands of voluntary organisations are anxious to play a part. How are we to sort out who represents the grass roots on those committees? I do not know whether it is a practical proposition. However, it would be reasonable to say that tenants' associations, community groups and so on could find a channel through local public representatives on the partnership committee.
      Had there been a greater input of local authority representatives, remembering that they are elected by the people about whom we are talking, to express the views of housing associations, tenants' groups and so on, there might have been a much more balanced view from the community being put forward to the partnership committees. That is the only regret that I have about these measures.
      Having spoken to a large number of the groups to which we have referred in my area, I have found that they are pleased that we have been able to secure the Minister for Housing and Construction as chairman of the committee to look after the affairs of Birmingham. I put on record the views expressed to me and I

      1503
      hope that the work done by the partnership committee in Birmingham will result in happy solutions for those with whom I am pleased to associate as a resident of one of the central areas of Birmingham.
      Mr. Arthur Jones: I sympathise very much with what my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Waver-tree (Mr. Steen) has proposed in his new clause. To some extent he is pushing at an open door. I hope that that is a proper interpretation. When we were discussing this matter in Committee the Minister said:
      "Clearly, the Opposition recognise, as we do, the vital importance of involving local industry and local voluntary organisations."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 14th March 1978; c. 346.]
      The problem is how local industry and local voluntary organisations should make their contribution to the solution of the inner area problems. I was critical in Committee of the vast bureaucracy that was being developed and of the fact that Ministers were involving themselves personally in the work. I thought that it should be left far more to the local authorities under the promotion which is being offered by central Government.
      I like to make a cost-benefit analysis in this type of operation. I can imagine the cost and the time of Ministers that will be involved if there are to be the plethora of committees to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree referred. It will cost, in community terms, a vast sum in public expenditure, both central and local. I plead for an approach which will give us a streamlined administration for the important contribution which I hope the Bill will make towards a solution of inner citiy area problems. My plea is for widespread representation, but a streamlined organisation so that we may be conscious of the cost of administration. I can envisage the cost of administration almost equalling the amount of Government subsidy that is to be put in. Vast sums will accumulate in terms of the time spent and the overhead costs, and only a very small sum is being allocated.
      We are essentially concerned with the optimum use of resources. We have not had a positive response from the Government. I am sure that the matter must have been in their minds, although I am
      1504
      suspicious of bureaucracies. Initially, the scheme has to be got off the ground, but we must consider the administrative costs involved. I hope that the Government will look for ways of reducing these costs to a minimum, while meeting some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree.
      9.30 p.m.
      Mr. Loyden: I shall be brief, but I want to take up some of the points made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) who raised a number of questions in relation to the history of Liverpool and the involvement of the community in the inner urban programme.
      As I pointed out in an intervention during the hon. Gentleman's speech, the community council in Garston has a broad representation from the whole community and its members range from representatives of the Speke Tenants' Association to play-group leaders. It includes representatives of almost every activity that takes place in the community. The hon. Gentleman's argument does not stand against that evidence of very great involvement of the people in the community council.
      In addition, the community council, in turn, has a very close relationship with the inner area committee. Officials discuss the problems of Garston with the community council and present the problems to the inner area committee for consideration.
      If there were direct representation of all local groups on the inner area committee, we would have a plethora of meetings in the area, many of which would develop into mass meetings. Almost every organisation is run on the basis of representative democracy. People are elected through every tier of the organisation concerned right to the top. That is how the relationship between people on the ground and the inner area committee will develop.
      When we formalised the tenants' liaison committee in Liverpool, it became bureaucratic. Members were elected from the grass roots, but when they became members of a statutory committee they ceased to be rational people and their bureaucratic tendencies were as bad as those of some of the bureaucrats referred to by the hon. Member for Wavertree.

      1505
      People representing grass roots opinion who know the problems of an area should not become enmeshed in the bureaucratic machine but should use their knowledge and experience of activities in the area to see that the ideas of local people are projected in the proper way to various committees and, through local representatives and pressure groups, receive proper consideration.
      Mr. Steen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Loyden: No. The hon. Gentleman spoke for more than 50 minutes and I wish to make a brief speech. I am not being inconsiderate. Other hon. Members also wish to speak.
      The experience in Liverpool has not been understood by the hon. Member for Wavertree. Contrary to rumour, the decline of Liverpool did not start when he came there, but things have got worse since then.
      In the early post-war years the whole of Liverpool's housing slum clearance problem was thrust upon the local authority. At that time I was politically active in the city. The people who lived in these deplorable conditions demanded that action be taken. I readily admit that terrible mistakes in planning and rehousing were made. We virtually evacuated the city and for the sake of expediency we moved the people out of the slums. They had lived there since the turn of the century and some of them would still be there if it had not been for that massive housing programme.
      Post-war rehousing in Liverpool led to monumental mistakes. It has been a major problem. The population decline which followed that programme created a major problem. The decline of industries such as docks and warehousing is another problem for Liverpool.
      The community fully understands the problems. People have been taking a greater interest in their affairs. In every locality in Liverpool there are committees in which the community is deeply involved. The people are involved in housing, sporting activities, youth, festivals and carnivals. They are beginning to develop their own interests and a greater degree of community involvement. But none of this is meaningful without resources to overcome the deprivation.
      1506
      Some people seem to be saying that nothing should be done and that the people should pull themselves up by their boots out of the quagmire. That is A-level sociology. We are fed up with that. We want to see practical steps to deal with the problems. The community is becoming involved in these problems.
      I and other hon. Members will watch carefully to ensure not only that the people are heard but that action is taken. Any other attitude would miss the point. The communities do understand the problem, but they need help. Without administrative support, community organisations run into trouble. When that happens the whole concept is put in doubt.
      As the hon. Member for Wavertree said, New Clause No. 9 kicks at an open door. I believe that the Government's intention is that there shall be community involvement. That involvement has already been established. It needs refining. I believe that that will happen and that we shall see the community involved in the decisions taken by the partnership committees.
      Mr. Robin Hodgson: I hope that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) was right when he said that we are kicking at an open door. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) gave a detailed analysis of the problems and the importance of voluntary organisations becoming involved. I should like to underline what he said about the feeling of helplessness and hopelessness that still pervades many people who live in the areas that are to be covered by the provisions of the Bill. They live in poorer houses, they have poorer educational opportunities, poorer employment prospects and poorer environment. They get the feeling that the Government machine is a juggernaut which will roll on remorselessly. They feel that nothing that they can do or say will affect its progress.
      It might be true that in certain areas voluntary organisations are involved in the way suggested by the hon. Member for Garston. But once civil servants have charge of a programme—with their extra power and resources and the fact that they are on the job 24 hours a day, that they have money, departmental desks and offices—voluntary people working in their

      1507
      spare time, who are often worn out after a day on the factory floor or at an office desk, feel that they will be left behind and that they cannot keep up with the remorseless grinding of the Civil Service machine, whether at national or local level.
      Therefore, this evening we should see a way to make it clear that the voluntary movements have a statutory right to be involved, so that the process by which they are gradually pushed out and made less and less relevant can be prevented.
      Above all, there is a lack of involvement of most people in their local communities. The representatives and chairmen of voluntary groups, community groups and neighbourhood bodies are the opinion formers who will get people involved. That will not necessarily happen if we leave it all to be a matter of by guess and by God, which was rather the approach advocated by the hon. Member for Garston.
      I would draw the Minister's attention to five specific areas of voluntary association which I hope he will see underline the importance of the new clause. The first is characterisation by housing, by tenants' associations and residents' associations, all of which are an important means of contributing to the local scene and making sure that housing is kept up to scratch, that council housing estates remain in good condition and that people feel an interest and involvement in how their estate is run and managed.
      The second area is characterisation by employment and trade. On the one hand, there should be involvement of the trade unions and on the other of the chambers of commerce, because they are in touch with local employment prospects. They know what is required. Perhaps even local pressure groups should be involved—perhaps the local garage proprietors' association or the licensed victuallers' association. People who keep pubs are often very much in touch with the grass roots.
      Then there is characterisation by incapacity. The handicapped, the blind, those who suffer from a physical defect, also have a role to play in making sure that their community is planned in a way which will minimise their suffering resulting from their physical incapacity.
      1508
      Next there is characterisation by physical services to the community—the WRVS, with its meals on wheels, the Red Cross, the St. John's Ambulance Brigade, and others who are making a physical contribution to the welfare and well being of the community.
      Finally, there are those who provide psychological services to the community—marriage guidance counsellors, the Samaritans and similar people.
      Those five categories are the people who are in touch with what is going on in the areas in which they do their work. It is easy to say that civil servants, particularly local government officers, can keep in touch, and no doubt they try, and to a certain extent succeed, to reflect what is going on locally. But they are always in a "them" and "us" situation. It is always "them" from City Hall and "us", the people on the ground.
      The representatives of the voluntary bodies, the tenants' and residents' associations, trade unions and employers, are the people who really know what is going on and can make a positive contribution to making sure that the money that is being spent is spent in a way that is most effective and likely to have the maximum impact on improving the environment of the inner urban areas.
      I hope that the Minister will bear these points in mind when he replies and will respond constructively to this important new clause.
      Mr. Bruce George: I hope that the Conservative enthusiasm that we have heard in the past few hours for democracy in resolving the problems of inner urban areas will be transferred to the industrial sector. Certainly the eulogisation of democracy will be an encouragement to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment in deciding his attitude towards the Bullock Report.
      All the Walsall Members are present for this debate. Our town cannot claim to lead the country in many things, but we can proudly boast of the non-partisan approach to the problems of inner urban areas exhibited there over the past two months. In Walsall we have begun to realise that considerable problems of urban areas will not be resolved by any partisan approach. While one can fight over some of the issues, clearly the

      1509
      vicissitudes of electoral fortunes mean that one party is in office locally and then two or three years later it is thrown out.
      9.45 p.m.
      Mr. Hodgson: I hope that the hon. Member will not forget in passing the very good relationship between our local authority and the various voluntary bodies that already exist, such as the local marriage guidance council.
      Mr. George: I accept the point that has been made. In our area it is realised that some issues must transcend party political differences. We are seeing the beginnings of a movement in which the local authority, the three Members of Parliament, voluntary organisations, the trades council and the chamber of commerce are all pooling their collective resources and intelligence in order to resolve the underlying problems of Walsall.
      I very much welcome this Bill which is seeking to devlop an approach to problem-solving which is very different from the solutions hitherto devised, where decision-making has been regarded as the monopoly of a small number of people, be they elected members or officers.
      The talent available in any town is considerable and wish that officers and elected members in some local authorities would bridge the gap between themselves and their expertise, on the one hand, and the people in the community, on the other. One should not denigrate the talents and expertise of officers. If officers were here they would argue that if they were allowed to have their heads they could put their solutions into effect, and perhaps we would not be in the position in which we find ourselves today.
      I can think of a number of areas in which highly qualified officers have been so constrained by people who profess to know that their solutions have, in fact, been shelved. I hope that when we extol the virtues of democracy we shall not denigrate highly competent officers who often find their solutions and their training being undercut by people who seek to impose half-baked solutions.
      Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I shall not detain the House for too long—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. May I inquire whether the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) had finished?
      Mr. George: No, I was giving way to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Waver-tree (Mr. Steen).
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) took 55 minutes in proposing his motion. He has already interrupted twice. I am just reminding the House of that fact.
      Mr. Steen: I will remember that, Mr. Speaker, in any future interventions that I may make. I just want to say that of course we must realise the way that officials feel, and recognise the fact that somebody, somewhere must make decisions. But the whole basis of democracy is to encourage people not to be apathetic and to be involved. That is the whole purpose of recording Parliament—to involve people in our deliberations.
      Mr. George: My enthusiasm for democracy was almost dissipated by the length of time that it took the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree to expound his views. You, Mr. Speaker, have admonished me in the past for making speeches that were a quarter as long as his.
      As I was saying, the bipartisan approach is important. I hope that some elected Members are prepared to admit that they do not have a monopoly of expertise in any area. If they seek advice from the community and do not shun it, we shall be well on the way to meeting and overcoming our problems.
      I welcome the Bill and I hope that our area of Walsall will hear from the Minister that it has been included in the list of those designated for special powers under the Bill.
      Mr. Lawrence: I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker, for being called to speak now. I am sorry for being too much on my toes a moment ago.
      From listening to part of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen), I can well understand why it is so necessary for him to take such a long time dealing with the problems posed by the Bill, coming, as he does, from Liverpool. The Sub-Committee on Social Services and Employment of the Select Committee on Expenditure has just visited Liverpool. It is an area of the most astonishingly high level of unemployment. All the

      1511
      work done by my hon. Friend and other hon. Members who represent Liverpool ought to humble those of us who live in more fortunate parts of the country, where the unemployment level is not so high. By great effort and great determination those who live and work in Liverpool attempt to cure what is an extremely unsatisfactory social position there. Therefore, I, for one, would always excuse my hon. Friend for however long he takes in dealing with the problems, since he does so well on behalf of his constituents.
      I shall detain the House for only a very brief period for Burton on Trent is not, alas, one of the areas that will benefit from the provisions of the Bill. However, I support the new clause, inelegant in wording as it may be, because I have learned two very impressive lessons in the short period of four years or so during which I have had the privilege to represent my town and area.
      The first lesson is that we must do something more to reduce the ill-feeling that often exists between the ordinary citizens of an area and the bureaucracy that administers them. That is not to say that the bureaucrats are bad. In my particular area they are exceptionally good. However, the mere factor of geography, the fact that as regards social services and matters of that kind the people of Burton on Trent have sometimes to go 40 miles to Stafford—that is not something that the elderly can easily do—and the delays involved, have caused the conflict that has grown up between the local bureaucracy and the feelings of ordinary people, particularly the elderly. This is a matter that we must consider very seriously. It has impressed me no end since I have been the Member of Parliament for Burton.
      The second lesson is that one of the most impressive things that I have noticed is the immense amount of dedication, wonderful work and contribution to local life that voluntary organisations have made. I therefore ask myself: can we not bring these two impressive features that I have noted during my time as a Member of Parliament into closer unity? Can we not use the latter more to help relieve the oppression of the former? Can we not say to voluntary organisa
      1512
      tions "Come in and help to remove some of the abrasiveness, some of the sharp edges that exist between local bureaucracy and the people"?
      After all, it is the local voluntary associations that frequently have most to do daily with the real grass-roots needs of the people. It is a good thing for the Government to say in their White Paper that this is a significant feature that they want to introduce. After listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree, it seems to me to be a bad thing to hear how wishful was that thinking, and how little the Government have come to fulfil that proud thought in practice.
      We must appreciate that a number of other benefits would flow from involving voluntary organisations—I shall not list them, but in Burton they are good, as the Under-Secretary would imagine—and bringing them into the decision-making processes in regard to improvement of the environment, employment opportunities and the general activities of local communities. First, it would help the local bureaucracy to have a more human face. It would help the decision-making process to be brought home more closely to ordinary people, who are suspicious of bureaucrats but are not suspicious of the local men and women who appear on their doorsteps in moments of need, far more immediately than other social services or other organisations can appear. Therefore, it would help in acceptance of the decisions that need to be taken in the administration of the community if prominent in the decision-making process are the voluntary organisations that the local people respect so highly.
      Secondly, those who work in the voluntary organisations so often feel—it is true that they feel it at a later stage, but they none the less feel it—"Is it all worth while?". They feel that they are banging their heads against the wall of local bureaucracy. To give them the sense of involvement would help to keep them more enthusiastic, more determined, if that is possible, than they may be by realising that in the end the great monolithic organisation will be brought down upon them to stop their dearest wishes being fulfilled.
      After all, participation is the feature that helps to give most enthusiasm to those who are participating. If we want

      1513
      to invigorate local voluntary organisations with an enthusiasm for the necessary decision that administrators have to take in the area, there can be no more effective way of doing so than to have the voluntary organisations involved in the decision-making process.
      Thirdly, if a voluntary organisation is helping in the decision-making process, we may be saving some money. We may be putting some of the burden that otherwise has to be shouldered by paid servants—in some instances quite highly paid servants of the State—on to the shoulders of those who are quite happy to accept it for no recompense. In a way we would be spreading the decision-making process, but spreading the burden on to shoulders that are inexpensive for the taxpayer and ratepayer.
      It is a benefit that we can rely upon the expertise, the local knowledege and the understanding of a local situation of voluntary organisations without having to pay them for it. All these advantages are so substantial that it alarms me that the Government have done so little to bring about the greater involvement of local authorities in the past four years. I realise that the Government have not in the past thought that their greater involvement was a good thing.
      I support the clause. I do so because I think extremely highly of all those who work in voluntary organisations, especially from my experience in my part of the country. Those who undertake such work do so not expecting a reward, honours or benefits. After all, very few of them are given that sort of recognition. They do the work because they are human beings who are determined to serve other human being in the best way that they know how. It would be tragic if we ever allowed the administration of local government to move away from the influence and help of such people.
      I commend the clause. I hope that it will be more elegantly worded, but I hope that the Government will accept it as a worthy addition to the Bill.
      Mr. Tom Litterick: Having listened to one or two Opposition Members explain what they mean by representatives of non-statutory organisations, I feel that they have done the cause of the new clause no good. None of us is given the gift of seeing ourselves
      1514
      as others see us, but I can say that Conservative Members have painted an image of non-statutory bodies that is revolting, as the classic Tory activist patronising defenceless people. That was done especially by the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence).
      Opposition Members have painted an image of the very people who are a menace to the residents of the broken-down, run-down, decadent working-class districts, who want nothing less than to be patronised by middle-class people from cushy middle-class areas who do not know what it is like to live in the worst areas of our cities. In Selly Oak we are bedevilled by such people. They are involved in a major industry. There are middle-class people going around patronising working-class people and telling them what they want. Their actions amount to that.
      I suggest to Conservative Members that they should be careful about going over the top in pursuit of their traditional interest of keeping the Tory infrastructure strong. That is what the charity and voluntary organisations within the Tory Party are all about. If they do not believe me, they should read a book called "The Body Politic", whose author's name is—
      It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's Sitting, the Inner Urban Areas Bill and the Home Purchase Assistance and Housing Corporation Guarantee Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Graham.]

  INNER URBAN AREAS BILL
  Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Litterick: Opposition Members should read a book called "The Body Politic" whose author's name is Ian Gilmour. That is what is on the cover. He quite explicitly says that one of the perpetual sources of strength of the Tory Party is the voluntary and charity organisations. With his characteristic cynicism, he says that that is how the Tory Party keeps its activists sweet and happy.
  Mr. Lawrence: You are as mad as a hatter.
  Mr. Litterick: In other words, charity is a racket with the Tory Party. It is a political implement. If Opposition Members do not believe me, I suggest that they read the book, which has been written by one of their own Front Benchers whose cynicism is well known in this House.
  Opposition Members have done the proposition a great deal of mischief, and I am rather glad. When I think of non-statutory bodies in this context, I think of organisations of people who reside in these blasted areas—
  Mr. Steen: The National Council for Civil Liberties.
  Mr. Litterick:—which voice the needs and desires not of somebody else but of themselves—the people who have to endure living in these god-awful districts. That is my idea of an appropriate non-statutory organisation. It is most appropriate.
  Selly Oak has one such organisation, called the Selly Oak Development Com
  1516
  mittee. It was formed in response to the drafting of the Bill. The battle being fought by these people is a battle to have Selly Oak represented on the inner area committee, because they know that they suffer from precisely the same urban diseases as are endured in areas included in the boundary definition. But these people actually live there. They suffer from those conditions. They are not middle-class people patronising somebody else. That is my idea of the kind of people who ought to be incorporated into the workings of the partnership committees. In Birmingham, as has been said, that is not likely to happen as things stand, because the partnership committee is run on purely partisan lines.
  For all the Opposition's talk about participation, for all their furtive grinding of their party political axe, not one hon. Gentleman mentioned that working people ought to be involved. The phrase does not do come easily to their minds. They mean their own kind, doing their hellishly patronising subversive job among the British people in the devastated cities.
  Mr. Guy Barnett: We have had an interesting and wide-ranging debate. I am not sure that I shall be able to do justice to the speeches which have been made this evening. I am quite certain that I shall not do justice to the speech made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) judging by the comments that he made on the responses that I made to his remarks in Committee. Nevertheless, I shall try.
  A great many of the remarks made during the debate have been extremely interesting and have been based upon personal experience by hon. Members on both sides of the House of voluntary organisations.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Wavertree, the mover of the new clause, will recognise that though from time to time he doubted my credentials concerning voluntary organisations and presumably those of the Government in general, many people besides himself have an active interest and belief in voluntary organisations and the part that they can and should play in the community.
  The White Paper illustrates this point in paragraph 34 which says
  "Involving local people is both a necessary means to the regeneration of the inner areas and an end in its own right."
  That is a statement of Government policy. However, we are being asked by the hon. Member for Wavertree to bring in a law on this subject. Do we want a clause written into this Bill—a Bill which has a limited purpose as part of our urban policy? Do we need a clause about voluntary organisations in a Bill which does not purport to cover the whole range of our present policy.
  The purposes of the Bill are quite clear. They relate to grants and loans and similar matters which may be of use and value to local authorities in seeking to encourage local industry in their areas. I do not believe that it is desirable to have in this Bill provisions relating to the value of voluntary organisations. If we do not include such a provision, it does not mean that we are denying the value and importance, of such organisations. Indeed, our commitment to such organisations is contained in Part IV of
  1518
  the White Paper which from paragraph 34 onwards deals with this topic.
  A great many things have been said in this debate about how we should seek to involve voluntary organisations. When dealing with partnerships or programme authorities, it is important to recognise that the meaning of the word "partnership", as we are using it, is first and foremost a partnership between statutory authorities. It is a recognition of the fact that if we are to tackle the deep-seated problems of Liverpool, Hackney and Islington, and the docklands area we need concerted action by the statutory organisations which have statutory responsibilities to fulfil.
  Perhaps it is a criticism of Government in the past that the statutory organisations with responsibilities and powers have not worked closely enough together and not in a sufficiently co-ordinated fashion. The use of the word "partnership" has also been applied to the relationship between the statutory organisations and the voluntary ones. Indeed, private enterprise, the trade unions and other organisations all have a part to play. However, this does not mean that it is necessary to formalise that relationship by seeing that representatives of the voluntary organisations sit on the partnership committees. If hon. Members complain about bureaucracy of partnership committees, what worse bureaucracy would arise if a large number of representatives of voluntary organisations were also sit on those committees?
  I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) stressed that we should not try to bureaucratise the voluntary organisations by enmeshing them in the machine, as he put it. How right he was to make that comment. I have heard some people talk of the need to harness the energies of the voluntary organisations as though that was our objective. But I want to release those energies and give those organisations the opportunity to make their contribution in a positive and realistic fashion.
  There would be difficulties in trying to harness those organisations or in ensuring that they are represented on the partnership committees. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Hodgson) pointed

  1519
  to the great variety of voluntary organisations that exist, each with a specific contribution to make.
  The trouble with the new clause is that it requires local authorities to co-opt representatives of non-statutory bodies on to any committee or working party concerned with the implementation of the Bill, even if the only non-statutory organisations in those areas may be such bodies as the Boy Scouts and the Red Cross. I am not decrying the value of those organisations—I was once a boy scout myself and have great respect for the scouts—but they may not be relevant to the particular committee or working party. In terms of the hon. Gentleman's amendment, they would have to have representatives sitting on the committee. We cannot formalise these things by legislation. But there is a real problem—it has been recognised by several hon. Members—concerning the relationships between voluntary and statutory bodies.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) spoke about the need to build a bridge between local authorities and voluntary organisations. The hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) referred to the need to try to reduce the conflict between officials and people. This is a real and difficult problem. There is undoubtedly an element of suspicion among voluntary organisations as to what statutory bodies are up to. Indeed, to some degree one finds in some cases that officials and local authority members have a suspicion and a dislike of the activities of voluntary organisations.
  I believe that these bodies complement one another in a very real way, and I am hopeful that within the partnership arrangements, and in the arrangements that I hope will grow and develop in programme and other designated districts, it will be possible to recognise that complementary relationship, because they have a real part to play if they are working together.
  It does not just mean consulting the voluntary organisation. It means their active participation in whatever is going on, and making the contribution they feel they can make, but not because it happens to fit into somebody else's plan. The contribution should be made because it is the one that the people concerned
  1520
  feel to be relevant to the needs of their own area.
  Although I cannot possibly accept the hon. Gentleman's new clause and cannot recommend the House to do so, I wish to underline to him quite sincerely that I have a great deal of sympathy with what he was saying. I do not think that the problem is an easy one. The hon. Gentleman recognises the immediate difficulty that we are facing—that the partnership authorities have to produce programmes by this summer. Although the partnership authorities are doing everything they can to consult, there is a timescale problem.
  I am absolutely certain that as time goes on there will be a greater and greater measure of participation and involvement of voluntary organisations in the development of their own areas. I am also quite sure that the role of local councillors in maintaining a kind of link between voluntary and statutory bodies, as was pointed out, is absolutely crucial.
  Local councillors are to a large degree volunteers, and therefore surely they, in their contact with their wards or the areas which they represent, have an important and crucial part to play in ensuring that the views of people at the grass roots are brought to bear upon those officials and other representatives who are making decisions at the top.
  But essentially I am sure that the right relationship is one between the local authority and the voluntary organisations, rather than trying to involve the voluntary organisations in the partnership, which has the very specific purpose of bringing together the statutory bodies which need to co-operate and co-ordinate their activities more closely.
  Mr. Finsberg: I hope that the House enjoyed the all too brief contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen). He may only represent one-ninth of the city of Liverpool but he proves that quality is better than quantity. We certainly had a fascinating discourse from him. Occasionally I think that he gets slightly carried away and is perhaps trying to provide, via Hansard, two or three theses on the theory of voluntary bodies. I hope that one day he may actually find himself sitting at a desk, forced to put into operation some of the ideas that he has put to us both here and in Committee.
  Mr. Steen: I should like that.
  Mr. Finsberg: It would be a salutary experience not merely for him but for any officials who had to work for him.
  My hon. Friend, in his speech, which certainly championed the non-statutory bodies, said that there was a need to involve those persons most closely concerned, whether they be—as I understood his speech—councillors, boy scouts or trade unionists.
  It was fair that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), who did not hear the first part of that gem of a speech, should intervene and at a later stage point out the dangers of creating a non-statutory bureaucracy. He is perfectly right—it can happen. None the less, I do not see why, because this has happened in one of two areas, one should necessarily assume that it will happen everywhere else. I want to touch on this in a moment.
  10.15 p.m.
  The previous occupant of the Chair was trying to suggest that even Santa Claus might be consulted. He indicated that he was th only person left out of the long catalogue of names that is being considered. But I have a feeling that in his saintly guise as St. Nicholas he might be above those things. Therefore, I do not think that Santa Claus can be considered.
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Sever) spoke about the problem of a difference of opinion between the leader of the Conservative-controlled Birmingham Council and my hon. Friend. Indeed, he highlighted very fairly that there must always be a difference of view when one looks at these problems from the standpoint of one's own city. But where the hon. Gentleman did perhaps make an error was when he asked, "There are 30, 40 or 50 voluntary bodies. How is one to select?" He suggested that we would find a committee overburdened with representatives of every non-statutory body.
  I should like to quote an example—which I know fairly well—which does work. That is the Camden Council of Social Service which was created at the time of the amalgamation of the three London boroughs of Hampstead, Holborn and St. Pancras. Every voluntary body within the three original boroughs agreed
  1522
  to have this umbrella organisation. It is consulted frequently, with great success, by the borough council. It can work. It is not bureaucratised. I do not think anyone would feel that in any way the description applied by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) could bear any resemblance. It was a nonsensical intervention which did the hon. Gentleman and the House no credit. I shall ignore the rest of what he said.
  But this sort of umbrella organisation could provide a valuable opportunity for the Minister to draw these voluntary bodies into consultation. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Hodgson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) put a lot of stress upon the bi-partisan approach that in the end will achieve a great deal. I think the Minister will agree that with limited exceptions we have had a bi-partisan approach to this Bill. There are no party political advantages in trying to help the deprived. One ought not artificially to try to create them, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak did.
  However, I shall leave his nonsense and continue for a moment to quote from the very good letter—which I am sure the Minister has seen—from the National Council of Social Service, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree by constraint of time was able to mention only a few selected extracts. This letter, which was dated 24th April, said that it had been sent to the Secretary of State and that certain proposals had been made to him in the memorandum that he received last week. The letter went on to say that there was a great danger that unless those living in our inner city areas are allowed to participate in solving their own problems, they will become yet further disillusioned. It goes on:
  "We need to act now or the opportunity afforded by the inner city programme will be lost".
  The letter sets out a series of guidelines of the sort of people who ought to be involved. It includes trade unions, the local communities, the voluntary organisations and the business communities because, as the Minister said, if the inner urban areas project is to be a success, we have to bring in private enterprise.

  1523
  Without its involvement the jobs will not be created.
  Equally, therefore, we need to involve the local people who will themselves have the offer of jobs and who will have to see a certain amount of disturbance whilst properties are converted, with the noise and the dust that that involves. They are bound to feel that "they"—those in Whitehall and in their respective city halls—are implementing measures without actually involving them. I agree that there are local councillors to do this, as the hon. Member for Ladywood pointed out. However, having served, like the hon. Member for Ladywood, in local government for a very long time, I know that when a councillor goes back to his electors seeking re-election he still hears complaints that his electors are not being represented even by their elected councillor. Too often they feel that they are not consulted about decisions which count.
  The new clause may be inelegantly worded, and I have no doubt that it is less expertly worded than the Minister's draftsman could manage. The Minister said that he did not want to bring into the statute the marvellous work of the voluntary bodies. Apparently he does not want to say anything in the Bill about them. He pointed out that they were fully recognised in Part IV of the White Paper. However, in many cases the White Paper has not been translated into the Bill.
  I must remind the Minister that when the Secretry of State introduced the White

  Division No. 192]

  AYES

  [10.23 p.m.

  Brooke, Peter

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Brotherton, Michael

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Neubert, Michael

  Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

  Durant, Tony

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Grist, Ian

  Penhaligon, David

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Mr. Robin Hodgson and

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Mr. Andrew Mackay.

  NOES

  Allaun, Frank

  Coleman, Donald

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Conlan, Bernard

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Atkinson, Norman

  Cowans, Harry

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Ford, Ben

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

  Forrester, John

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Cryer, Bob

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Boardman, H.

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  George, Bruce

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Golding, John

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Dormand, J. D.

  Gourlay, Harry

  Buchan, Norman

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Buchanan, Richard

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Cant, R. B.

  Dunnett, Jack

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Cartwright, John

  Dewar, Donald

  Harper, Joseph

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Edge, Geoff

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Cohen, Stanley

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Hooley, Frank

  Paper, he made specific reference to the need to involve commerce. However, it was only when the Minister moved an amendment tonight that we got commerce out of the White Paper and into the Bill. In the same way, the Bill should pay some heed to involving voluntary organisations. How that can be done, I readily admit that I do not know. The Minister said that he accepted that there was some force in the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree, but I would have been much happier if he had gone on to say that because there was an aspect which was not covered in the proposed new clause, he suggested that it be withdrawn, in which case he would undertake in another place to move a new clause which recognised in the statute the position of the voluntary bodies and which gave them an opportunity to play their part in the proposed set-up.
  I do not feel that the Minister has gone as far as he wanted to go. He certainly has not gone far enough to cover the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree. For that reason, I do not feel that I am in a position to offer any advice to my hon. Friend about whether to withdraw his clause. He will have heard the Minister. He will have heard the other arguments which appeared germane. He must make up his own mind about what to do.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 20, Noes 92.

  Horam, John

  Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Hunter, Adam

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Tinn, James

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Newens, Stanley

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Lambie, David

  Palmer, Arthur

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Lamond, James

  Parry, Robert

  Ward, Michael

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Whitlock, William

  Luard, Evan

  Rowlands, Ted

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Sever, John

  Woodall, Alec

  McElhone, Frank

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Woof, Robert

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Marks, Kenneth

  Spriggs, Leslie

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Mr. Ted Graham and

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Mr. Alf Bates.

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

  Question accordingly negatived.

  INNER URBAN AREAS BILL
    New Clause No. 15

      INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CERTIFICATES
      'It is hereby declared that, notwithstanding any limiting provision in the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, no industrial development certificate shall be required in respect of the erection of any industrial building in any area of special social need included in any district designated as a "designated district" for the purposes of this Act.'.—[Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Finsberg: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The new clause is designed to remove from the special areas referred to in the Bill the need to obtain IDCs. It is self-explanatory.
      It is clear that there is a need under legislation for IDCs in the case of extension, as well as erection, of industrial buildings. I concede that the clause may not be sufficiently well drawn, but it indicates what I hope is the right line of approach.
      As the Bill now contains references to commercial properties, there is also a case for the removal of office development permit requirements in the special designated areas. I admit that the Government have made several moves over the years to ease both IDC controls and office development permit controls, but I think that the Minister will agree that, whether it is justified or not, there is a psychological blockage in the minds of many undertakings which feel that it is not worth the bother of going through all the mechanism to try to get an IDC.
      We know that the limits have been raised. I think that the Minister will confirm that the figure of refusals is down to as low as 6 per cent. But what he
      1526
      and I do not know is how many people have decided that it is not worth the effort of discussion and filling in documents in order to see whether they will be among the 94 per cent. or the 6 per cent.
      The Bill applies to areas in many of which there is high local unemployment. Many of our inner city problems are both caused by and the cause of unemployment. Therefore, I see no justification for retaining IDC control in those areas.
      There has always been an argument put forward by the Department of Industry that because there are assisted areas and development areas, other places should not be put in such a favourable position as regards IDCs as the assisted or development areas. I do not accept that argument, but I understand why it is made. However, when we are dealing with this Bill, which does not differentiate between different parts of the country but says that there are inherent problems in those areas that are designated, there is a case for saying that in those areas, if in no others, IDC control should go.
      I remind the Minister of the problems of the inner areas of London, which are typical. The figures are the same sort of figures as one would find for the inner areas of Merseyside or Manchester. There is no difference; they are merely different spots on the map.
      Between 1961 and 1976 employment in London's manufacturing industries fell by 600,000, which represented a loss of 42 per cent., compared with a loss of 12 per cent. in England and Wales as a whole. The rest of the South-East region had a rise of 14 per cent. In 1961 London's share of United Kingdom manufacturing employment was 15 per cent. By 1976 it was down to 11 per cent.
      Mr. Hooley: What percentage of total employment in London is represented by manufacturing anyway?
      Mr. Finsberg: The figure was fairly substantial at one stage, but it has been gradually going down percentage-wise. I cannot give a figure because I do not have it at hand. I do recall that manufacturing interests in London, which provided a substantial volume of employment, have steadily gone down, as a percentage of the total employment prospects in the capital. I could probably put down a Question on this matter, and get the answer, which the hon. Member could read in Hansard when it is printed.
      In using these figures as an illustration I have shown that there is a clear need to bring manufacturing and service industry and commerce back into the inner areas. This could put whole parts of Cornish Street, Sheffield, for example, back into business, as this has been disappearing rapidly as a source of jobs.
      There have been arguments over the years that IDCs are necessary to preserve the special status that is part of the regional policy. This Bill deliberately sets out to override these limitations in the inner areas. Because it has done so, it is incomplete in not providing that in these inner areas there should be no need for IDC control.
      I do not believe that there is any mileage to be gained from making long speeches on this simple matter, so I shall be brief. There is a case for making a change of this limited nature. It would cost nothing—indeed it might release one more civil servant. When we were given the figures in the last debate, the number of civil servants operating IDC control had gone down to 22. Perhaps this change would enable it to go down to 21. Perhaps civil servants could be redeployed in helping to organise the participation of voluntary bodies in the partnership committees. It would not involve any extra public expenditure and it would not be a breach of the principles of regional policy, any more than the Bill is a breach of those principles.
      Mr. Hooley: I want to make a few quick comments. I regard IDC control as a very important part of the apparatus of economic control in this country, and I believe that it would be a serious error to abandon it, even in a small area.
      1528
      The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) has already said that in 94 per cent of cases, the control does not act adversely anyway. We must look at the position not only as it is at present, but as it will be in the future. When we get out of this recession and move into economic expansion, there may be a good case for using IDC control to allow those parts of the country that are expanding more slowly to take advantage of the economic upturn. IDCs could be very important for this purpose, and it would be extremely difficult to reimpose them once they had been abandoned.
      IDC control is an important technique for economic direction, and it would be a serious mistake to abandon it simply because of the current—and admittedly difficult—position of the inner urban areas.
      Mr. Stephen Ross: I shall speak only for a few moments. I have a confession to make in that I have attended a recent meeting of the GLC, and it was the unanimous opinion on all sides of that body that IDCs and ODPs should be removed. The reason that GLC members wanted this—Labour members, just as much as Conservatives—was that they saw it as an extra piece of unnecessary bureaucracy. Apparently many people thought that once they got an IDC they had actually got planning permission to go ahead and develop. But having to go through two processes took so much time that some people who were interested originally, moved elsewhere. At that meeting, all sides asked specifically—and there were Labour Members present when I was there and they seemed to go along with this proposition—that the IDCs should be removed.
      I still remain to be convinced about office development permits, but in this case, as it is limited purely to the areas of special social need, there is a lot to be said for the new clause.
      10.45 p.m.
      Mr. Tim Sainsbury: As this is the first time that I have intervened on this Bill, perhaps I ought to start by declaring an interest as a director and substantial shareholder of a commercial company which could potentially benefit, and as a director and shareholder of industrial companies which could potentially benefit, under the provisions of the Bill if it is enacted.

      1529
      I agree with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) that in many of the areas of special social need, industrial employment is now only a minority of total employment. But I suggest that the hon. Member would agree with me, and, indeed, that there would be general agreement in the House, that industrial employment in any area of special social need is very valuable, not just because it adds to the total volume of employment in that area but because it provides in certain particular problem areas the variety of employment and the variety of job opportunities which I think we all believe to be necessary.
      There have been substantial criticisms of the employment opportunities available in areas which become dominated by commercial activities. There have been criticisms in the London area, for example, of the problems that could possibly flow from excessive concentration on tourist-related activities. I do not entirely go along with these criticisms, but I could feel stronger in resisting them if I believed that there would remain in those areas a volume and variety of industrial employment that would provide sufficient variety of employment opportunities, particularly to the school leaver, to make him or her feel that there was no reason for leaving that area.
      When we consider whether we should have IDCs in these areas, one of the first factors that we should take into account is the psychological effect that the requirement to apply for an IDC has upon the potential industrial developer. The biggest deterrent to investment, in any sphere but particularly new industrial investment, is uncertainty. Too often in this House we tend to assume that industrial investment takes place against a background of determined factors which allow for certain decisions to be taken. Without wishing to criticise civil servants, I must say that we behave, in a way, as though we were civil servants dealing with a predictable set of facts and could determine exactly what would happen, so that if we took decision A there would be a certain result, and if we took decision B there would be another result.
      New industrial investment is not of that character. There is always an element of uncertainty. There is usually quite a lot of uncertainty. There is uncertainty about not just the financial
      1530
      return but also the timing of the matter. Timing can be crucial as regards how quickly one can bring a project to beneficial development. Indeed, in some cases, unless one can bring one's product line on stream fairly quickly, one will miss the market. Someone else will have got in, either in this country or, even worse, in another country, and got his product established in the market place, and one will have a much more difficult job in getting one's rival product established and in competition with the market leader. There is that significant, important psychological factor.
      I am sure that when the Minister replies he will tell us that IDC applications in the areas of which we are speaking are not refused. He will probably produce figures to show how easy it is and how his Department, the Department of the Environment and the local authorities are all trying to help. However, all that is no good. It is no good, to use the analogy of the Grand National, to be told that when we get to Beecher's there will be some people to lift us over. We shall still be rather nervous about the idea of going across. In any event, we cannot be sure that they will be there to lift us until we get there and they have lifted us over.
      Additional uncertainty is introduced into the mind of the potential investor as long as he is required to cross the additional barrier of the acquisition of an industrial development certificate. Presumably the Bill is before the House because we want to help the areas with which it deals. If we want to help these areas with employment, surely we want to remove any unnecessary obstacle to employment.
      I go along with those who say that we must try to have a balanced regional policy. However, I cannot see that allowing freer access and removing obstacles to industrial development in areas of special social need will damage regional policy. The effect, if any, would be so marginal. What is regional policy about but trying to help areas of special social need? Why prejudice one area of special social need at the expense of another such area?
      I do not accept that it is sufficient for the potential industrial developer to be reassured by the Minister, by his civil

      1531
      servants, by the local authority or by the Department of the Environment that he will get his industrial development certificate and that there is no difficulty. Developers will ask "If there is no difficulty, why have I to go through this rigmarole? There must be some potential difficulty. If there was no possibility of being refused, why am I being required to apply in the first place?" Some of us would sympathise with that view. Why is all the bureaucratic time and all the time of the applicant staff to be taken up in completing all the forms and answering the questions if the developer is bound to get an affirmative answer?
      The industrial developer is bound to have an additional uncertainty if he has to apply for an IDC. Further, the inevitable consequence of having to make application for an IDC is delay. There are enough delays inherent in our industrial development process, especially delays arising from the somewhat imperfect operation—that is being modest about it—of our development control system. That is a matter to which we may return on a later amendment. If a developer has to obtain an IDC before applying for planning permission, there is additional delay.
      As I have said, there are projects—sometimes extremely valuable ones in terms of export potential, or import replacement—which for their success depend upon the speed at which they can be brought into operation. If in addition to the uncertainty there is delay, there must be a deterrent factor to the potential industrial developer.
      A third inevitable consequence of the need to apply for an IDC is that there is a cost element. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State will acknowledge that that is so. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) reminded us that not many people are now involved in the mechanism of scrutinising and approving or rejecting applications for IDCs. I suggest to my hon. Friend that the number to which he was referring were those directly employed by the Department. I suspect that many others are involved in consultation. My limited experience as a part-time unestablished civil servant is that the paper tends to go
      1532
      round and round. It appears on various desks with little flags asking for quick replies. All sorts of people are asked to give their replies to questions that perhaps do not provide for their answers. Departments are asked to comment and to give their views. So, although there may be only 22 people employed directly, the messengers employed by the service could run into quite a number.
      That is not half the problem. Much more serious is the amount of time that will be taken up of the skilled, experienced, senior staff of the applicant trying to answer questions which do not allow for any certain answers. For example, how many people of what sex and what age—not precisely what age, but under and over 18—will the applicant be employing in one, two, three, four or five years? The average industrial employer wishes that he knew the answer. The answer is entirely dependent upon the success of his operation, which may in any case be dependent on the speed with which his application for an IDC can be processed. So there he sits scratching his head and wondering how many people he should say he will be employing in, say, three years when all he wants to do is to get on with the wretched project.
      It seems absurd that, if we are trying to provide real help to areas of special social need, we should continue to require industrial developers to go through the rigmarole of applying for industrial development certificates. I suggest that as long as an industrial developer knows that is a hurdle that he has not got to cross in some parts of the kingdom, but has to cross in other parts of the kingdom—whether in London or the Greater Birmingham area—it will be a deterrent. It is not sufficient for the Minister to say that he will be helped or that he is likely to get an affirmative answer. The industrial developer, seeing the uncertainty, the delay, the costs of the application and the requirement to answer questions, which I suggest do not permit of certain answers, will inevitably be deterred and made that much less likely either to go ahead with the project or to put it in that area of special social need.
      I hope that the new clause will commend itself to the Government. It would be even better if they told us that no longer would the new clause be required

      1533
      because the whole unnecessary bureaucratic delaying mechanism of industrial development certificates was to be scrapped altogether. We could then go back to a really effective regional policy, get the economy moving again and provide proper incentive backing so that no mobile industry would be looking for sites. All these advance factories and these other proposals in the Bill would then be worth while.
      The provision of this infrastructure, buildings and so on will be effective in terms of job opportunity only if employers seek to make use of the facilities and provide the jobs. I suggest that this hurdle of industrial development certificates could sensibly be taken away for the benefit of the areas about which we are talking.
      Mr. Hodgson: My hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) used the word "uncertainty" to describe the industrial development certificate policy. I prefer to use the word "threat". It is a threat about the future, a threat of uncertainty. It is a sword of Damocles hanging over many successful firms which, if they make a go of things, fear that they may not be able to find room to expand and, as a result, feel that the future of their operations will be cramped.
      Nowhere has this policy had more disastrous effects than in the urban West Midlands and, in particular, in the areas which will be covered by the proposals in the Bill. The centre of Birmingham, Wolverhampton and parts of Walsall have been badly affected, because successful firms have been forced by the operation of this policy over many years to leave the area. They have been forced to go, first, to South Wales and to development areas and, later, to new towns. That is all very well, but the result is that the successful firms have gone and the conurbation—in particular, the centre of Birmingham—has been left with the mature firms which are not expanding fast and with the firms which have no immediate prospects of increasing employment and job opportunities. Most importantly, we are left with an increasingly narrow industrial base.
      11 p.m.
      The West Midlands Economic Planning Report shows how dependent the West Midlands is on metal bashing, as it is known in the trade—on engineering in
      1534
      steel in one form or another. We have missed out on many of the new industries, on plastics and electronics and many others which will be important in Britain in the last quarter of the twentieth century. Therefore, if the Minister is not prepared to give this assurance, he is knocking away one leg of the policy on which many of the proposals in the Bill are based.
      I would go further than that, and suggest that the IDC policy has failed so far to comprehend the real nature of industry and the way in which firms are linked with one another. Nowhere is that more important than in small firms, on whose role the Minister and Government have placed, and continue to place, great stress in the creation of job opportunities and employment prospects generally and in rebuilding the fabric of the economy of the inner urban areas. Small firms are particularly badly affected by the operation of the IDC policy because they are linked in a series of intricately woven relationships.
      Mr. Edge: No small firm needs an IDC at all. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the small firms in Birmingham, to scarcely one is big enough to require which he is referring, he will find that an industrial development certificate.
      Mr. Hodgson: Taking the Birmingham example to which the hon. Gentleman refers, the classic case is where we have a steel stockholder who supplies a series of engineering firms which drill the steel, shape it, fabricate it, or send it somewhere else to be painted and finished. That is then incorporated in a much larger product and sold somewhere else. These firms are all linked in a chain, and somewhere along that chain, one may come to a firm sufficiently large to be constrained by the IDC policy. If one removes one link from that chain, one affects not merely that link but the whole chain. One cannot, therefore say that small firms will not be affected. They may not be immediately, but of course they will be affected if they grow and particularly if their suppliers or customers are affected.
      My most important point is, therefore, that we have to consider the effect of the overall linkage of firms and their relationship one to another. If we are to enable the rebuilding of the economies of the city centres and to be able to get employment prospects and the creation of

      1535
      wealth which both sides of the House agree is vital, we have to make sure, on the one hand that there can be no threat to the small business man who may be successful and then find that his growth is constrained and, on the other, that there is no threat to the big firm which wishes to expand but cannot expand. That firm will remove its entire operation, thus affecting its many suppliers and customers.
      I hope that in his reply the Minister will consider carefully the importance not of what he will say—that no IDCs have been refused in Birmingham in the last 12 months, which as my hon. Friend the Member for Hove said, is not the point—but of the uncertainty. Most of the modern fast-growing industries have not, as a result of IDC policy, been located in the West Midlands. If the Minister is serious about making a go of inner urban area policy, he will have to do something to make sure that firms are able to prosper in those areas. To remove the IDC policy is just a small step in that direction.
      Mr. Edge: I had not intended to intervene on this new clause but I am very concerned about many of the fallacies put forward about the effects of the IDCs.
      I believe there should be a complete review of our regional policy, but to suggest that inability to obtain IDC certificates has in any way produced the economic problems of the inner cities seems to me unsupported by the evidence.
      The reason for the situation is simple. Most of the firms in the inner city are small—too small to require an IDC certificate. Although it is true that there is a linkage with larger firms, I would point out that most of the firms in the West Midlands with which the small firms are linked are in the area anyway and are unlikely to require an IDC certificate. If they require such a certificate to extend existing premises and carry out an existing operation, in most cases they are quite likely to get it.
      If the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Hodgson) examines the statistics, he will find that there are hardly any examples of a large firm being forced to move from a conurbation because it could not obtain an IDC. If there is a criticism of the IDC system, it is that it prevents entirely new industries moving into cities such as Birmingham.
      Mr. Eyre: The hon. Gentleman said that there was no record of any large company moving from a conurbation because it could not obtain a certificate. Has he taken into account the case of Typhoo Tea at Bordesley which recently, as a result of an IDC decision made years ago, left Birmingham resulting in the loss of 600 jobs in the inner area of Birmingham?
      Mr. Edge: I take the point about Typhoo Tea, but we are talking about linked firms, and there are not many engineering firms linked with Typhoo Tea.
      The argument I am developing is simply that most of the small firms in the inner cities are the firms which characteristically occupy the inner cities and do not require IDCs. They are likely to be affected only if the firms to which they are linked require an IDC.
      The major problem is that most of the firms that remain in the inner cities are firms which are not growing. If they were growing, they would seek cheaper land outside the inner city area. They are either firms which are not growing and which are the failures, or firms in industries which are declining in any case. Therefore, no amount of money pumped into those industries will bring about any new growth.
      The major factor in the decline of the inner cities has not been IDC policy but the policies of successive local authorities which have demolished large areas of cheap industrial premises, some of them sub-standard, which were available at very low rents.
      To give an example, when the Birmingham City Council redeveloped the jewellery quarter in the city, they replaced premises which were available at less than £1 a week rental with a square footage which even in 1970 required £3,000 a week in rental. It is not surprising that many small firms disappeared, but to argue that we must not apply the IDC policies to the inner city areas as an aid to bringing about regeneration seems to me to miss the target completely. What we need to do far more is to argue that this Bill ensures a supply of cheap industrial premises and the cash available for small firms to expand—because shortage of capital is the major reason for small firms declining and going out of

      1537
      business—rather than to concentrate on IDC policy itself. I personally believe that IDC policy needs changing, but to raise that issue in this debate is irrelevant.
      Mr. Durant: I always understood that IDCs existed to dissuade industry from entering places where it was felt not advisable for it to be and to try to spread industry to other parts of the country. That was its original concept. Here we are dealing with a Bill that is trying to attract people back. Therefore, I cannot see that there is anything wrong in this particular case with doing away with IDCs.
      The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Edge) said that the main problem is new industries. This is surely one of the things that we are talking about—trying to get new industries to come back into city centres. That is why I believe that the IDC is a deterrent. It is another hurdle.
      The hon. Gentleman also said that the problem was one of planning blight, and I agree with him. The planners, indeed, have been the cause of half our trouble, but the IDC is all part of the trouble and we cannot knock one off without the other.
      We have been knocking down vast areas well ahead of our resources and the desires of the people concerned. The planners have been moving ruthlessly into areas and leaving them completely devoid of anything.
      This is a simple step which will at least remove another hurdle in the way of the development industry within the inner city areas, which is what we all desire to see. I accept that small businesses are not necessarily affected and that in some places we want the big firms to return. There is an inclination at the moment to go out into new pastures and to new comfortable sites because they are more attractive in some ways. The problem is that anyone taking an old site in an inner city area can find that he is landed with a lot of problems.
      In the context of the Bill, it should be quite in line with our policy to do away with IDCs, and this simple step is one that we should all support.
      Mr. Steen: The Minister is no doubt concerned about the inner city areas and
      1538
      how they are to be rejuvenated. Although there may be sighs from Government Members at the thought of having to listen to another long speech from me. I hope that the House will recognise that this subject concerns the principal areas of population in this country and it concerns the most deprived people in the cities. It would be quite wrong of the Government to try to steamroller the Bill through and rush us out of the House in order to get home, because we are debating one of the most serious matters of our time—the revival of our inner city areas and the improvement of the quality of life in them.
      On the Conservative Benches we are as concerned as we can be to try to get to the bottom of this problem and to improve the Bill if we can, because it is the only Bill that we are likely to have in this Parliament to do something about the inner cities and the urban areas.
      I hope that my approach is the same as the Government's, and the question is: how are the Government to rejuvenate the inner cities? How are we to breathe back fresh life into the core areas rather than the inner city, because the term "inner city" is a wider one. It is the city centres of the major urban areas and conurbations with which we are concerned here.
      The purpose of the clause is to help this process by lifting the IDCs. That is the principle behind it. We on the Conservative Benches believe that by lifting the IDCs a new incentive will be given to industry to return.
      The Government's attitude was rather curiously expressed. I hope it was not a reflection of the total Government commitment to this subject, but the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), who is a Minister of State, Department of Industry, at a meeting I attended with Merseyside trade unionists, chamber of commerce officials and other officials, and Members of Parliament, in the Department of Industry recently, took some exception to my remark that the Government should discriminate positively towards the inner cities by discouraging new industrial buildings on the greenfield sites on the edges of the cities. He was quite frank in his response, saying that the Government cannot dictate to industry where it should go.

      1539
      That is a curious view for a Minister of this Government to take, because the one thing that the Government like to do is to dictate where people should go. I should have thought that the basic requirement of the revival of the inner city is dictating to new industry where it shall go. Unless the Government are prepared to dictate that industry must fill up the inner city area sites first, they will never see the rejuvenation of the inner city. In fact, I believe that the clause strikes at the root of the whole Bill.
      If one of the purposes of the Bill is to bring back new life to the inner city, and if there is an obstruction in the shape of IDCs, preventing that new life from coming back into the cities, the Government should welcome the new clause. It is no good the Government saying that they do not like the words. Unless they can explain what incentives they will offer to industry to come back to the city, they will find that this Bill is worth no more than the paper it is written on. There is nothing in the Bill, as drafted, to attract industry back from the edges of the cities to the core areas. Let us test the Government's seriousness whether they think the Bill is worth more than the paper it is written on by asking just how they envisage industry returning to the inner core areas.
      11.15 p.m.
      As things stand, in the major conurbations of this country the land encircling the city—the greenfield sites—is always cheaper than the derelict or vacant sites in the inner areas. This means that new industry will inevitably be attracted to those greenfield sites rather than coming into the inner area. The simple reason is that not only is it cheaper but infrastructure is easier. By laying in one's drains, sewers and services on the outer city one can get a far better deal than if one comes into the inner area and does so on land which has already been used.
      This means that business will continue to go on and on moving outwards from the centre, building on greenfield sites and applying for Government infrastructure grants—which are available—rather than being invited first to fill up the space which is at present unused in the inner city areas.
      The purpose of the new clause, as I understand it, is positively to discriminate
      1540
      in favour of the city centre, and to bring back new life to the inner area.
      Unless I have got it wrong, that is what we have been debating for the last six or seven hours and that is what the Standing Committee was all about.
      If the Government are to tolerate an obstruction and blockage which is preventing the very things which they say the Bill is all about, then one must question the intergrity, motives and ideology of the Government with regard to this Bill. The reason positive discrimination is necessary is that industry has been progressively driven out of the city centres by a combination of factors, the principal and most important of which is the view that we must demolish much of the old city and rebuild. The only snag is that the demolition was not accompanied by rebuilding.
      Let us take, for example, the inner Birmingham area. I am told that 6,000 small businesses were destroyed by the bulldozer. Few ever surfaced again, because by pulling them down, and destroying their goodwill and location, there was nowhere for those firms to start up again. Therefore 6,000 small businesses in inner Birmingham were destroyed an with them all the jobs. The demolition of inner Liverpool has followed a similar pattern.
      The Government seem to recognise this in their own White Paper "Policy For The Inner Cities". Paragraph 74 states:
      "In the big cities, the rapid rate of decline in population and jobs, and the ways in which they have got out of step, have compounded the difficulties. Between 1966 and 1976, Glasgow lost 205,000 people (21 per cent.), Liverpool lost 150,000 (22 per cent.), Manchester 110,000 (18 per cent.), Inner London 500,000 (16 per cent.), Birmingham 85,000 (8 per cent.).
      In the cities of Newcastle and Nottingham, 12 per cent. and 8 per cent. of the population moved outwards. They did not move outwards becaus they chose suddenly to move. It was part of a grand design by most of the city councils, which we now recognise was totally misplaced, to destroy the old landmarks, old warehouses, old factories and old houses on the basis that old was bad. The idea was to demolish what was old and move the people out, and this is a process which has continued ever since. In fact, the exodus from Liverpool at the moment is at the rate of 25,000 a year. It is continuing, and it is continuing only because the bulldozer is continuing to demolish.

      1541
      So long as the land is being cleared and so long as people have to live somewhere and work somewhere, they will continue to move outwards, and factories will go on being built on greenfield sites outside our cities, unless the Government take positive discriminatory action to make it attractive to go into the inner city areas. Presumably, part of this Bill is aimed to do that, and presumably the Minister will say that this new clause will not help. However, the Opposition say that it is one factor which may help and that, if the Bill is really to have the teeth that we wish it to have, it must try every means possible to encourage business back into our inner city areas.
      We know how the rot started in Liverpool. Land was being cleared at a rate faster than people had the resources to replace what had been cleared, and this was the pattern in many other major cities. This was at a time before the economic recession set in. The accelerated slum clearance programme introduced, I believe, at the suggestion of the National Building Agency in 1965, aimed at demolishing 33,000 housing units by 1974, followed by a further 16,000 dwellings declared unfit in Liverpool a year later. To date, 60,000 dwellings have been destroyed. That means 60,000 units in which people were living and 60,000 familes being displaced.
      The moral is clear. The city council allowed the housing department to pursue its own self-imposed operational objectives without recognising the consequent problems which were even then becoming apparent—for example, the visual and economic blight, the social disruption, and the loss of local facilities for those who remain in the inner area. What is especially curious is that the people who are left in the inner cities—that is, the city centres—whether it be Birmingham, Liverpool or Newcastle, are those who could not get out. They are the unskilled, the unemployed and the pensioners. Those are the most disadvantaged communities in our society which this Bill hopes to help.
      But the most serious criticism that we make of this Government is that, as the Bill stands, we all know if we are honest with ourselves, it will not help any of these people. We are misleading them if we suggest that the Government's urban
      1542
      programme through this Bill will be of any use to anyone.
      Mr. Cryer: The last thing that I want to do is prolong the hon. Gentleman's speech, but will he say how his comments relate to the clause, which proposes to remove IDC control from the partnership areas? How would it affect Liverpool, for example, and Newcastle, because, of course, there is no IDC control in those areas?
      Mr. Steen: I am seeking to explain, and illustrating it by reference to Liverpool and Newcastle, that any area, whether or not it has IDC control, will need encouragement to bring industry back to the inner city. We need not concentrate upon any specific town. We can deal with the general principle, which is that the only way we can bring industry back is by a positively discriminatory programme.
      I point out to the Minister—and I do so by way of example only—that the inner area studies which the Department of the Environment started to conduct in 1972 and which placed teams of professional surveyors and researchers all over the country, revealed that in my own city 11 per cent. of the land in the project area was vacant and that three-quarters of it was owned by the city council. A third of the vacant land was allocated for highways, none of which was likely to be implemented. Half of the highway land had already been vacant for more than five years, while more than one-fifth of the land zoned for housing would be developed in two years. So an immense amount of land remains to be used.
      Mr. Cryer: I am trying to understand how the new clause which the hon. Gentleman supports relates to his present argument, since there is no IDC control on the land he is talking about and the new clause proposes the removal of IDC control.
      Mr. Steen: As the argument develops, the hon. Gentleman will see—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. I must intervene. The Chair has been wondering the same thing. The hon. Gentleman must come to the point. We are discussing a new clause dealing with industrial development certificates.
      Mr. Steen: With respect to the Minister and the Chair, the point that I am making is that there is an obstruction. The Minister has seized on two cities—Liverpool and Newcastle—but I shall not emphasise them if he does not wish me to. But the urban problem of this country will not be solved until the new clause becomes law and the IDCs do not discriminate against the return of industry to the inner areas. With the clause there will be none of the prohibition which at the moment is a disincentive.
      One of the biggest problems of the modern industrialist is that the growth industries prefer to go where the skilled labour is—not the inner cities but the new towns and the greenfield sites. The clause would help the skilled men to return to the inner cities. That means giving positive incentives.
      At the moment, the emphasis is on the large new towns around the major cities. We cannot change the emphasis while the Government insist on cuts in commuter transport, which make it more difficult for those on the edges to come into the inner city. In my area, the number of trains from the commuter belt is to be cut from 76 to six a day. That will not help to rejuvenate the inner area.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps I might ask the hon. Gentleman how it will help the discussion of the new clause, which relates to industrial development certificates.
      Mr. Steen: One must outline the problems of these people and ask how to get them back into the inner areas where the IDCs operate. I will not labour this point much further, because the House has the message, but it is very important. Unless we can reverse this drift, there will be no redevelopment of the inner areas.
      11.30 p.m.
      The major problem in most of the urban inner areas is the amount of vacant and derelict land there. In many cities as much as 50 per cent. of the vacant land is in the ownership of the local authority—in my own city it is about 60 per cent.—and a further 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. is in the hands of nationalised industries. The Minister will remember the Bill which I introduced the other week
      1544
      under the Ten Minutes Rule, by which I sought to make it compulsory for local authorities either to develop their land by themselves and brine it into constructtive use within, say two years, or to put it on the open market by way of public auction so that it could be used by somebody.
      One of the problems of getting factories back to the inner areas is the artificial land value that it attracted to vacant sites that are owned by the local authrority. Unless we lift the IDCs—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Member going to mention IDCs? I thought that he was just about to do so. I hope that he is.
      Mr. Steen: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was coming to that.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope so.
      Mr. Steen: Unless vacant land that is being hoarded by public authorities can be brought into productive use those industries that would have come to the inner areas will be prevented from doing so by the operation of IDCs. The Minister will understand that this strikes at the root of the Bill. Unless we can encourage businesses to come to these vacant and derelict spaces of our inner cities, the Bill will be a nonsense. I hope that the Minister will address his mind to how the Bill will help to get factories and skilled men to come from the outer to the inner areas. I hope, too, that the hon. Gentleman will tell us why he feels that the clause will not help that process.
      Mr. Cryer: The clause is unacceptable to the Government, as many Conservative Members suspected. It would completely remove many inner areas from the scope of industrial development certificate control.
      We regard IDC control as an essential part of regional policy. It is concerned with identifying projects which have a genuine choice of location and encouraging them to go to the assisted areas, particularly to the special development areas and development areas. The control also restricts speculative industrial building to developments which do not harm the interests of the assisted areas.
      I was staggered to listen for 21 minutes to a representative from Liverpool where

      1545
      there is no IDC control. The basis and reason for IDCs is to try to encourage mobile projects to come to the assisted areas, and every word that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) uttered was against the interests of the part of the country that he represents. I intervened on two occasions during his speech specifically because he mentioned areas in his part of the country and tried to relate them to a clause which is trying to do something which is not connected directly with what he was saying and which, if it were accepted, would harm the position of the part of the country which he represents.
      My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced on 8th November that the partnership areas of inner London and inner Birmingham would take precedence before their new and expanding towns but after the assisted areas in respect of applications for IDCs coming forward from the South-East and West Midlands. Furthermore, the Department of Industry is now prepared to grant some IDCs for speculative developments in these partnership areas. Already under this new policy IDCs have been granted for over 1 million sq. ft. in the London partnerships and for over 300,000 sq. ft. in the Birmingham partnership.
      We cannot relax the control further without harming the interests of the assisted areas whose needs must continue to have priority over the non-assisted areas. Moreover, a relaxation of the control outside the partnership areas, to other designated districts, would be against the interests of the partnerships.
      I assure the House that the IDC system will continue to be operated flexibly with due regard to the circumstances of individual firms and of the areas concerned.
      The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) and other hon. Members mentioned the possibility of a psychological barrier because of having to make an application. We have no evidence whatsoever that substantial numbers of business men are deterred from applying for IDCs. They certainly should not be. I want to make it clear that my Department and my regional offices are willing to give advice to business men in the light of individual circumstances. Cases are dealt with as rapidly as possible and in
      1546
      the vast majority of cases the applicant knows where he stands almost at once.
      As for the question of having to apply for an IDC before applying for planning permission—as one hon. Member suggested—I can go as far as to suggest to applicants that they should contact their local authority in parallel to applying for an IDC in order to avoid delay as much as possible. Department of Industry officials are well aware of the need to avoid undue delay and bureaucracy. IDCs are for reasonably substantial ventures in any case, because of the exemption limits which this Government has recently extended, but if a move is being made, if a project is genuinely mobile, it must be very carefully undertaken, and an IDC application is not an undue additional requirement on a move that is being properly planned.
      IDCs are an important method of identifying mobile projects. If the Department of Industry did not have them we would have to employ civil servants to comb through newspapers or go round asking industries whether they intended to move, and if they did would they consider moving to the assisted areas, or we would have to run extensive advertising campaigns of a similar character. The clause proposes to exclude IDC control. Clause 4(4) refers to a designated district. An area "of special social need" is not an area defined in the Bill. The designated district would include considerably larger areas than the areas of special social need. This would bring enormous pressures for exemptions from other areas. They would seek designation, and this pressure would result in an erosion of non-assisted areas.
      Within the areas local authorities with exemption from IDC control would be able to attract mobile projects to areas that were not in fact the inner city areas about which we are talking. For example, in Bradford the designated district covers the whole of the Bradford local authority area, which includes places such as Guiseley, Ilkley and Baildon. Ilkley, which is a residential area, but which has an industrial sector, is about 12 miles from the inner urban area of Bradford, which is the problem area about which we are all talking tonight.
      The exemption would cover the whole area and it would be conceivable that a local authority would use its powers of

      1547
      exemption in order to attract industry to a place that it chose, and that might not be the area that we all wanted to improve. In order to retain an element of fairness it is essential to retain a national pattern for mobile projects. In this sense IDCs are necessary, including the designated areas.
      I well understand that there is more pressure for this sort of thing in a recession. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) was quite right to point out that in a time of expansion IDCs are under much less pressure; people accept the situation far more readily. I understand quite well that hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Hampstead, from London, and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), have been at meetings, which have included London Labour Members who are putting forward the view that controls should be removed. It is because of the recession. Jobs are important in every area of the country, but the traditional assisted areas are still the worst off—difficult though the position is in some parts of London, Birmingham and the West Midlands. We must pursue a regional pol icy.
      Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: The Minister says that he dos not think that there will be problems and that if he did not have

      Division No. 193]

      AYES

      [11.42 p.m.

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Bottomley, Peter

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Mr. Robin Hodgson and

      Brooke, Peter

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Mr. Tony Durant.

      Penhaligon, David

      Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

      Rhodes, James R.

      NOES

      Allaun, Frank

      George, Bruce

      Newens, Stanley

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Golding, John

      Palmer, Arthur

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Parry, Robert

      Bates, Alt

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Sever, John

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Harper, Joseph

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Snape, Peter

      Cant, R. B.

      Hooley, Frank

      Spearing, Nigel

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

      Horam, John

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Coleman, Donald

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Stallard, A. W.

      Cowans, Harry

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Lambie, David

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

      Lamond, James

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Cryer, Bob

      Loyden, Eddie

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Luard, Evan

      Ward, Michael

      Dormand, J. D.

      McCartney, Hugh

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      McElhone, Frank

      Woof, Robert

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Marks, Kenneth

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Mr. James Tinn and

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Mr Ted Graham.

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Question accordingly negatived.
      these powers, his officials would have to comb newspapers and so on. That means that they keep fairly accurate records. Would it be possible for them to keep a record in the 12 months after the Bill is enacted to find out how many applications are refused in the areas covered by the Bill?
      Mr. Cryer: That is a useful suggestion. We do keep records and we shall take an interest in finding out the pattern of refusal, though it is slim. We want to be encouraging, but we wish to retain control. For example, 692 IDCs were granted and only 17 refused in the GLC area between 1974 and 1977 and none was refused last year. That may be a reflection of the dearth of mobile projects because there are not enough to go round. We could do with a great deal more.
      The IDCs are still an important component of regional policy and one of the most important factors in putting IDCs in context is the need to ensure that economic improvement takes place. That is the most important factor for the inner urban areas and the rest of the country. I hope that the Opposition will withdraw the new clause.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 8, Noes, 61.

    New Clause No. 16

      ACQUISITION OF LAND
      'Where a designated district authority are satisfied that the acquisition by any person of land situated within the designated district or within the same county or region as the designated district would benefit the designated district, and the land in question is in the ownership of that authority, the said authority may dispose of such land to the said person on whatever basis, whether freehold or leasehold (and if leasehold, for whatever length) it may think fit; and the Secretary of State shall not seek to regulate or modify the terms of such a disposal.'.—[Mr. Steen.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Steen: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      In view of the lateness of the hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall move the new clause formally.
      Mr. Eyre: The subject covered by the new clause is of enormous importance to inner areas. However, I shall speak briefly in its support.

      Vast areas of unused land in inner city areas are owned by local authorities. It is imperative that as much as possible of that land should be brought rapidly into productive use. It is particularly important that this land should be used mainly for small and medium-sized businesses.
      If such areas are to be developed with the help of private enterprise without long delays, the local authorities in the inner city areas should be prepared to dispose of the land at market value, which may be below the cost of acquisition.
      Often this land is held at book values which far exceed its true value. The value that it truly commands in the open market must be found so that a steady flow of disposals can take place and steady development can be speeded up.
      In addition, local authorities and statutory undertakers, which also own great areas of inner city land, should be required to make such disposals upon request by a developer unless they have a specific intention of utilising the land themselves within a reasonable time. Local authorities and statutory undertakers should be put under an obligation to develop any land that they choose to
      1550
      hold within a maximum period of three years.
      Special difficulty arises under the Community Land Act. By reason of the general disposal consent issued by the Secretary of State under Section 42 of that Act, local authorities are not authorised to make disposals of land for development, except for housing, by leases of more than 99 years' duration. Also, there are limitations upon the area of land which may be so disposed of, down to as small an area as half a hectare. The specific consent of the Secretary of State for the Environment is required for disposals under longer leases or in respect of larger areas.
      The financial institutions have made known their strong preference for longer leases as a basis for financing schemes for commercial and industrial development. The institutions and many who wish to carry on development believe that developers are being discouraged from seeking financial assistance for possible development schemes on this account and because the developers doubt the willingness of some local authorities to seek exemptions from the 99-year rule. The view of the institutions is that the general disposals consent should be amended to make longer leases, that is, 125 years, the rule rather than the exception. This would encourage developers to come forward with schemes which at present are stillborn.
      One of the first requirements of dealing with inner area problems is that we should speed up, simplify and cheapen the disposal of land. I hope that the Minister will give very serious consideration to the terms set out in the new clause.
      Mr. Guy Barnett: I am afraid that I shall have to ask the House to reject the new clause if the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) is unwilling to withdraw it. I shall set out my reasons for that as clearly as I can.
      The main reason is that which has been given by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre), namely, that, in general terms, the new clause runs counter to the Government's disposal policy. Indeed, as the hon. Member correctly states, the disposal policy allows the disposal of land for freehold for residential purposes. Also—the hon. Member did not mention this—we have given

      1551
      a general disposal consent to local authorities of sites not exceeding 0·5 of a hectare in area or £25,000 in value, because pieces of land of that size have no significance within the terms of the community land scheme. The purpose of that scheme, as the House well knows, is to ensure that the community shares in future the increases in the value of land.
      The issue with which the new clause is concerned is a good deal more complex than I think the hon. Member for Hall Green made it sound. It concerns more issues than merely the book value, which he described, although that is a real problem concerning land. There is the further problem of proper servicing of the land to make it available and attractive to developers. This is something about which my right hon. Friend and I are concerned in relation to the partnership areas. Indeed, as I think the House well knows, my right hon. Friend has approached the statutory undertakers to ask them to review their land holdings to see the degree to which they can make land available for redevelopment in inner city areas.
      12 midnight
      The hon. Gentleman referred to the issue of the 99-year lease. He is correct in saying that there is pressure for longer leases, especially from some of the funding institutions. Within the Department we have always operated as flexible a policy as we can to ensure that the best deal is available to the local authority and, therefore, ultimately to the community. If there has been a good case—undoubtedly a good case from the community's angle—for a 125 year lease, we have been prepared to grant it. In general, we must recognise that it is proper for the community to ensure that so far as is possible the community itself benefits from future increases in the value of land. That is why we are opposed, as regards industrial and commercial development, to large-scale freehold disposal or long-term leases that may operate to the disadvantage of the community as a whole.
      Question put and negatived.

    New Clause 17

      URBAN AID FINANCE
      'In pursuance of the making of financial provision for the needs of inner urban areas,
      1552
      any amount deducted under section 1(2)(a) of the Local Government Grants (Social Need) grants that might be paid under section 1 of the Local Government Grants (Social Need) Act 1969 shall not exceed £10 million in any year.'.—[Mr. Alison.]
      Brought up, and read the First tune.
      Mr. Alison: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      We have the opportunity to consider an important new clause that gives us the chance again to think about the figures involved in the Bill. It is some importance that we should get the topic aired, discussed and on the record.
      The engine room of this measure, which the Government feel is important and which we have supported so far—we did so pretty systematically in Committee—and helped the Minister to improve, is in the last analysis how much hard cash will be available. I am bound to remind the House that there is a good deal less gold than glitter. The sums involved are not dramatic by any stretch of the imagination.
      The cash does not begin flowing until 1979. There is no great leap-off to grapple with the inner urban area problem as a matter of immediate urgency. We have quite a long time to go—well after the Bill has received Royal Assent—before the moneys start flowing. Even in the most needy sector to be covered by the Bill, the partnership areas, the sums are pettifogging. I am not saying that they are not valuable and welcome, but they are pettifogging in relative terms.
      On my calculation, we have £66 million a year from 1979 to the end of 1981 to be spread over the seven partnership areas, which between them have a population of about 5 million. The per capita sum available is exactly £13 per head of population. These are not large sums in relation to the needs of the inner urban areas. The sum that the Secretary of State told us on Second Reading would be available for the second 15, for the programme areas, is £25 million per annum from 1979. If we make an allocation so that each area receives a proportionate sum, that is £1½ million per programme city from 1979. This is pettifogging money. It is less than the product of a penny rate for a number of the authorities, which they would be free to spend themselves.

      1553
      However, to make such sums as are available appear in an even worse light, and one that I am bound to remind the Minister the Government have been at some pains not to publicise widely, all the sums allocated for this measure are to come out of the urban programme. That is what the Financial and Explanatory Memorandum told us in the Bill as originally presented. In the public expenditure White Paper, Volume 2, column 19, we read the following gloomy statement:
      "The increased provision for the urban programme"—
      which is the source of the Bill's finance—
      "has been found from a re-ordering of priorities within existing expenditure programmes"
      Therefore, the urban programme is being increased to provide these modest sums for the activation of the Bill at the expense of a whole range of other Government expenditure on public spending programmes which are being fleeced to make provision for the urban programme. It is simply a re-ordering. Nobody will be not better off in terms of public spending at the end of the day because no real increase in resources is being made available.
      However, that is by far the least serious and undesirable aspect of the financial provisions of the Bill. Having made it clear that the sum for this measure is to come from the enhanced urban programme and having discovered that the enhanced urban programme is being topped up from other spending programmes in the Government's public spending cornucopia, we find a most damaging provision in the way in which the urban programme operates. Perhaps I may now come to the specific wording of the new clause to draw attention to what exactly is involved. The new clause refers to
      "any amount deducted under section 1 (2) (a) of the Local Government Act 1974".
      Part I of the 1974 Act deals with rate support grants. Section 1 of the 1974 Act provides that after assessing the total aggregate amount per grant the Secretary of State shall make certain deductions. By virtue of section 1(2)(a), these include specific grants. One of the specific grants in respect of which the Secretary of State makes deductions from the rate support
      1554
      grant totals is the urban programme. Therefore, we find that the enhanced urban programme, which the public expenditure White Paper tells us is to be topped up by recourse to other programmes, will be topped up by recourse not to the whole range of public spending but necessarily, because of the way that the urban programme works, to rate support grant moneys. The enhanced urban programme will get all its extra money from the rate support grant aggregate sum. That, in effect, means from the non-metropolitan counties and those areas which are not getting a particularly good deal out of the rate support grant programme.
      That is not only undesirable in itself, but directly against the interests of the kind of areas that the Government are concerned to try to help. Some of the programme areas—Middlesbrough, Hull, Leicester and Nottingham—are in non-metropolitan counties. Non-metropolitan counties are in fact receiving 20 per cent. below the average which is being made available for the needs element for the whole country. Therefore, non-metropolitan counties, which include some of the very places that the Government are trying to help, as a result of the rate support grant settlement this year, are receiving 20 per cent. below the national average for the needs element.
      The effect of the financial provision in this measure is further to take sums from the overall rate support grant aggregate sums available—in other words, from the shire counties—to feed into areas of special need. But the Minister is cutting his nose to spite his face because, as I said, some of the very cities designated as programme cities for the purposes of the Bill will have further damage inflicted upon them from the way in which the urban programmes soak up funds from the overall funds available for rate support grant.
      Indeed, it is worse than that if we look at one or two important towns and cities outside the 15 programme areas. Of course, they may be brought in later. The level of unemployment in the cities of Bristol, Plymouth and Gloucester is substantially higher than it is in Leicester, for example, which is one of the cities to benefit under the programme group of 15. Plymouth has an unemployment rate of 9 per cent., nearly double that of

      1555
      Leicester. Plymouth, as a city in a non-metropolitan county, will not only be excluded from the provisions of this Bill because it is not one of the programme towns, but, being a town in a shire county, will contribute some of the sums made available under the Bill towards helping a city like Leicester with half its unemployment level. That is a totally unsatisfactory result, but whatever the Government do, they must not allow themselves to take yet more out of the overall rate support grant aggregate to top up the urban programme for this special operation.
      For that reason, we have produced this reasonable new clause to make it impossible for the Government to take more out of the rate support grant aggregate than the existing programme of £10 million a year takes out of it. If they are to take more money to finance this operation, and to enhance the urban programme, it has to come from sources within the broad Government expenditure outlay, exclusive of the rate support grant aggregate.
      I hope that the Minister will look at this new clause with sympathy and understanding and will accept it.
      Mr. Steen: Our concern and that of the partnership cities is to learn this evening from the Minister whether they are to receive any hard cash in the next three years. The second question to which they want to reply is whether that cash is to be simply by way of more loans or by Government grants. They not only want to know whether the money will conic from the shire counties. There are fears among people in the outer cities who used to be in the inner cities that an increasing part of the domestic rate will be used to prop up the deficient rate base of the inner cities.
      Most inner city areas covered by partnership agreements are short of rates, largely because of the amount of vacant land in them which produces no income. The result is that there is a deficiency of money from that area to pay for services which people remaining in inner cities rightly demand. The question is whether the Minister is proposing, not only to pinch from the counties, but also from people living in the outer areas.
      1556
      The purpose of the new clause is to limit the amount of money which the Government can take from other sources and pump in through the urban aid programme. I am a great supporter of the urban aid programme which I regard as one of the most enlightened moves to bring new money to the ailing areas. It has done a lot of good and has given a great deal of help with capital and revenue expenditure. I am critical of the process by which it is given, and of the processes by which people affected are involved in the decisions. That is far from satisfactory. There have been one or two useful experiments in which people and local authorities were engaged in deciding a list of priorities but the Home Office, and now the Department of Environment, makes the final decision.
      The question is whether the sole source of finance for the Bill in relation to the partnerships is determined by paragraphs 93 and 94 of the White Paper on resources. Will it come solely through a revamped and increased urban aid programme? In the White Paper, the Minister says that no fresh money will be made available. Where will the money come from?
      12.15 a.m.
      I hope that the Minister will not fall into the trap of letting the money that would go to the outer cities, where the people with many of the problems live, be diverted to the inner cities where there is a deficiency of population. One in eight of the population in the city of Liverpool is on the outskirts rather than in the inner area. The difficulty in Standing Committee was that we could not understand whether there was any fresh money, and if so, where it was to come from. Will the Minister explain, in language that our constituents can understand, where the money will come from?
      I understand that a total of £30 million will be put into Liverpool in the next three years—£10 million a year. That is based on an urban aid formula. Will the Minister say whether the clause will help to put a ceiling on the amount to be spent? There would be a limit that would prevent a local authority going beyond its inner area. It would prevent a local authority switching more money than it would otherwise do.
      The Minister may feel that some formula could be built in to protect the outer

      1557
      areas from the potential problems of the inner areas.
      Mr. Guy Barnett: I shall try to answer some of the specific points put by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen). I am aware that there has been some confusion on the subject of finance.
      I begin with the basic proposition that there is not extra money. We cannot draw extra money from some source out of the sky. We must reallocate resources within the community to benefit areas of great social need.
      The main source or finance to assist inner urban areas is through the rate support grant. That is not as a consequence of arbitrarily shifting large sums of money from the shires to the inner city areas to the disadvantage of the shires. It means that, according to the method by which the needs element is assessed, proper recognition is taken, and has been taken increasingly for some years, of the grave social problems of various areas, whether they be rural or urban. We should ensure that local authorities are given the necessary resources to cope with their problems. That has had the effect of benefiting the cities at the expense of areas which have fewer social problems with which to cope.
      The hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) pointed to the problems of certain cities which exist within the shire counties and which might be said to have existed as a consequence of the needs element. That is not quite true. In the national distribution through the needs element, we also expect local authorities to ensure that within their areas they shift resources to the areas of greatest need. For instance, in Lambeth which is a partnership area, the authorities would want to shift part of their own resources into the areas where the problems are greatest. The same might be true of Nottinghamshire and other counties.
      It is important that I should begin with the RSG and the allocation of expenditure programmes by the local authorities because that is the bulk of the money with which we are dealing.
      In the past I have referred to the enhanced urban programme as the icing on the cake. It is a relatively small part of the expenditure, and it is wrong to give the impression that this enhanced
      1558
      urban programme is the funding which is available to finance the sort of expenditure which is being discussed in the Bill. That is not the case, because the urban programme will continue to support community projects and environmental projects which may not be directly related to the objectives of the Bill.
      Expenditure may come from the urban programme or it may come from a key sector or a locally determined sector for expenditure of the sort that we are discussing. The sum of money mentioned in the Bill is required because it is the sum of money which indicates the total level of public expenditure that we expect to arise under the Bill. The Bill does not specifically vote a set sum of money for the purposes of the Bill.
      I hope that I have given some explanation as to where we expect the money to come from. It will come from the reallocation of programmes at both national and local level, and additionally from an enhanced urban programme. It is for this reason that I cannot recommend the House to accept the new clause. Its effect would be to restrict the urban programme to only £10 million a year, and I am sure that that would not be the intention of Conservative Members.
      Mr. Eyre: Will the Minister explain the significance of the loan sanction arrangements which are made for the local authorities, for the large sums of money they would be required to borrow, and how that obligation will fall on the general body of ratepayers within the cities to which these schemes apply?
      Mr. Barnett: If the local authority borrows money the loan would have to be serviced from the revenue of that authority. It would be a charge on that authority. It is for that sort of reason that the needs element in these areas which we have selected, and where extra expenditure is needed, will take account, we hope—and in most, if not all, cases has taken account—in the indicators that are used, of the special extra need to spend money in these areas.
      It is for this reason that I must ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his new clause. If it is not withdrawn, I suggest to the House that it should not be accepted.
      Mr. Alison: The Minister has given a perfectly frank account, and I appreciate

      1559
      his frankness in analysing the financial philosophy behind the financial provisions in the measure. He has told us that he means the whole operation to be a further factor in shifting the balance of advantage within the broad rate support grant ambit, unsatisfactory though many people consider the rate support grant arrangements to be at present.
      It is a great pity that the Minister has not touched on the reason why it was necessary for the enhanced urban programme to draw its funds exclusively from this narrow sector of public spending. Why should not the Government have made up their mind to increase the sums available in the rate support grant settlement this year or for the next three years, 1979, 1980 and 1981, from resources taken from other programmes?
      After all, the Department of the Environment and other Government Departments command vast, almost unimaginable, resources of public spending power in relation to this narrow sum of money. Why should not the extra sums be taken from other programmes outside the whole rate support grant system, in order to make extra money available for the rate support grant, so that extra money could be made available for the urban programme at the expense of priorities which are much less pressing and important?
      The reason that I shall not press the new clause to a Division is that I hope that, in the light of this short debate, the Government will, when the Bill gets to another place, in tune with the consideration they have been giving to arguments throughout the course of the Bill, consider the possibility that, if there is to be a re-ordering and re-allocation of resources within public spending programmes, in order to increase the enhanced urban programme, there is at least an arguable case for saying that the skimming of the cream of public spending in order to top up the urban programme should be done on a wider canvas of public spending than simply the rate support grant.
      I hope that the Minister will at least undertake to consider whether there might be advantage in seeking resources for this whole programme rather than simply a further rejigging of the existing unsatisfactory balance within the rate support grant arrangements. That disadvantages the non-metropolitan counties and, at the
      1560
      same time, disadvantages many cities in the shires with serious social and employment problems. On that basis, and in the hope that we may get further consideration, I shall not press the new clause to a Division.
      Mr. Guy Barnett: Obviously it is not my business to say how one would reorder Government programmes—whether one would cut expenditure on defence health, education or other forms of public expenditure in order to benefit the urban programme. It would not be possible for me to do that.
      But in defence of the present position, the first thing I would make absolutely clear—I do not think the hon. Gentleman was clear about it—is that the urban programme money does not come totally from the rate support grant money. Money was made available to enhance the urban programme from funds other than the rate support grant money itself.
      Secondly, it is worth mentioning that the rate support grant percentage—61 per cent.—has been maintained, which, by and large, has been of benefit to some local authorities. Thirdly, when talking about the urban programme money, we are talking about a relatively small sum of money in terms of the rate support grant as a whole. Therefore, to claim that this relatively small sum of money—as it has been called frequently during the debate—is of grave disadvantage to those parts of the country which do not receive it is perhaps a little unfair.
      Question put and negatived.

    Clause 1

      DESIGNATED DISTRICTS AND DESIGNATED DISTRICT AUTHORITIES
      Amendment made: No. 3, in page 1, line 15, at end insert
      'or the council of the county or region which includes that district'.—[Mr. Guy Barnett.]

    Clause 2

      LOANS FOR ACQUISITION OF OR WORKS ON LAND
      Mr. Alison: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 4 after 'district', insert
      '(subject to consultation with the district council of such district within which the said land in the same county might be situated)'.

      1561
      The Minister knew that I would table this amendment. I need not detain the House long in explaining its purpose. It relates to the situation in which a designated district under Clause 2 happens to be a designated district council which has power to operate in respect of a neighbouring district, always supposing that the neighbouring district is within the same county, although not necessarily a designated district.
      The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that when a district council decides to make loans or grants available to an applicant within a neighbouring district at least it informs, consults or gets the agreement of the neighbouring district council with regard to operation which it undertakes.
      The Minister may have sympathy with this provision. I hope, therefore, that he will give it careful consideration.
      12.30 a.m.
      Mr. Guy Barnett: I have my doubts about the need for the kind of consultation proposed by the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison,), and I expressed them earlier in our proceedings today. But it is clear that the Opposition feel strongly about this and believe that a proper requirement for consultation with a neighbouring district should be written into the Bill. In view of that, I am glad to agree on behalf of the Government to move a suitable amendment in another place.
      Mr. Alison: In view of the willingness of the Minister to consider this proposition, and in the light of what he has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 3

      LOANS AND GRANTS FOR IMPROVING AMENITIES, ETC
      Amendments made: No. 6, in page 3, line 36, leave out subsection (1).
      No. 8. in line 45, leave out from 'would' to first 'to' in line 2 on page 4 and insert
      'benefit that area, they may make a loan or a grant or both.'.—[Mr. Guy Barnett.]
      Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 4, line 8, at end insert—
      1562
      '(bb) the cleansing of watercourses, whether natural or artificial, or the reclamation of land covered with water;'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government Amendment No. 10, and the following amendments:
      No. 15, in line 14, at end insert—
      '(g) the reclamation of derelict land;
      (h) the conversion of industrial buildings to other uses.'
      No. 16, in line 17, leave out '(d)' and insert '(g)'.
      Mr. Barnett: This amendment provides for works to rivers and canals and the cleaning of buildings and structures to be aided in industrial improvement areas. It fulfils a promise that I made in Committee to replace an amendment moved there with one more acceptably drafted.
      We think it right for these types of works to be aided in industrial improvement areas in addition to those listed in the clause.
      Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I welcome the amendments, which meet the points made in amendments which I moved in Committee and which I withdrew on the understanding that the Minister would try to find more suitable wording. The Opposition are most grateful to the Minister.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 10, in line 9, after 'the', insert 'cleaning or'.
      No. 11, in line 9, at end insert 'and'.
      No. 12, in line 11, leave out from 'bays' to end of line 30.—[Mr. Guy Barnettt.]

    Clause 4

      ARRANGEMENTS FOR DETERMINING ACTION AND SPECIAL AREAS
      Amendments made: No. 19, in page 5, line 1, after 'is', insert 'or Ministers are'.
      No. 21, in line 5, after 'he', insert 'or they'.
      No. 22, in line 7, after 'district', insert
      'or the council of the county or region which includes that district or both.'
      No. 23, in line 9, after 'him', insert 'or them'.
      No. 24, in line 13, leave out from '(2)' to 'arrangements' in line 22 and insert
      'Where each of two or more districts includes the whole or any part of any inner urban area as respects which the Secretary of State is or Ministers are satisfied as mentioned in subsection (1) above.'.
      No. 25, in line 25, leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert—
      '(3) In this section "Ministers" means the Secretary of State and any other Minister or Ministers of the Crown; and in subsection (1) above "action" includes the exercise of functions under this or any other Act (whenever passed) including, in particular, functions (whether of Ministers or councils) relating to planning or the compulsory acquisition of land.'.—[Mr. Guy Barnett.]

    Clause 5

      LOANS FOR SITE PREPARATION
      Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move Amendment No. 27, in page 6, line 5, leave out "and".
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this I understand, it will be convenient to discuss Government Amendment No. 28 and Amendment No. 29, in page 6, line 6, at end insert—
      '(e) the reclamation of derelict land for industrial or residential purposes'.
      Mr. Barnett: Hon. Members who served on the Committee will recall that these amendments are similar in content to several moved by the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) and opposed at the time by the Government. It may have appeared that we were being a little rigid at the time in not entertaining any extension, but on reflection, after the Committee had completed its work and we had reviewed the many words spoken, it appeared that there was more to be said for some of the amendments than was apparent on a first reading.
      In the light of that, we put down these amendments, and we hope that they are acceptable to hon. Members.
      Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: It would be even more churlish of me not to thank the Minister this time. As he said, at the time, he advised the Committee not to accept similar amendments and he gave no undertaking. We are grateful that, with the help of his advisers, he has come forward with these amendments.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 28, in page 6, line 6, at end insert—
      '(e) the construction of access roads; and (f) the provision of sewers or drains.
      (2A) Where a designated district authority are satisfied that the carrying out—

      (a) by statutory undertakers; or

      (b) in Scotland, by a local authority for the purposes of the Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968 of any works for the provision of electricity, gas, water or sewerage services for land situated within a special area would benefit that area, they may make a loan to any person for the purpose of enabling him to make any payments required as a condition of the carrying out of those works.'.—[Mr. Guy Barnett.]

    Clause 6

      GRANTS TOWARDS RENT OF INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS
      Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move Amendment No. 31, in page 6, line 22, leave out 'an industrial building' and insert
      'a building which—

      (a) is intended for use for industrial or commercial purposes; and

      (b)is.'.

      As I said when moving New Clause No. 2, the Government have accepted that the arguments put forward both in Committee and by many outside bodies that the provisions in the Bill that were originally limited to industrial buildings should be extended to cover commercial activities in general. This amendment enables designated district authorities in special areas to pay rent grants for buildings used for commercial as well as industrial premises.
      The amendment also gives effect to an undertaking made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry in Committee following, I understand, a discussion with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley). He pointed out, quite correctly, that the Bill as drafted excluded buildings that were not at present used as industrial buildings but were intended to be so used; but conversely it included industrial buildings for which no industrial use was planned. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary undertook to put this right, so this amendment enables a grant to be given to someone intending to use, for example, a redundant school for commercial or industrial purposes.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 7

      ADOPTION OF LOCAL PLANS
      Amendment made: No. 33, in page 8, line 2, leave out
      'the Secretary of State has entered into arrangements'
      and insert
      'arrangements have been entered into'.—[Mr. Guy Burnett.]

    Clause 10

      ORDERS AND DIRECTIONS
      Amendment made: No. 44, in page 8, line 25, leave out '3(5)' and insert
      'Grants for converting or improving buildings (3)'.—[Mr. Guy Barnett.]

    Clause 12

      INTERPRETATION
      Amendments made: No. 35, in page 9, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 6 and insert
      ' "industrial improvement area", in relation to a designated district authority, has the meaning given by section (Declaration of, and changes in, industrial improvement areas) (2) above;'.
      No. 37, in page 9, line 11, leave out '4(4)' and insert
      '(Orders specifying special areas) (2)'.—[Mr. Guy Barnett.]

    Schedule

      INDUSTRIAL IMPROVEMENT AREAS
      Amendment made: No. 39, in page 10, line 5, leave out from beginning to 'pass' in line 10 and insert:
      'that conditions in an area within the designated district which is or, if developed in accordance with the development plan, would be a predominantly industrial area could be improved by the exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 or (Grants for converting or improving buildings) above, the authority may, after consulting the other designated district authority'.—[Mr. Guy Barnett.]
      Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move Amendment No. 40, in page 10, line 34, after '(1)', insert'(a)'.
      Mr. Deputy Sneaker: With this we may take Government Amendment No. 41.
      Mr. Barnett: This is a minor improvement to the schedule. We think it right that if the Secretary of State should wish
      1566
      to cancel the declaration of industrial improvement area after it has come into operation he should have to give a period of notice. Thus the amendments make a distinction between the timing of the effect of a notification under subparagraph 2(1)(a) of the schedule and of a notification under subparagraph 2(1)(b). Where a notification that an area is not to be an IIA is sent after the IIA has come into operation it cannot have effect for at least six months. This gives time for the IIA to be wound up, and although I cannot envisage that the Secretary of State would exercise this power on many occasions it seems reasonable to provide for this period during which any outstanding applications for grants or loans can be dealt with.
      Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: This brings us back to a point that I made earlier this evening about the Secretary of State making one of these orders. I asked in Committee—and I repeat my question tonight—whether, if the Secretary of State was going to revoke an order that had been made with the concurrence or consent of an elected body, namely, a local council, he would at least say that that decision would be taken by a Minister and not by one of his civil servants.
      In Committee I instanced the discussions that we had had on the Coal Bill, where one received an indication that in certain cases it would be a ministerial decision. This matter is perhaps even more serious, because the Minister has said that he thinks it advisable to change the wording in the schedule to provide for six months' notice. I do not ask the Minister to give an undertaking, but I ask him to consider that where such a serious step as this is being taken which requires six months' notice, the decision should be taken by a Minister and not by a civil servant.
      Mr. Guy Barnett: I think that I shall have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman because, although I said earlier that it might be rare for a Minister to revoke an industrial improvement area, if an industrial improvement area works it will, presumably, at some stage cease to need to be an industrial improvement area, and therefore, presumably, the time will come for it to be wound up anyway. I can imagine many occasions on which that might be a routine decision.

      1567
      On the other hand there could, I suppose, be occasions when a revocation could take place unexpectedly. I think that in those circumstances I should be prepared to see what might be done within the Department to ensure that at least Ministers took cognisance of what was to be done, but I cannot give a precise assurance about the workings within the Department.
      I said earlier, and I repeat, that as the Minister is answerable for decisions that are taken in these cases, officials will make the decisions on the basis of broadly laid down policies by Ministers.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 41, in page 10, line 35, at end insert—
      '(2A) A notification under sub-paragraph (1) (b) above shall specify the date on which it is to take effect, and that date shall not be earlier than the end of the period of six months beginning with the sending of the notification.'.
      No. 42, in page 11, line 25, after '3' insert
      or (Grants for converting or improving buildings)'.—[Mr. Guy Burnett.]
      Bill read the Third time and passed.

    HOME PURCHASE ASSISTANCE AND HOUSING CORPORATION GUARANTEE BILL
    Order for consideration, as amended, read.
    To be considered this day.

    COMMUNITY SERVICE BY OFFENDERS (SCOTLAND) BILL
    That the Community Service by Offenders (Scotland) Bill may be proceeded with as if it had been certified by Mr. Speaker as relating exclusively to Scotland.—[Mr. Frank R. White.]

    COMMUNITY SERVICE BY OFFENDERS (SCOTLAND) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Ordered,
    That the Bill be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.—[Mr. Frank R. White.]

  Mr. NASRI BOUAZIZ
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Frank R White.].
  12.45 a.m.
  Mr. Robert Taylor: About a year ago, Mr. Deputy Speaker, at the end of March 1977, to be precise, I was approached by a distraught constituent who claimed that his rather immature daughter was about to marry a young man who was due to be deported and that the marriage was solely one of convenience in order to allow this young man to avoid deportation.
  As like any other Member would have done I contacted the Home Office to ascertain the facts of the case and I was informed that the young man in question, who is the subject of this debate, Mr. Nasri Bouaziz, had arrived in this country in 1974. He had been given permission to enter the country for a period of one year, as a student, and he was allowed into the country on condition that he did not engage in any form of employment.
  After 1974 he was not traced until late in December 1976, when it was found that he was working for Pye Telecommunications, in the borough of Croydon. Because he had overstayed the period for which he had been permitted to come into this country, and because he had broken the main condition upon which he had been allowed to come in, the Home Office, I understand, decided that he should leave and a deportation order was made.
  That was in December 1976. In April 1977 the order was due to be enforced, but at the eleventh hour a marriage was contracted between the daughter of my constituent and this young man. In an endeavour to substantiate that this was a marriage of convenience, the father of the girl involved produced for me a photostat copy of entries from a diary made by his daughter that showed that even at that time she had suffered ill treatment at the hands of Mr. Bouaziz. The father was so worried about this contracted marriage that he wrote on 2nd April to the registrar of marriages in Croydon, saying:
  "Dear Sir,
  This is a written objection to my daughter's intended marriage set for Tuesday 5th April 1977 on the grounds that it is a

  1569
  marriage of convenience. The intended groom, one Nasri Bouaziz, was at the time of making the application for marriage under a deportation order, issued by the Home Office."
  I well understand the great difficulty and dilemma of the Home Office at that time, because here was a young couple who, to all intents and purposes, were keen to get married and here was a parent objecting on the ground that it was a marriage of convenience. I well understand that at that time it was virtually impossible to prevent the marriage from taking place. In fact, it did take place at Croydon on 5th April 1977.
  As the Member of Parliament involved, I naturally hoped that that would be the end of the affair and that I should hear no more because the marriage had turned out to be successful and happy, but as soon afterwards as 14th May the bride telephoned her father in a state of great distress. She was living in a hostel, in Clapham, and when the father visited her in company with a witness from his trade union he found her very distressed, with black eyes and in a very unfortunate condition. I met her at that time and can confirm that fact. Nevertheless, only three days later, the couple attended an office of the Home Office and both said that they wished to make a further effort to make the marriage successful.
  I heard no more about the problem until 15th October when the father communicated with me again and told me that his daughter had returned to the family home in a state of nervous exhaustion and in fear of violence. As a result, the father instructed his solicitors to apply for an injunction to prevent his daughter suffering further molestation and to put in hand divorce proceedings.
  Having seen the daughter I contacted the Home Office and set out the facts in a letter of 20th October. I asked for confirmation that the facts established that this was a marriage of convenience and that, under the law, the bridegroom should be deported in accordance with the original deportation order of December 1976.
  I received a reply from the Minister, whom I am pleased to see here, dated 16th December 1977. She said:
  "I am sorry to learn that Mrs. Bouaziz is being so badly treated that she finds that she cannot continue with the marriage. Mr. Bouaziz is now without a basis of stay under the immigration rules and, in the circum
  1570
  stances, I have decided that his leave to remain should be curtailed to expire on 31st December 1977. In the course of the next few days he will be notified of my decision, against which he will have a right of appeal to the independent appellate authorities."
  On 4th January, I inquired whether an appeal had been lodged and whether this young man was still in this country. The Minister told me on 7th February:
  "Mr Bouaziz did not exercise his right of appeal nor apparently has he submitted any further timely application to remain on his former or any other basis. Steps will be taken to check whether he has embarked: if he has not, he would appear to be an overstayer and liable to prosecution for an offence under the Immigration Act 1971, the penalty for which is a fine of up to £200, up to six months' imprisonment, and liability to deportation."
  I wrote again on 20th February to find out whether any steps had been taken to implement those stipulations in the Minister's letter. I received an acknowledgement on 17th March, but no confirmation that any steps had been taken.
  At that time, the story took a bizarre turn. Mr. Bouaziz arrived at my constituent's home and demanded divorce papers as a matter of urgency. Indeed, such was the problem that he created that the police were called. He wanted the divorce papers because he claimed to be engaged to another girl. I therefore telephoned the Home Office and received confirmation that Mr. Bouaziz had applied to remain in this country on the grounds that he had become engaged again and the deportation order was not being acted upon because he "had his rights".
  To summarise, this young man arrived here in 1974. He was permitted to come here as a student. I was informed earlier in my correspondence that he was not an altogether satisfactory student. He was permitted to be here for 12 months. He was told that he was not able to undertake any form of employment. I believe that in addition to the Pye employment he has had two jobs since, from one of which he was dismissed because of phoning Algeria on the company telephone and in company time.
  In my view, this establishes probably the clearest case of a marriage of convenience under our present immigration laws. But if it is seriously believed that a young man who has been proved to have entered into a marriage of convenience can have a second bite at the cake

  1571
  and contract a further marriage, it makes a mockery of our immigration laws. He could remain in this country continually on such a basis.
  Therefore, I hope to hear from the Minister that firm action will be taken immediately in this case. In asking for her reply, I would like to express my apologies to her for keeping here here until this late hour. I realise that she has a very busy Department over which she presides. Certainly I find myself writing at least three or four letters to her each week. I apologise to the hon. Lady and thank her for her presence.
  12.56 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summerskill): I thank the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Taylor) for his sympathy in our predicament at this late hour. As he has said, he has corresponded with me and telephoned for several months about this case, and he has restated some of the main facts.
  Mr. Bouaziz came to the United Kingdom in 1974 and was given leave to enter as a student for 12 months on conditions prohibiting employment. He did not come to further notice until late in 1976, when it was learned that he was still in the country and working at Pye Telecommunications Ltd., in Croydon. He subsequently applied for leave to remain in anticipation of his marriage to Miss George, and they were both seen in the Immigration and Nationality Department in March 1977. It appeared that a stable relationship existed and had done for a considerable time, but, as there were no firm plans for early marriage, Mr. Bouaziz's application to remain was refused.
  Mr. Bouaziz and Miss George went abroad on 6th April 1977 and on their return on 8th April Mr. Bouaziz produced evidence of their marriage on 5th April. The immigration officer granted him leave to enter for two months. On 17th May they were interviewed, both separately and together, and it appeared that, although there were stresses in the marriage, both wanted it to succeed. In view of this and the length of the relationship, and in accordance with normal practice under the immigration rules, Mr. Bouaziz was given leave to remain for 12 months, that is, until May 1978—next month.
  1572
  Miss George's parents, who had expressed some concern about the marriage before it took place, as the hon. Gentleman said, had approached the Home Office in May 1977 about Mr. Bouaziz's conduct toward their daughter, including one violent assault, but Miss George herself said she still wished the marriage to work, and she thought the problems might revolve around her husband not having permission to work. In accordance with her wishes, Mr. Bouaziz was then given his present permission to remain until next month and to take work. I should point out that if after next month we wish to impose an employment restriction on Mr. Bouaziz he will have a right of appeal against that restriction.
  The next the Home Office knew about the case was when, in October last year, Mr. George and his daughter came to the Home Office and the hon. Gentleman wrote to me asking that Mr. Bouaziz's leave to remain should be terminated because of Miss George's ill-treatment by her husband. After careful consideration I decided that it should be and so informed the hon. Member on 16 December last.
  On 28th December 1977 notice of variation of leave to remain giving leave to remain only until 21st January was accordingly sent to Mr. Bouaziz's last known address. The order carries a right of appeal which must be entered within 14 days. As the hon. Member is aware from a subsequent letter I sent him, no reply was received within the 14 days and steps were taken to see whether he had complied with the order.
  In his letter to me on 22nd February the hon. Member kindly sent me Mr. Bouaziz's home address. Consequently, the police went there on two occasions but failed to find him. Eventually, on 9th March, he was traced to his place of work and interviewed by the police who were informed that he had moved address some time before the variation order was sent to him.
  As there was no firm evidence that he had received the variation order, a copy was served on him on 10th March. Against the re-served order Mr. Bouaziz entered an appeal the same day and accompanied it with a letter saying that he is living with another girl whom he wishes to marry immediately he is divorced from his wife. This letter has been

  1573
  treated as an application to stay pending his proposed second marriage. As Miss George has not instituted divorce proceedings so far, there are no immediate prospects of marriage and the application has been refused.
  A refusal of an application for an extension of leave to remain gives rise to the same appeal rights as does a variation order curtailing leave to remain. Further information has been provided by Miss George about the case, some of which provides grounds for believing that on Mr. Bouaziz's but not necessarily Miss George's part the marriage may have been one of convenience.
  In view of other information provided by Mr George and Miss George since 10th March, it was decided that Mr Bouaziz's continued residence here was not conducive to the public good. A notice of intention to deport was served on Mr. Bouaziz on 24th April. This also gives rise to appeal rights. Mr. Bouaziz is still within the time to appeal under both heads. He has 14 days from 24th April to do this.
  The House will appreciate that as the Home Office will be party to any appeal hearings I may not discuss the merits of
  1574
  the case pending the outcome of the appeal that has been entered and others that may be associated with it. The House may wish to know, however, that the effect of entering an appeal is to prevent a person being removed from the United Kingdom under the Immigration Act until the appeal has been determined. The appeal rights were written into the Immigration Act to prevent oppressive behaviour by the Executive. Inevitably cases will arise from time to time when residents will feel concern about the continued presence here of people who have been required to leave but have appealed—Mr. Duke was a recent example—but this is part of the price we must pay for the freedom we enjoy.
  I hope that I have explained the rather complex procedures to which this case has given rise. The hon. Member will appreciate that there is one appeal pending and possibly two others which Mr. Bouaziz may wish to enter. That is why there is a delay in proceeding any further at present.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at four minutes past One o'clock.

  Second Reading Committee
  Wednesday 26th April 1978

  The Committee consisted of the following Members:

  Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop (in the Chair)

  Bates, Mr. Alf (Bebington and Ellesmere Port)

  Mather. Mr. Carol (Esher)

  Orbach, Mr. Maurice (Stockport, South)

  Bradley, Mr. Tom (Leicester, East)

  Parry, Mr. Robert (Liverpool, Scotland Exchange)

  Carlisle, Mr. Mark (Runcorn)

  Craig. Mr. William (Belfast, East)

  Roderick, Mr. Caerwyn E. (Brecon and Radnor)

  Fletcher-Cooke. Mr. Charles (Darwen)

  Gardner, Mr. Edward (South Fylde)

  Short, Mrs. Renée (Wolverhampton. North-East)

  Havers, Sir Michael (Wimbledon)

  Hutchison, Mr. Michael Clark (Edinburgh, South)

  Stanbrook, Mr. Ivor (Orpington)

  Summerskill, Dr. Shirley (Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department)

  Johnson, Mr Walter (Derby, South)

  SUPPRESSION OF TERRORISM BILL [Lords]
  10.30 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summer-skill): I beg to move,
  That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the Suppression of Terrorism Bill [Lords] ought to be read a Second time.
  The primary purpose of the Bill is to enable the United Kingdom to ratify without reservation the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism. The convention is a Council of Europe convention and as such is restricted to member States of the Council of Europe. It represents a response by those European States which share common democratic values and a respect for human rights to the numerous and horrible acts of international terrorism which have taken place in Europe and elsewhere in the past 10 years.
  The convention has its origin in a recommendation of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe which was adopted in May 1973, only a few months after the murder of Israeli athletes
  1576
  at the Munich Olympic Games. This country played a major part in the negotiation of the convention, and the late Mr. Crosland signed it on behalf of the United Kingdom on the day it was opened for signature, along with all the then members of the Council of Europe except Malta and the Republic of Ireland. Spain subsequently joined the Council of Europe but has not signed the convention.
  The Government's intention to seek parliamentary approval to enable the United Kingdom to ratify the convention without reservation at the earliest opportunity was announced on 17th January 1977 by the present Foreign Secretary, who was then Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
  The convention may be seen as an extension of the arrangements created for dealing with acts of terrorism which are set out in the Hague Convention on Hijacking, the Montreal convention which deals with offences against aircraft, and the Internationally Protected Persons Convention, which was signed at New York.

  1577
  Those conventions are aimed at acts of terrorism which are international in character, and they require contracting States either to extradite fugitives accused of these offences or to take steps to prosecute them. Contracting States to these three conventions are consequently obliged to take jurisdiction over the offences wherever and by whomsoever committed, if the offender is present in their territory and is not extradited.
  The United Kingdom has ratified the Hague and Montreal conventions and a Bill to enable us to ratify the Internationally Protected Persons Convention has passed through all its stages in this House and is now in another place.
  The European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism substantially extends the arrangements under those conventions—the other three I have mentioned—by covering a much wider range of offences and by obliging contracting States to disregard for the purposes of extradition between them the political element in some of the offences covered by the convention.
  This last obligation is the most radical aspect of the convention. It enables effect to be given to the chief aim of the convention, which is to facilitate the extradition of terrorists. Extradition of an offender to the place where he is alleged to have committed a crime is, in our view, the most effective way of bringing that offender to justice because the evidence and the witnesses will be available there.
  Accordingly, Article 1 of the convention requires contracting States not to consider certain specified offences as political offences, or as offences connected with political offences or as offences inspired by political motives. The offences are those covered by the Hague and Montreal conventions on hijacking and attacks against aircraft, serious attacks on internationally protected persons, kidnapping and the taking of hostages, and offences involving the use of bombs, grenades, rockets, automatic firearms or letter or parcel bombs if this use endangers persons.
  Article 2 is concerned with certain additional offences in the same way as those in Article 1. These offences are any serious crimes involving an act of violence against a person or one involving an
  1578
  act against property which creates a collective danger for persons, or an attempt to commit these offences or participation as an accomplice of a person who commits or attempts to commit them.
  Hon. Members will appreciate the importance of those two articles. There is at present in our law only one exception to the traditional prohibition on extradition for political offences. The Genocide Act 1969 provides that the crime of genocide shall not be considered as an offence of a political character for the purposes of extradition. Hon Members will be aware of the extent to which, in recent years, this political safeguard, as it is known, has been abused by terrorists in order to prevent their extradition to the place where they are alleged to have committed terrorist offences.
  The member States of the Council of Europe took the view that an obligation to remove the prohibition of extradition for offences of a political character was justified between States sharing common democratic values in order to deal effectively with the increase in acts of international terrorism.
  In considering how to make the convention as effective as possible, we have decided that we should exercise the discretion provided in Article 2 and treat the offences in Article 2 in the same way as those in Article 1. Schedule 1 to the Bill sets out the United Kingdom equivalents to the offences in Articles 1 and 2, and Clause 1 removes those offences from the ambit of the political offence safeguard in extradition.
  Clause 1 also gives effect to Article 8 of the convention by providing that the traditional bar to the taking of evidence in the United Kingdom for use in criminal proceedings abroad which are of a political character is removed for proceedings in respect of offences covered in Articles 1 and 2 of the convention.
  The convention is aimed at terrorists and it has been carefully and deliberately drafted to ensure that the removal of the prohibition of extradition for political offences does not endanger genuine political refugees. I know that there has been apprehension in some quarters about the effect of the convention and the Bill from this standpoint. It may be helpful to put on record a full explanation of the safeguards which the convention and the Bill

  1579
  provide for political refugees and out reasons for believing that this Bill presents no danger to them.
  I should point out that the convention is restricted to member States of the Council of Europe. As I have said before, those States share the same concern for human rights and the fundamental freedoms. This concern is, in fact, a condition of membership of the Council of Europe, and any member State whose Government departs from these high standards is disqualified from membership.
  Hon. Members may recall that Greece was expelled from the Council of Europe after the colonels' regime took over. Any contracting State to the convention whose Government was overthrown in a coup d'etat and which then became authoritarian would be excluded from the Council of Europe and thus from the convention. It is, therefore, extremely unlikely that a fugitive from a contracting State who was accused of an offence covered by the convention would be a political refugee.
  Nevertheless, in addition to that basic safeguard the convention itself provides a specific safeguard aimed at protecting the genuine political refugee. The United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, which we have ratified, defines a political refugee as one who has a
  "well founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion"
  and is therefore unwilling to return to his country of origin.
  Article 5 of the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism provides that a request for extradition in respect of an offence covered by the convention may be refused if the requested State
  "has substantial grounds for believing that request for extradition … has been made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing a person on account of his race, religion, nationality or political opinion, or that that person's position may be prejudiced for any of these reasons".
  Thus, Article 5 clearly reflects the principle that persons who come within the definition of political refugee contained in the United Nations convention should not be returned to their country of origin. As far as the political refugee is concerned, it is his political opinions which are, relevant and the motive for which his
  1580
  extradition is requested. The safeguard in Article 5 covers both aspects. It has already been incorporated in our extradition arrangements with Commonwealth countries under the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967, and Clause 2 of the Bill makes provision for its incorporation in the Extradition Act 1870.
  Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: The hon. Lady refers to the provisions of the United Nations convention and, indeed, to the provisions of the convention we are discussing today, neither of which is law in the United Kingdom. The hon. Lady then says that the definition of a political refugee has already been incorporated in the Fugitive Offenders Act, which is part of our law. But the Fugitive Offenders Act retains the protection for offences of a political character.
  In those circumstances, how can the hon. Lady justify the fact that we are taking out of our present law what has traditionally been regarded as protection for political refugees in extradition matters in order to insert something which, basically, has never been part of our law?
  Dr. Summerskill: Although the hon. Gentleman says that the matter I have been speaking of is a United Nations matter, we have ratified the convention that I mentioned relating to the status of refugees. Therefore, although it may not be strictly a law, we have ratified it, and I think that ratification of a United Nations convention has great importance and significance within our law.
  I could give the hon. Gentleman later a list of the countries in the Council of Europe which also have ratified that United Nations convention, if he would like me to. Obviously, I cannot read the list out now.
  Let me now give an example to show how matters may proceed. If the Government of the requesting State suddenly changed for the worse while an extradition case was proceeding, and before there was time for that State to be excluded from the convention, the fugitive whose return was requested could, under the 1870 Act as the Bill would amend it, claim the protection of this safeguard not only in the courts, but also—I come to the further safeguard—in an appeal at the end of the day to the Home Secretary himself, who could, if he thought

  1581
  fit, reverse a decision of the courts to commit the fugitive for surrender.
  After extensive consultation, we are in no doubt, therefore, that the convention does not in any way affect the Home Secretary's right to grant political asylum and that the genuine political refugee has nothing to fear from this Bill, bearing in mind those three safeguards.
  I turn now from extradition to prosecution. Clause 4 gives effect to the back-up prosecution provisions of the convention, which are set out in Articles 6 and 7. These articles together require a contracting State to put the case to its prosecution authorities where the fugitive is present in its territory and is not extradited. The obligation is, however, qualified in some important ways, although, as I shall later explain, we have not thought it appropriate to translate all these qualifications into the Bill.
  First, it is necessary that a request for the extradition of the fugitive from another contracting State should have been received and refused. Second, that request must be in respect of an offence covered by Article 1 of the convention. Third, the requesting State's jurisdiction over the offence for which extradition is requested must, in the words of Article 6,
  "… be based on a rule of jurisdiction existing equally in the law of the requested State".
  This means that the law of the requested State would have similar jurisdiction over the offence if it had been committed in corresponding circumstances. For example, if a request for extradition was received from Germany in respect of an offence for kidnapping committed in Germany and that request was refused, the United Kingdom would be obliged to consider prosecuting the fugitive because the United Kingdom had jurisdiction over the offence of kidnapping when committed in the United Kingdom.
  With regard to an offence committed outside the territory of the requesting State, we should be obliged to consider prosecuting the fugitive only where the United Kingdom court exercised jurisdiction over the offence when committed outside the United Kingdom in corresponding circumstances. An example would be murder committed abroad by a national of the requesting State outside that State, since in such a case we
  1582
  would have had jurisdiction had the offender been a citizen of the United Kingdom.
  Clause 5 is additional to the convention. We believe it sensible to provide for the possibility of arrangements based on the convention with States which are not parties to it. I should point out that under subsection (5) of Clause 8 an order may not be made under Clause 5 without affirmative resolutions of both Houses. This will ensure that Parliament will have a full opportunity to examine any arrangements proposed and, of course, prevent them from coming into being if it so decides.
  We have no immediate plans for bilateral arrangements under Clause 5 at present, but if discussions which are under way in the Nine on a terrorism convention are successful, it may be that orders under Clause 5 will be needed to enable us to give effect to that convention.
  I believe that the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism will be a powerful weapon in the fight against terrorism. Austria and Sweden have already ratified it, and a number of other States are expected to do the same during the course of the year. The Government are anxious that the United Kingdom should be among the States that have lost little time in assuming the obligations of this convention. I hope that hon. Members will agree that the Bill should be given a Second Reading.
  10.48 a.m.
  Sir Michael Havers: We are grateful to the hon. Lady for the way in which she has explained the purposes of the Bill, which started in another place and was to some extent improved there.
  The basic operation by which terrorism so often acts is that the terrorists commit the crime in a country other than their own and then take refuge in a third country. That is the problem which has been facing the world—and certainly Europe—over the past few years. As the hon. Lady told us, the background starts in 1970 with the Hague convention, which was followed by the Montreal convention and the New York convention. Those all related to aircraft and internationally protected persons. Terrorist attacks have much wider targets, and it has been much too easy

  1583
  to say that the crime was politically motivated even though it was a crime of murder or extreme violence.
  The principle of allowing in such cases the country in which the terrorists have sought refuge to prosecute them for the offences, even though not committed within the territory, is an important step forward.
  I have always found it very difficult to accept that a violent attack which led to the death or maiming of the victim or victims could successfully evade criminal prosecution on the plea of political motivation. Safeguards must, of course, be brought in. I am satisfied that the Bill covers the exceptional case, and particularly the genuine case of political asylum.
  I am slightly concerned about the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) and the hon. Lady's answer about ratification. We shall have to look at that again. I have no doubt that her Department will consider it before we reach the Committee stage. We might have to clarify the matter in Committee in order to resolve any ambiguity or risk of loss of protection in the genuine case of political asylum.
  Inevitably, any convention, and thus any Bill based on such a convention, can be wholly effective only when all countries concerned are prepared to be involved and to play their part in enforcing the rules and obligations. We shall have reluctantly to accept that there will be some countries which will continue to shelter hijackers and other terrorists.
  The Bill puts into effect the Council of Europe convention, and we must recognise that some countries will continue to defy the standards that we now accept. But experience is proving that those countries are decreasing in number and that our European policy is being more widely recognised and accepted than was the case a few years ago.
  For myself, I would argue that countries which offer haven to terrorists could eventually be persuaded to be realistic and accept that international terrorism must be stamped out. One way of doing that would be to convince them that in the end it can only be in their interest—in the interest of all States—to recognise that terrorism of this kind
  1584
  must ultimately put at risk democracy as we, and those States, know it.
  What sort of terrorism are we dealing with? It is designed to force a sovereign State to act by fear or threat against its own public interest. Put another way, it is the use of terror to force a Government to accede against their will to a course of conduct which they would not ordinarily follow. Once that happens—by bombing or the taking or even killing of hostages—and the resolution of that State has been weakened, the will to resist in the future diminishes so that ultimately the terrorists, and not the State itself, rule.
  It follows, therefore, that terrorists must not be allowed to commit their acts of terrorism and then go free. Ideally, they should be returned to the country in which they committed their crimes. If that is not acceptable or possible, at least the country where they have sought refuge should have the opportunity of trying them for the crimes they have committed.
  We must not be misled by the nineteenth-century view which properly gave political asylum to those who held intellectual or political views that disagreed with their country's ideologies. We must not confuse that liberal approach with those who seek, by murder and atrocity, to force a Government to act against their will.
  For those reasons, the Opposition support the Bill.
  10.53 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: It is always wrong to quote one's own speeches, but I think that in this case I should be allowed to do so. On 13th November last year, I had the honour to be the Rapporteur of the Political Affairs Committee of the European Parliament and I introduced a motion on this subject to the European Parliament which was accepted without any dissent.
  The motion urged all the members of the European Parliament to do what we are doing today, namely, to ratify most of these conventions but particularly the Convention of the Council of Europe. It was clear when I introduced that motion that it was necessary to allay the fears which the hon. Lady mentioned, namely, the apprehensions that this in some way will detract from the traditional rights of asylum.

  1585
  I sought to allay those fears by pointing out that, whereas in the nineteenth century the person who sought asylum was a refugee from tyranny, today the seeker of asylum is a refugee from democracy in the sense that the object of terrorism today, certainly in Germany and in Italy, is so to conduct, or rather to disrupt, public affairs that what are at present democracies are obliged to turn themselves into tyrannies. It is exactly the obverse of what occurred in the nineteenth century.
  In my speech in the European Parliament at Strasbourg I said:
  "Apart from the extreme effectiveness of modern weapons, the feature of terrorism which distinguishes it, I suggest, from those more traditional forms of dissent is that the purpose of the terrorist is not to make a tyranny or dictatorship tolerant and more democratic, but to make a democratic society more tyrannical and more dictatorial. Insofar as it is possible to distinguish the motives of the recent terrorists in Europe, they are to force upon a democratic country measures in protection of its citizens, most of whom are totally innocent, measures of protection which will inevitably interfere with their liberty, with the rule of law, with the normal proceedings of the courts and with fundamental human rights. The terrorist seeks to drive the democratic State into the position of an authoritarian and totalitarian tyranny, and that is what distinguishes the modern terrorist from the more traditional forms of dissent."
  That is exactly the opposite, in fact, of what happened in the nineteenth century. For that reason we have to take exactly the opposite countermeasures, and this Bill is one of them. It therefore deserves the support of all of us.
  There are matters which we must consider in greater detail in Committee, but by and large it will serve no purpose to go on emphasising one's support, save to say that every Member who spoke in that debate in the European Parliament supported the motion for a resolution urging all member States to ratify the convention and all except one have done so or will do so.
  If the hon. Lady is to reply to the debate, will she say whether we are, either alone or with our colleagues, urging that one State—namely, the Republic of Ireland—to do her duty in this matter?
  10.57 a.m.
  Mr. Mark Carlisle: I wish briefly to add my welcome and support to the Bill, which I consider to be an important step
  1586
  forward in the suppression of international terrorism.
  It is, perhaps, a sad commentary on our situation today that such a Bill is necessary. But that it is necessary I have no doubt. I consider that international terrorism or urban terrorism of any kind, whether it consists of the hijacking of aeroplanes or the appalling tragedy of the kidnapping of Signor Moro, is one of the major scourges of the present generation. It seems that all acts of this nature have one thing in common—the very indiscriminate effect of the actions which are taken. They appear to require and include the wanton killing of innocent people for political ends in which those people themselves have possibly no interest and over which they certainly have no control.
  The passengers in an aircraft hijacked on an international flight have no power in themselves to release the prisoners whose release is demanded in exchange for their lives. On many occasions the State against which the claim is made is itself not able to meet it. What is clear is that it never can be in a position when it could, or should, meet it, because there is no doubt but that terrorist activity breeds purely on the success of previous terrorist activity. Tragic as it may be for the innocent people involved, no progress will be made unless all countries are prepared to stand together and refuse to give in to the demands of the terrorist. Every time one country gives in, that will create the precedent for further and more outrageous terrorist action.
  I saw a certain amount of this, while at the Home Office, in relation to the actions of the IRA in this country. The IRA's activities resulted in the innocent killing and maiming by bombs of people who themselves had no control over the political future of Ireland. The casualties resulted from the activities of fanatics trying to make a point. That led me to believe that the only satisfactory way to approach conduct of this kind is by looking upon it as analagous to warfare upon society and conduct which merits exceptional steps to deal with it.
  Clearly, this Bill is exceptional, to an extent, in that it will change the law on extradition, but I believe that the exceptional times we live in require exceptional measures of this nature. I suppose

  1587
  the only thing one can say is that a whole generation has now grown up which has known no major international war but which still has had to face the problems of urban guerilla activity and international terrorism.
  I welcome the fact that the Bill allows us to bring into our domestic law the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism, which we have already ratified. I am glad, too, that the whole of that convention works on the basis of extraditing to the country in which the offence was committed as a first step rather than the alternative of trying the person who has escaped to a third country in the third country.
  That is important for two reason. First, it is always easier to provide the evidence on which the trial can take place in the country in which the offence has been committed. I can see grave difficulties in trying people in this country for terrorist offences committed abroad when the whole of our system of trial requires the presence of witnesses to give evidence in person. Secondly, surely, the whole problem of the punishment of those people should rightly be an issue and a problem for the country in which the terrorist activity takes place, rather than be thrown upon the shoulders of the country to which that terrorist chooses to escape.
  Serious problems arise over the form of penalty which it is appropriate to impose for terrorist activity. The country which should have to take those decisions and exercise its form of penalty is the country in which the terrorist activity took place, rather than the jurisdiction of the courts into which the person happens to flee.
  I welcome the fact that the Bill will allow us to go wider than merely those other countries that have ratified the European convention. It is right that other countries whose judicial process we accept should have a similar provision, as we have under the Bill with our neighbours in the Council of Europe. I can see absolutely no reason, for example, why the Bill should not be extended to other Commonwealth countries, and I am glad that the power is given in the Bill to do just that, Indeed, if I may add say something slightly outside the terms of the Bill, I
  1588
  believe that our extradition laws generally are somewhat restrictive and need to be looked at again.
  In 1972, we had certain arguments with the Australian Government over issues of extradition. For a person to be extradited to another civilised country in whose judicial procedure we have faith, it should be adequate for that country to show prima facie that the person at present in this country has committed an offence in that country. I do not believe that it is necesary to go further, as we do at present, and, for example, require that, once returned, such a person cannot be tried on any offence other than the one on which he is extradited.
  If we have faith in the fairness and impartiality of the judicial procedures of other countries, I think that there is a case for relaxing some of the strict technical rules surrounding our extradition policy. As regards these types of activity, we are right to remove the defence that the offence was of a political nature.
  I want to ask the hon. Lady two final points. First, to support what my hon, and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) said, is it not a tragedy that the Republic of Eire has not ratified this convention? Surely, it has a fundamental and equally important reason for wishing to see the end of terrorist activity. Yet as long as the Republic refuses to ratify the convention it is bound to give the impression that it is prepared to harbour a certain type of terrorist activity. Surely, in the long run it must be realised that the activities of, for example, the IRA are just as great a danger to its Government as they are to Northern Ireland. What, if any, action are we attempting to take to persuade the Republic to sign the convention?
  Secondly, can the hon. Lady say exactly what Clause 2 means? Saying that someone shall not be extradited where he may be prejudiced in his trial by reason of his political opinions is going very near to saying that the defence of its being an offence of a political nature still applies. I should have thought that a member of, for example, the IRA being tried in Northern Ireland could argue that, as his political opinions as a member of the IRA were well known, that could prejudice him at his trial. I should be glad to have the hon. Lady's

  1589
  assurance that the wording of Clause 2, which seems very wide, in no way detracts from the effectiveness of Clause 1.
  Anything that removes the barriers to the return of terrorists to the country in which they have committed their activities, so that they can stand their proper trial, is welcome. I believe that the Bill is a move in that direction.
  11.9 a.m.
  Mr. Edward Gardner: This Bill is necessary, and in Committee, no doubt, such imperfections as it now has can be remedied. But the Bill is very limited by its nature and, indeed, by the European convention on which it is based. Neither the Bill nor the convention will stop international terrorism any more than the three previous conventions which preceded the European convention have been able to stop terrorism, whether by hijacking or by any other of the horrendous methods, of which the kidnapping of Signor Moro is perhaps the worst and certainly the latest example.
  One comment to be made about the Bill, and the convention—when one talks about the Bill one is really either applauding or criticising the convention—is that a little progress is better than no progress at all. But if we are being realistic—it is to be hoped that we are—and we are aiming ultimately at making terrorism a crime which people will less frequently commit because of the danger of subsequent apprehension and punishment, we have to recognise that, in the case of aircraft hijacking, for example, the countries which are likely to provide a haven for the hijackers are countries not in Europe but well outside Europe which have nothing to do with and no interest in conventions of this kind. It must be well understood that such countries have political sympathy in many cases with the purposes of the hijacking.
  The only way that we shall ultimately make any serious and effective impact on this problem is by making as sure as we can, by using all the resources and influence we can bring to bear upon them, that countries which give a haven to hijackers know full well that they will suffer for what they are doing. Is it not time that this Government tried to use their influence—indeed, I hope that they are already
  1590
  —in the Council of Europe, in the European Parliament and elsewhere to see whether there can now be agreed a collective policy among the European Governments, focusing our attention on this limited scale for the moment, which eventually can be extended to other civilised Governments who can take joint and effective action against those countries which are prepared to take in and protect the people responsible for terrorism?
  What we are trying to do in the Bill is to consent, and rightly so, to a diminution of the right of someone who commits a crime abroad, or some act which a Government abroad may regard as a crime, then to rely on the Government here to give him asylum because of the political character of the motive behind the act committed abroad.
  Before the grant of political asylum can be exercised, one looks at the purpose or motive of the person who has committed the act or crime. One looks also at the purpose and motive of the State which is requesting his extradition. We have a duty also to have regard to the prospective treatment which that person will receive if he is sent back to the country which is asking for his extradition.
  The Minister has rightly pointed out that Article 5 of the convention expressly deals with the right of a contracting State to refuse to extradite a person if there are substantial grounds for believing that the request for the extradition has been made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing a person on the ground of his race, religion, nationality or political opinion.
  But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) pointed out in his intervention, although the Minister has rightly said that the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967 reflects the provisions of Article 5, the fact is that the Fugitive Offenders Act will now, surely, have to be amended either by the addition of provisions or by some other alteration in order to conform exactly with the provisions of Article 5.
  No matter what the spirit of the Fugitive Offenders Act may be, the law as set out in that statute appears to be different from the provisions as expressed in the convention. No doubt, as my right hon, and learned Friend the Member for

  1591
  Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) said, this is a matter which we can and ought to look at in Committee.
  11.17 a.m.
  Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I am sorry that I cannot join in the general support for the Bill which has so far been expressed. I am sorry that the Bill was not taken on the Floor of the House. In my opinion, it should have been because it deals with the principle of political liberty, a principle which we should not curtail except after the most thorough public discussion of the justification for so doing.
  I believe that, by the Bill being removed to a Second Reading Committee, whatever the merits of the procedure, and whatever the distinction of the members of the Committee and of those taking part in the debate, inadequate consideration will be given to a most important matter. It has already received attention from the national Press, and great anxiety has been expressed as to what we are doing in enacting the Bill.
  Because I appear to be the only one who is not in favour of the Bill, I hope that I shall have the indulgence of the Committee if I take a little time to explain why that is so.
  The Bill had, I think, inadequate examination in the other place. I mean no disrespect to the noble Lords who took part in the debate. One of them was a lawyer, but none of the Law Lords took part, which was a great pity because some of them are experts in extradition law and have comparatively recently delivered opinions on offences of a political character which, had they repeated them in that debate, would have been of great assistance to us in considering the advisability of giving the Bill a Second Reading.
  The danger we face is the curtailing of political liberty at a time when we are particularly incensed by recent events of terrorism. But, of course, it is just when we feel such abhorrence that we must be most careful lest our natural reaction should restrict an important principle.
  We are dealing with a complicated subject. The Bill is complicated enough, but we are putting it in an extremely complicated context. Our extradition law is complicated, and, no doubt, by the time
  1592
  I have finished my speech—if anyone accepts the way I put it—there will be agreement about that. The law should be rationalised. Some of my hon, and learned Friends have already referred to the difficulties of the present extradition law. But instead of rationalising it, we are today building a hornet's net around it, making the whole subject of extradition that much more difficult to understand and to apply in our courts.
  I shall look, first, at the present position and then at how the Bill proposes to change it. The Bill, as the hon. Lady has told us, proposes, first, to change the application of the old traditional concept of exemption from extradition crimes or offences of a political character; second, to add to the list of extradition crimes relevant offences which may be covered by extradition; and, thirdly, to give extra-territorial jurisdiction to our courts in respect of certain offences.
  Those three propositions would be difficult enough for us to understand, but piled on top is the consideration that they apply only in respect of certain offences, those which are named in the schedule. When the Bill is passed, and before any Orders in Council are made, they apply only in convention countries, which means parties which ratified the European convention, and only to those already in extradition treaty relationship with us.
  The convention can apply to the Republic of Ireland. It can apply if it is a country which ratifies the convention. It can be applied to Ireland unilaterally by this country anyway under the provisions of the Bill so that we can operate it with regard to Ireland but not have the benefit of Ireland operating it towards us. It can apply also to any State in the world which the Secretary of State cares to nominate by Order in Council.
  I know that the hon. Lady said that we have the safeguard that before the convention arrangements are applied to a dictatorship we shall be able to discuss the question in the House, but she knows as well as I do that that is not an adequate safeguard for dealing with such a fundamentally important political principle.
  The Bill deals with certain minor matters with some of which I shall deal if I am lucky enough to be appointed to the Standing Committee, and I come now to my major argument.

  1593
  First, on "political character", my contention is that the convention and the trend as it has been expressed in international law, giving rise to the convention, to deal with political character as being a matter of the motives of the requesting country is wrong, because there are two sides to matters of political character—the motives of the offender and the motives of the requesting country.
  Throughout our legal history, we have been just as much concerned about the motives of the offender in relation to political character as we have been about the motives of the requesting country. The earliest definition of the concept of exemption on the ground of political character, which has been authoritatively accepted, was given by Stephen in his History of the Criminal Law:
  "Foreign criminals are not to be surrendered for extradition crimes if those crimes were incidental to and formed a part of political disturbances."
  That definition says nothing about the motives of the requesting country.
  As time passed, we had the concept, as expressed in the case of Castioni, developing to take account of parties within a State. The definition adopted in Castioni's case—Mr. Justice Stephen was a member of the Divisional Court which adjudicated on that matter—was that an act of a political character was done—I am paraphrasing somewhat—if done
  "with the intention of assisting … a politial rising, or a Beat dispute between two parties in the State as to which is to have the government in its hands."
  Again, one may think that there is no great emphasis there on the motives of requesting countries.
  Cases were heard and definitions of that kind were adopted until we came to the Kolczynski case. Some members of the Committee may remember that that was the case of the Polish seamen on a Polish ship just after the war who mutinied and put into a British port seeking political asylum When they claimed political asylum, it was pointed out in response to a demand from Poland for their extradition, that when a one-party State is involved it is hard to put the case in the context of previous definitions of "political character".
  1594
  That matter was summarised by Mr. Justice Chapman in a later case in these terms:
  "… even if one is not a member of a political party and even if one is not seeking to oust the governing body or to take over the government of the country, it may still be an offence of a political character if violent measures are taken to get away from a political ordering of society which is regarded as intolerable."
  The leading case on this subject is that of Schtraks, the Israeli citizen whose extradition was sought by Israel on the charge of kidnapping a child in Israel. In that case the Law Lords set down what was perhaps the most authoritative modern ruling on the subject. Perhaps I may paraphrase that in these terms. The political character of an offence concerned a person who was at odds with the requesting country on some issue connected with the political control or government of the country, and the requesting State was after him for reasons other than enforcement of its ordinary criminal law.
  There we have the insertion of the idea that the motive of the requesting country is important, though not the sole consideration to be applied, of course—not by any means.
  More recently, in the case of Littlejohn, the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Widgery, having reviewed all the authorities as to what constituted an offence of a political character, said:
  "… an offence may be of a political character, either because the wrongdoer had some direct ulterior motive of a political kind when he committed the offence, or because the requesting state is anxious to obtain possession of the wrongdoer's person in order to punish him for his politics rather than for the simple criminal offence referred to in the extradition proceedings."
  I conclude this section of my argument with a quotation from the current edition of Halsbury—the Fourth Edition, Volume 18, at paragraph 217:
  "There is no exhaustive definition of 'an offence of a political character'. The crime must be incidental to and form a part of a political upheaval, committed by the fugitive offender as part of an organised political party contending for power with the established government. The crime must connote opposition to the government of the requesting country on some issue connected with the political control of government of that, and no other, country."
  It will be seen, therefore, that the authorities certainly recognise that the

  1595
  motives of the requesting State are important and have a part to play in the consideration of whether an offender who claims political asylum is entitled to be exempted from extradition proceedings, but, clearly, that aspect is not decisive and the motive of the offender remains a matter which must be considered.
  What we appear to be doing in this Bill is saying that it does not matter what the offender's motives are with regard to the cases to be covered by the Bill so long as he is not a political refugee according to the terms of the United Nations convention and some other international convention which is not at present a matter of domestic law in this country.
  I respectfully suggest that we cannot proceed to change the concept of political character and the right of asylum in relation to extradition proceedings without much more detailed examination of the whole problem and knowledge on the part of the public generally as to what we are doing.
  The origins of that concept lie in the history of the fight for political freedom not only in this country but elsewhere. The idea that persons who, having committed by the law of their own countries, a serious offence, and having escaped to this country should be returned to countries where there was oppression was so abhorrent to the British people that the concept was developed in the nineteenth century, and as a result people such as Garibaldi and Kossuth were able to enjoy its benefits in this country, notwithstanding that they had committed serious offences—and violent offences—against the law of their own countries. They were heroes to some and bloodthirsty tyrants to others.
  The present situation in the Middle East is one which, in 50 years' time, we shall look back on with views rather different from those we have today. One might regard the Palestine Liberation Organisation as being very little different from the Irgun Zvei Leumi in the Middle East of 30 years ago. Indeed, in the perspective of history there is very little to choose between Mr. Begin and his opponents in the PLO. Yet, of course, one at the moment is the head of a democratic Government—the Government of a country which may be the
  1596
  requesting country in some future extradition case—and the leader of the other is an international outlaw by some standards yet one who may be the apparently respectable leader of a democratic country in the future.
  One has to beware of labelling things too simply in discussing matters of this kind. It must be remembered that the desire to recover lost territory can be a political motive, and violent offences committed with that aim in mind might well qualify as offences of a political character under our existing law.
  That brings me to consider whether the Bill achieves, or even purports to achieve, what the hon. Lady stated as its purpose and effect. She laid great emphasis upon the political refugee, a concept not known to English law as such. Certainly, there is the benefit of the immigration laws for people who find themselves in this country with nowhere else to go and not necessarily entitled to be here, but political asylum is given to them because the Home Secretary, acting within his discretion, decides on political grounds that they may be allowed to remain.
  But the basic expression of the right to political asylum in this country is contained in our extradition law and in the exemption from extradition proceedings of a person who is alleged to have committed a crime which he shows to have been of a political character.
  It is no use quoting the United Nations Convention on the Status of Refugees as authority for saying "We are embodying that in our law, and therefore political refugees need have no fear", because, although we may have ratified it, it is not per se part of our law. No United Nations convention can be enforced in this country unless there is a domestic law to enforce it. Even then, it must go via the domestic law.
  How far do we accept that, merely by inserting in this Bill provisions to safeguard the traditional international concept of the political refugee we are satisfying all legitimate concern and anxiety about diminishing political liberty?
  The first thing to be said is that we have had these provisions in our law since 1967 in relation to the Commonwealth. The Fugitive Offenders Act 1967 incorporates all these high-flown words,

  1597
  these protections, guarantees and safeguards against oppression by the requesting country. But—surprise, surprise—we have left "political character" in as well. It is not considered a substitute in the Fugitive Offenders Act. It did not drop "political character" in order to embody the definition of "political refugee" which is now being embodied by the Bill in other aspects of our extradition law.
  One looks again, therefore, at just what the Bill is aiming at. As I have said, by its terms, although it gives power to the Secretary of State to extend it, it applies only to member States of the Council of Europe, of which there are 21, which have signed the treaty, of which there are 18, I think, and which have ratified it—so far, I think, only four—and which are bound to this country already by the terms of an extradition treaty, of which I think there are not more than half a dozen, except—I think that members of the Committee will agree with me that this is getting complicated—in the case of the two members States of the Council of Europe which are members of the Commonwealth, namely, Cyprus and Malta.
  If one had any sort of reservations about the political inspiration of Governments of any of the States in the Commonwealth, among a short list one might include one or other of those two countries, yet those are the two countries, provided that they have ratified the treaty—I think that Cyprus certainly has—to which we shall be giving benefits by allowing them to have people who previously would have been accepted on the grounds of "political character", benefits which are not available to the rest of the Commonwealth or, indeed, to the great democracies such as the United States of America, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.
  If one appreciates that fundamental defect in the Bill, as I believe it to be, one wonders whether we should be stampeded by the Council of Europe into making so fundamental a change in our extradition law, because of the background of political liberty which is involved.
  The Council of Europe is a very august organisation, and it has produced many splendid proposals and suggestions in the
  1598
  past for the solution of political problems, regardless, perhaps, of the legal consequences involved. I think, for example, of the difficulty which was referred to by my hon. and learned Friends the Members for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) and Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) about Ireland. The Republic of Ireland is not co-operating with us at the moment in the matter of returning IRA members who are wanted for crimes committed in this country on the ground that they have committed political offences.
  Why do we suffer so much in that respect? It is because Ireland has an extradition law which says that extradition will not be granted where the offence alleged is a political offence or an offence connected with a political offence. So the Irish go one stage further. In their Extradition Act of 1965 they exempt in relation to the United Kingdom not only political offences but offences connected with or related to political offences.
  For example, George Blake, the spy, was assisted in his escape from Wormwood Scrubs prison by an Irishman who subsequently escaped to Ireland. That Irishman was sought by us, and his extradition was refused by the Irish courts on the ground that, although assisting someone to escape from a British prison was not a political offence, it was done in connection with a political offence, namely, spying and enabling a spy to escape.
  Whence did the Irish get that extension to their extension to extradition?—nowhere else but the European Convention on Extradition, another proposal put up by the Council of Europe but which, happily, has not been ratified by this country so that we are not bound by the proposals in that convention. But the Irish had that wording in their 1965 Act, and they apply it, even though, strictly speaking, it is not reciprocal with our arrangements with them. So one has to be careful in that respect about political motives that change our law in fundamental respects.
  Fundamentally, perhaps, my point is that, if a change is being made in that we are dropping exemption for offences of a political character and substituting exemption on the ground of race, religion, nationality or political opinions, what precisely are to be the categories of people who will not in future be able to benefit

  1599
  from the exemption and who will be returned? It is important that the Committee and the public should know what sort of cases are involved.
  There are at present a number of people who are, or have been, sought by their home countries for alleged offences. For example, we have in this country General Gowon, whose extradition to Nigeria has been refused, so one understands, though, as far as I know, the case never came before a court. Nobody doubts that Nigeria believes itself to be fully entitled to seek his extradition. He would not be prejudiced on account of his race, religion or nationality, and I doubt that he would be proceeded against for his political opinions if he were returned to Nigeria, because, as far as I am aware, he has not expressed any, being an intelligent person. It has been held that one must have expressed political opinions before it can be said that one might be prejudiced by them when one returned—as in the Teja case.
  If one puts one's mind to it, one can think of many cases where persons in this country are sought by Governments with the purest of motives, simply on the application of their criminal law, but who, in the average man's mind, are deserving of political asylum and therefore of exemption from extradition.
  There is the dangerous rival, for example, who has not committed any offence in fact but who may be so charged. One must take into account the possibility of bad faith on the part of the requesting country. He might have a charge trumped up against him, though he has done nothing. The hidden motive behind it all would be to get rid of him, or at least to render him harmless. In historical terms, one example would be a pretender to the Throne. Such a person might not have committed any offence, but the evidence of the offence may be produced or be manufactured by the requesting country. Milton Obote, for example, may well be sought by General Amin of Uganda.
  To emphasise that I am not making any allegations against any past requesting country—certainly not Nigeria—or any possible future requesting country, I draw the attention of the Committee to the Eisler case just after the war. Mr. Eisler was taken off a Polish ship in British territorial waters on a claim by America
  1600
  that he committed perjury, which was an extradition crime. Mr. Eisler was a Communist and had testified before a United States Congressional Committee, which excited a great deal of controversy in the United States, although he had been there for some time.
  The alleged crime of perjury was based upon a false statement that he had made in order to obtain his exit visa. When Mr. Eisler was arrested and charged with the offence of perjury in this country, there was a rumpus in the House of Commons when it was pointed out that this was the clearest political offence that there could be. The United States Congress and the American Government simply wanted to get their hands on this person and return him to America.
  The learned magistrate at Bow Street decided that the incorrect manner in which Mr. Eisler had completed his form of application for an exit visa was not such as would justify a charge of perjury in this country, where a false statement has to be made in connection with judicial proceedings.
  Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Whatever Eisler was, he was not a terrorist. What has this to do with terrorism?
  Mr. Stanbrook: My hon. and learned Friend is illustrating admirably my concern that some of my colleagues, those most esteemed by me, are so obsessed with the need to put down terrorism that they are prepared to take liberties—if I may so express it—prepared to accept amendments to the laws governing political liberty in this country. Certainly Eisler was not accused of terrorism. He was accused of perjury. But perjury is an extradition crime, and terrorism, as covered by the various offences set out in the Bill, covers a wide range of offences. Indeed, Article 2 of the convention widens it even further. I shall come to that in a moment.
  If we drop "political character" and go for "race, religion, nationality and political opinions", the difficulty will be that English courts are always reluctant to impute bad faith to the Government of a requesting country. They go by the letter of the law and the spirit of the law, which is trustful, and any request that may come from a country, especially one with which we have constitutional or historical bonds of friendship, will be

  1601
  judged strictly in the light of the wording of the Act, without regard to the principles which used to animate our grant of political asylum in extradition proceedings.
  Lord Justice Shaw, for example, in the recent case involving Mr. Tarling—it was reported in The Times the next day, in February this year—said that no imputation of partiality had been made against the Singapore Government: if it had been, the court would have rejected it, and quite properly so. That means that we must take into account that our judges are not politicians but lawyers expected to apply the law, to interpret it with common sense, bearing in mind their authority and experience and the spirit of the law. But it is always assumed by the courts in this country, as Lord Reid said in the Armah case, that requesting countries will honour their obligations.
  The Chairman: May I call the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that this is a Second Reading Committee? While I am properly allowing him a very wide scope, many of the arguments he seems to be adducing are more suitable for the Committee stage of the Bill.
  Mr. Stanbrook: Thank you, Mr. Blenkinsop, for calling that to my attention. I shall bear it in mind. But I am sure that you will bear in mind also that "political character" is of the essence in this debate. It is not a purely Committee point to say that we should not give the Bill a Second Reading because it deletes "political character" from the whole of our extradition law.
  The Chairman: May I also call the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that we are not strictly giving the Bill its Second Reading. It is proposed that I report to the House that the Committee recommend that it ought to be read a Second time. That is a slightly different emphasis.
  Mr. Stanbrook: Thank you, Mr. Blenkinsop; it is slightly different. What I am saying is that the main reason why you ought not so to report is that we are taking "political character" out of our extradition law by the Bill. That is an important general point of objection to the whole Bill, not against any particular clause or subsection.
  1602
  I appreciate, Mr. Blenkinsop, that I have taken some time to make these points, but I believe that it is justified because no opposition to the Bill has been expressed inside Parliament so far. Perhaps I may crave your indulgence if I keep to the general points, especially on "political character".
  The Times, for example, said that the Bill limits the generality with which courts grant extradition for offences of a political character, for political crimes. That is a good point, and I think it absolutely justified. It is not good enough for the hon. Lady to say that the Bill in no way derogates from our right to grant political asylum. We are talking not strictly about political asylum but about exemption from extradition on the ground of the political character of the offence.
  I hope that I have shown—perhaps I have been unsuccessful—that we are ignoring the fact that half of a political offence is concerned with the motives of the offender. In this case, we are dropping that half completely for the future application of the law.
  It is perfectly true, as the Minister said, that in 1969, for the first time in our history, we deleted the concept of political character from extradition proceedings in connection with the offence of genocide. That is an interesting example. It is the only offence so far in English law which merits consideration as an exemption from the general rule that political offences should be exempt.
  The Genocide Convention was drawn up, I believe, in 1949. It was not until 1962—and that period includes the Labour Government of 1945–51—that any British Government considered ratifying that convention. When the Government of 1962 considered it, it was rejected. If it will not unduly delay our proceedings, I can quote what the then Lord Privy Seal my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), said—
  The Chairman: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is in danger of trying the Committee's patience a little by the detail into which he is going on the proposals regarding the Genocide Convention. We must stick fairly strictly to the broad principles. The extent to which the hon. Gentleman cites detailed examples must be limited.
  Mr. Stanbrook: I shall abbreviate it, Mr. Blenkinsop, by saying that the Genocide Act did not pass in the House until 1969, 20 years after the convention. That reflected the grave concern of authorities in this country at dropping the exemption for offences of a political character.
  It is significant, too, that the United States of America has still not ratified the Genocide Convention in its law for the same reason, namely, that the Americans do not like making exemptions for any particular offence from their general principle of political asylum.
  Sir M. Havers: Perhaps my hon. Friend will assist the Committee by dealing with Schedule 1 and say which of the offences set out there are those in respect of which he would object to an extradition order being made.
  Mr. Stanbrook: This is an interesting point, because the spirit behind it lies at the heart of what my right hon. and learned Friend has already said about the Bill. He is animated by the seriousness of these offences. It is true that those specified in Schedule 1 are all, apparently, very serious offences. But it appears from reading the small print—if one may call it that—that we are not always dealing with offences of terrorism per se, and also I do not believe that this should be considered in the light of particular offences which have been quoted.
  This convention has been signed by a number of members of the Council of Europe—18, I think—but Article 13 allows for reservations to be made on signature and on ratification. That is rather interesting, because if the main purpose of the Bill is to drop exemption from extradition for political offences, one should look for reciprocity among other members of the Council of Europe which will benefit from our doing so.
  On reading the list one sees that France, for example, has reserved its position in a long memorandum on page 8, saying
  "It is self-evident that efficiency in this struggle must be reconciled with respect for the fundamental principles of our criminal law and of our Constitution, whih states in its Preamble that 'Anyone persecuted on account of his action for the cause of liberty has the right to asylum on the territory of the Republic."
  1604
  Italy has declared that the convention will not apply to political offences. Norway has declared that it will not apply, as have Portugal and Sweden. We are already finding, therefore, that what is left is very small indeed. Yet, in principle, for those of us who take all these things in good faith, it is very big indeed.
  What is worse is that the British Government go further than they need. The convention provides for two scales of offences to be considered—first, Article 1, under which all those ratifying must provide for dropping the exemption for political offences and, second, Article 2, which is optional. As the hon. Lady said, the British Government have taken both into the ambit of the Bill and propose therefore to extend the exemption for political offences to cover offences covered by both those articles.
  Here is, I hope, a very general fundamental point. The real problem we are dealing with here is that under our present extradition law the Secretary of State has no option but to grant asylum where the offence is found by a court to be of a political character. That, perhaps, is the weakness of our present extradition law in relation to crimes committed by terrorists. It seems that this Government have been stampeded into altering a law affecting our fundamental liberties and restricting the right of asylum when the purpose could be achieved by the Secretary of State's not being obliged to grant asylum even if the court finds that the ingredients of an offence of a political character have been made up.
  I suggest, therefore, that the problem should be dealt with by giving the Secretary of State a discretion and not by abandoning the concept of offences of a political character. It must be remembered that the Fugitive Offenders Act 1881, which preceded the Act of 1967, did not include within it offence of a political character.
  As the hon. Lady said, there are some States with which we are on such good terms that in a proper case we would not dream of refusing to them the extradition of offenders who come to this country. The principles of the 1881 Act in relation to the Commonwealth were those of trust. The only restriction of this kind was that there should be no return

  1605
  where such return would be unjust or oppressive. One might say that that is covered by the present concept of political refugees which the hon. Lady quoted today. But until 1967 "political character" did not apply.
  I refer members of the Committee to the case of Anthony Enahoro. It is a case that will be well known to Members of the House, because it excited a great deal of controversy when it occurred in about 1962. Anthony Enahoro was wanted by Nigeria, then a fully democratic and parliamentary country with a system of courts based on our own and staffed, to a great extent, by people trained in this country. Anthony Enahoro was charged with offences which basically involved raising and training a rebel army.
  It is, perhaps, difficult to imagine a more political offence. However, he was extradited—there was nothing in the Act to prevent it. It would not have been unjust or oppressive for this country to have returned him. Indeed, it did so order that he should be returned, because it was known that he would get a fair trial in Nigeria, which he received, and he survived to be a Minister in a later administration.
  That caused a trauma, not only in this place, in discussion as to whether Mr. Enahoro should go back. My hon. Friend, who is now the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Smith) but who was then the Member for Brentford and Chiswick and Mr. Enahoro's constituency Member, worked very hard on his behalf and will be particularly aware of the case.
  One might have said that the offence on which Mr. Enahoro was sent back was political. Therefore, in 1967 that case was one of the reasons why "political character" was added to the Fugitive Offenders Act. That means that the Government then acknowledged that political refuge was not sufficient in the terms of the old definition but that it was necessary to insert the new provisions.
  I can see, Mr. Blenkinsop, that you are getting impatient, so I shall turn to the next aspect of what I was saying the Bill was about.
  The Chairman: It is important to remember that the Committee will want to come to some conclusion this morning.
  Mr. Stanbrook: That is all very well, if I may say so, Mr. Blenkinsop. But if the Committee does not come to a conclusion this morning it will not be because I have been out of order. With respect, I am discussing the Bill. It is fundamentally a most important Bill and the problems arising thereon ought to be aired. I do not think that I have yet given cause for the Committee to devote a second sitting to the matter and I hope that I shall not be responsible for that.
  The second aspect that I wanted to talk about is the fact that it is adding offences to the list of extradition crimes. That is one of its other purposes besides changing the operation of exemption for offences of a political character.
  That leads me to ask why some offences have been included in that part of the Bill which are eminently desirable while others have been excluded. For example, conspiracy appears in only two cases in the Extradition Acts—murder and drug offences—but everywhere in the Fugitive Offenders Act. Why was not the opportunity taken to make the list of extraditable offences the same, whether for the Extradition Acts or for the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967? In both cases there is a schedule. Surely, if we are to alter our extardition law, we should take advantage of the opportunity of a Bill coming which seeks to alter our extradition law.
  I say that it is making the matter more complicated. Surely, we should take advantage of the opportunity to make it simpler and at least to standardise our approach for extradition purposes to that of foreign States as well as to that of Commonwealth States. At the moment those two lists are different: some offences are included in the one but not in the other, and vice versa.
  As regards Ireland, the Backing of Warrants (Republic of Ireland) Act 1965 has a different concept entirely on indictable offences. But in that measure there is a significant change in the wording. Hon. Members will see in the Bill that when we alter the Extradition Acts in relation to the convention countries, we speak of the possibility that the returned offender might be persecuted. But when we alter the Backing of Warrants Act we say that the offender would be persecuted. There is a significant difference in law

  1607
  between those two terms, as has been held in a number of cases before now.
  The Government should give consideration to this, because if it is a benefit that we are giving to the Irish offenders then, surely, we should extend it to all other offenders. Why should there be any advantage—or, indeed, disadvantage—for one that is not available for the others?
  I suggest that we should include in the Bill any offence which is extraditable by the laws of both countries. We do that at the moment in 24 out of 44 treaties which apply to us. We do not seem to do that for the rest and we do not do it for fugitive offenders under the Fugitive Offenders Act.
  I turn now to a third aspect of the whole Bill in the scheme which I outlined when I rose. I welcome the extraterritorial jurisdiction provisions. They form a part of the Bill that is helpful and will enable the extradition law to be rationalised and conducted in the courts more sensibly. It will lead to some difficulties in that, by dropping the political character for some people and not for others, we may have some difficulties in our courts in matters of evidence, and so on. We say that evidence may not be taken in this country if the matter refers to an offence committed abroad which is a political offence. With regard to some countries in the future that will not apply because they will be covered by the Bill, and in others it will apply. More rationalisation is needed there.
  I am glad to see also that, in spite of the wording of the convention, we can prosecute for an offence covered by the jurisdiction conferred by the Bill, whether we refuse extradition or not. So it may not always be necessary to wait for a request from another country to put it through our courts and then to refuse it on the ground, say, of political opinions. We could prosecute in this country with the offender here and with the assistance of evidence supplied from abroad.
  I believe that that part of the Bill is useful. In the long run it is, perhaps, the real answer to problems of this kind. We shall always have reservations about when and to whom we should extradite persons who commit offences for politi
  1608
  cal motives. It is not the fault of legal drafting in the Bill because I think that the drafting is excellent. It is simply the political inspiration which is causing the trouble. We shall always have these difficulties, but if we can get round them by conferring jurisdiction on our courts I think that we shall have solved a problem which is causing concern.
  Perhaps I may now summarise my attitude to the Bill. First, I believe that we should not ratify the convention until or unless we place a reservation upon our ratification so that we keep the notion of offences of a political character in addition to the safeguards which are being imported into the Bill and which are already present in the Fugitive Offenders Act. In other words, we should apply to everybody what we now apply to the Commonwealth.
  Secondly, we should use the provisions for extra-territorial jurisdiction of these courts over terrorist offences to the full.
  Thirdly, if, as it is apparent that most people seem to want, we want a political solution to this problem, I suggest we should not be seeking to achieve it by changing the concept of "political character". We should be taking political action against the offenders and against those who harbour offenders. That means refusing landing rights to State airlines of countries which do not observe the terms of the Hague and Montreal conventions. I believe that is the only effective sanction in future. It is a political solution to the problem and one which I believe is appropriate. But what we should not do is build up a hornet's nest around an already complicated law of extradition.
  Dr. Summerskillrose—
  The Chairman: May I point out that second speeches in a Second Reading Committee can be made only with the consent of the Committee.
  12.16 p.m.
  Dr. Summerskill: By leave of the Committee, perhaps I may reply to the debate. Other hon. Members who have spoken in this debate had the advantage, I suppose, of speaking before the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) and therefore did not feel obliged either to agree or to disagree with the many points that he made.

  1609
  The hon. Member made a very detailed speech which I shall read and study carefully, as I am sure will all members of the Committee, whenever we actually get it in printed form. However, I should like now to take up a few of the points that have been made in the general debate and which are factual.
  I welcome the general support that the measure has received. The exception is the hon. Member for Orpington, although the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) would have liked more to be done to suppress terrorism than is being done in the Bill, but this measure is worthy of the support of all of us.
  I was asked why the opportunity has not been taken to list the offences under the Fugitive Offenders Act and the Extradition Act in the same way. The Bill is restricted to the terms of the convention, upon which it is based.
  So we have made extraditable those offences under the convention which are not already extraditable—that is, offences under the Offences against the Person Act, the Firearms Act and the Explosive Substances Act, and attempts to commit such offences.
  Within the limits of the Bill, therefore, we have taken the opportunity to make all indictable offences under those two Acts extraditable and all attempts to commit extraditable offences. Conspiracies are not covered in the convention, and therefore we could not justify including them in the Bill.
  The general theme of the hon. Member for Orpington was that the Bill deletes the political character of the offence from the whole context of extradition law. To attempt to answer the hon. Gentleman's long speech in a sentence, I would say that it is true in relation to the very serious offences covered by the Bill which are of a terrorist nature—and which I sense, from the response of the rest of the Committee, that we are desperately anxious to do something to avoid—and only in respect of contracting States. It does not have such a generalised effect as the hon. Member for Orpington has alleged.
  The hon. Gentleman was right in saying that some countries have reservations
  1610
  under the convention. We have not. We would rather that other countries did not, but we do not insist on absolute reciprocity. We will be prepared to extradite fugitives to those countries in circumstances where those countries might not be prepared to extradite fugitives to us, but we believe that extradition is the most effective way of ensuring that terrorists are brought to justice and we do not want to increase barriers to extradition even if other States do so.
  The hon. and learned Member for South Fylde is not here, but perhaps he will read my reply. Other hon. Members, too, will be interested to learn, on the question of the general measures that other countries are taking, that we have consistently urged other Governments to become parties to the Tokyo, Hague and Montreal conventions because we believe that international collaboration is essential in combating hijacking and other forms of international terrorism. We strongly supported the United Nations General Assembly resolution adopted by consensus on 3rd November last which called on all States which had not already done so to become parties to those three conventions. There are encouraging signs that the number of Governments prepared now to give a haven to hijackers is dwindling. I think that the efforts of the United Nations can only be helpful in that regard.
  The hon. and learned Members for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) and for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) raised the question of the Republic of Ireland, about which I know that many people are concerned. We very much hope that the Republic of Ireland will become a party to the convention, and we have made our views known to the present Government of the Republic. We have made it clear that we disagree with the view that customary international law does not allow the extradition of political offenders. We should wish to see the Republic sign and ratify the convention without reservation and implement it in the same comprehensive way as the United Kingdom. Only in this way could we ensure that fugitive terrorist suspects could no longer avoid extradition from the Republic by pleading that the offence involved was political.
  We have made appropriate provision in the Bill to enable it to be applied to

  1611
  the Republic as soon as the Republic ratifies the convention. We have also provided for the application of some of the Bill's provisions to the Republic of Ireland even if the Republic is not a party to the convention, in case the Republic were willing to participate in an agreement outside the convention but on similar lines. Discussions are at present taking place in the EEC about the possibility of concluding such an agreement between the Republic and the rest of the Nine.
  There is, of course, already available the reciprocal criminal jurisdiction legislation—embodied in the Criminal Jurisdiction Act 1975—which enables the courts in the Republic to try offenders for crimes committed in Northern Ireland and vice versa. This legislation applies to a wide range of offences committed by terrorists after 1st June 1976.
  Mr. Carlisle: Am I right in thinking that that Act is limited to acts of terrorism committed within Northern Ireland? Does it cover acts of terrorism committed, for example, in this country by members of the IRA for a political purpose?
  Dr. Summerskill: As I understand it, it enables courts in the Republic to try offenders for crimes committed in Northern Ireland, and the courts in Northern Ireland to try offenders for crimes committed in the Republic.
  Mr. Carlisle: Therefore, I am right in saying that there is a right to try in the courts of Southern Ireland offences, for example, committed either in Birmingham or London by IRA members in this country.
  Dr. Summerskill: I think that "No" is the answer to that question. It has serious limitations.
  I should like to take up some other points made by the hon. Member for Orpington. We have extradition arrangements with all members of the Council of Europe except Turkey, either in the form of treaties with foreign States or in the form of reciprocal legislation for Commonwealth countries. The provisions

  Division No. 1]

  AYES

  Bates, Mr. Alf

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Parry, Mr. Robert

  Carlisle, Mr. Mark

  Orbach, Mr. Maurice

  Summerskill, Dr. Shirley

  Gardner Mr. Edward

  of the Bill can be applied to a non-convention country under Clause 5 only if the United Kingdom already has extradition arrangements with that country. It is not the case that the Bill can be applied to any country in the world, as I think the hon. Gentleman might inadvertently have said.
  The hon. and learned Member for Runcorn was worried about the words of Clause 2—no doubt we could look at those in more detail in Committee—and asked whether they detract from Clause 1. The provision in Clause 2 is modelled on the provision in the Fugitive Offenders Act which is itself based on a similar provision in the European convention on extradition. The words would appear to come from there. It is relevant that the offence of a fugitive, in order to be covered by the Bill, must be an offence of violence, and basically Clause 2 ensures that the fugitive will not be sent back if there is any reason to suppose that he will not get a fair trial. Obviously, we can look at that in Committee.
  One final point raised by the hon. Member for Orpington and the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde concerned the political safeguards that I mentioned in my speech. There are two limbs to the political safeguard. One limb relates to the character of the offence. This is the safeguard removed by the Bill in relation to the Extradition Act, the Fugitive Offenders Act and the Backing of Warrants (Republic of Ireland) Act. The other limb relates to the motive for the request for extradition. It is this safeguard that ensures that the fugitive is not extradited if he is likely to suffer on the grounds of his political opinions. It is this that is considered to be the greatest protection and to be most relevant to the political refugee.
  I am sure that the Committee stage will be most interesting and, I hope, not too lengthy. I am glad that the Committee generally welcomes this essential piece of legislation.
  Question put:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 1.

  NOES

  Stanbrook, Mr. Ivor

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Ordered,
  That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the

  THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS ATTENDED THE COMMITTEE:

  Blenkinsop, Mr. Arthur (Chairman)

  Hutchison, Mr. Clark

  Bates, Mr.

  Mather, Mr.

  Carlisle, Mr.

  Orbach, Mr.

  Fletcher-Cooke, Mr.

  Parry, Mr.

  Gardner, Mr Edward

  Stanbrook, Mr.

  Havers, Sir M.

  Summerskill, Dr.

  Suppression of Terrorism Bill [Lords] ought to be read a Second time.
  Committee rose at twenty-nine minutes past Twelve o'clock.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Sewage (Fertiliser Potential)
  Sewage (Fertiliser Potential)
  Central Council for Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation
  Central Council for Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation
  COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL
  COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (RUNNING COSTS)
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (RUNNING COSTS)
EMPLOYMENT
  Retraining (Allowances)
  Retraining (Allowances)
  Cost of Living
  Cost of Living
  Working Week
  Working Week
  Health and Safety
  Health and Safety
TRADE
  Spanish Toilet Tissue
  Spanish Toilet Tissue
  European Community
  European Community
  Textiles
  Textiles
  Lucas Aerospace (Exports)
  Lucas Aerospace (Exports)
  Waste Paper
  Waste Paper
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Summer Time
  Summer Time
  Merseyside (Stolen Cars)
  Merseyside (Stolen Cars)
  Criminals
  Criminals
ENVIRONMENT
  Community Land
  Community Land
  Embassies (Planning Applications)
  Embassies (Planning Applications)
  Property Services Agency (Staff Dispersal)
  Property Services Agency (Staff Dispersal)
  Scottish Assembly
  Scottish Assembly
  Houses (Price)
  Houses (Price)
  Pay Settlements (Government Action)
  Pay Settlements (Government Action)
  Local Government Finance (Capital Expenditure)
  Local Government Finance (Capital Expenditure)
TRANSPORT
  Trams
  Trams
  Merseyside (Road Accidents)
  Merseyside (Road Accidents)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Staff
  Staff
  Establishment Reductions
  Establishment Reductions
INDUSTRY
  Hong Kong (Railway Cars)
  Hong Kong (Railway Cars)
  Plastics
  Plastics
  Garments (Imports)
  Garments (Imports)
  Textiles
  Textiles
  Invest in Britain Bureau
  Invest in Britain Bureau
ENERGY
  United States of America (Visit)
  United States of America (Visit)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Teaching Qualifications
  Teaching Qualifications
  Libraries (Book Purchases)
  Libraries (Book Purchases)
  School Leavers (Employment)
  School Leavers (Employment)
  Youth Service (Political Education)
  Youth Service (Political Education)
  Museums (Indemnities)
  Museums (Indemnities)
  School Milk
  School Milk
  Handicapped Children
  Handicapped Children
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Southern Africa
  Southern Africa
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
  Transkei
  Transkei
  Secretary of State (Overseas Visits)
  Secretary of State (Overseas Visits)
  United States (Secretary of State)
  United States (Secretary of State)
  Sri Lanka (Tea and Rubber Plantations)
  Sri Lanka (Tea and Rubber Plantations)
  Namibia
  Namibia
  Pakistan
  Pakistan
  South Africa
  South Africa
  Argentina
  Argentina
  Hong Kong (Governor)
  Hong Kong (Governor)
  Diplomatic Service (CPRS Report)
  Diplomatic Service (CPRS Report)
  World Community Centre
  World Community Centre
  Israel (Foreign Minister)
  Israel (Foreign Minister)
  Ethiopia
  Ethiopia
  Middle East
  Middle East
  St. Lucia
  St. Lucia
  Belize
  Belize
  Zambia (British Subjects)
  Zambia (British Subjects)
  Czarist Debts
  Czarist Debts
  Horn of Africa
  Horn of Africa
  European Community (Political Co-operation)
  European Community (Political Co-operation)
  Passports
  Passports
  Anatoly Shcharansky
  Anatoly Shcharansky
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  European Parliament (Elections)
  European Parliament (Elections)
  Enlargement
  Enlargement
  Council of Ministers
  Council of Ministers
  European Parliament (Site)
  European Parliament (Site)
  Foreign Ministers
  Foreign Ministers
  Africa (USSR Presence)
  Africa (USSR Presence)
  Spain and Greece
  Spain and Greece
NATIONAL FINANCE
  European Community (Policy Harmonisation)
  European Community (Policy Harmonisation)
  Child Benefit (Students)
  Child Benefit (Students)
  International Organisations
  International Organisations
  Disposable Income
  Disposable Income
  Take-home Pay
  Take-home Pay
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Mortgages
  Mortgages
  Public Service Pensions (Taxation)
  Public Service Pensions (Taxation)
  Women (Taxation)
  Women (Taxation)
  Investment Income Surcharge
  Investment Income Surcharge
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Certificates and Licences (Fees)
  Certificates and Licences (Fees)
  Waste Paper
  Waste Paper
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Ready-mixed Concrete Cartels
  Ready-mixed Concrete Cartels
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Health Technology Projects
  Health Technology Projects
  Former Civil Servants (Employment)
  Former Civil Servants (Employment)
  Harbour Health District (Expenditure)
  Harbour Health District (Expenditure)
  School Milk
  School Milk
  Hospital Beds and Nurses (Basildon and Billericay)
  Hospital Beds and Nurses (Basildon and Billericay)
  Hip Replacement
  Hip Replacement
  Dental Health (Children)
  Dental Health (Children)
  Dental and Optical Treatment (Pensioners)
  Dental and Optical Treatment (Pensioners)
  Doctors (Post-graduate Courses)
  Doctors (Post-graduate Courses)
  Self-Employed Persons (European Community Regulations)
  Self-Employed Persons (European Community Regulations)
  Births
  Births
  Nurses (Yorkshire)
  Nurses (Yorkshire)
  Birth and Death Certificates
  Birth and Death Certificates
SCOTLAND
  Ministerial Appointments
  Ministerial Appointments
  Devolution
  Devolution
  Forestry (Thinnings)
  Forestry (Thinnings)
  Child Fostering (Boarding-out Scales)
  Child Fostering (Boarding-out Scales)
  Industrial Training Boards
  Industrial Training Boards
  Electricity Demand
  Electricity Demand
  Terminal Patients
  Terminal Patients
  Sheltered Housing
  Sheltered Housing
  Seals
  Seals
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Land, Buildings and Works
  Land, Buildings and Works
  Prisoners (Hygiene)
  Prisoners (Hygiene)
  Housing Executive
  Housing Executive
  Unemployed Persons (Belfast)
  Unemployed Persons (Belfast)
  Family Income Supplement
  Family Income Supplement
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployment and Supplementary Benefits
  Unemployment and Supplementary Benefits
  Unemployed Benefit
  Unemployed Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
DEFENCE
  Hawk Aircraft (Sale to Indonesia)
  Hawk Aircraft (Sale to Indonesia)
  Epileptic Fits
  Epileptic Fits
  Fleet Air Arm Buccaneer Squadron
  Fleet Air Arm Buccaneer Squadron
  National Service
  National Service
  Service Personnel (Imprisonment)
  Service Personnel (Imprisonment)
  Service Personnel (Discharges)
  Service Personnel (Discharges)
  CONSULTATIVE ASSEMBLY OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE (DELEGATION)
  CONSULTATIVE ASSEMBLY OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE (DELEGATION)
  CHANCELLOR SCHMIDT (TALKS)
  CHANCELLOR SCHMIDT (TALKS)

Preamble
The House met at a quarter-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Carlisle.

LORD SOAMES
The Right Honourable Sir Arthur Christopher John Soames, GCMG, GCVO, CBE, having been created Baron Soames, of Fletching in the County of East Sussex, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Carrington and the Lord Home of the Hirsel.
LORD EVANS OF CLAUGHTON
David Thomas Gruffydd Evans, Esquire, having been created Baron Evans of Claughton, of Claughton in the County of Merseyside, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Beaumont of Whitley and the Lord Wigoder.

SPANISH MEASURES AGAINST GIBRALTAR
2.40 p.m.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether any alteration of Spanish measures against Gibraltar has resulted from their recent talks in Paris with the Spanish Government.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, there has been no alteration in the Spanish measures since the talks in Paris, but I am glad to say that the improvement in the atmosphere to which I referred in answering the noble Lord's Question on 31st January has been maintained. It was agreed at
1798
the Paris meeting that working groups should be set up to study a number of subjects of mutual interest and that a further ministerial meeting would be held before the end of the summer.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that moderately encouraging Answer, may I ask whether he can give any indication of when it is likely that practical steps will be taken to alleviate a situation which he himself not very long ago described as intolerable?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that moderately encouraging Supplementary, I am in no position to prophesy the date on which these annoying restrictions will be lifted. However, some progress has been made in a practical way. The working groups to which I referred will have acting on them representatives from Spain, this country and Gibraltar. I believe that those groups will proceed practically and effectively on a whole range of subjects.
Lord BOURNE: My Lords, will the noble Lord the Minister tell me the answer to this question: Is it not true that the Spanish Government have made application to enter the Common Market? Will they not have great difficulty in satisfying the Treaty of Rome if they continue to operate a closed frontier?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, certainly it would not be in the spirit of the Treaty of Rome. As to the legality of it, I should prefer to take this under advisement. What is true is that we, in common with our existing partners in the Nine, are favourably inclined towards the accession of democratic Spain to the Community. We hope that the conditions will be such that it will be found possible to include Spain not only in the political and economic structure of Europe but (who knows?) in the defensive structure of Europe. That, of course, is for the Spanish people and Government to decide. Anything which reduces the points of friction—for instance, Gibraltar —would help that accession, but I repeat what I said on the last occasion when we discussed this matter: the two must not be linked.
Lord HANKEY: My Lords, may we assume that, in any agreement which is ultimately reached, the Government will bear in mind the extreme importance of an efficient and up-to-date control of submarine traffic through the Straits of Gibraltar, and that whatever happens there, there should be apparatus and skilled genius available for doing it?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am sure that those considerations will be borne in mind in regard to any arrangements that we may come to with Spain, and with Gibraltar about its future.

OIL TANKERS AND BRITISH TERRITORIAL WATERS
2.45 p.m.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER:My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are considering banning the use of British territorial waters by large oil tankers operated under flags of convenience.
Baroness STEDMAN: No, my Lords. While we have reservations about the concept of flags of convenience, to ban the use of British territorial waters to such vessels would be inconsistent with the principle of innocent passage enshrined in the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea, to which the Government are committed.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: But, my Lords, is it not a fact that these ships are registered in countries which they never visit, for the main purpose of avoiding the provisions for safety and manning which are imposed on their own ships by responsible maritime countries? And is it really an example of innocent passage to send ships which may well be questionably operated into the territorial waters of a country such as ours, in circumstances which may produce a similar tragedy to that which has recently affected the coasts of Brittany?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, arising out of a similar Question we had some discussion on this matter only a few days ago. On that day, we dealt with the question of substandard ships flying flags of convenience, and I then suggested that they were subject to certain limitations and subject to inspections and our information was that the flag States were being much more vigilant in checking over these ships. They are the responsibility of the flag States. If what we believe to be a substandard ship conies into a British port we have the right, not to restrict its entry but to delay its departure until in our view it has been put into a fit state.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say how the flag State can impose any inspection on ships that never visit its ports, and, in those circumstances, does her reply really mean that Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to take steps to prevent the otherwise certain repetition on our own coasts of the Brittany tragedy?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, we are not prepared and are not able to restrict the entry of flag of convenience ships into British ports. We are satisfied that so far as United Kingdom registered ships are concerned they have to conform to the highest standards both in the maintenance of their ships and in the experience of their crews. Negotiations are going on all the time with the nations which supply the flags of convenience to other shipping. As I said last week in answer to a question, they are tightening up on the restrictions. If a substandard ship comes into a British port we have the power to detain it until it is put right, but we do not have the right to stop innocent passage on the high seas.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that before there can be any question of banning ships that are registered in Liberia the British Council of Shipping should be consulted because, as has been mentioned in your Lordships' House on previous occasions, many of the ships registered in Liberia are in fact owned by British shipowners? Has there been any consultation on the subject of flags of convenience, and if not, why not?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, consultations are always going on over the safety of ships which use the high seas. My information is that many of the flag of convenience ships are used by multilateral companies who themselves insist upon very high standards in their ships and in the qualities of the seamanship of their crews. There are also other companies which use the flags of convenience because it is perhaps financially better for them to register under a flag of convenience rather than under the flag of their own State, but we have no knowledge that there are more accidents or more dangers attaching to those ships which are flying the flags of convenience than there are with the others. I understand that a few British ships are registered under flags of convenience, but for the most part it is no advantage to a British shipowner to have other than United Kingdom registration.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept that there is great anxiety that some of these ships are not under proper rules and could cause a disaster of the magnitude that has happened off Brittany? And can she say whether further action has been taken following the conference in London in February of the Inter-governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation (IMCO) on the safety of tankers, which particularly went into navigational and other matters?
Baroness STEDMAN: Yes, my Lords, those consultations are still going on. IMCO are concerned. We are concerned as the United Kingdom Government. But we have not the power to prohibit the passage of these ships on the high seas.
Lord HALE: My Lords, in the meantime could the noble Baroness say whether there is any provision that these ships should be fully insured against damage caused to other countries and indeed to other persons generally?
Baroness STEDMAN: That, my Lords, I could not answer without notice, hut I will take advice on it and write to the noble Lord.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, does the noble Baroness realise that if a
1802
large tanker comes in down in Cornwall off Falmouth harbour it has to anchor outside the actual jurisdiction area of the Harbour Commissioners because it cannot get in any closer, and no revenue is produced at all? It still gets revictualled, though it pays no dues.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, that is a point of which was not aware; I will bring it to the notice of my right honourable friend.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, would not the Government be far wiser in every instance to allow these ships to discharge their cargoes first before proceeding to impose any restrictions upon them?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I think that raises another question. It is something to which I do not think I am competent to reply at the moment, but if the noble Lord likes to put down a further Question I will answer it.

COMMON FUND: COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE
2.53 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what conclusions were reached at the conference of Commonwealth nations on 14th and 15th April to consider the implementation of a Common Fund to facilitate co-operation in prices, trade and production.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, a Commonwealth meeting on the Common Fund was held at ministerial level in London on 13th and 14th April. It was attended by 32 Commonwealth countries and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade represented the United Kingdom and chaired the meeting. We believe that all the participants regarded this meeting as a success. We particularly welcomed the opportunity to outline the positive nature of our own approach to the Common Fund negotiations. The Ministers sought to identify, without prejudice to their national positions, elements of an approach which could contribute constructively to the wider international consultations which

1803
are now in progress on the prospects for a resumption of negotiations in UNCTAD. My Lords, I am placing in the Library of the House copies of the statement made at the meeting by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade, and the text of the communiqué that was issued at the end of the meeting.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very full reply; I am always amazed at the activity of the Front Bench on these issues. May I ask the noble Baroness whether any decisions were reached on the two issues which have caused divisions? The first is some Government contribution to the Common Fund, and the second, use of the Common Fund for the diversification of products in the developing territories.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, we have not accepted any commitment to direct contributions. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade made clear at the meeting, commodity consumers and producers in international commodity agreements must, in our view, remain the prime source of finance contributed by the Governments to the Fund. Further international work is needed to establish whether any element of direct financing could be compatible with this principle.
On the second point, we have not accepted any new commitments of principle in this area, but we have made it clear that we take very seriously the possibility of a role for the Fund in regard to measures other than buffer stocking, and that we are encouraging the other developed countries to do the same. Bearing in mind the extent of the existing international activity in support of other measures, it is clear that any second window would have to be limited in scale and that its scope would have to be very precisely defined; and the basing of the financing would, in our view, have to be voluntary. But there have been moves in that direction.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she recollects that the Foreign Secretary has recently said that we must have a new world economic order? Should that order not include the diversification of
1804
products? —because commodities are often the only products from a given territory—for example, copper in Zambia and groundnuts in Gambia. Therefore, would not help for diversification be a progressive step?
Baroness STEDMAN: Yes, my Lords, I think if we could have ordered help for diversification it would be. What we are hoping is that the UNCTAD Secretary General will soon be able to reconvene the conference. Then we can start to play our part in trying to help the underdeveloped nations and trying to get all the developed nations to give more help.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell us what steps are being taken by Her Majesty's Government to ensure that the Group B countries arrive at the next UNCTAD conference with the same degree of agreement about their policies as did the Group of 77 at the last?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, that is not really a matter for us alone to do. We want to see this conference take place as soon as possible. There have been moves, and I think there is more flexibility in the attitude of both the Group of 77 and the Group B nations. We can only hope that when the Secretary General can reconvene the UNCTAD conference we might see something rather more positive from it than we have up to now.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, does the noble Baroness's reply mean that in fact we are waiting for the conference itself before reaching an accord with those who share our position on this?
Baroness STEDMAN: No, my Lords, we were working in the recent conference to which I referred, and a copy of the communiqué is to be placed in the Library. We are working all the time towards getting agreement among our own Group B nations, and we are hoping that there will also be some movement and some flexibility from the Group of 77.

ELECTRICITY BOARDS AND MONOPOLY POWERS
2.58 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 whether they will advise the electricity boards against using their monopoly powers to compete unfairly with private electrical contractors, as for instance by printing on electricity bills slogans advertising their contracting services and enclosing leaflets advertising appliances for sale.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, electricity boards are permitted by Statute to carry out contracting services and to sell electrical appliances. The boards have no monopoly in these activities; they are subject to considerable competition. The methods used by the boards to advertise these activities are a matter for them.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, I am much obliged; but does the noble Lord understand that I am trying to make this point? If a private electrical contractor chooses to follow the lead of the electricity board and indulge in direct mail advertising, how can he hope to be able to compete, at seven pence a time, when the board has access four times a year to every household without any additional postage charges?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, like any commercial organisation with a service to offer or something to sell, electricity boards need to bring these to the attention of their customers. Their billing system provides a readily available and economic method of doing so. I imagine that if they were to post their leaflets by separate post they would be accused of wasting money.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether this is not the perennial grouse of private firms against the nationalised industries? In this context, have we not heard (is it unknown?) that in private industry there are cartels and price-fixing? In any case, does the Minister not think that advertising on an electricity bill, slogans on an electricity bill, might not be unproductive?
Lord STRABOLGI: Yes, my Lords, I fully agree with my noble friend. if the boards were prevented from using this method, they would have to spend more
1806
on conventional advertising media and the increased costs would have to be borne by the consumer.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, does it not come as a shock to my noble friend to realise that the Liberal Party appear to have abandoned their favourite principle of competition?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I do not answer for the Liberals. As I have said, the hoards have no monopoly here. The consumer is free to choose between the public and the private sectors. I may say also that the boards are equally subject to legislation designed to protect the consumer, and subject to any hire-purchase restrictions in force. This is the part of competition in which we all believe.
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, might I recount to the noble Lord a personal and a lamentable example?
Several noble Lords:Several noble Lords: No.
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, it is a question. Might I recount it? In any event, is the noble Lord aware of the lamentable circumstances which I encountered when I endeavoured to buy an electric cooker? My housekeeper sought to purchase a kipper—I mean cooker, although either could have been bought since it was to Harrods that she went. Arriving at Harrods, she was quoted a price of £180. When we inquired at the local electricity company whether a similar cooker could be bought from it, the price was £40 higher. When I sought an explanation I was told that it was because the electricity company was the only service that could ensure that the cooker was maintained in order. In order to bring down prices, would it not be appropriate that an electricity company should be advised to give its services generally in this matter, and should not proclaim a monopoly that is obviously injurious to the trade and the customer?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, we all know of these cases. I am sorry that my noble friend has had a bad experience—although I am quite sure that he is able to take care of himself. The complaints by the general public about individual cases can, of course, be taken up with the area electricity consultative councils.

1807
Details about how to get in touch with them are advertised on the back of the accounts.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this is not a question of competition? It is a question of fair competition and unfair competition, which is the point that my noble friend wishes to make.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I think that it would be a disservice to electricity consumers to deny them the electricity boards' considerable experience in these fields. A considerable number of their customers use these services extensively. This is perfectly ordinary competition between the public and private sectors.
Lord PARGITER: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware, and is it not a fact, that many large companies send out similar literature with their accounts to their customers?
Lord STRABOLGI: Yes, my Lords, of course, it is an approved method of advertising.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, the companies which the noble Lord, Lord Pargiter, mentions do not enjoy this monopoly of having access by post to every household in the United Kingdom. Is that not so?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I think that I have answered the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, about this, and the use of alternative media, if they were denied this particular method.

COMMONS REGISTRATION (CARDIGANSHIRE) BILL
The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Greenwood of Rossendalc): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Chairman of Committees, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 28—(Lord Greenwood of Rossendale.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee on Unopposed Bills.

SOUTHERN AFRICA
3.4 p.m.
Lord CARRINGTONrose to call attention to the problems of Southern Africa; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have deliberately chosen for this debate the terms of my Motion to he the problems of Southern Africa as a whole, and not just Rhodesia, because although Rhodesia is a part of Southern Africa, there are more problems than Rhodesia. There is the South-West Africa—Namibia problem and the problems of South Africa itself. Obviously the problem of Rhodesia arises from the unilateral declaration of independence, and more immediately from the internal settlement and the response Oven to it. The difficulties of Namibia arise from a dispute between South Africa and the United Nations, the successors to the League of Nations, about the legality of the South African administration and now its independence. The problem of South Africa itself is the result of the apartheid policies of the South African Government and the consequences to the Free World of the increasing pressure which is being put upon that country, and the consequences of that pressure upon us.
We in Britain are interested in the area, in a greater or lesser degree, for reasons which go beyond our constitutional responsibility for the future of Rhodesia and our membership of the United Nations. It would not be sensible, for example, to ignore our economic interests, which Britain and the Free World generally have in the future of Southern Africa, not least in the shape of the minerals in that continent which constitute a very large part of the reserves of the Free World, and which in certain circumstances could be at risk. The view is held, I know—I have heard it in important quarters—that this is not so. The argument runs like this: that whatever the complexion of the Governments of Southern Africa, whether they be Marxist or not, the economic facts of life will make it necessary for them to sell to the West minerals which the West needs. If they did not, economic ruin would follow. Consequently, the argument goes on, it does not really matter what happens in those countries, and what are the political complexions of their Governments.

1809
I do not accept that argument. Of course, in most cases it would be so. Trade goes on between the committed and the uncommitted, between East and West, as a natural course of events, but it does not follow that it would always be so, or that there might not be occasions when priorities other than economic self-interest are more important to the countries concerned. There is, I should have thought, a potential threat of blackmail involving materials essential to the Western economy. There are circumstances in which denial of access might be used to put pressure on the West. There would no doubt be some kind of compensation, if those Governments were Marxists, which would become available from the Soviet Union and its allies.
How would we feel, for example, if the oil-producing countries of the Middle East were in the hands of Marxist Governments? Would the argument that economic good sense must inevitably prevail make us sleep more securely in our beds? Here I must say unequivocally that the attitude of the Soviet Union has, to say the least, been less than helpful in Southern Africa. Under the guise of supporting freedom fighters they have sought to disrupt and have made much more difficult a peaceful solution both in Rhodesia and in Namibia. They have armed, financed and equipped the guerrilla movements. They have introduced Cubans to the African Continent and, as we have seen in the communiqué which was issued in Moscow earlier this week, they have every intention of continuing to do so. For my part, I do not see how, in the light of these avowed intentions, the West can leave unaltered its policy towards the Soviet Union.
We are interested in the area, for strategic reasons. Your Lordships know the vital importance of the Cape route. I was reading a book the other day in which I found that every year 24,000 ocean-going ships go round the Cape; that in 1957, 6,000 ships called in at South African ports, and in 1975, 16,000 ships called in at African ports. Of course that trade includes not just minerals but oil—and the significance of oil to Western Europe is much more than it is to the United States.
It may be argued—and I tend to agree with the argument—that as the Cape
1810
route is so vital to the West, if that route be singled out as a threat then inevitably an immediate escalation would take place since the West could not passively be starved to death of oil and vital materials without taking some action. But even if this is true, is it wise to make no effort to keep the Indian Ocean and the Cape route in friendly hands and so avoid what may be the cause of a third world war? In any case why rely on the threat of escalation to secure our vital interests? We are interested, too, in the fate of Southern Africa as believers in human rights. I do not refer just to apartheid and the situation in South Africa, but just as much to the right of the Rhodesians and the Namibians to decide their own destinies.
I do not criticise President Carter's approach on human rights. Indeed, I welcome it. It has, alas!, been true in these past years in Africa that the West has been unfairly associated with a materialism and a wish to maintain its economic interest while seeming, to African opinion, to lack any very attractive ideology, or even a proper concern for their interests.
The Soviet bloc has somehow managed to present itself in a different light, partly by sending money and equipment to the freedom fighters, who others would label guerrillas. And though it is difficult to understand why anybody should suppose that the Soviet system is attractive ideologically, or exciting, or an example of success in anything other than an increase in military potential, it has managed to do so.
However, the great difference between the West and the Soviet bloc is not that we are materially more successful—although of course we are—and certainly not that we are not prepared to fight for our beliefs. The important difference is the value we place upon human freedom and the rights of the ordinary man to have a say in his present and his future and, of course, the fact that we do not seek world domination and the elimination of societies other than our own. In the Soviet Union that is demonstrably not so, and it is very welcome that an American President should present that aspect of Western society to Africans in so direct a fashion.

1811
However, with that policy also comes an obligation to avoid double standards. It is, of course, true that we in Britain do not approve of apartheid or separate development. Both Parties have made that plain on numerous occasions to the South Africans. However, we must not operate a double standard about human liberty and human rights. If apartheid is a denial of human liberty, so then are the policies of the Ethiopian Government and the Ugandan Government. If freedom of communication and a free Press are part of our human rights, then how many countries in Africa who condemn the South Africans have themselves freedom of communication and a free Press? If we condemn Chile, how much more should we condemn the massacres in Cambodia. To be selective in condemnation of evil because of one's political sympathy for the system of government is contemptible. I only wish that the vociferous opponents of South Africa were sometimes heard to be condemning other evils just as bad, and in many ways worse, in countries whose systems they seem to admire and whose political philosophies they seek to introduce here. These, then, it seems to me, are the interests of the West, and particularly of Britain, in Southern Africa: trade, strategic need, regional stability and human rights.
At any rate in the short term, it seems to me that the problems of Namibia may be the most immediately dangerous. If things go wrong, it may indeed trigger off a whole series of consequences of profound importance, particularly to Europe. The fact of the matter is that, as in Rhodesia, there are broadly speaking two sets of people competing for power. Predominantly outside the country there is the South West African People's Organisation (SWAPO), and inside the country the internal political Parties, the largest of which is the political alliance formed during the Turnhalle talks.
I do not know—I do not think that anyone does—how you make a judgment as to who would win in a a fair and free election, if such a thing were possible. Both sides have support and it is as well to remember that the Ovambo, who are the supporters of SWAPO, compose nearly half the population of Namibia. At the same time, until the brutal murder
1812
of Chief Kapuuo a murder which there can be little doubt was inspired by SWAPO—the Turnhalle Party was gaining ground under Chief Kapuuo, a leader trusted by a very great number of people outside his own tribe.
It is not for us to make up the minds of the Namibian people as to how they should vote. I know that some people fear that SWAPO would introduce a one-Party Marxist State, and some of the things that Mr. Nujoma has said have given grounds for that idea. However, I must say that the SWAPO leaders to whom I have talked, other than Mr. Nujoma to whom I have also talked, showed no evidence of that, and, indeed, have seemed genuinely to wish for a multiracial society.
I think, too, if I may say this to the Government, that the Western Powers discouraged far too much the settlement reached at the Turnhalle by the ethnic groups. It may be that what they proposed was not perfect, but to turn it down out of hand and to appear to be supporting SWAPO with a seeming disregard for the other Parties was, I think, very unwise. I am glad to think that that attitude at any rate has changed. SWAPO may be, in the view of the United Nations, the sole representative of the Namibian people, but in fact it is nothing of the kind.
There is also no doubt—I do not suppose that the Government would deny this—that the Western Powers have put very great pressure on South Africa to get them to agree to their proposals and interim arrangements leading to independence. Over these past months, successively South Africa has been asked by the West for more and more concessions. What seemed a final proposal became but another stage to further demands from SWAPO and further concessions from the South Africans. However, as I understand it, the Western Five have now put forward their final proposals—and I repeat "final proposals"—and these have been accepted by the South African Government. Let us be quite clear that Mr. Vorster has gone a very long way in agreeing to those proposals and we should warmly welcome his statement of yesterday.

1813
So far SWAPO has not agreed and, indeed, in the Guardian today it is reported that Mr. Nujoma, though stopping short of any absolute rejection of the Western plan, said that he remained forever convinced that guerrilla war was the only path to real independence.
I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, to tell the House this afternoon firmly and categorically that, now the South Africans have accepted in two the Western proposals, the West will stick to its plan whatever may be the reactions of SWAPO and that it will, in the Security Council, seek to implement that plan. I should like to ask the noble Lord one further question. Will he tell the House whether me Soviet Union, which has the ability to frustrate these proposals by a veto in the Security Council, has accepted the validity of the Western plan? For it would be, to say the least of it, astonishing if, after months of negotiation with the South Africans we were to discover that the West had been negotiating without such an agreement from the Soviet Union.
I should like to mention one further matter. It seems to me that South African agreement puts the West under an obligation. The General Assembly is on record as advocating further mandatory economic sanctions against South Africa almost regardless of what that country does. A proposal to impose further sanctions upon South Africa because other countries and the Soviet Union are unwilling to accept the Western plan is something which the West must resist most strongly. Not just—may I say—because the consequences of sanctions would he catastrophic for everybody—for South Africa, Lesotho, Swaziland and Botswana, which depend almost entirely for their economic wellbeing on the economy of South Africa, and for the blacks in South Africa; they would also be catastrophic for us. with our large investments in South Africa and the £650 million worth of trade that we do annually with that country. Here I must, of course, declare an interest as a director of companies which trade in and with South Africa.
The world economic situation is difficult enough without adding gratuitously to it. Nor do I believe that sanctions are a proper way of bringing pressure
1814
to bear, nor, indeed, are they easy to enforce. I did not think so in regard to Rhodesia and I do not think so now. Nor do I think so in regard to South Africa. The West is on a very slippery slope indeed if it is prepared to use a weapon of that sort in this kind of situation. I do not believe that sanctions and isolation are the right way to influence people. In the case of South Africa, having regard to the Afrikaner character, it is a particularly foolish way of doing it.
That brings me to the internal problems of South Africa, which are very different from the problems of Rhodesia and Namibia. For example, it is not a colonial situation. The Afrikaners have been there much longer than the blacks who now live in the Republic, and they have nowhere else to go. Indeed, I think one could say without offence that the Afrikaner are just as much a tribe as the other tribes of Southern Africa. The problems are different, but they are still serious. As I have already said, there is no one in this House who would approve of separate development and the policies of the South African Government as they have been carried out over the years, nor do I believe that a society based on such a system can conceivably last. However, that is different from saying that certain far-ranging political reforms have to be made overnight, because that cannot be done and, speaking realistically, it will not be done.
There will have to be a change; not as gradual a change as is happening now, because that is too slow; but there must be a change. I believe that there is a sign—a very small sign—that there will be a change in South African policies. There is no need to approve of what happens in South Africa; indeed, we cannot. But it seems to me that there is every need that we should keep contact with them, express our views, urge them towards the solutions which would be their own ultimate salvation and which would enable us to help them towards that salvation.
Lastly—and this I know is in the mind of most of your Lordships—there is the problem of Rhodesia. I do not wish for one moment to underestimate the problems which face the Foreign Secretary. Quite clearly, he is right in seeking to associate the Patriotic Front with the

1815
internal leaders. Without that, international acceptance of the new country would be much more difficult to achieve and it would be immeasurably more difficult to organise an election which would be seen by the outside world to be free, fair and without intimidation.
But even so, it must be said that there has been a very inadequate recognition of the remarkable achievement of the internal settlement and too much support for its opponents. Not very long ago, Mr. Smith was saying, "No majority rule for 1,000 years"; not very long ago, Mr. Smith was saying that he would not have one man one vote at any price; not very long ago, Mr. Smith was saying that he had no intention whatever of having majority rule or a General Election. He has agreed to all this, and independence and majority rule by 31st December this year. Not only that—he has made this agreement with the three black leaders who, in the opinion of those who are best qualified to judge, have the backing of the majority of the Rhodesian people.
Of course it is right for the Government to try to associate the Patriotic Front with a solution, but was it really ever a practical proposition to ask the four internal leaders for a total renegotiation of what they had just done? After weeks of discussion they had agreed on all the principles and conditions which successive British Governments had asked for. They have specifically said that there was room for the inclusion of other African leaders in their agreement. On what grounds could they be asked to start again from scratch? To ask them to do so on the basis of an Anglo-United States agreement, which, itself was totally unacceptable to the Patriotic Front until the internal settlement came along, is clearly not practical politics.
I am not surprised that a conference based upon such a proposal has been turned down. But that does not mean that the proposition that the Patriotic Front must be brought in is any the less true. I very much hope that Dr. Owen will continue his efforts to that end. I must say that I find it very difficult to understand why Mr. Mugabe and Mr. Nkomo will not associate themselves with that settlement. As I say, a place is left open for them.
1816
Of course, they may not like every aspect of the proposed Constitution. Very well -let them negotiate before the election takes place in order to change it. Perhaps they do not like the 28 white seats in a Parliament of 100, but that is a price that has to be paid for a white agreement and majority rule; and as there is an undertaking that the white Party will not enter into a coalition with a black Party, the majority African Party will be able to govern in as sovereign a way as in any other African State.
Perhaps Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Mugabe find it difficult to come to terms with the internal leaders because they themselves did not negotiate the agreement. Perhaps they are unwilling to face an election which they do not think they will win. Perhaps it is a combination of all these things. I do not know.
However, I think that the internal leaders would be wise to compromise in order to get Mr. Nkomo and the Patriotic Front in. I think, too, that the internal leaders would be wise to accelerate their progress. If they are to maintain the support of the people of Rhodesia, the interim Government must be seen to be different from its predecessor. It must he seen to remove racial discrimination and to start the reforms which will be necessary to set up a multi-racial State. If it is wise for the internal leaders to do that, the Patriotic Front would be wise to compromise and be prepared to join the internal settlement-for the only certainty, if they do not, is the continuation and escalation of the war and the ruin of the Rhodesian economy. Who could say for certain who would inherit the remains of a once peaceful and prosperous country?
I very much hope that the Foreign Secretary will negotiate with the interim government to get them to accept a senior diplomat in Salisbury during this period. Not to have our own man there means relying on the advice of those who, however well-meaning, are not trained in reporting and in judging political situations, or else are too remote from the scene. Of course, it is right that the Foreign Secretary should continue to negotiate. T know that he will go to the limits of what is right.
However, I want to say just a few final words. If in the end the Patriotic Front refuse to be associated with a

1817
settlement which is in accordance with the conditions laid down for independence by both Conservative and Labour Governments, and if Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Mugabe insist upon force as the only means of settling the issue, then there is only one honourable course for the British Government to take, and that is to support the internal settlement, however difficult that may be. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.27 p.m.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, I must say that it is with diffidence and considerable reluctance that I rise to address your Lordships' House this afternoon on this extraordinarily important subject, because I am in no way an expert on Southern Africa. I have never been there; I have not come back from an instructive tour of the whole area, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has; I have not had that advantage. I can only speak to a certain extent from past diplomatic experience. But I am not an expert and 1 only wish that there were a greater expert on these Benches than myself who could address your Lordships. However, in the circumstances, I shall do what I can.
First, I should like to say a few words about Rhodesia. I remember that before the new Smith regime was installed I expressed a certain amount of pessimism about the future of Rhodesia. I said that I thought the future of the white community would be impossible to maintain; that perhaps in the long-run all we could consider was how best to get some of them out; that, generally speaking, we should accept the fact that, although some might remain, the black regime would come in and that the present white settlers could not maintain themselves there as a body for very much longer.
Then, of course, there was the very happy event of the formation of the new regime in Salisbury. Nobody welcomes this more than I. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that that has been a great feature of hope in the whole present situation. I am very glad that it should have happened. Of course I think it has been said in an article in The Times recently that even now the settlers have not realised what the situation is and how they are bound in
1818
the fairly near future to abandon a great many of the privileges which they now enjoy. Indeed, I do not see how they can maintain all their privileges very much longer, especially after direct elections and, even if they have a certain proportion of votes in the Legislature. I do not think they have really seized that point yet. I hope that they shortly will.
Of course, the great thing now is to try and get some agreement between them and the Popular Front. Maybe, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, suggested, if the Smith regime would accept some kind of outside representation—I do not know who, perhaps the United Nations or even ourselves in Salisbury in the fairly near future that person might be able to influence them in the direction of making a real compromise and making it possible for one or two representatives of the Patriotic Front to come to Salisbury and associate themselves with the new regime, which of course is what all sensible people would want.
I think there is one real difficulty which I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, mentioned, and that is the tribal issue. If Mr. Nkomo came back would he be able to command the country as head, or one of the heads, of the Matabele tribe when the great majority would be Mashona, including Bishop Muzorewa? Equally would the Bishop Muzorewa agree to serve under a Matabele president or whatever it was? One cannot ignore the fact that there is a real division in Rhodesia on tribal lines and unless we get over that somehow it is going to be very difficult to get a compromise settlement with the Patriotic Front and the new regime in Salisbury. Whether it would be desirable for Mr. Smith to resign, as some suggest, in the fairly near future I do not know; it might help but not much. The great thing is somehow or other to overcome this inherent tribal difficulty and indeed induce the whites or the settlers or whatever you call them to face the fact that they will have to sacrifice a good many of their privileges in the reasonably near future.
As for sanctions, I suppose sanctions will go on because we cannot lift them. As I understand it, they were imposed by the United Nations with the Russians agreeing, or at least abstaining. Can they be lifted without Soviet agreement?

1819
I would ask the noble Lord who is going to reply if that is a fact. If they cannot be lifted without a legitimate decision of the Security Council involving a positive vote, or at least an abstention, by the Soviet Union is it not conceivable that the Soviet Union would insist on maintaining sanctions until such time as they think that there will be some kind of Soviet-type regime in Salisbury, which of course is the object of the exercise so far as they are concerned. I should like the noble Lord to reply to that specific inquiry because I have not yet found the answer myself.
I turn to Namibia, and here I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said. I think after the formation of the Smith regime in Salisbury
the most hopeful feature of the present situation in Southern Africa has been the action of Mr. Vorster in accepting the whole new five-nations plan, including what is after all a United Nations plan. I am not sure if there is some reserve on the part of the South African Government about Soviet access to Walvis Bay. I saw something about this in the paper. Is that a real stumbling block or is it a fact, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said, that they have entirely accepted the present plan? He shakes his head and so I am wrong. If that is so then I entirely agree we should do everything we can, if we cannot induce SWAPO—and I do not think we shall be able to do so—at least to say that we ourselves would not willingly accept any other solution. It is going to be a United Nations solution, it is our solution, and we must go on by all means in our power in saying that if it is the right solution we will stick to it. I cannot sec anything else that we can do at the moment. As I say, the fact that Mr. Vorster has made this move is I am sure, if not a sign of grace, at any rate to some extent a recognition of the realities and to that extent it is a very good thing.
On the subject of the Republic of South Africa, that is another problem. We go on repeating again and again that apartheid is a disastrous policy, as we used to say the fans et origo the real root of the evil, and I think that is true for apart from anything else it destroys all our efforts to get on to reasonably good terms
1820
with the great bulk of the developing countries in the African Continent. It is therefor a disastrous policy from our point of view. We must do everything we can, of course, to modify or indeed to alter it. I should have thought that the only hope of avoiding some day what I think must be a very bloody solution in South Africa lies in the gradual reform of apartheid. I do not think there is any other way. Perhaps, apart from the gesture about Namibia, there are slight signs in recent years that the South African Government are changing their attitude towards apartheid, though I think there are very few signs. We cannot be optimistic but the situation is changing and in the long run it will change, perhaps too late.
Would economic sanctions assist the process? Here I agree again with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that that is very much open to doubt. If we impose economic sanctions it would have a deplorable effect on trade with the Republic; it might mean considerable unemployment in this country and I am informed—and I believe it is true—that it would have a very unfavourable effect on the black population of South Africa. Of course it might stimulate a revolutionary situation, but I do not see that that would be a very good thing in itself. It might be a solution in the long run, but is not necessarily a good thing to stimulate. Therefore I myself—and I think I speak for my colleagues—would not be in favour of imposing direct economic sanctions at the present time.
On the other hand, there is such a thing as encouraging disinvestment by British companies and indeed not effecting reinvestment in the Republic. I think that would be the path of wisdom. I think it would be a real if gradual pressure, if indulged in by most countries. Our allies could be asked to do the same thing. Therefore, I think that is what we ought to do at the moment. Also I should have thought it would be a good thing—and I do not know if the noble Lord who is going to reply would agree with this—to give more aid to the recently independent neighbouring countries such as Lesotho, Botswana and other countries that I could mention. In that way they would become more independent or at least less dependent than they now are on the Republic itself. I do not know about

1821
Transkei. That is a new phenomenon. They have broken with the Republic of South Africa. I do not think we can recognise Transkei at the moment. It is a non-democratic regime. But at least it is a sign that things are changing even in the Republic of South Africa.
So, my Lords, I come to the great problem of the Soviet and indeed Cuban intervention in Africa and I suppose it might even now be said Soviet intervention in Southern Africa. I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, referred to that, but when I last intervened on the subject I asked the noble Lord—was it the noble Lord who is going to reply?—whether it was a fact that there was now a Soviet General organising in a port North of Beira an invasion from Mozambique of Rhodesia with the aid of a good deal of Soviet equipment and possibly even some Cuban support. Is that a fact, or is it not? The noble Lord said he was going to reply to that in the debate today and I hope that he does.
Of course, the general phenomenon of Soviet expansion with Cuban support in Africa is extremely serious and dangerous. I am not sure whether the lines of communication argument is a very great one. Is it really essential to match any Soviet effort to establish themselves on the lines of communication by naval or other means? I am not sure that this is absolutely at the root of the problem. If there is going to be a conventional war it might be that our oil supplies would be cut off; but it is difficult to imagine that there will be a conventional world war. If there is going to be a world war it is only too likely that it will be a nuclear war; and if it is, we have probably "had it" anyway, whether we have our oil communications or not.
Anyhow, while I agree that there is something in the suggestion that we ought to have more naval representation to the Indian Ocean, that is not the essential thing. What is essential is that the Soviet Union should not be enabled to form in Africa as a whole Soviet type societies which are inimical and basically hostile to the West. Of course we cannot prevent that by physical means. Nobody suggests that we and America can do it by physical means. We have not got any Cuban or the equivalent of mercenaries. We have not got any means of doing so.
1822
What could we do? I think, as the Government have made clear in another place, that we must constantly tell the Soviet Government that they are, by their actions in the Horn of Africa or elsewhere, endangering détente; and not just endangering détente, which is perhaps an odd conception anyhow, but that if they go on in this way we shall take action in the economic field and not give them all the credits we are giving them at the moment, which, after all, they have used not for financing their own industrial programme but largely for their armaments programme. We should also encourage with aid, and sometimes even with arms, any Government that comes out against Russian or Soviet domination. We should not hesitate to denounce the inhuman policies of certain African developing countries in the United Nations and elsewhere, and we should encourage by all means we can, resistance to them.
In the remaining two minutes I shall say a few words on the general moral that we might draw from these distressing phenomena. The problems posed by Southern Arica must be seen as a whole. We should not despair of arriving finally at some ultimate solution in South Africa, even if in the future it should result in the formation of what might be called "Blancostans"; that is to say, areas where the whites would congregate. Or even one "Blancostan" would be conceivable. That is a not impossible idea.
In the rest of Africa it is not inevitable that Soviet type societies will emerge although they might well, I think, to some extent be totalitarian. A great many of the developing countries seem inevitably to become totalitarian and not democratic as we know it. So they might become totalitarian in the sense that Tanzania is to some extent totalitarian, but nevertheless not under the influence of the Soviet Union. And even if there were some Soviet type societies it does not mean that they will inevitably in the long run turn towards the Soviet Union for leadership.
We need not necessarily be frightened of that. Nevertheless, nationalism undoubtedly will be the main motive in the formation of all new nations in Africa, and I fear that by nationalism we must now to some extent include tribalism.

1823
We can well see what the effects of that might be. After all, we can, if we will, extend much needed aid to all the regions which may be moderately sympathetic to us, and I very much hope that we shall. I do not deny that the outlook, generally speaking, in Southern Africa is pretty depressing at the moment, but that should not induce us to take foolish or impetuous measures, but rather to take measures within our present policy to exert pressure, whether economic or political, with all concerned and contrive thereby to get them to behave moderately, reasonably, and in the general interest.
3.45 p.m.
The Lord ARCHBISHOP of CANTERBURY: My Lords, I must apologise if, before the end of what would seem to be a long debate, I have to leave the House to fulfil another engagement which cannot well be broken. I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for drawing the attention of the House to some of the problems of South Africa which continue to give us concern. It is natural that we in Britain should have special care for South Africa because of our long association with its peoples and their development. But while we fasten our attention on these problems in South Africa we should not forget that the injustices which we deplore, and the violence which we hate, in South Africa are constantly being repeated in many other parts of the world. I think, for example, of parts of Latin America and Vietnam, where torture, intimidation, and Communist terror are the order of the day. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for touching on that in the earlier part of his speech. We need to see South Africa's problems in a worldwide context.
Turning, however, to the subject of today's debate and for a moment to Rhodesia in particular, I would express the hope, first, that we should welcome the internal agreement as a first step towards establishing a multi-racial, democratic Rhodesia. Secondly, that we should recognise the importance of the constitutional proposals for the interim Government being implemented as soon as possible; particularly in defining the roles of the four leaders and the composition of the new Cabinet. Thirdly, that we
1824
should welcome all efforts to encourage those who have stood apart from the present agreementto reconsider their participation: for example, Mr. Nkomo, Mr. Mugabe, and those white elements who do not accept Mr. Smith's leadership at present. Fourthly, that we should affirm our support for the introduction of a number of specialised personnel from outside the country to assist in the reorganisation of the armed forces and the police, and that we should support international machinery to supervise and monitor any testing of Rhodesian public opinion. To that I shall return briefly in a moment.
Recent letters from our Bishops of Mashonaland and Matabeleland underline their support for the executive council, which comprises Mr. Smith, Bishop Muzorewa, Chief Chirau, and the Reverend Ndabaningi Sithole. It must, I think, be recognised that no settlement is possible which will please all the contenders, and that terrorism will almost certainly continue under the new, present system, though one prays on a smaller and steadily diminishing scale. We may be thankful that this agreement represents a considerable change in the political complexion of the Government in Rhodesia, and we may hope for an imminent end to thirteen years of illegality.
I return to the point I made a moment ago. It is almost impossible to overstress the importance of a third-party presence in the transition period. The only chance of success of an internal settlement is that it should be validated and legitimised by observers from outside: Preferably a peace-keeping force provided by the United Nations, or possibly by the Commonwealth. The dread possibility is always before us of Cuban and Russian intervention or, at the least, of the provision of a Russian supply of arms.
I turn now from Rhodesia to the wider sphere of South Africa. The Church has very considerable opportunities of receiving accurate information about the conditions there through, for example, its bishops—I have mentioned two already—and its missionaries. The United Society for the Propagation of the Gospel has some 80 missionaries at work in South Africa; they are men and women who are in constant, close touch with the peoples of all races.

1825
The information which comes to us causes us deep anxiety and forces us to ask questions to which often we do not get satisfactory answers, or even any answers at all. I mention some of these questions specifically because they highlight the problems which are at the core of this debate, and because I hope that the mentioning of them may keep us alert to the tragedy of the present situation and perhaps, as they undoubtedly will reach the authorities in South Africa, may say to them that we shall never rest until we see a realistic tackling of them on a constructive and long-term plan.
For example, in the realm of education, I would ask the authorities questions such as these: Is it, or is it not, true that the amount of money spent on the education of whites in South Africa in a recent year was 605 rand per head, and on that of blacks, 39 rand per head? Is it not for practical purposes true to say that for white children education is compulsory and free, while for blacks it is voluntary and expensive; also, that the teacher-pupil ratio is about three times as high for whites as it is for blacks? On basic living conditions, is it not true, as stated in a United Nations report, that there is one doctor for every 400 whites—I find that very hard to believe, but it is a United Nations report figure—and one for every 44,000 blacks? In Soweto—I strike a tragic note when I utter that place name—is it not true that a population of 1 1/2 million is served by one hospital designed to cater for a community of 600,000? Is it not true that while the average wage of blacks has been rising with inflation—we may grant that—the gap between it and the average white wage has been increasing?
I come now to the sphere of the banning of certain organisations and publications. Here again, there are questions which we must ask and keep on asking. Those of us who know men like Beyers Naude and Theo Kotze—I am proud to be among their number—simply do not believe that they have engaged in conspiracy or subversive activities. We ask, then, what was it that justified the banning of the Christian Institute? We understand that the State President has appointed a committee to review the action taken by the Government, but we await the publication of the document or the lifting of the banning.
1826
In the autumn of last year I sent to the President of South Africa a telegram which, in the November Session of the General Synod, received that Synod's overwhelming endorsement. I cabled him:
"I have heard with deep distress and shock of the banning of the Christian Institute, the South African Students' Organisation and other similar bodies, and of the banning orders served on Dr. Beyers Naude, the Director of the Institute, and other leading officials. I urge your &.cellency to reconsider this action, which can only weaken the chance of a peaceful resolution of the racial problem of the South African Republic and strengthen the hands of those who regard the use of violence as the only means of bringing about change in South Africa. In what I say I am fully reflecting the views expressed on a number of occasions in both the General Synod of the Church of England and in the Assembly of the British Council of Churches.".
I received this reply from the State President:
"I acknowledge receipt of your Grace's cablegram and have conveyed the contents thereof to my Ministers".
A scarcely adequate reply, as I think your Lordships may agree.
In regard to human rights, the South African Government maintain that they support the preservation of such rights, but here again many questions pose themselves. For example, will the Government take any further steps to discover who was responsible for the death of Steve Biko? Will they accede to the request of the South African Law Society for the setting up of a court of inquiry? How do they reconcile the post-mortem findings, that Biko died from damage to his brain and kidneys, with the absolution of the police from all responsibility? What changes in future interrogation methods are planned by the Government of South Africa? Will the fundamental human right of habeas corpus be restored? We in the West cannot allow the death of Steve Biko to be forgotten, not, at least, until the facts are known and some reparation, however necessarily inadequate—how can you do reparation for a dead man? —is made by the introduction of legislation which would make the repetition of such a monstrous action impossible.
I note in The Times today a cutting—it comes about that remarkable Jewish gadfly of sleepy consciences, Mrs. Suzman—which tells us of the disclosure by Mr. Kruger, the Police Minister, that 128 non-security prisoners died in prison

1827
last year, 28 of them by suicide. How rightly does that noble woman act in drawing attention to such figures as those! Questions such as these cannot be dismissed as interference on the part of the West in the affairs of another nation quite capable of looking after its affairs itself. They must be asked and they must continue to be asked until, in the words of one of the great Old Testament prophets:
"Justice runs down as waters and righteousness as a mighty stream".
3.58 p.m.
Lord McGREGOR of DU RRIS: My Lords, I must crave even more than the customary indulgence which I am assured your Lordships' House always extends to maiden speakers. I wish to be unprovocative, yet I am intervening in a debate on the problems of Southern Africa. Although I shall be brief, I shall nevertheless distract your Lordships' attention from direct concern with the great themes of peace and war and social stability which are at the heart of our present anxieties and which have been outlined by the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Gladwyn, and by the most reverend Primate, because I shall confine my speech to a narrow commentary on the one well-established multiracial institution in Rhodesia.
Whatever happens in the near future, a community will survive there beneath the surface of political and military conflicts and uncertainties, and the quality of its life and the maintenance or improvement of the standard of living of all its citizens will turn in important measure on the success with which knowledge can he disseminated and created. In Rhodesia, higher education has been provided by the University in Salisbury which was established not by local enactment but by Royal Charter, granted in 1955. Clause 4 of the Charter embodies the principle which has guided the university's development from the beginning. It requires that:
"No test of religious belief or profession, or of race, nationality or class shall he imposed upon, or required of, any person in order to entitle him to he admitted as a member, professor, teacher or student of the university, or to hold office therein, or any advantage or privilege thereof."
1828
In medicine, academic standards were secured by an association with the University of Birmingham. All other subjects used the scheme of special relationship which my own university, the University of London, devised at the request of the Asquith Commission on Higher Education in the Colonies, in 1944, as a means of supporting colleges in developing territories, while they were in the process of achieving full university status. Among other benefits, this scheme enabled their students to read for the degrees of the University of London, and eight colleges—seven of them in Africa—were helped to maturity in this way between 1946 and 1970, the year when the University of Rhodesia decided to become independent.
Since then, a large group of external examiners have gone out every year, and have helped to ensure that high academic standards are maintained. As one of them, I have been a regular visitor for the last 10 years, and I have come to hold in high respect the quiet, though stern, courage and resolution shown by the many teachers who stayed on after UDI, frequently to their personal disadvantage. They have demonstrated that intellectual freedom in Salisbury can best be preserved in Salisbury, and is not much advantaged by the rhetoric of liberty which issues from cosier academic havens in other countries. I know this university well, and I speak of its work and of its contribution to Rhodesia from first-hand knowledge.
In formal terms, the autonomy of the university is preserved by a procedure modelled on that of the University Grants Committee here. But the real question is: How a university which was largely dependant on Government money after UDI, could maintain its independence? British Government and UNESCO funds were cut off. The Rhodesian Government had powers, which were frequently used, to prohibit entry to the country of staff appointed by the university, and to detain and deport members of the university who earned their displeasure. Censorship laws were enacted, and the atmosphere could not have been more unfavourable to a university which had drawn its inspiration from the British tradition.
A quotation from a Rhodesian periodical shows how some sections of the population

1829
viewed the university in the aftermath of UDI:
"If ever … there was a political Trojan Horse in the midst of a country fighting for its existence as a White State, it is the University College of Rhodesia … The individual Rhodesian taxpayer is heavily subsidising art institution that, as at present constituted, represents a propaganda spearhead of the country's external enemies … The multiracial experiment that the University is supposed to be is doomed to the same failure that has accompanied all other such experiments".
Happily, my Lords, that prediction has been falsified, and the university has been able to withstand such legal, financial and social pressures. Under the wise and steady leadership of the Principal and Vice-Chancellor, the Rev. Professor Robert Craig, it has retained autonomy and met these challenges without sacrificing its commitment either to freedom of inquiry or to multiracial principles.
Several circumstances have enabled the University Council to fend off the many attacks upon it. They include the crucial fact that the university possessed a monopoly of higher education in the country. It provides much of the skill and professional manpower, and is the major trainer of secondary school teachers. Moreover, a significant proportion of its staff are expatriates and, like most of their local colleagues, they would continue to serve in Rhodesia only in a multi-racial university.
Thus, the Government of Rhodesia have been constrained by the threat of ending the only university education in the country which could claim competence or international recognition. Further, the university enjoyed the prestige of a Royal Charter. It would have been hard for a Government affirming their independence from the British Parliament, but seeking legitimacy, and protesting their loyalty to the Queen, to abrogate that Charter. Most importantly, the university has been able to maintain its multi-racial character through the crucial provision of scholarship funds by such bodies as the Christian Council of Rhodesia and the World University Service.
The university admits students by academic criteria only, and insists upon proper A-levels. These funds have enabled most of the qualified African applicants to take university places on scholarships. In 1965, the year of UDI, there were 670 full-time students, of whom blacks
1830
constituted one quarter. Last year the total was rather more than 1,600, of whom more than half were blacks, though it is to be noted that the number of white students has fallen slightly as a result of conscription. The university also carries several hundred part-time students. In the last two decades it has trained 7,500 graduates. The growth in the black student population shown by the figures I have cited is not the result of any change in the university's admission policies over the period, but measures rather the enlarged output of African secondary schools. But this development was made possible entirely by the university's access to non-governmental scholarship funds.
At present, discussion of the future of this university, as of others in Southern Africa, centres upon the rival merits of the policies described in today's horrid jargon as "Africanisation" and "pragmatisation". "Africanisation" involves turning a university into the academic focus of national life, so that it reflects the social, economic, political and cultural aspirations of local people. Of course, this aim must include staffing the university so far as may be possible with Africans. Progress is being made in this direction in Rhodesia, where to the small number of African staff, 17 teachers and researchers, and two administrators, were added in the first nine months of last year.
"Pragmatisation" simply means that utilitarian considerations should determine the university's curt icula and research. Knowledge for its own sake should be spurned; knowledge for development should be promoted. This is no more, my Lords, than a very old fashioned and sterile argument conducted in a new setting. The objectives of the two policies must conflict because development is urgent and will often depend upon the immediate import of highly skilled people, while the benefits of Africanisation can come only over generations.
The University of Rhodesia has plans to assist the present transformation in government by expansion in the long run and by immediate short training programmes. For both it needs support and assistance from outside the country. For example, there must be assured and larger scholarship funds for black students, together with additional halls of residence where they can live. Facilities are needed

1831
for the training of administrators, technical people and university teachers in Rhodesia and in Britain. But it is no part of my intention to draw up a shopping list. I plead only, my Lords, that we should not forget the indispensable contribution which the University of Rhodesia has to make to the stability of the settlement which we all desire; and, when that settlement is achieved, may it permit a free university to survive and to develop within the principles of the present Royal Charter. How tragic it would be if an institution which Britain has helped to maturity should be compelled to turn for assistance elsewhere! My Lords, I thank your Lordships for your patience and courtesy.
4.12 p.m.
Lord HOME of the HIRSEL: My Lords, it has been an agreeable and instructive experience to hear the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris. We knew, of course, of his interest in the freedom of the Press, in human rights and also in education but I am glad that today he had a lot to say about the University of Rhodesia, and he emphasised that, notwithstanding all the difficulties and pains through which that country has gone, this university has remained multiracial and, by great sacrifice, its staff has been able to maintain its intellectual freedom. I would only say, in adding to the plea that he has made, that I hope that when the Salisbury agreement becomes a reality this country will accept the obligation to help that university to survive and to expand. It is one of the first things that we should do. The House will wish to hear the noble Lord often again.
We have had the advantage, too, of hearing the most reverend Primate, and we are grateful for him for putting the situation in South Africa, as it concerns violence and unfairness, into the world perspective. There are double standards, and they do nobody any good. Also he has encouraged the beginnings of the Salisbury agreement, and in a moment I shall say that I think he and we have good reason to do so. On the statistics for which he asked in relation to South Africa and apartheid, the Minister will probably
1832
be able to answer. I think I would say only this, that it is these examples of discrepancy of treatment between the races which are so glaring, although they are changing. We in the West would like to see them change a good deal faster, because as long as they go on it is impossible for South Africa to be a harmonious nation, and also impossible, I am afraid, even for their best friends in the West to help them as we should like to do.
My noble friend Lord Carrington, with the benefit of a recent visit to Southern Africa behind him, has sought to disentangle for us the complexities presented by the prospect of constitutional change in Southern Africa, in Namibia, in Rhodesia and, to a lesser extent, in South Africa; and he has tried to assess for the House with cool objectivity how far, if at all, the British Parliament can assume an attitude or accept responsibility towards problems in that part of the African continent—-responsibilities which we may have as members of the United Nations or, more directly, the residual responsibilities of a colonial Power. He must have been acutely aware that objectivity is the last criterion adopted, either by the chief actors or by their partisans. One thing is clear: African politics do not conform to some tidy blueprint of democratic evolution. African politics are tribal. As the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, reminded us, they are tribal both in Namibia and in Rhodesia. African politics are even now strongly influenced by the era of colonialism, and the prejudices are still very much alive.
African politics are overlaid by the emotions aroused by race and colour, as the most reverend Primate has reminded us, and many African countries have received and accepted democratic constitutions only to exchange them, by revolution, into one-Party States or worse. All those factors are present when one discusses the questions which are raised by the problems of Southern Africa. Into this fermenting kettle of fish there comes the moralist, intent on human rights and understandably impatient, and the mischief-maker with power, intent to transform confusion into anarchy. Such a scenario is scarcely exaggerated; it would test the wisdom of Solomon to try to find a fair solution.

1833
But if the goal is to soften the antagonisms of tribalism, to eliminate the prejudices of colour and to develop democratic institutions although on an African model, are there any clear principles on which the peace-maker can proceed? By "the peace-maker" I mean either the United Nations or our country, for example, with the residual responsibilities of our colonial rule. I know that this will not be accepted as a principle, and I doubt if it really is one, but I believe that the first rule (if I may call it that) in these modern times, in this twentieth century, must be the repudiation of the use of force to achieve a political aim. An African may ask, "Who are the Europeans to talk to us like that?"; but the reason why we must do so—we and the United States, and others—is that we have seen that modern war is totally destructive of order and, if it nearly destroyed order in Europe, it would certainly totally destroy order in this turbulent country of Africa. One is bound to add that, on the evidence of the contemporary scene, Africans could be condemning themselves to a state of civil war which could last for 50 or 100 years. Wherever you look on the continent, this seems to one almost a probability. Somehow the Africans must save themselves, with the help of those who want to see a peaceful continent. If there is another principle I suggest it is the rule of non-intervention from outside. It is not for nothing that the authors of the United Nations Charter put that in the forefront of peace-making.
These precepts arc the more pertinent and urgent when it is claimed that one great Power feels that it is entitled to intervene in Africa by force, and to take sides. The Soviet Union has no concern whatever for the well-being of the Africans. In Angola, Ethiopia, Mozambique and Rhodesia we see that that is true; and with a horrible cynicism, the Soviet leaders have made the cold-blooded calculation that the Africans, still blinded by the slogan of colonialism, will receive the Cubans as liberators. There is nothing more cold-blooded and crude than that. Unless the Africans themselves draw the correct lesson—and draw it in time—from Soviet actions in Angola and Ethiopia, they will find themselves subjected to a new dominion in which human rights and freedom mean literally nothing at all.
1834
Against that scenario which, again, can claim is not overpainted, what should be done by the outsiders who may want to help in relation to Namibia and Rhodesia—those outsiders who are concerned with peaceful change? I shall cut what I had intended to say about Namibia. My noble friend has said it all. When the South African Prime Minister has promised independence by the end of the year and has said that he will accept the proposals made by the five Western powers, SWAPO has no excuse to use force, none at all. Nor has it any excuse to maintain the pressures of force; and it is to be hoped that the leaders of SWAPO will co-operate. South Africa, in this way, has set one example and has made one offer showing the way to peaceful change. She deserves our support inside and outside the United Nations.
I come lastly to Rhodesia. No-one who has any experience of Rhodesia will underestimate the prejudices which have operated to prevent evolutionary constitutional change towards a truly multiracial society. But now we are faced with a new and rather unexpected prospect as a result of action by Mr. Smith which has dramatically reversed previous attitudes to African majority rule. My noble friend has recalled how, time and again, Mr. Smith said that he would not have this in his lifetime. He has changed, agreed to it, signed the document which makes it certain. We are faced, therefore, with a situation where there could be African majority rule within the year. What is more, Mr. Smith and his colleagues have framed their agreement in such a way that it is without question within the Six Principles upon which successive British Governments have said that Rhodesian legal relationships with Britain and independence must be based.
Why then are there hesitations and doubts? It is because two individual Rhodesians—and in a country of the size of Rhodesia it is impossible to talk about politics without talking about personalities. Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Mugabe have so far repudiated the idea of negotiations in favour of the use of force to impose their own political pattern on Rhodesia—the pattern being, if I may use Mr. Mugabe's words, "the Marxist State"; and the means to the Marxist State would be an army directed

1835
by Mr. Nkomo and paid by Russia. One cannot avoid the contrast between the two exercises; that of Salisbury and that of Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Mugabe.
Faced with the situation in Salisbury, what was the British Government's immediate reaction? Dr. Owen said, bleakly and bluntly, of the Salisbury agreement, "It won't work". That was a cold douche for those who had sought a peaceful settlement and it was made even more icy by Mr. Andrew Young's reception. I think—indeed, I am sure—I know the reason and it is very understandable that Dr. Owen and Mr. Young should want to bring Mr. Nkomo into the settlement; for that is undoubtedly the most likely way to end the war. But, in reacting as they did at the start to the agreement in Salisbury, they inevitably created the impression that, in their view, Salisbury should make the concessions to Mr. Nkomo and his army and the concessions to force and Communism. Even though their motives were the best, I am afraid that that put Dr. Owen and Mr. Young on the wrong side.
It is a sensible objective, as my noble friend has said, to try to bring Mr. Nkomo to accept evolutionary constitutional change; but the internal leaders of the Salisbury agreement left the door open. It is very difficult to see what else they can do. But I think that it is now right to speak plainly and in a friendly way to Mr. Nkomo and, in effect, to say this: "The return should be that of one who comes in peace to be elected to his share of Rhodesian leadership and not that of one who is under the direction of a foreign power seeking political domination by force; for such a programme the British Government could give no support at all". The door is open. It is for Mr. Nkomo to walk in on a constitutional basis and in a constitutional role. I hope that Mr. Nkomo will see where his future really lies.
Then there should be, I would suggest, a straight answer and a warning to the Soviet Union against intervention, the signs of which, I am sorry to say to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, are present, at any rate in the introduction of arms. The Soviet Union should be told that no one in Rhodesia has invited them into Rhodesia to help any section of Rhodesian
1836
opinion and to try to help in the constitutional future of Rhodesia. One thing we must remember is this: that the United Nations put the responsibility for the future of Rhodesia in relation to the British Parliament on to the British Parliament. It is the responsibility of the British Parliament and nobody else's and Russia should be told so plainly and told that we will not tolerate intervention in a country for whose future responsibility largely remains with us.
I believe that it is possible for Dr. Owen and Mr. Vance to get on to the right foot. There is the problem—and they understand it very well; and 1, too, understand it very well and so does my noble friend—of how to stage elections to fulfil that one of the Six Principles which says that the agreement when it comes must be acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole. I fell over that hurdle once, and I do not want to see other people falling over it again. It is difficult. Can you organise elections when almost a condition of them is extensive policing in order to maintain order? I, still believe that we have enough diplomatic skill and resources of statesmanship to seize this opportunity for peaceful change now that, at long last, it has come.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I having listened to his very good speech just now, ask him a question? Does he really think that sweet words are now going to influence the Patriotic Front which has achieved the present position towards a multi-racial Rhodesia? Does he really think that that is the approach which will yield results in this situation?
Lord HOME of the HIRSEL: My Lords, perhaps I may respond to the noble Baroness by saying that I did not interpret my own words as sweet.
4.30 p.m.
Lord WALSTON: My Lords, I am very happy indeed to be the first from these Benches to have the opportunity of congratulating my noble friend Lord McGregor on his very fine maiden speech. When I saw he had put down his name for this debate I was intrigued to know how he was going to be able to make a noncontroversial speech on a subject of this sort. He has shown us how to do it,

1837
and I hope that he will frequently make perhaps not so non-controversial but equally well-informed and well-delivered speeches. He may even be tempted to speak on a subject in which at one time he was engaged in various capacities, that of agriculture, upon which we would certainly welcome any contributions he could make.
I am also very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for giving us this opportunity of discussing this enormously important, difficult, frightening and painful problem. With some of what he said I agreed; I agreed in particular with his statement that,
"to be selective in the condemnation of evil is contemptible".
That is very true, and when he said that I was awaiting his condemnation of the evil of South Africa—because that is one of the countries we are talking about—and I was awaiting his well-known resounding oratory to make it clear where he stood and where I hope the majority of his colleagues also stand. But I waited in vain.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord, but I really do beg him to read my speech tomorrow. What I said about South Africa was abundantly plain.
Lord WALSTON: My Lords, I listened to the noble Lord's speech and I shall read it tomorrow. He certainly showed that there were things going on in South Africa that he disapproved of and disagreed with; there is no doubt about that. But we had to wait for the most reverend Primate to give the real condemnation of the evils going on there, and I am very glad that we were able to hear about it from his authoritative lips. But I do not want to talk about South Africa or Namibia, important though they are, because I must not detain your Lordships for too long. There are many speakers to come. I shall confine myself solely to the problem of Rhodesia and, in doing so, I would ask your Lordships not to fall into the error, as so many of us do on these occasions, of talking about "the Rhodesian problem" as if it were some abstract, far-removed and impersonal affair which could be dealt with by some intellectual process.
1838
What we are dealing with when we talk about "the Rhodesian problem" is the lives, the happiness and the ability to lead a full life of millions of individuals like all of us. It is about them that we must be thinking rather than of the political, military and economic problems of a remote country. What the people of Rhodesia want—one does not have to know very much about it to be certain of this, because they do not want anything very different from what any other person wants—is peace. They want freedom from fear, freedom from hunger; they want to be able to cultivate their fields without the threat of being shot or bombed. They want their children to be able to go to school and to grow up without the threat of kidnapping or of warfare. That is what they want and that is what we must, in alas! the very feeble ways at our disposal, attempt to give them—because, after all, for them it is quite irrelevant whether they are shot by a guerrilla, a freedom fighter or a member of the Rhodesian Front armed forces: they are shot just as fatally and painfully, no matter who fired the bullet.
What is of some significance, and we must not close our eyes entirely to this, is that the reports that one has been able to find recently in this country—whether they come from churchmen, professional investigators or journalists, those that one is inclined to believe are as unbiased as possible in a situation as fraught and tense as this—give me the impression, and I put it no stronger than that, that the majority of rural Africans in fact would prefer to see the Patriotic Front gain control of the country rather than the men in Salisbury. There was "Panorama" the other night, an article in The Times on Monday, together with many other instances. It may be biased or ignorant reporting and I may have misinterpreted them, but I am giving your Lordships the impression that I have got from these reports.
There is no getting away from the fact that, whoever they may wish to see win, the lives of all of them today are bad and unhappy lives. There are now nearly three-quarters of a million Africans living in what are called "protected villages". They have been moved from their own areas and placed behind barbed wire. They have insufficient sanitary resources and insufficient medical and educational

1839
resources. They are subject to a rigidly enforced curfew. It may be for their own protection that this has been done, and it may be because the exigencies of war—for it is war—demand it. But those are the lives these people are leading. They want an end to that. What they want now is, I repeat once more, peace. They want freedom to lead their own lives. And they want more than that, my Lords; they want more than they have ever had before. They want no longer to be second-class citizens. They want a vote and they want a say in their own country's future.
I do not believe—and I am sorry to have to say this—as the noble Lord, Lord Home, undoubtedly believes, that the Salisbury Agreement is going to give them this, even if it works. The Salisbury Agreement has many very interesting and significant factors in it. For one thing, the quadrumvirate has no say in the day-to-day running of the war. That has been removed from the transitional Administration; in other words, it is left in the hands of the military who are there at the present time, and that embraces a whole variety of things, including protected villages, censorship and so on. What is more, none of the proposals of the transitional Government are effective unless the decision is unanimous. In other words, any one man—and that man may be Mr. Smith—has the right of veto over any change.
Turning now to elections, the elections that we have all said must be free and fair and must be "one man, one vote "—is it really possible for those elections to he free and fair when there is still censorship which, as I have said, is not under the control of the provisional Administration; when two of the major would-be Parties in the elections (ZAPU and ZANU) are banned and when many of the political leaders are outside the country and either refuse or fear to return to it? That is unlikely to lead to the election of a Government who represent the full wishes of the people.
Another point is that there are to be 28 white members and 72 black members. Of the population, 4 per cent. are white and 96 per cent. ate black. In other words, every white vote counts for between 9 and 10 times as much as every black vote. It is one man, one vote, but it is not the kind of vote which lends encouragement
1840
to the belief that this country of Rhodesia, Zimbabwe or whatever it will be called, will have at its head at the end of the 12-month period a fully representative Government.
So I do not think that it is very surprising that many good, sincere and thinking Africans are opposed to these proposals. What, to me, is surprising is that some have been found, and I give them great credit for this, who have even been prepared to sit down with Mr. Smith as they did—even Nkomo and Mugabe at Geneva—in view of the sufferings which they and their friends have experienced at his hands, and at his Government's hands; and that there are today two good men, Bishop Muzorewa and Mr. Sithole, who are prepared, for the sake of their country, to collaborate with him and his colleagues in an attempt to bring their country to a more peaceful and happy way of life for the people in it. That is what surprises me; not that people will not do it but that there are any who will do it and who have attempted to do it. As I see it—
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, will my noble friend permit me to intervene? Is there not a very simple explanation of that? The Bishop knows that he would win the election. Mr. Mugabe knows that he would lose it. Therefore, Mr. Mugabe chooses violence. It is as simple as that.
Lord WALSTON: My Lords, particularly with his legal experience, my noble friend has far greater knowledge of the bargaining and motivation of certain types of people than I have. It may be that these people about whom we are talking:, and in whom many of us are putting our trust, are no better than place-seekers trying to get a place in the sun for themselves, and to hell with their friends. That may be so, but I do not believe it. Whichever side they are on, I believe that, essentially, they are all good men, patriotic men, anxious to see the good things, for which they have striven for their country, come to fruition.
But what shall we do now? What can we do? First, I believe that we must understand the individual and collective sufferings of all those Africans who have been prominent in politics over the past 20 years; some still in detention, some in exile, some fighting and some collaborating

1841
—and I do not use that word in any derogatory sense whatsoever. That is the first thing that we must do.
The second thing that we must do is to put what has been referred to as the Communist threat into proper proportion. I differ in my political views from most noble Lords on the other side of this Chamber. I believe in a march towards Socialism. But I believe in democracy and I think that, ideally, we should achieve our Socialist aims because of the will of the people, because they want Socialism. I abhor one-Party States, detention without trial, torture, intimidation and all the other things which go with authoritarian States, whether of the Left or of the Right.
But a Marxist society can mean so very many different things. A Marxist society in the Soviet Union bears no relationship to a Marxist society in Southern Africa, and very little to a Marxist society in Latin America or in Asia. They are all very different. We should not be afraid of what passes for a Marxist society in Africa. We are not afraid—and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, mentioned this—of what is a very highly-developed Marxist society, in a manner of speaking, in Tanzania. That presents no threats at all. But what we are rightly afraid of is the advance of Russian imperialism in Africa. That is a threat to our own economic survival, it is a military threat to us and it is a threat to the whole Western way of life. That we must combat.
I would remind your Lordships that the greatest allies that those who have been trying to promote Soviet influence in Africa have ever had are the combined efforts of Mr. Vorster, and his policy of apartheid, and Mr. Smith, and his unilateral declaraion of independence. If neither of those things had taken place, Russian could not have hoped to gain any influence whatsoever in any part of Africa. So let us remember that, when we are dealing with the threat, and distinguish in our minds between the genuine threat to us of Soviet penetration, and the theoretical doctrinaire threat of some form of Marxist society which other countries have, and which we may dislike.
Having cleared our minds on this, what we must now do is, I am afraid, very unspectacular and not very different
1842
from what the noble Lord, Lord Home, has advocated. We must do our best, as my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and the Secretary of State of the United States have been trying to do, and are still trying to do, to bring the sides together, to make them talk with each other and, eventually, to make them understand the very real threat to the lives and well-being of all their peoples if there can be no settlement, and to make use, as they have been doing, of the good offices of Mr. Vorster—who has played a significant part, for which I, for one, am most grateful President Kaunda, President Nyerere and the other front-line Presidents. That is what must be done. It has been done and, alas, it has failed.
I am pessimistic. I do not believe that the chances of success are good. But we must go on trying, and I suggest that the time has now come to turn our backs for the moment on what has come to be called open diplomacy"; to have no more well-publicised flights in aircraft by Foreign Secretaries and high dignitaries, with batteries of cameras, television interviews and so on. We must try a quieter approach and send out people, not necessarily diplomats, who know the Africans that they are dealing with, who understand their problems, who understand how they feel and how they think and who can talk with them man to man, as old friends. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Home, when he talks about repudiation of the use of force to achieve a political aim, I would say that one cannot use words like that to Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Mugabe. How is it possible to achieve your political aim in Rhodesia? How would it have been possible without force? It is only because force has been used that Mr. Smith has made the concessions that he has.
Lord HOME of the HIRSEL: My Lords, the noble Lord gets into difficulties here, does he not? What about Northern Ireland?
Lord WALSTON: My Lords, that is perfectly true. Force sometimes has to be used. I shall not discuss it now, but our record in Northern Ireland is open to attack. When I have spoken to both friends and others, including Mr. Vorster

1843
in South Africa, exactly the same point has frequently been made to me. All that I am saying is that if we are trying to bring about a political aim in Southern Africa today, it is not very realistic to believe that it can be achieved without the use of force and purely by political means.
If we use that kind of argument to those Africans whom we are trying to influence, they will dismiss us and will say, "These people don't know what the situation is". They will pay no attention to us. That is why it is necessary to have out there people who understand that mentality—people who may not agree with it themselves but who have a genuine understanding of the motivation of the people they are speaking to.
That, I believe, is the only hope. We must do the preparatory work in that way. It will take many months and in the meantime the war will, alas! escalate. However, that policy may succeed. If it looks as though the pressure on both the Patriotic Front and the people in Salisbury is likely to succeed, that will be the time for the deus ex niachina to decend from his flying machine, with the television cameras, to sign the agreement —not before.
I hope that nothing I have said will make your Lordships think that I am an advocate of force as a means of settling disputes.
Several noble Lords Several noble Lords: Oh!
Lord WALSTON: My Lords, I am not an advocate of force, but I accept that in certain areas there are many people who believe that they can achieve their end only by force. That is the distinction. I want this question to be settled without force. If I believed that we should allow them to go ahead and fight after obtaining Soviet munitions and weapons—we should not be able to send very much there, for we have nothing to spare—there would be a bloody civil war and eventually one side or the other would win. That is what those who believe in force do; they stand back and let the fighting go on. It is because I do not believe in force that I am making these suggestions. Nor am I an advocate of the Patriotic Front.
1844
I do not know whether Mr. Mugabe, Mr. Nkomo, the Bishop, or whoever it may be has more support. However, I am quite convinced that it is only if concessions are made on both sides that there can be any peaceful settlement. The necessary concessions are more likely to be made if we act in the way that I have outlined to your Lordships this afternoon.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he can answer one question. The noble Lord objected to the whites having 28 seats in Parliament. Would he not agree upon reflection that the people who have made not two but 40 or 50 blades of grass grow where only one grew before deserve above-average representation in Parliament, at least for the first 10 years of an independent Zimbabwe?
Lord WALSTON: My Lords, I have tried very hard not to take sides. T do not want to say who deserves more votes, who deserves more money, who deserve more education for their children who deserve more hospitals for their sick. What I am trying to demonstrate to noble Lords is that those who are asking for one man, one vote are not going to be fobbed off with a form of voting which gives the whites 10 times as many votes as the blacks. It may be that they deserve 20 times as many votes; it may be that they deserve twice as many; it may be that they deserve an equal amount. But what, ostensibly, is being offered to them is equality—one man, one vote. That is not what is happening, however.
The Marquess of TWEEDDALE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, whatever country in Africa is being discussed, sooner or later it will be one tribe—the strongest tribe—that will take over a single-Party government? When the noble Lord speaks about the use of force, I believe that there is a much better and more applicable word which carries greater weight in Africa: it is the very short word "dash".
Lord WALSTON: My Lords, I heard somebody murmur, "If you ask the noble Lord another question, it will start him off again". I shall not be started off

1845
again but will very happily speak quietly to the noble Lord about his question.
4.55 p.m.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, I think that it must be recognised that the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, has made an important contribution to the debate today in your Lordships' House. It must be hoped that he will give us more tutorials with the same authority on other matters as he has given us on the University of Salisbury—hopefully not controversial, perhaps, but even if he is controversial and even if one disagrees with what he has to say it will be well worth listening to.
I had on the Order Paper for debate a Motion on Rhodesia. I am delighted that it has now become a full dress debate introduced by my noble friend Lord Carrington on a proper day in the middle of the week, with his knowledge, with his authority and with his complete and utter condemnation of apartheid. That was absolute. My noble friend's knowledge of Namibia and his travels have made his contribution much better than that of most of us.
The most reverend Primate has set out the position of the Church of England. It was a heartening position to take. He came down four-square against the tyranny of the Boer, of the Russian, or of the Ovambo. It does not matter of what colour or creed the tyranny is made; it is tyranny, and tyranny is absolutely wrong. Britain's power in Africa has sadly diminished, but not her interests. Britain's power is now confined to a small influence on Rhodesia. If this were not the case, I think it would be reasonable to suggest that South Africa, Rhodesia and Namibia would not be in the same mess as they are in now, and almost certainly UDI in Rhodesia would not have happened. This fact must always be borne in mind.
It is perhaps worthremembering—indeed, my noble friend Lord Carrington mentioned it—that the Boers were in South Africa before the Bantu. They collided with them at the Battle of Blood River 150 years after they first settled there. Their attitude to outside influence and ideas has been horrifyingly negative; from the time of the Great Trek and before they have closed their minds to anybody else's ideas—to any form of liberalism in its best
1846
sense. They are incapable of seeing that the inquest on Steve Biko was exactly the same as one of Stalin's show trials. It was an horrendous, horrifying aberration of justice.
I now come to ask the question: What has produced Mr. Smith's Damascene highway conversion to majority rule? It has not been a sudden rush of belief in the equality of man. It has not been a sudden rush of belief that liberalism is the great moral crusade of our times. The successful missionary has been the guns of Mr. Mugabe and the collapse of the Portuguese empire and also, belatedly, sanctions. The economic consequences of the war and sanctions have changed Mr. Smith's mind for him, and we must give him credit for this. He has done a complete "U "turn, and he must be given the credit for it. It is difficult to eat every single word you have said up to now, and Mr. Smith has done it with credit.
What has changed Bishop Muzorewa's mind, the Reverend Ndabaninge Sithole's mind and Chief Chirau's mind? Funnily enough, the obverse of what has changed Mr. Smith's mind. They have not got the guns but they do have the influence. They have been outfought in the battle which the noble Lord, Lord Watson, so graphically described as being essential to the future of Southern Africa. So they have also got an interest in joining with Mr. Smith. So what has happened? A "cocktail "of self-interest has produced something which we can all look to for hope.
Liberalism has in fact been forced upon a large section of the Rhodesian population. For myself, I welcome this with open arms, although whether that will influence one Matabele, one Shona or one white suburbanite in Salisbury, I do not know. Unfortunately, the men with the guns are not imbued with this spirit. Understandably perhaps, after the bitterness caused by the privilege and patronising of the vast majority of the white settlers, it is asking a lot of Mr. Mugabe and Mr. Nkomo, after their years in Smith's prisons, but we must ask it of them.
I think what Her Majesty's Government should be trying to do is to find out whether the internal settlement really fits in with the Six Principles. The noble

1847
Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, has said that in his opinion it does, and certainly on prima facie evidence it seems that it does. How can one find out? A general election will be a reasonable time away and all the time the conditions for a general election are bad and getting worse. Bishop Muzorewa made his name and following by showing the Pearce Commission that the Home proposals were not acceptable to African opinion. This was done by an examinatory process and not an electoral one. Surely it would be possible to put together a new examinatory process now, to decide in detail whether or not the settlement is acceptable. If it is so shown I suggest that sanctions should he withdrawn as soon as possible, independence recognised and every single aid be given to this new and slightly unnatural plant of liberalism in Rhodesia.
We must not be bound by promises given, even if they were promises given to Mr. Nyerere 500 miles away from the front line in his one-Party State. We must not, in any circumstances, listen to lectures on freedom from the incompetent thugs who run Mozambique, propped up by Russian bayonets—if that is not a rather uncomfortable position to find them in. Let us remember that those Russians do not follow or admire the traditions of Voltaire, Pym, Locke or Cobden; they admire the traditions of Ivan the Terrible and Stalin, and to my mind there is a great and horrifying difference between them. The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, introduced an even more worrying note. He implied that the Russians had the right of veto over your Lordships' House in sanctions. I am sure it will not worry the Kremlin but I for one will not vote or think how Mr. Brezhnev or Mr. Kosygin tell me: Mrs. Thatcher's lapdog, possibly, but not Mr. Brezhnev's!
I think the positions of Seretse Khama and Doctor Kuanda who endeavour to run free and liberal States—multiracial States—under appalling difficulties must be different. In my view, the best way in which we can help those two people and give them aid for the special problems they have, is to use our influence in finding out whether the Six Principles do apply to the internal settlement and, if so, to back it. The worry is that perhaps it does not. As the noble Lord, Lord Walston, said, recently there have been
1848
articles in the Press implying that perhaps the really important principle of the settlement being acceptable to the Rhodesian people as a whole may not be so in the tribal Trust lands, as an article in The Times and the Panorama "programme, and I think an article in one of the Sunday papers indicated. One cannot know until some form of test has been carried out.
The internal settlement Ministers have turned down the Anglo-US Conference invitation, but they want Messrs. Mugabe and Nkomo to come and take part in the political process in Rhodesia with words, now that guns have won for the African what words failed to win. This is the paradox, that the guns, unfortunately, were necessary to cause the change, but now they are unnecessary. I will suggest a way which, if it were to succeed, would be a help. If it does not succeed, then the future is bad indeed. Guns are plentiful, are being given away and are easy to use; words and statesmanship are a rarer and more civilised commodity. But Dr. Owen must continue to talk and continue to try to persuade the factions to come together.
Incidentally, Andrew Young's silence would be a blessed relief as well. It is a great improvement to have Cyrus Vance taking a leading role, and perhaps Dr. Owen could point out that, just because Andrew Young is a black American, descended presumably from a West African coast tribe, he will not necessarily understand and get on with Southern African blacks. Just because I am white—or whitish—does not mean that I have an instinctive understanding of Ruthenes or Croats. That is as logical a corollary as, with respect, is the racist corollary that just because Mr. Young is black, he will understand the Matabele. His knowledge appears to be fragmentary, his position based on his ability to deliver the southern black vote for President Carter. This may be an admirable ability, but it is not necessarily a sound basis for a deep understanding of the problems of Southern Africa.
One day, and probably before too many months are out, a recognition decision must be made. Let us assume that there is an election and a blackish Government is in power in Rhodesia by next January. Are the sanctions still to remain? Is recognition still to be withheld? Soon

1849
we shall have to make up our minds. Let us make up our minds on evidence, not on prejudice or from false loyalty to the United Nations, some of whose members are far from fastidious as to how their Heads of State got to power and, even less, as to how they kept it.
If the internal settlement, with all its flaws—and that is why I said "blackish "—can be shown to be within the Six Principles (and the evidence so far is that it probably can) let us send a Commission. I come back now to Bishop Muzorewa and to Lord Pearce. Let us send a Commission under somebody as distinguished as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearce, with perhaps a Canadian or Indian or a distinguished African judge to go with him; with perhaps a crusading journalist and perhaps a liberal professor —a really high-powered independently-minded and well staffed Commission to investigate. I have reason to believe that if this was put to the Rhodesian authorities and to the present Rhodesian leaders, they would look favourably upon the idea.
If that mission were to report back that they were satisfied with the settlement, I would be content, and I hope that Her Majesty's Government would be content; I hope too that Messrs. Mugabe and Nkomo would be content, because (hey ought to be. If they were not they could change their name from the "Patriotic Front" to the "Treacherous Front", because their interests would show that they were solely wanting to get their Animal Farm snouts into the trough of power as opposed to serving their countries, which their abilities in fact enable them to do.
5.8 p.m.
The Earl of LYTTON: My Lords, I have the impression that we are on the brink of decisive changes in Africa, brought about by the intervention of the Soviet Union on a substantial scale, with the assurance that that scale will be augmented and pursued throughout the whole of the eastern seaboard of Africa leading us to suppose that they are intending to enclose the Indian Ocean and make it a Soviet sea. I think that is the chief significance of this debate and I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, before taking part in it, indicating that
1850
while we are focussed, as the Soviet Union wishes us to focus, on white interests in Southern Africa, the Soviet Union and its Cuban allies will probably have acquired the Ports of Massawa, Assab, Djibouti, Berbera, Mogadishu and Kismayu, extending an enormous distance along the eastern seaboard. Some of this we could well have prevented and did not.
As this is an important occasion, I should like to confine myself to saying where I stand and with whom I agree. I agreed in almost all respects with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. With regard to his points on the Patriotic Front, I had a question I would like to have asked had he been here, but perhaps it can be answered. Naturally, I would support efforts to incorporate the support of the Patriotic Front in the existing internal arrangements, but not, and in no circumstances, at the expense of incorporating the terrorists as part of the Security Forces. If that is done, the terrorists will swallow up the rest like a boa constrictor. I wonder whether he has the same view, because I am very anxious that agreement should go forth.
After my last speech a representative of the chiefs in Rhodesia wrote indicating their pleasure at what I had said, and this morning I received from a white friend whom I last met 47 years ago, who is a rancher, the same pleasure. My pleasure is even greater now, because I looked forward to an internal agreement, and since the last occasion when we debated there is not only the germs of an internal agreement but an internal government which has taken separate decisions as such; and that, I feel, deserves our full support today. We have been hammering for an internal agreement, and here it is in as good a form as it could possibly be. I am aware that the Patriotic Front is not in it, and for my part I note that what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said of the leader of SWAPO, that terrorism is the only path, is repeatedly uttered from Maputo by Mugabe's propaganda machine, monitored, as I get it, from the BBC. Therefore, I am not hopeful about that. And I myself, having had a taste of Soviet Marxism in Vienna, of which they controlled a part some time ago, of Marxism in Yugoslavia, of attempted Marxism

1851
in Greece, of Marxism in Bulgaria, know there is a certain common pattern. Slaughter is an essential ingredient; you must get rid of the class of people who have some education.
This brings me to the point of the speech made by our maiden speaker, the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, who spoke persuasively and well about the university in Salisbury. I also heard the speech of the most reverend Primate, and I feared lest something of what he said should be taken by President Carter, if he reads our debate, as representative of European colonialism as a whole. I served in various parts of Kenya, the highlands and the deserts, about halfway through our colonial period; that is, 50 years ago. At that time one could see very readily what had happened. We came to an Africa which had nothing, produced nothing but its subsistence, and barely that, which was riddled with diseases of beasts and men, with frequent waves of smallpox. We have raised the standard of living beyond belief in every kind of department, which would take me hours to recount; but perhaps I could merely take the cow, the teacup cow that became the 500 gallon cow. We have more than doubled the expectation of life of the average, and much more than doubled it for those we were actually able to come into contact with. Africa had nothing, no technicians, nobody who could read or write, and it is a great service that the Europeans have done; I may say that the Turks made a good contribution in the northern parts of Africa before us. This colonial era did serve a fine purpose, and of Rhodesia I think I might say:
"She seems to hang upon the cheek of night Like a rich jewel in an Ethiop's ear",
which was what Shakespeare's Romeo said when he caught the first glimpse of Juliet. That was what she was like until we knocked her about. One hopes to preserve the continuity of white and not regard it as a blemish and treat it with a sneer.
Sometimes I am asked whether any African has ever agreed with what I say. I say, Yes, most emphatically, two or three millions have listened to what I say on the subject and have agreed with me; in particular one man, a Prime Minister,
1852
who said, "The colonial era was a necessity. We are even grateful for it, and it must now, of course, end, and we welcome your continued participation and help". But, he said, "All colonialism must end, black colonialism as well as white". What have we done about this? We proclaim principles of self-determination; we have been proclaiming them from Alfred the Great to Winston the Great. We will not stand foreign bondage under people abroad. We have resisted it again and again, and twice in my own lifetime against the Germans. But we have exported bondage and imposed it upon Africans.
We have sustained the worst form of imperial bondage, that of the Abyssinians, year after, year the whole of my life. For the Abyssinian Empire we destroyed the League of Nations virtually. For the Abyssinian Empire we opposed the less important Mussolini and threw him into the arms of the most important enemy, Hitler. At the end of the war we handed back liberated peoples to this dreadful bondage of Abyssinia. Now we are paying for it, because the corrupt Empire is disintegrating, as it was bound to do, and we could have been on the other side. We fought a four year war, paying for it with our taxpayers' money, in order to preserve, at their request, a part of that fragmentation and bondage which exists in Northern Kenya. From Eritrea southwards we could have had friends and allies and we stand now in Africa almost with none.
Therefore, I endorse Lord Carrington's emphatic remarks about the necessity of not having two standards, and of recognising the rights of all peoples. But those rights must extend to blacks as well as whites, and it is wholly improper that we should subscribe to and impose bondage on Africans. We have complained recently. The noble Lord, Lord Home, was, incidentally, instrumental in imposing that bondage—and here I accuse nobody of dishonourable conduct; no man is more honourable than the noble Lord, Lord Home, but he did impose this bondage on the northern parts of Kenya. He complained the other day that the Russians were supplying commandos and machines of war in order to crush the Somalis in what is Somali territory, the Ogaden. However, Government after Government

1853
of ours have done the same for four years. All the field commanders in the four-year war in the north-east district of Kenya were British Regular officers lent for the purpose. We paid the bill. We cannot complain if the Russians do exactly what we did. The only difference is that we took four years to end this war, and they took four days. They are more efficient. There is no difference of principle.
The problem of South Africa and Rhodesia is associated with the Soviet drive throughout the whole length of Africa, particularly on the eastern seaboard. I am sorry that we do not seem to concentrate on anything except a solution for our white kith and kin, of whom I have some in Rhodesia and elsewhere. I never prepare a speech. When it comes to 13 minutes or so, enough is enough.
5.21 p.m.
Lord PLUNKET: My Lords, as I speak as one who has lived in Rhodesia for over 20 years, I am naturally pleased by the deep concern for the need to draw attention to the problems of Southern Africa and to look for a solution. It happens that I live in the eastern border mountains which, as some of your Lordships may know, lately have not been without their share of incidents. My brief remarks, therefore, will be confined to the situation in Rhodesia, as I see it, from the point of view of a Rhodesian.
When will this war end? This question is on everyone's lips, black and white. Time goes by, but there seems to be no let-up in the killing, the burning, the destruction and general disruption of life. As blacks have remarked to me recently, after a particularly stringent measure had been instituted to combat the incursions of the freedom fighters, "We have a new Government, but things have got worse". But have they? I personally do not think so. As one of the most sceptical of the intentions of Mr. Smith to hand over power, and as one who was not prepared to accept that he meant what he said to Dr. Kissinger, and subsequently to the world, until he was seen physically to be out of office, I am now quite certain that white minority rule is over.
Some of you—perhaps all of you—have accepted that this is so. But, in fact, I must warn you that there are Right-wing
1854
elements in Rhodesia that are trying to sabotage what has so far taken place. If they do, the result could be catastrophic. There cannot, and there will not, be any turning back. Maybe Mr. Smith's rejection of all that his Rhodesian Front stood for has not ended the war, and outwardly there may not appear to be much improvement in the situation. However, I feel that this concentration on ending the war, and giving this aspect of the problem absolute priority, is akin to not seeing the wood for the trees.
What is it that we are all seeking? Surely, a transfer of power from an unrepresentative minority to the majority without any breakdown in responsible administration or further deterioration in security. Any deal with elements outside Rhodesia, including the external nationalist leaders, that compromises this fundamental objective would be a betrayal of 20 years of endeavour on the part of the genuine black leaders and the stated intention of successive British Governments. This is not to say that both Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Mugabe are not genuine black leaders. They are. But they represent a minority, just as Mr. Smith does of whites, and as do the leaders of the multiracial Party, the National Unifying Force. Just as the whites are not in accord, no more do think are Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Mugabe. However, with the signing and implementation of the Salisbury agreement I believe the main purpose of the war is over. But it would be quite unrealistic to expect a dramatic cease-fire in what, after all, is really a confused guerrilla war—although "guerrilla campaign "would perhaps be a better way of describing it.
It seems to me that it is the apparent failure of the interim Government to de-escalate the war that is casting doubts in the minds of people outside Rhodesia. The members of the Executive Council, and in particular the three black members, are in real control of the situation. From discussions that I have had, I am convinced that the security forces are at their disposal. In saying this I would remind your Lordships that only a few days ago the chief of combined operations, General Walls, made a public statement when he called upon the interim Administration, or interim Executive Council, to point out who the enemy was. So, in fact, he is proposing to take his orders from them. At least one member of that Executive

1855
Council has the authority and the ability to control the "boys in the bush", as they call them. However, they cannot succeed unaided. What they require is not scepticism but backing in their efforts. Perhaps this is not to be the moment for official recognition.
I must admit that it would be unusual to recognise the most undemocratically unelected Government that Rhodesia has ever had. The three black leaders were, in fact, appointed to join Mr. Smith. The remainder of the Ministers, who were recently appointed, were also not in any way, as we say, democratically elected. But there they are.
My noble friend Lord Carrington drew attention to the establishment, possibly in Salisbury, of some sort of diplomatic authority and that I believe is essential. Surely it is possible to break the diplomatic ice by stationing in Salisbury a Commissioner? I do not think that that would in anyway establish the present Executive Committee as de jure. Nor do I think that the legal people should draw attention to that: after all, the administration that is there now is de facto and it is time that we said so.
At the risk of over-simplification, may I say that Rhodesia's present problems are the failure to get recognition of its interim government, the continuation of the war and last, but not least, sanctions. I assume that, were Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Mugabe to make their peace with the interim government, those problems would fall away. Perhaps we could be assured by Her Majesty's Government that they would recommend to the United Nations the lifting of sanctions and recognition of the interim government in such circumstances.
There is a further question. Let us suppose that they did make that recommendation and it was turned down. I should very much hope that, in those circumstances, this country and America would support the interim government and the measures that they are taking. If the interim government are not able, following a genuine attempt, to come to terms with the Patriotic Front, but there is a significant return of guerrillas, would Her Majesty's Government take the same action? I very much hope so.
1856
The whole of Rhodesia—black and white—is sick and tired of the war. The guerrillas are tired of it; the refugees outside the country are tired of it, as are the host countries of the camps in which they and the guerrillas reside. They are tired of it not only because of the waste and folly of war, but because there seems no longer to be any point in it. In fact, the detainees are being released, and I hope that they will shortly all be out. The people in the protected villages in some areas are starting to be allowed to go back to their homes. Feeding and sheltering guerrillas is now becoming a penance to those who, in the past, rather welcomed it.
There are also the leaders who, rather than be detained, fled the country to become alien doctors, lawyers and professors. Many are back in Rhodesia and more are returning. Those are the people—I might even call them the intelligentsia—who think that the interim government could succeed, and they have come back to help it achieve the first majority rule government. They say, to echo the words of Bishop Muzorewa: "We do not wish Zimbabwe to become a banana republic ". T share that sentiment and I am sure that all your Lordships do too.
5.34 p.m.
Lord MILFORD: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has put it so clearly that those who would offend the policies and practices carried out in Southern Africa and appease those in power are motivated by two chief issues. The first concerns economics in the shape of huge profits through cheap labour, valuable raw materials and uranium; the second, the strategic importance of Southern Africa in an alleged Soviet build-up in the Indian Ocean. For those reasons Southern Africa is the heart of reaction in the Western World today, although openly the system of apartheid can find very few supporters. That is the dilemma under which the multinational firms and the militarists have to operate.
Apartheid and colonialism where practised create rebellion and liberation fighters who are quickly labelled as Russian tools and Communists, to be destroyed at all costs. This destruction of the forces of liberation has been the role of the Smith regime in Zimbabwe

1857
and Vorster's in Namibia and Southern Africa. However there are those in your Lordships' House who see them as knights rescuing Africa from the Communist dragon. To support that terrifying picture is the build up of Soviet naval forces in the Indian Ocean. If one travels throughout the world on business or pleasure which is one most likely to see —a Soviet warship or an American warship? In some of the most beautiful tranquil bays one sees huge American warships, moored submarines and groups of American sailors—a sight that one has seen ever since World War If. Rarely does one come across a Soviet ship. If one does show up there is immediately an outcry of Soviet expansion.
It seems likely and natural in the present world power situation that, if one great Power has bases, the other one will try to have them too. That is most unfortunate. However, to counter this alleged Soviet threat, Southern Africa has become of great strategic importance to NATO which has now been drawn into South African politics as an American pawn. To save the present valuable economic set up in Zimbabwe, Namibia and South Africa, tremendous Anglo-American pressure is being brought to bear on the so-called front line States. All agreements and discussions begin and end in Pretoria, the real "big brother Smith's main importance is now merely as a tool for white imperialist strategy which is to prevent liberation movements from achieving their true aim—a determination to win a completely new society free from any colonial domination. However, the imperialists are no longer in a position to maintain the old rule and are now forced to give concessions. Hence the international settlement plans in Rhodesia and the halfhearted condemnation of South Africa in Namibia. However, the whites are determined to maintain their grip on white domination and it is clearly shown in the details of the Smith internal settlemem.
Last Saturday I attended a conference called by Liberation, the Labour Party, the London Co-operative Society and trade unions. Joshua Nkomo, one of the leaders of the Patriotic Front, was to be present as chief speaker. The Press and mass media were telephoning all Friday night to ask whether he had arrived.
1858
They were informed that he had. At the conference on Saturday morning Reuters were present. Mr. Nkomo spoke for an hour and a half and then answered numerous questions from a lively audience anxious for information. There was not a word in any of the Sunday papers or on the media about that meeting, despite the fact that Nkomo, an absolute linchpin in today's politics, was present.
The following are some of the often hostile questions that were asked and Nkomo's replies. On the question of arms, Nkomo said:
"We have to get arms where we can. I flew openly from Heathrow to Moscow to ask for arms".
Meanwhile, where does Smith get his arms and planes? On the accusation of violence by the liberation forces and the guerrilla fighters. Nkomo said:
"But the whole history of Africa being carved up by Europe was violent. Britain waged many open wars against African States and tribes. The Africans in South Africa are today held down by violence".
Yet last week, in your Lordships' House, a factual history of Africa, written by that expert African historian, Basil Davidson, describing those wars of violence, was denounced as biased by a Minister of Her Majesty's Government.
On the question of Cubans, Nkomo said:
The Cubans were invited to Angola after the Portuguese had been defeated by the Angolan forces. On the other hand, the South Africans and Americans were never invited. "
When asked what was implied by "black rule "he insisted that the Patriotic Front was not for the expulsion of whites; that it was not supporting any colour or shape of nose; that it did not support those vulgar, unscientific theories about colour which are often held by whites. He said that it was fighting for real, complete independence for everyone living in Rhodesia. He said that land and property must be justly resettled, cheap labour abolished and agriculture revitalised. He said that it had been ruined by the drift to the towns by industry's demand for cheap labour.
A neighbour of mine in the country, the son of a big landlord, went to Rhodesia to manage a very large agricultural estate. He was horrified by the conditions of the workers on the land; he returned to England and took up

1859
painting to try to put across the horrors that he had seen out there. He is a Tory but he asked me, a Communist, if I could help him put on an exhibition of his pictures. Unfortunately, the content was clear but the pictures were not very good.
On the question of the army during transition, Nkomo said:
"We want our army, which stands for change, to be the majority. Smith's army stands for the status quo. We would agree to a United Nations force if it just observed, but it must not intervene in negotiations.".
When asked whether a one-Party Marxist State was the aim, he emphasised:
"After we have won true liberation for our people, democracy will be worked out through a thorough consensus.".
That cannot be compared with the terms of the internal settlement. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, made great scare of Russia pledging to support liberation movements. Britain used to play that role in history. We helped liberate Greece, and it is a pity that there is not more Byronic idealism in this House today.
The cruelties and horrors of South Africa are well known, even to its friends. But Britain is largely responsible for its continuation. She is the largest single investor with £3 billion—60 per cent.—of its total foreign investment. According to the Financial Times on 24th February this year, there were 400 British firms with 1,000 subsidiary branches. We can remember the exposure in The Guardian of the terribly low wages and poor conditions in these companies. Practically nothing has altered since. African trade unions are refusea official recognition and excluded from machinery for collective bargaining. What a paradise for the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and Mrs. Thatcher! In 1976 banning orders were imposed on 23 organisers of unions, and two have died in security police detention.
Africans exist only as cheap labour. Employers are free to set the wages and conditions of African workers without consultation. These workers cannot vote; they cannot choose where to live or where to work and they have no freedom to travel. The whites, who comprise 16.5 per cent. of the population, receive 67 per cent. of the national cake.
1860
Noble Lords are not simply listening to the one Communist Member of this House giving his views; I believe that I am expressing the feelings of millions of blacks in their own countries Rhodesia, Namibia and South Africa—who are struggling in every possible way known to them to own their own land and to be recognised as human beings. I have recently made friends with a young white South African who fell in love with an Indian girl while in South Africa. The deep love was mutual, but the law forbade them to appear together. They managed to leave and came to England. When I asked them what the first great difference was that they found in England, they said, "To be able to walk down the street hand in hand".
Thanks to the multinational economic empires and their racialist allies, the strength of the enemies of liberation is still great, but even greater is the loathing and discredit of world opinion. How much longer can they stand up against that?
5.49 p.m.
Viscount MILLS: My Lords, at the outset I must declare a deep-seated and long-standing interest in Africa. For nearly 20 years I worked in Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service in Kenya and I must say that I felt certain nostalgia when the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, spoke. I find it very difficult indeed to try to transfer a little of my relevant experience, gained in helping a country like Kenya to achieve independence and stability, to the complex problems of Southern Africa.
Before this debate I thought about two objectives which I felt any nation outside Southern Africa who genuinely wanted to help ought to consider. They are pretty simple and the first is very simple indeed and has been much spoken about. However, I still feel the necessity simply to repeat it. It is the attainment, or the maintenance in each country, of responsible government by peaceful means based on one man, one vote. It is what we have been talking about this afternoon. Where necessary, the attainment must continue and where, in certain countries, this objective is being lost countries like Angola we must do all in our power to try to retrieve it.

1861
The second objective that I thought about was the need politically to help create a situation in Southern Africa where force, coercion and outside interference cannot impose a political decision on any country. The noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, particularly talked about repudiation of force. I shall talk about it in rather more detail. I am going to talk about the second objective, and may I say at the outset that I do not want your Lordships to feel that any remarks I may make could be construed in any way as supporting the present South African policy or apartheid, both of which I intensely dislike. But I do believe that we and the United States of America have to take a much more positive stance in Southern Africa. It may already be too late to prevent Communism, Marxism, or whatever you like to call it, from taking over the whole of Southern Africa, but I do stress with all the strength at my command that we must try.
A few days ago I was reading John Gunther's writing in 1955 about his fears, as an impartial observer, in those days about whether Africa would go the same way as most of Asia and become a Communist continent. What I am saying is not just a hollow reflection of what I know many South Africans say for their own particular reasons in order to bolster up their ideology, but I do believe that we and the USA need to build up an anti-Communist bloc with as many countries as possible.
So far as Rhodesia and this particular objective are concerned, I want to say one thing only, drawn from my colonial experience which I think is still valid today; and that is that tribalism is, and always has been, the key to any situation in any predominantly African country. Unless in the first place you take note of the leaders, or the people who say they are leaders, and relate it to their tribal grouping, their tribal power and responsibility, you are not going to get to a position where you will get a settlement that sticks. Whatever happens in the long run, or whatever tribe eventually gets predominance at the start, you must take this into account. That is why in Rhodesia it is most important that any leader who represents tribal groups must be considered and brought in together with those on the internal settlement.
1862
Regarding South Africa, I think we must be clear about our responsibilities and we ought now to try to influence any partners who will join with us, such as the United States of America. I believe the time is here when we must do a tough and necessary deal with South Africa. By that I mean that we need to give to South Africa intensive and far-reaching economic and strategic and practical support on the one hand in exchange for real progress in reduction of racialist policies, many of which have been described today. I do not want to leave your Lordships with any doubts that that seems to be the issue that we ought to concentrate on in the wider field. If we can succeed in doing this we can, I believe, build up the bloc that I have spoken about.
I believe that the United States may well be tending to have cold feet about this sort of approach. It seems to show in their policies. I do not think it does any good to dismiss Southern Africa as unimportant. There is a tendency these days, with the spread of Communism, for people to say, "The latest acquisition is not our country"; but every country brings it one nearer to our own country. Perhaps the United States tends to over concentrate in this matter, probably because of its disastrous results in its view in Vietnam. I think therefore that we have to make this sort of approach in order to succeed. We need today to reassess the situation, to decide on correct priorities for keeping the remaining areas of Southern Africa free and not dominated by Communism. By that I do not mean that we are talking about force; we are talking about economic aid, about anything in our power to influence away from joining these people, giving support economically and strategically as a counter to Soviet and Cuban efforts. Only by doing this can we obtain a change in attitude in South Africa and the treatment of all people.
The question of free elections in Rhodesia will, I hope, influence the nearby States who find themselves in great difficulty, particularly Malawi, where their problem is that it is so easy to lean on Soviet and Cuban forces for support rather than to take heed of a really strong position in Southern Africa supported by ourselves and by the United States.
5.57 p.m.
Lord GARNER: My Lords, this is a fascinating debate but it looks like going on for a very long time and I will do my best to break the sound barrier by keeping within single figures of minutes. The debate has underlined very clearly that the problems of Southern Africa are complex, inter-connected but different, and that they derive from and closely concern Europe and Europeans. The Western nations have been involved from the beginning, above all perhaps Britain, sometimes for ill but mostly for good, as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, was refreshingly reminding us just now. But we do bear our responsibility from which we cannot escape. Interwoven in the history are a whole series of factors such as the advance of the missionaries, the ambition of Cecil Rhodes, the scramble for Africa by the colonial Powers who very often imposed boundaries on tribal areas which bore little relation to reality, from which we suffer to this day, the importation of Asiatics which introduced another element into the problem, which has not been very much touched on today, and the settlement of the South African question in 1909, which at the time was thought to be such an act of broadminded and generous statesmanship but was brought about without any consultation with the wishes of the majority of the people in the country; namely, natives, as they were called at that time.
In due course under Afrikaner rule apartheid, which has concerned us considerably during the debate, has been increasing its grip. We all deplore that, no one more than I, but in all honesty and humility I think we should also face the fact that both in Africa and in Asia the British themselves have often shown a degree of racial arrogance and intolerance, certainly in the past, and some I suppose would claim that we even show it in our own country today.
I do not want to enter into detail on any of the main subjects that have been discussed. On Rhodesia all I need say is that I agree with I think every word that fell from the lips of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington—I nearly called him "my noble friend"; Perhaps I am allowed to do that. I particularly support his welcome for the internal settlement, which is a most remarkable development
1864
to anyone familiar with the previous history, as other speakers have pointed out. I strongly support his plea for hoping that the Government will give a slightly less tepid welcome to the settlement, but at the same time will try to expand and develop it so that it can become an umbrella to bring in others under its hold.
I also strongly support some of the suggestions that came from the most reverend Primate, and particularly for the need for an international or external presence in Rhodesia itself—whether this be in the form of a United Nations' force of some kind, or a military commander, or as I, certainly in the early stages, would like to see, in the form of a strong British diplomatic mission, and possibly later a British political personality, I do not know. However, I am quite sure that some form of outside force is necessary to grip the situation as a whole and carry it forward.
I want to add only two brief comments on what has been said. First, I think that the Patriotic Front have their importance; and this is perhaps a partial answer to some of the things that the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, said, because undoubtedly they enjoy a degree of support inside the territory. Nobody knows how much support it is, but it seems clear from recent publications, and perhaps the recent BBC review, that there is an element of support among certain of the younger generation of Rhodesian Africans for what are known as "the Boys".
At the other end of the scale, I would say one word about the Europeans. I know the difficulties of Mr. Smith's position, but it seems to me important that he should be retained in the interim set-up. I can see that there are arguments against, but without the Europeans when the final settlement comes early next year, one hopes, supporting the whole machinery of government, there could well be chaos. It seems to me that Mr. Smith—and I thought that what the noble Lord, Lord Plunket, said on this subject was significant—still has an important part to play both in encouraging the Europeans to support the settlement, which is still necessary, and also in maintaining their morale in the early days of the new set-up, which are bound to be difficult for them.

1865
Here I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, said: that the Europeans must be willing to make adjustments to what will be a very different way of life for them.
So long as a solution of the Rhodesian problem evades us, there will be agony not only for Rhodesia but also for many of its neighbours. I think, for example, of Zambia, whose situation has been one of considerable distress for some time, and is now made all the worse by the drastic fall in the price of copper and the serious shortage of foreign exchange from which she is suffering. I think also of Botswana, where the guerrilla war has proved particularly hard on a territory large in size but small in people, and with a long border almost certainly inadequately defended and across which come terrorists and anti-terrorist forces. I am sure we were all distressed by the tragedy of the young Love boy, and also by another tragedy which, so far as I can see, received considerably less publicity in this country; the 15 members of the Botswana Defence Force who were massacred by forces crossing the border. The long line has certainly become a nightmare.
No one who has grappled with the problems of Central Africa, as I used to do some years ago, would dare to be optimistic today. It has been right that I so sombre a note has been struck, but I should like to end on perhaps a somewhat happier note. When I said earlier that there had been no consultation with the African population at the time of the creation of the Union of South Africa there was in fact one exception. The South Africa Act provided for the transfer of the High Commission territories to South Africa, but at the time pledges were given in Parliament, and in the House of Lords, that the transfer would not be considered by the British Government without the approval of Parliament and without consultation with the African inhabitants.
That was a very remarkable pledge to have given as long ago as 1909, and it was honoured. I think it is to the credit of this Government and Parliament that that pledge was kept, and eventually, as one knows, Botswana, Lesotho, and Swaziland emerged as fully independent territories. I visited Botswana last year, I had been there several times earlier. Apart from the shadow of Rhodesia, which
1866
of course casts a dark mark, it would be difficult to find a happier or more contented territory at this time. Thanks to mineral development its economy has prospered. The new capital in Gaborone is flourishing, and practically from scratch an efficient Civil Service, Parliament, and all the paraphernalia of business and commerce has been developed.
Above all, the atmosphere is quite remarkable. In shops, hotels, homes, sporting places, there is complete mixing of the races and no rigidity whatsoever. A sizeable number of people from this country live there. Many of them have taken out citizenship and are working either for the Government or in the community. This seems to me to be race relations at its best. It gives a model, and is an example that there is no reason should not be followed in due course by every territory in Southern Africa, the affairs of which we have been discussing this evening. It is an example of what can be done under enlightened leadership. The leadership has been under the President, Sir Seretse Khama, who will be visiting this country shortly. I am sure that many of his friends will want to take the opportunity to welcome him here and to congratulate him on the achievements of his country, and particularly to wish his country well in the successful efforts it is making to uphold the dignity of man without any distinction of race, colour, or creed.
6.9 p.m.
Lord VERNON: My Lords, like other noble Lords I shall confine my remarks to Rhodesia, although I shall touch on the subject of South Africa in so far as any settlement reached in Rhodesia may ultimately affect what happens in South Africa, because it seems to me obvious that any settlement that is achieved north of the Limpopo River is but a curtain-raiser for what in due course must take place south of it. That is an aspect to which I shall return later.
What should be our main aims at the present time? I believe that basically they are two. We should seek to hand over the administration to responsible majority rule after free elections in accordance with the best traditions of British colonial policy. Secondly, we must try to ensure that the transfer of power takes

1867
place with the minimum bloodshed and the minimum interference with the economic life of the community. Those should be our objectives and they should override any short-term interests, such as placating the so-called front-line Presidents who wish to place in power their own nominees, or currying favour with other African States on whom we or the Americans are to some extent economically dependent. Rhodesia is a British colony. We have the responsibility and we must do what we think is best for the people as a whole.
If one looks at the Anglo-American proposals in this light, they strike me as seriously defective. Indeed, I think they could be a recipe for civil way. First, they are unrealistic; they will not work because there is not the will or the desire on the part of the African leaders to make them work. They are at loggerheads today, just as they have been at loggerheads for the last 15 years. To weld into a new Power the disparate elements of the terrorist forces with those whom they have been fighting so recently is surely straining credulity to breaking point. And what would be the effect on the white population who staff the civil service and are the mainstay of the economy? There is little doubt that they would up sticks and go, and who could blame them? After all, as has been said, not only is Mr. Mugabe a self-confessed Marxist; he is hand in glove with the Russians and Cubans and he has publicly stated that the white Rhodesian leaders should be put on trial after majority rule.
It has of course been said that the Patriotic Front are largely responsible for bringing Mr. Smith to the negotiating table and it would therefore be unfair to exclude them from the fruits of their victory, but I do not think that argument stands up to close examination. What forced Mr. Smith to negotiate was not the victories of the Patriotic Front —indeed, there have been no victories—but the collapse of Portuguese rule in Mozambique and the impossibility of defending such a long frontier. I am convinced that if the Portuguese revolution had come 10 or 15 years earlier there would never have been UDI. In any case, the Patriotic Front are not being excluded. Under the terms of the internal
1868
settlement they are free to return and take part in the elections, and one must hope they will do so.
It is then said that if the Anglo-American plan is not adopted there will be a continuation of the war. I wonder. Provided there is genuine majority rule in Zimbabwe, with a wholly black Government formed after free elections, I believe it will not be long before it is accepted by the other African States, not least by President Machel of Mozambique. who has so much to lose by a continuation of the fighting and who, in any case, is 80 per cent. dependent on South Africa for his foreign exchange. Mr. Smith has at last accepted the Five or Six Principles which we have said all along are a prerequisite to the granting of independence, and he and his black colleagues are in the process of implementing a settlement which puts these principles into effect. Of course, it is a tragedy that he did not see the light earlier, but he has done so now and it would be churlish and shabby if the British Government were not to keep their side of the bargain.
Bishop Muzorewa, the Reverend Sithole and Chief Chirau, who between them must speak for a substantial part of the African population—it is idle to say whether they speak for more or less than the others because we do not know and we will not know until elections are held—have all stated that they want the whites to stay on in the country and that, subject to a rapid process of Africanisation in the civil service and armed forces, the existing efficient administration should remain. That to me is immensely encouraging as an attitude and one I should have thought would be welcomed by everyone.
I return to the effect on South Africa. We all know that big political changes in that country are long overdue. The system of apartheid is so odious and stifling that it will not long be tolerable to an African population which is among the most sophisticated on the continent. As the tide of African nationalism sweeps south, the external and internal pressures on the South African Government will increase. Changes are inevitable; the only question is how long they will take and whether they will come peacefully or as the result of a bloodbath, and we must all hope it will be the former. if the

1869
white South Africans see the creation of a Marxist State in Zimbabwe, supported by Soviet and Cuban arms, and if they watch the white Rhodesians driven out, persecuted and put on trial, there is no doubt what their reaction will be. They will fight it out to the bitter end, and they are a tough and resolute people.
If, on the other hand, they witness the evolution in Zimbabwe of responsible black government with the whites continuing to play a significant part in the economic life of the country, a very different reaction is poss;ble. It is only a chance, I admit that—apart from the other difficulties, it will require a change in racial attitudes on the part of white Rhodesians which may not be forthcoming—but it is a chance with enormous implications for peace in Southern Africa.
I therefore hope that in the days to come the Foreign Secretary and Mr. Vance will be less hypnotised by the views of certain African leaders, who so often have double standards where events in Africa are concerned, as my noble friend Lord Carrington said. Instead, I hope they will take another look at the internal settlement to see if they can build on it. If, for example, Mr. Nkomo, who undoubtedly has substantial support, at least in some parts of Rhodesia, could be persuaded to participate, the prospects for success would be greatly enhanced. I was struck by what by noble friend Lord Plunket said about the internal settlement. He has first-hand knowledge of what is going on there and, as he told us, he has been one of the most suspicious people as regards Mr. Smith's motives. But he thinks now that there has been a complete change and that white rule is over for ever.
So far as Mr. Smith is concerned, I think there is a tendency in Whitehall to be vindictive. We should forget the past and let bygones be bygones. Probably Mr. Smith and only Mr. Smith, as the noble Lord, Lord Garner, said, could have sold the internal settlement to the white Rhodesian electorate, and to that extent he has a necessary, if temporary, part to play during the transition period, a period during which, I suggest, sanctions should be progressively lifted. One must sympathise with the Foreign Secretary in the daunting task that he has undertaken. For reasons which are under
1870
standable he has so far remained sitting on the fence, but he cannot remain there very much longer, and when he does finally jump I hope it will be in the direction that I have indicated.
6.20 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, although the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, delivered his maiden speech two hours ago, I feel that my first words must be of appreciation. He spoke to us not only with great knowledge, but with the ability to convey that knowledge to us. As I listened I understood his influence among his own students, and I hope that there will be many occasions when we may be his students as he speaks to us again.
Listening to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and indeed to others which followed, I was very tempted to discuss mainly fundamental principles, rather than immediate political issues. I want to make only two comments on the speech which the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, made. He has been courteous enough, characteristically, to send me a note expressing regret that he is not here while I am speaking.
The two points of principle upon which I wish to comment are as follows. First, the noble Lord denounced—and I appreciated it—the apartheid racial discrimination in Southern Africa, but he said that we must not have two standards, that we must denounce the repudiation of human rights wherever that takes place. I agree with him that human rights are indivisible, and that their repudiation must be denounced, as many of us have done, whether it takes place in Uganda, Ethiopia, Cambodia, or the Soviet Union. But there is this difference between the South African Government and every other Government. They are the only Government in the world who boast of apartheid and who acclaim it as their philosophy. Because of that, there must surely be concentration upon South Africa.
The other fundamental principle to which I wish to refer is the noble Lord's apprehension that countries in Southern Africa might become Marxist-Communist—an apprehension which has been repeated by other speakers. Quite frankly, I expect many of those countries to become Socialist. I do not believe the peoples

1871
will tolerate capitalism, as it is there, which makes the few rich with underpayment below subsistence level to thousands of African workers. But I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that when he expresses this fear of Marxist States in Africa he must recognise that the African people will develop their own forms of Socialism, and that these are already proving very different from the totalitarian regimes which he fears. I take Tanzania, I take Senegal, I take Algeria, I take Zambia, all of whose Governments have a Socialist objective. No one would think of denouncing any one of them as being a totalitarian State—
The Earl of ONSLOW: I should have thought that Algeria was certainly totalittarian, Colonel Boumedienne came to power not by election, but by tanks.
Lord BROCKWAY: I have been to Algeria and I know its leaders. I also know that, while it is a one-Party State, in very many African countries there is more democracy within the one-Party system than there is in the electoral system of many so-called democratic countries.
Today there have been three pronouncements of tremendous significance from Africa. Two of them are encouraging, one discouraging. There is the announcement by Mr. Vorster in the Republic of South Africa that he accepts the proposals of the five Governments in the United Nations Security Council. I want to ask the Minister whether he can clarify one point. The Times, announcing this this morning, said that Mr. Vorster was still insisting on 20,000 South African troops remaining in Namibia. As I understand it, the proposal of the Western Governments was that the South African force should be reduced to 1,500. If Mr. Vorster has accepted that proposal, surely it is inconsistent with the suggestion of 20,000 troops remaining.
With regard to Namibia, I believe that the proposals which have now been accepted are such that SWAPO would be very well advised to co-operate with them. There would be free elections under the supervision of the United Nations. SWAPO would have the opportunity to function under that protection as much
1872
as any other section. They probably have a majority of voters in Namibia. Accordingly, I believe that SWAPO would be very well advised to participate in the elections, and to accept the opportunity which is theirs of gaining a majority decision.
The two other pronouncements which have come from Africa today are as follows. First—I think discouragingly—there is the decision of the interim Government in Rhodesia to decline to take part in the all-elements conference that has been proposed. I hope, as I shall indicate, that they will reconsider that decision later. The other statement which I regard as encouraging, which has come only this afternoon, is that the interim Government in Rhodesia has agreed to lift the bans on the political Parties of ZANU and ZAPU, which are the political Parties of the guerrilla forces. If this report is confirmed it is of very great significance and of some hope for the future. If, in his reply, it is possible for the Minister to say whether that report has been confirmed, I am sure it would be of value to all of us.
My Lords, I want to recognise at once what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said and what the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, said: that there has been an almost unprecedented change in the attitude of Mr. Ian Smith. Three years ago, it was, "No majority rule in my lifetime; no one man, one vote '". I think that change has probably taken place because of the economic crisis in Rhodesia, and I would say that that economic crisis has been due, not so much to the inadequate sanctions which have been applied as to the guerrilla war which has been fought during these last few years. It is that which has brought the crisis and the near collapse. The necessary calling-up of men into service, the expenditure, the disruption of large parts of the territory—all these things have caused the crisis.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said that the interim Government was initiated by Mr. Ian Smith and three African leaders who represent the majority of the people of Rhodesia". I am very doubtful whether there is yet enough evidence to say that they represent the majority. The attitude in the Committee of Three which negotiated the steps taken is more important than their colour; and, if one looks at attitudes, it is not one to three, it is two to

1873
two. Chief Chirau was a member of the Smith Government until 1976. He resigned from that Government to form an organisation in the country to support what were called the moderate views in favour of the Smith Government. His activity in forming that organisation was financed by the Government. Chief Chirau, in that gathering of three, is much nearer Mr. Ian Smith than he is to his African colleagues.
Viscount CALDECOTE: My Lords, would the noble Lord give way for a moment on that issue? Has the noble Lord had the opportunity of speaking to Chief Chirau? Has the noble Lord had the opportunity of going to any of the meetings of his organisation, and of hearing the great sincerity with which Africans of all ages speak on this? I do not believe he has. I have. Does he know where the money comes from?
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I am not quite sure, because my hearing is not as good as it should be, whether I have gathered all that the noble Viscount said. If he is referring to the financing of Chief Chirau's organisation, it is not challenged. It was admitted. The salaries of the chiefs, in addition, are paid by the Government; and no one can suggest that his organisation is representative of any large number of the African people.
My second reason forverymuchdoubting whether there is a majority of Africans for the internal settlement is the opinion of the rural areas. I wonder whether your Lordships read in The Times this week the article from a correspondent living in Zimbabwe who had toured the rural areas. He said that the feeling was dominant in favour of Nkomo and Mugabe—that surprised me—and that the people felt that they were being more harassed by the security forces of the Government than by the guerrillas. A very large part of Zimbabwe is now controlled by the guerrillas. To assume that its large rural population would vote for the internal settlement is, I think, to misunderstand the situation.
Next there are the "Protected Villages". Africans have had their houses destroyed, their cattle killed or confiscated and their crops ruined by the security forces, and have been herded into these villages surrounded by wire netting. There were
1874
209 such villages in mid-1976, with 580,000 population. One speaker in the debate said that the interim Government was now releasing them. I have no information to that effect, but I do know that a week before the interim Government was established seven new protected villages were formed with a population of 20,000. I find it very significant indeed that, despite the presence of Bishop Muzorewa as a Minister, his own organisation yesterday demanded that the "Protected Villages "should be abolished.
Thirdly, there are the refugees in Botswana. There is a camp for 1,000, but there are 4,000 there. The United Nations are now lifting 1,000 a day to Zambia. Those refugees, according to all the reports that I have seen, left Zimbabwe to go into Botswana because they said there were harassments from the security forces. Lastly, there are the thousands who are in the guerrilla forces. If you add up all those, it is very difficult indeed to suggest that it does not represent a majority.
I had intended to analyse the internal security measures. I must do so very briefly indeed. Mr. Smith has talked about "one man, one vote". Yes, every adult over 18 is to have a vote; but they are not equal votes. Parliament is to be 100 strong. My Lords, 28 seats are to be reserved for the whites—28 per cent., whilst the proportion of the white population in Rhodesia is less than 5 per cent. Of the 28, 20 are to be elected by whites only, and the eight who are to be elected on the common roll are to be nominated by Mr. Smith's Party. That is neither majority rule nor equal one man, one vote; nor democracy. I refrain because of the time from going into further details, but I want to say that it is utterly unrealistic to think that when the elections in Zimbabwe take place at the end of this year the guerrilla war will end. It will end only then if there is a preceding agreement between the interim Government in Zimbabwe, the leaders of the guerrilla forces, the Patriotic Front, the five group nations and Britain and America. I find it difficult to express the disaster which the continuation of the war would cause; it would become a civil war, a war between Africans and Africans. It would lead to a colossal economic collapse. The existence of Zimbabwe in

1875
those conditions would become almost impossible.
I turn, as I always try to turn at the end, to the possibilities of dealing with this problem. I believe that both sides must begin to think again. I think that the interim Government in Zimbabwe itself will be compelled by events to repudiate its decision of yesterday and to agree to negotiate with the Patriotic Front, the five Governments and Britain and America. On the other hand, I believe that the leaders of the Patriotic Front and the five Governments must agree that they will negotiate in a conference which represents them all. If that happens, as I believe it is likely to happen because of the circumstances in Zimbabwe, then there will be a real hope that a settlement may be secured which can he endorsed not only by the people of Zimbabwe, but by those States immediately outside it, by Britain and America, and by international opinion. I urge everyone to try to bring about that end.
6.44 p.m.
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, first I must apologise to the House for the circumstances that I have been unable to hear most of the debate because, unfortunately, it coincides with the date of a charitable committee, the Motability Charity, which I had to rate as of greater importance than making my contribution to this debate. I thought it appropriate to make a contribution and I was asked to do so. On that account, I would ask for the forgiveness of the House that I am not wholly familiar with what has been said previously. This is a debate of great importance. I may say that, of the speeches that I have heard, I found myself in total agreement with the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Vernon, which seemed to say everything that I wanted to say.
So far as the speech which I have just heard is concerned, it is of such manifest sincerity and made with such deep belief and a sense of humanity that one feels it would be unkind to utter a critical word; but I think that I must do so. First, a preoccupation with whether the chief is a Smith-man or not seems to me to lack any sense of reality as to what
1876
really matters. It must be borne in mind that the position of the chief as a member of the Executive lasts for a few months only. At the end of that time there will be elections and whether Smith's men or Sithole's men or Bishop's men are elected will follow the event. It therefore seems to me not only an unnecessary preoccupation, but a rather unfair and tendentious criticism of what is happening to suggest that, because the chief might be a Smith-man and I think there are powerful reasons for thinking that this is by no means conclusively established—it is necessarily a fatal flaw in the arrangements.
The second question I would ask the noble Lord is this. What is the logical conclusion of his argument? Supposing it is the case that you will not be able to pacify Nkomo and the other gentlemen and that they will continue guerrilla warfare. Does he think that this country would give them support in any belief that peace can on that basis be achieved? Does he believe that Mr. Sithole, the chief, the Bishop or Smith and all white Rhodesians will capitulate and that peace will follow? I think that this is a pipe-dream. It seems to me that this is a situation where, whatever the difficulties may be—and I think it is not only dangerous but complacent and foolish to minimise the difficulties of supporting the internal settlement—there is no hope for Rhodesia unless the internal settlement is supported.
I invite your Lordships to consider what the situation was when, six years ago, I had the pleasure and privilege of accompanying the noble Lord, Lord Home, to Rhodesia when he contrived to secure an agreement from Mr. Smith. We all know what happened to that agreement. But that agreement reflects very well on Britain and the British Government. I do not think that the history of Rhodesia is discreditable to the British Government. It may be that they were not particularly efficient or particularly adept: but they have been entirely honourable. It will be remembered that that agreement was made subject to a provision that it existed and came into force only if the Africans approbated it.
Whether a Commission should have come out earlier, whether steps should have been taken to prevent propaganda against it, whether things of that sort

1877
should have been done, are now matters of water under the bridge. What is certain is that the British Government honourably accepted that the refusal by the Africans involved a repudiation of that agreement and there was no attempt to asert it. This is a creditable piece of history and one that we need not be in the least ashamed of. I thought it a sadness, for I worked very hard during five or six visits to try to achieve a settlement that I hoped would be acceptable. That it was not acceptable was something one had to recognise and it left the situation as it is today.
To expect that the present agreement will he modified by the people who have negotiated it at such pains and negotiated it in such detail, and that they arc going to accept major revisions and variations of it at this stage, is totally unrealistic. It will not happen. What can happen is that if adequate support is not given to it soon enough, it may well collapse. This, I think, would leave a state of total anarchy, a state really beyond hope. I think that one must ask that one should recognise the achievement of this agreement. Six years ago when my noble friend and others were negotiating. if we had been told that six years later Mr. Smith and his friends and the white residents of Rhodesia would accept an agreement of the character that we are now considering, I venture to think that we should have required sal volatole.
It is necessary to recognise that the white Rhodesians have made an historic gesture. History is full of people whose heads were in the sand, who failed to recognise an impending catastrophe and who waited too late. One has only to think of Czar Nicholas or Louis XVI or any number of others. Mr. Smith, for all his shortcomings—and I am no friend of Mr. Smith—has accepted the situation, I hope, in time. He should have done so years ago. If he had accepted it years ago, what a splendid situation would have arisen! But he has accepted it and I think the white Rhodesians should be given the credit for that.
As for the black Rhodesians, no credit can be given that is too much. They have accepted quietly and with tranquillity every kind of imposition which has descended upon them. They are a peaceful, quiet and kindly people.There
1878
has been no significant insurrection there. They have waited year after year for their emancipation. They owe it to us to give the most considered deliberation to the possibilities that exist for achieving peace. We owe it to them, if I may say so—and I say this to both sides of the House—totally to discard political considerations in arriving at a conclusion as to what ought to be done.
The present Foreign Minister, Dr. Owen, is a man who I feel deserves well of all of us at this moment. I do not associate myself in the slightest degree with the criticisms that suggest he is in some way at fault because he has not leapt to approbate this agreement before he has allowed the maximum elasticity to either side to enable such concessions as are possible to he made. If, at the end of the day, he comes down on the right side with a recognition that the internal settlement is the only possibility, then I think he will rank high in this regard among the Foreign Secretaries of this country. If he comes down on the wrong side, that is another matter; he may hear mild words of reproach in place of the words of approbation I am uttering at present. But I think it needs to he said that, in reserving his judgment in this matter—and the noble Lord, Lord Vernon, said exactly the same—he has behaved with a wisdom and understanding that is perhaps beyond his years. I think it is right that that should be said because a great deal of criticism has been uttered about him which seems to me to be based on the assumption that it is wise and sensible to agree to something before you know what position will ultimately emerge.
Having said that, I think it is important also to say, as the noble Lord, Lord Vernon, said, that we must recognise how crucial this is not only to Rhodesia but to Southern Africa. ft is terrifying to think what situation will ensue in Southern Africa if violence emerges. I regard the present Government of South Africa—I have made my views known—as wholly despicable. I regard them as a Government beyond redemption, but the fact remains that they are the Government. I was there last year and I saw appalling, awful things. I saw things that really should cause reproach and shame to any Government. The fact remains that there are 4 million Europeans in South Africa; there are 2 million coloureds and

1879
a million Indians, who for practical purposes must be regarded as Europeans. One cannot envisage a situation in which seven million people are involved in war and catastrophe without recognising that the consequences of this to the whole world are incalculable and cannot be exaggerated.
Hence, what is happening in Rhodesia is of vital importance. I believe that, if a settlement is established in Rhodesia, so that the white South Africans, and particularly the Afrikaners, can see that it is possible for a government to be established where the black man lives in harmony with the white man and where the white man is in no danger, this could have an immeasurable effect on the situation in South Africa. In fact, it is the only remedial possibility that does exist. I can think of no possibility but that the South African Government should look north and see that something is happening which could change their whole philosophy. It may not change it: it may be that the so-called "laager" attitude will be maintained; but it does bring a hope—and it is one that should be cultivated as vigorously as we possibly can.
What ought we to do? The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has criticised the agreement, I think on very legalistic grounds. I think the agreement responds totally to the Five Principles enunciated by the noble Lord. That is my view. I can think of no principle which it offends. I do not think that entrenching in a Constitution rights for the protection of a minority is a disparagement in any way of its democratic principles or of majority rule. Will the noble Lord bear in mind what this Constitution actually provides and how astonishing it is that it should have been achieved with a Government led by Mr. Smith? It provides, it is true, for a minimum number of white members. It provides for 28, 8 of whom are elected on a common roll; but that exists only for 10 years.
One of the most disturbing, disquieting and distressing features of these negotiations has been the absurdity of laying emphasis on minute periods of time. I do not know how long was spent arguing under the Kissinger arrangement about whether majority rule should be achieved in one year or two years. I think more than that time was expended on the arguments!
1880
If in fact these arrangements endure for 10 years, can anyone seriously criticise that or say that it is nothing for a people to relinquish their rights and expose themselves to risks which they regard as enormous? —and the white population in Rhodesia undoubtedly regard those risks as enormous. They do not accept that they are necessarily going to live in safety and security. We accept it and we hope for it, but they do not. All that is being given them is a period of security for 10 years, with a judicial commission at the end of that time which may perhaps renew it but which may not. Can anyone seriously complain about that or regard that as an excessive safeguard which diminishes the democratic character of the arrangements?
What are the other entrenched provisions? There is a justiciable Bill of Rights. I may say that that was most carefully and laboriously negotiated in the agreement in which I played a small part. It is abosutely right that it should be there. It is absolutely right that it should not be capable of being changed, except with a significant majority. The other points that are objected to appear to me to represent legalism of the highest degree. The judges' independence is maintained and one can only change the Constitution with 78 votes. None of that, in my view, is a departure from a genuinely democratic Constitution; and Constitutions can be found throughout the world which entrench the rights of minorities in precisely this fashion, in countries which are regarded as totally democratic. It is my belief that the criticisms which have been directed towards this Constitution are wholly misconceived.
If we accept that this Constitution does satisfy the requirements of the Five Principles, is it right that we should impose a Sixth Principle at this period of time? I cannot help thinking that it is unfair, unjust and dishonest. The Rhodesians have, whatever we may say, acceded to the requirements. They have acceded many years late, but they have acceded. Democracy is about to come if this agreement is implemented. The problem is: how do we achieve its implementation?
I would not wish to minimise in any way the dangers and the difficulties. I have not taken my current information about

1881
Rhodesia from that country because I have not spoken on this subject or visited Rhodesia during the six years to which I have referred. I have taken my current information from black Rhodesians in this country: men of astonishing intellectial distinction; men whom it is impossible to believe that Mr. Smith could have met and refused to admit them into his Government; men who, if I may say so, are a credit to any community and who demonstrate beyond any argument that it is possible to educate the Africans of Rhodesia to a level comparable with a European democracy. These are the men I have spoken to and what they have told me is of sufficient interest, I believe, to justify my taking up a little of your Lordships' time in telling you of their views.
Their first view is that there is a risk. One cannot say that the election which will come at the end of the year will necessarily demonstrate to the black people of Rhodesia that on the whole democracy has arrived. Much will depend on the circumstances of that election and, as the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, said, one has to recognise that the guerrilla forces are not only on the border but have in fact penetrated into the tribal areas. They are in contact with many Rhodesians in the tribal areas and have influenced those Rhodesians who believe that it is the guerrilla philosophy which is the one that will bring them freedom. But what those Africans also say is that, if these elections are fairly conducted and if they satisfy the six or seven million Africans in Rhodesia, the Bishop and his colleagues are capable of introducing a genuine democracy. They have no special allegiance to the guerrillas, and there is a fair hope—more than a fair hope—that the guerrillas will return to Rhodesia and accept a government of this character.
No one can say with certainty that this is the case, but one must say with the greatest possible emphasis that there is no other sensible alternative choice. It seems to me that no other hope exists. If this agreement is discarded, if it is not implemented and if the elections do not take place, what is one to hope for except for a continuing guerrilla war?—to which the Bishop and his triumvirate will certainly not submit without armed resistance over a very long period. The hope for peace
1882
in Rhodesia is a hope for this internal settlement. It requires a generous attitude on many areas.
I agree totally with the leader in The Times on the day the agreement was announced. I do not think we should raise sanctions at this moment. I think that would be a mistake and that it would be provocative. On the other hand, I would urge the Government to consider whether the petty restrictions, irritations and minor cruelties that are now inflicted on Rhodesians need be pursued. The Rhodesians have now satisfied everything we asked of them. They have done what we asked them to do. That we cannot lift the sanctions is unfortunately due to an international situation that has to be met. But why should it be impossible for a Rhodesian to come here to receive medical treatment and why should it be impossible for a Rhodesian to come and visit his relatives? This seems to me at this moment of time to be an unnecessary and gratuitous cruelty. I ask the Minister to take into consideration whether it would be a great encouragement to everybody to indicate, whatever the outcome may be, that, on the whole, these petty restrictions will no longer endure.
I had experience of one quite recently. A lady who works for me, who is British, has two brothers. One lives in America and the other lives in Rhodesia, where he farms. The Rhodesian brother applied to the American Consulate for a visa to visit his brother in America, and for his wife to do likewise. The wife received a visa, but the farmer did not receive one and was told that, on economic grounds, he could not have one. His wife could go, but he could not go. It seems to me that this is intolerable. What possible encouragement are we giving to anybody, if it is believed that these restrictions and irritations will continue? There should be a change, and encouragement should be given in the way of recognising that, at long last, white Rhodesians have met the conditions that we have imposed.
There are very serious and significant dangers. One thing that has been strongly recommended is that, when an election takes place, the widest possible Press corps should be urged to visit the country and he available to report it. That would bring a confidence that I do not think

1883
any number of commanders-in-chief from other countries would bring on their own account. If it is felt that the world is not only watching but is being told what is happening, that will be a move towards democracy.
At this hour of the night I have no more to say, except this. The people of Rhodesia, black and white, have suffered untold hardships and difficulties over the years. They deserve as good of us as we can give. I would not say a word about Mr. Ian Smith, because history will judge him. I would only say that he has demonstrated that he is a man who is capable of changing his mind, and I do not believe that there is at present another white Rhodesian leader who could have brought white Rhodesia into this agreement, or who can continue to lead it until the agreement is fully fulfilled. I believe that Mr. Smith has a role to play.
My experience of Mr. Smith may well have made me slightly less friendly towards him than my present remarks indicate. I suffered at his hands, while he resolutely refused to grant the slightest concession by way of a comma over weary weeks, months and years. But I still retain the feeling that, when history comes to be written, someone will have to concede that this was a very remarkable man, who stood his ground on a principle which is obnoxious and objectionable to all of us, but which, nevertheless, is innate in him. I believe that when the time comes history will record that possibly the period that has ensued has, on the whole, been to the benefit of Rhodesia.
If this agreement conies about, if the two guerrilla leaders can be persuaded to join in the elections—to which, as I understand it, they are invited most cordially—if sufficient concessions can be made to bring them to join in the matter, then there must be some hope that Rhodesia has a future. The whole of Southern Africa, and, I think, to a large extent, the peaceful future of great parts of the world, depend on the decisions that we shall make in this matter.
7.3 p.m.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, I greatly enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and found myself in very general agreement
1884
with all that he said. One point on which I agree tremendously is this: Democracy is not the rule of the majority. The rule of the majority may be just as tyrannical as the rule of a minority. Democracy is about a tenderness for the rights of minorities. It is a system within which the rights and vital interests of minorities are respected by the conventions and arrangements of the States that have emerged, and it is that which is the significant difference between an authoritarian Government and a democratic Government.
One other point on which I was perhaps in less than total agreement was his assessment of the present performance of our Foreign Secretary. I cannot feel that this talk about having to avoid a war breaking out makes any sense at all. A war has broken out. It has been going on for quite a long time. It is being fought. As to that war, our Foreign Secretary's policy has done far more to promote it than to prevent it. Remember this, my Lords. For ten years Mr. Smith ruled Rhodesia under UDI and it was the most orderly and peaceful place in Africa. It was not democratic. The rights of majorities were not there. But it was ruled, orderly and the law ran.
Then the Portuguese territories collapsed. We ought to have been able—any statesman ought to have been able—to see the consequences were underlined by the arrival of Russian advisers and Cuban troops. The necessity at that point surely was at least to confine the chaos which had come by the breakdown; but at no point after this dangerous situation was developing—and I should have thought developing in a way which any statesman ought to have been able to see—did our Government do anything to discourage either Zambia or Mozambique from maintaining guerrilla bands to invade and murder in Rhodesia. Throughout this time we have been subsidising those two countries. We have been assisting. We have never remotely made it a condition that they should abide by the normal rules of a civilised society—and of all international law—to refrain from violating the borders of their neighbours by allowing guerrillas to operate from their countries. Surely the necessity of that law among nations has been underlined in recent years.

1885
Look at what happened on the borders of Israel. Jordan had the sense after a time to get rid of this liability. Lebanon is now in a state of collapse because she failed to do so. Egypt has pulled around and is on the way to becoming a modern nation because she has got rid of this form of internicene war. Yet over this time we have done nothing at all to discourage Zambia and Mozambique from promoting this mischievous form of war.
Who are sanctions serving now? Are they serving us or are they serving the Russians? Here we have the Russians supplying and arming the invaders of Rhodesia, and we prevent the Rhodesians by our sanctions from obtaining arms to defend themselves against that. In this operation sanctions are being operated by us to injure our interests and to serve the Russian interest, and we are naive enough to imagine that the Russians might he persuaded to remove sanctions! Unless they are persuaded—and they and their clients control the majority of the United Nations—sanctions must go on. This seems to me a lamentable situation.
I believe in Party loyalties. I have only once in my life voted against my Party on a three-line Whip in a major Division. It was on precisely this issue twelve years ago when I thought that with the utmost folly the Wilson Government, as it was then, brought the United Nations into the sanctions question. I pointed out then exactly what would happen: we should lose control and find a situation in which sanctions would be operated against us. That is what is happening now.
It may perfectly well be that this situation arises through the collapse of the Portuguese economy and that this is the cause why Mr. Smith, faced with the new menace, took steps far more quickly than otherwise. I have no doubt that this is so, and out of this evil good may have come. Mr. Smith has now got his internal settlement. I think it is quite irrelevant to argue whether those involved represent a majority or a minority. That is what an election will be designed to find out. In Rhodesia now are African interests which are prepared to conduct all election and to maintain it. They have invited Mr. Mugabe and Mr. Nkomo to come and take part in those elections, but Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Mugabe have
1886
refused. They have probably refused because they are far better judges of the result of that election than my noble friend Lord Brockway. They will not come because they know that they will lose the election.
To Africans, elections are not things you go in for losing. No African Government has ever lost an election anywhere. This is a road to power which is closed to Mr. Mugabe and to Mr. Nkomo because they are the minority. Mr. Mugabe is a minority within his own tribe, and it is a very small tribe within an association. Mr. Nkomo's tribe is the old warrior tribe but it happens to be a minority tribe, the Matabele, and the Matabele at e not going to submit to the people who used to be their servants because of au election. That is not the way in which the African mind works. Since there would be losers in that election, the prospective losers take to arms and so a war is going on there. To my mind, we cannot stop that war; it has got to be won.
I may be saying something which is a little controversial when I say that I do not believe that nations, or peoples, or any groups unite willingly. It is not in nature for people to unite. They have to be held together by very strong bonds, bonds of very deep emotions which may be religious or nationalistic, and also by force and law. On the whole, men are united by their fears and by power. I do not for a moment believe that people can be given States. At the moment there is a State, an authority, in Rhodesia— black and white, multiracial. If one removed the threats that it is meeting, I do not believe that that State would hold together. If it holds together it will do so because it has to unite to meet a danger, to defend itself. It will join together in the most urgent need of every society: the need to defend itself. It is only while that need remains that it will hold together.
One hopes that it will have developed the habit of holding together by the time that the need ends. It is a grim thing to have to say, but war is the midwife of nations, and always has been. It is through war and through coming together to defend themselves that nations come into existence. I do not think we can make States for other people. We have been trying to do that in Africa for a long time. We set up a whole series of

1887
democracies based not on tribal but on old colonial frontiers. What do those democracies look like now? My noble friend—and he is a very dear friend—Lord Brockway cites Algeria, Tanzania and Zambia and says, "Do you call these totalitarian States?" I am afraid that the answer is emphatically, Yes. What power did Mussolini in Italy possess which the leaders of these three countries do not possess? These are totalitarian States.
I would say that a democratic State is, very roughly speaking, a State in which the Government is elected and the Opposition is free to organise, to conduct elections and to win power by the ballot. A Fascist or totalitarian State is one in which a dictator rules and oppositions are shot, if caught. That is the situation in every African State. Opposition is treason, and I do not believe that these States which have come together in this way have very much in the way of stability. For a time a personality may hold, but then the old tribal interests take over again. I am afraid that these States will disappear just as the old empires of Matoto, Leganda, Congo, Borotsi and Zulu have all disappeared. They came together with a personality and then they dissolved back into tribalism.
I believe that now we have a first chance in Africa for a genuine multiracial State to emerge from the struggle which alone makes a State, through working together in it, through sharing the risk and the danger and having to hang together lest they hang separately. That is the kind of need which counts, and such a State can hold so long as it is not starved by externally imposed sanctions or overrun by foreign intervention from Russia. Our job is to give this new chance of a multiracial State time to win its Statehood and to bring into Africa a genuine, working multiracial State.
7.19 p.m.
Viscount CALDECOTE: My Lords, hesitated to keep my name on the list of speakers this evening because so much wisdom has already been contributed to this important debate by far more experienced speakers than I. I agree with all that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said in his opening speech. Nevertheless, I hope that noble Lords will bear with
1888
me for a few minutes while I emphasise one or two points connected with the situation in South Africa and Rhodesia. I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, that there is a great connection between those two countries, for if we were able to find a successful solution in Rhodesia it could have a dramatic effect upon finding one in South Africa, albeit on a longer time-scale.
First, I must declare an interest in this debate. I have business interests in both South Africa and Rhodesia through the company for which I work. But that is not my principal interest in speaking tonight. My main concern, as it is for all noble Lords with all their different views, is to see that stable, popularly supported Governments are created in both South Africa and Rhodesia, for both countries still can become bastions in Africa of freedom, stability and justice, which are sorely needed.
Our objective, surely, is clear. In those two countries we want to help towards the creation of societies under the rule of law, where every citizen is equal before the law. I believe that is far more important than so much emphasis that seems to be given to one man, one vote. It took hundreds of years here to achieve one man, one vote, so why should we expect it to be done in the twinkling of an eye in Africa with all the tribal and other traditional problems?
Perhaps in Southern Africa we shall never find that our type of Westminster one man, one vote is a satisfactory solution, but we cannot know that for the moment. All we can observe is the virtual failure throughout Africa of attempts to introduce the one man, one vote system. As other speakers have pointed out, almost all such attempts have failed and have resulted in dictatorships of one kind or another.
Again I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, who pointed out to us that we are far too impatient, that time goes very quickly. It is over 12 years since UK when the then Prime Minister said that the question of dealing with Rhodesia was only a matter of months. The nine months up to the end of this year will go quickly, too, and there is no time to lose. I count myself a friend of

1889
South Africa but they do make it very difficult for their friends to support them, as other noble Lords have said. As the most reverend Primate indicated, there are some appalling goings-on there which make it difficult to support the more moderate elements in that country.
It is a fact that little or no progress has been made by that Government towards equality and justice before the law. But do not let us get too depressed. Even in South Africa there are encouraging signs of changing views. In the recent election many candidates for the Opposition fought the campaign on the basis of total abolition of apartheid in any form. It is true that not many were elected, but in previous elections I do not believe that many candidates stood on that ticket.
A Commission is at present sitting on labour relations, and I believe it is hoped to report later this year. It is expected to make major proposals for reducing industrial apartheid and in the companies in which I am interested I have seen very great changes in that connection in the past five or six years. We must seek to encourage those moves and to encourage public opinion in South Africa to move faster along that road.
But, of course, there is still the tragic obstinacy of the Afrikaner. That remains. There is his complete inability, apparently, to see that there is a longterm problem, let alone to do anything about it, or the need to make progress at any speed. I believe that sanctions and confrontation make no contribution to solving those problems. Indeed, they may actually be—and I believe they arecounter-productive in that they drive the moderates into the hands of the extremists. Instead, as in any task of changing attitudes, we need to keep the closest possible contact with those who feel the same way as we do in South Africa.
We need to keep the pressure up on the arguments. As the most reverend Primate said, we need to draw attention and continuously to press for information about the absurd goings-on, such as the trial and the post-mortem of Mr. Biko. We need to gather support among the verligtes in South Africa—those who see the light until the horrors of police State and partheid are swept away by their own
1890
public opinion, with our support. It may be a long job, but confrontation and sanctions will not help.
Turning to Rhodesia, I will not spend time on the history of what has brought us to the present situation. We are where we are and not where we would like to be, but the fact is that the internal agreement will provide a clear path within a few years for setting up a real multiracial State in Rhodesia, with respect for minorities and all that that means. Most important, if that Salisbury agreement is fully implemented it will give an opportunity for all citizens to be equal before the law. But of course it goes further: it sets a clear path for one man, one vote, if that is the way they want to go. But, as I said before, it is dangerous to hope for too much in the tribal conditions of Africa, with all the other traditions behind it.
It is a fact—and I do not think we need to be ashamed of this, as the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, seemed to suggest—that this agreement is supported by the chiefs. It is a Rhodesian agreement, made by Rhodesians in Rhodesia for progress towards an independent, free Zimbabwe. All sides, different parties, different races have made sacrifices to achieve it and we do not get agreements of this kind without sacrifices being made. And it really is ludicrous for the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, to suggest that agreement could have been achieved without the kind of give-and-take which led to the 28 per cent. white members in the initial Parliament, which could be changed after 10 years.
What, then, is the obstacle to success in the implementation of this agreement which has been reached in Salisbury? The clear fact is that it is the continued fighting, the guerrilla fighting, the intimidation and all that that means, against the conduct of free and fair elections. Ultimately it is the threat of taking over the country by force from outside, and I do not believe that we can deal with that kind of threat by running away from it, as some people seem to think we can. It should be clearly understood by everybody—and I do not think it is quite understood yet, although we are getting on—that in the absence of that threat there is no doubt that the internal agreement would have a very good chance of success and of being implemented.

1891
So the time is rapidly approaching—perhaps it is here already—when we have to make up our minds what course we are going to support. I wholeheartedly support the view held by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that we should give support to our Foreign Secretary in his efforts to persuade Mr. Nkomo and perhaps Mr. Mugabe, too, if that is not hoping for too much, to join the Salisbury agreement. But if that persuasion fails, then surely we should make our position clear as to what would happen if that persuasion were to fail. As the transitional Government shows that it is proceeding along the path it has said it will go along, moving towards a new and fairer society, getting rid of discrimination, releasing detainees, as it has already done, and in many other ways, surely we should show that our support is increasing, too. We should campaign and we should prepare the way for recognition of that Government and for the removal of sanctions. We do not need to wait until the last moment, until the result of what we hope will be a free and fair election is known.
It will be a long process to change people's minds all over the world, and we need to start now if we believe that that is the way to go. We need to look for ways of providing substantial financial support for the regime. It may be that it will not come, as the Anglo-American agreement suggested, easily from the United Nations. It may be that we shall have to find other ways of providing it—providing it not only for Rhodesia but perhaps also for Zambia, whose economy is in an appalling mess and could easily cause difficulties in Rhodesia if it were to collapse.
As I have already said, my Lords, the time will go very quickly and there are only nine months between now and the end of the year, which is not long to change people's minds and attitudes. We need to do our utmost to persuade the United Nations to deter external intervention which could easily wreck the election. Was that not one of the objectives for which the United Nations was set up—to deter external intervention in the affairs of other countries? If we do this, then within a year or two the worst may be over; but of course there is no certainty. As other noble Lords have
1892
made clear there are great risks, but at least if we fail in that kind of policy we shall have acted forcefully and, I believe, honourably; and in times of doubt and danger that is always a sound policy.
7.30 p.m.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I prefer not to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, into discussion of the internal settlement in Rhodesian Zimbabwe, which has been dealt with so extensively by so many speakers daring the course of this debate that there is hardly anything to add, except to say that I would recommend a slightly more cautious approach than he and some of the other contributors to this debate have suggested.
I think that to dismantle sanctions, to urge all the other nations of the world to press for the abolition of foreign intervention, to do all those various things which have been suggested by the noble Viscount and others, would be counterproductive at this stage. It would be much better to wait and see what the proof of the pudding is in the eating, whether free and fair elections take place as promised, and whether it is possible through persuasion to get the Patriotic Front to the conference table, as Dr. Owen is attempting.
I would say to the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, that, just as people may understand that, in tile absence of the external threat, the success of the internal settlement would be assured, similarly, if it had not been for the external threat, I doubt whether the internal settlement would ever have been on the cards. So I think that he and others may tend to underestimate the role of the Patriotic Front in this matter, and to dismiss the Front at such an early stage in the progress towards finality and majority rule that it would be extremely dangerous for the Foreign Secretary to accept some of their advice. I do not believe that he will do so, however.
May I add my word of congratulations to those which have already been expressed to the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, who made such a notable contribution on the important question of multiracial education in Rhodesia, about which he knows so much. I had the great pleasure of collaborating with the noble Lord some years ago in a struggle against some of the

1893
reactionary elements in the Independent Broadcasting Authority on which we secured, I think, a partial victory. It was an enormous pleasure to hear him speaking with immense knowledge on a subject of such tremendous importance to the future of Zimbabwe, and I hope we shall hear from him many times again.
The most reverend Primate pointed out, in what I thought was probably the most important contribution so far in this debate, that violence and injustice prevail in many areas of the world apart from South Africa; he mentioned in particular South America and South East Asia. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, also said he wished that the vociferous opponents of South Africa would have something to say about violations elsewhere. We must agree with the most reverend Primate and with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that attention should be given to those violations elsewhere. But I also wish that those people who are vociferous in their condemnation of the Soviet Union and its satellites would spend a little more time in thinking about the problems of Southern Africa. This is a reciprocal business, and it is absolutely correct to emphasise the universality of the question of human rights. I am not altogether sure that those who accuse us on the Left—if I may classify myself in that category—of being selective are altogether fair, and I wonder whether perhaps this selectivity does not occur just as often on the Right.
It seems to me that Southern Africa is one area in the world in which the longterm self-interest of the United Kingdom coincides most clearly with the policies that are morally right. I think nobody can doubt, and certainly this debate has emphasised it, that in a few years' time black majorities will rule throughout the whole of Southern Africa, and therefore, if we are to earn the goodwill of those peoples in advance, we should be helping them now by every possible means at our disposal towards obtaining their freedom. Since at the same time we believe that all men are entitled to equality of opportunity irrespective of their race or colour or national or ethnic origins, we must, surely, be dedicated to the overthrow or replacement of states which are based on the denial of such a fundamental moral principle.
Other states may deny their citizens many of the freedoms which are enshrined
1894
in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but nowhere else in the world, so far as I am aware, can we find a small racial minority entrenched in the privileges which it enjoys by laws which keep the mass of the people in a state of permanent inferiority simply because of the colour of their skin. And in order to maintain their position of supremacy the whites in South Africa itself have to resort to violations of human rights on a massive and ever-increasing scale.
Some people may think that a few extra unexplained deaths in police custody, the more widespread use of torture, the detention without trial of a few hundred men and women, pale into insignificance in comparison with the monstrous crime of apartheid, which, of course, indirectly causes the deaths of many thousands of people. Nevertheless r believe it would be wrong, because we utterly condemn the general assault on the life and liberty of the whole people, to overlook the atrocities which have been committed in South Africa against individuals. They have got to be seen, I suggest, as part of the whole apparatus of repression, and they are, after all, the means to convince the outside world that we are not dealing here with a normal Government amenable to reason, but with a vicious clique prepared to condone the most revolting barbarities. With respect to the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, we are not dealing here with a few moderates who are not in control of the affairs of South Africa; in fact many of those moderates with whom we would like to deal are suffering torture and imprisonment themselves.
I was recently in South Africa to attend the inquest on a young dentist, Dr. Hoosen Haffejee, who died in his cell in the Brighton Beach police station in Durban in the small hours of 3rd August last. He was found hanging from the bars in his cell, and the police hypothesis was that he killed himself because of the strength of the evidence which had been produced before him in the course of the interrogation the previous day, which showed, as they claimed, that he had been engaged in subversive activities. Dr. Haffejee was found to have on his body between 40 and 50 injuries of varying severity, which were never explained during the course of the inquest, extending from the top of his scalp down to his

1895
ankles. It seemed to me, at any rate, at least equally probable, on the evidence, that between 8 o'clock in the morning, when Dr. Haffejee had been arrested, and half past 12 early the following morning, when he was finally put into his cell, he had been subjected to such horrible tortures that he could not bear the thought of another day of the same treatment.
If anybody doubts that torture in South African prisons is endemic, then I suggest that they should read the Amnesty International report, Political Imprisonment in South Africa, which was published in January this year, and which is of course, banned in South Africa, or the report of the Christian Institute, of April 1977, Torture in South Africa, which is also banned there. When the most reverend Primate asked why was the Christian Institute banned and he got no answer to the cable which he sent to the President, perhaps we may think that one of the reasons is that the Christian Institute has been so assiduous in exposing the atrocities which have been taking place in the prisons there.
Dr. Haffejee was by no means the only person to have been found dead in mysterious circumstances while in police custody and to have sustained unexplained injuries when the body was examined post mortem. There was, for example, the case of Mr. Joseph Mdluli, for whose homicide four policemen of the security police were tried and, of course, acquitted. There was Mr. George Botha, who is alleged to have thrown himself from the sixth floor of the Port Elizabeth security police building, which is ironically called the Sanlan Life Insurance building, and whose body the pathologist found had several wounds inflicted between two and six hours before his death. And, of course, other prisoners have fallen out of other security police buildings, including the notorious headquarters in John Vorster Square. More prisoners have died from hanging in their cells, like Dr. Haffejee, including one Mr. Bayempin Mzizi who died in the Brighton Beach police station within a fortnight of Dr. Haffejee himself.
The case above all which excited horror and shock throughout the world was that of Steve Biko, the brilliant young black
1896
consciousness leader, whose life and tragic death has been described by Donald Woods, the distinguished former editor of the Daily Dispatch. After his arrest on 18th August last, Mr. Biko was kept naked and in leg irons for nearly three weeks. He was then literally battered out of his senses by the notorious Major Harold Sayman and his accomplices. This was the same officer, incidentally, who accompanied Mr. George Botha when he fell out of the window of the security police building. Mr. Biko was denied medical attention until it was too late to save his life. The murderers are still at liberty. The Minister of Police, Mr. Jimmy Kruger, made jokes about the death of Mr. Biko at a Nationalist Party rally and said, "It leaves me cold".
If anybody thinks that these deaths can be explained, let them examine the list which is printed in the front of Mr. Wood's book on Biko. It will be seen there that after the death of Ahmed Temol on 27th October, 1971—everybody will remember that this caused an enormous international stir—there were no further suspicious deaths in police custody until 19th March, 1976. A period of four and a half years elapsed following the death of Ahmed Temol before the police resumed the activities which led to the deaths of people in their charge. Similarly, after Mr. Biko died in Pretoria on 12th September last, there has been a moratorium on these unexplained deaths. The police have good reason to know what were the causes of these deaths; otherwise they would not be interrupted in such a way immediately after an international outcry.
There are other people still in custody. We are concerned about their fate. There is the companion who was arrested at the same time as Mr. Biko, Mr. Peter Jones, who is still detained without charge, although the Minister of Police gave the impression at the time of Mr. Biko's arrest that serious charges would be brought against both of them and other associates. I cannot help feeling the gravest anxiety about the future state of health of Mr. Jones, and indeed about that of other prisoners held incommunicado. I mention only one other case, that of Mr. Daniel Sechaba Montsisi, who is a 21-year-old Soweto high school student, and president of the Soweto Students' Representative Council at the time of his arrest with 21 other people on 10th June

1897
last. A former detainee, who claims to have seen him in John Vorster Square, says that he was severely beaten and tortured.
When I was in South Africa I asked Mr. Kruger if I could have permission to see some of these people who were detained under Section 6 of the Terrorism Act. He refused my request without giving any reason, but I suspect that the authorities hoped to conceal the extent of the vicious assaults which are committed against detainees by the security police. As long as the practice of keeping prisoners incommunicado for months at a time continues, it will be difficult to assess the validity of reports such as the one I have quoted about Mr. Montsisi. However, if the South African Government still had a shred of respect for world opinion they should allow independent foreign observers to have access to all political prisoners, and in particular to those held under Section 6. I hope that our Government will continue to press for that to be done by the International Red Cross or by any reputable organisation which the South African authorities care to name.
As I was not able to see people actually in detention, I met instead some who had recently been released. I shall give one example of the kind of testimony I received from a former detainee. This was a former reporter on The Daily News in Durban who was arrested twice, first, on 17th August 1976 and, then, on 22nd November 1977. He was taken to the Volksrust prison in Transvaal and there detained under Section 6 of the Terrorism Act. He was kept in solitary confinement and not allowed to leave the cell for any purpose—and I mean that literally—until 29th August, when he was interrogated by a Captain Els and a Warrant Officer Johnny Moore, who sat on either side of him and slapped his face during the questioning.
Then, on 13th September, he was fetched by Sergeant van Tensburg and Constable Khumalo to Newcastle security police office in Natal, where he was immediately assaulted by a Constable Koster. He was punched and slapped. He was told that the police had ways of torturing a person that a doctor could not detect. They placed two bricks edges uppermost on the floor, put gravel on top of the bricks, and Mr. Khuzwayo was
1898
made to stand on those bricks for between two and three hours. Then they said, "You can get down; put your shoes on". As he did so they poured gravel into his shoes. They made him put on his shoes with gravel inside them and to dance for a further two hours with the gravel in his shoes. He was forced to dance round the police station singing freedom songs, with a chair held at arm's length above his head.
I shall not go on to the rest of it. There is a sickening repetition of the most revolting barbarities that were inflicted on this young man who, I am pleased to say, is now at liberty. He escaped over the border into Maseru in Lesotho. I hope that very shortly he will be coming here as a refugee. He has applied for political asylum. That is under consideration at the moment. I considered carefully whether to mention this at all. I obviously hope that, like Donald Woods, he will find a ready welcome here. I expect that he will do so.
I had to bear in mind that to come out of Lesotho a refugee has to fly through South African air space and even, on occasions, to land at Johannesburg airport. However, I am assured by the UNHCR that arrangements have been made to bring refugees out under safe conduct. Obviously these refugees in Lesotho will have a greater feeling of vulnerability than those in Botswana. I should like to ask the Government whether they are satisfied that the arrangements for processing applications from Maseru are made as quickly as possible.
On the question of refugees from South Africa in general, I should also like to ask whether the time has not arrived when special permission should be made available for them in further and higher education such as we have already made so effectively in the case of persons who come from Chile and Zimbabwe. In doing so we should not exclude the total of these refugees from the quota of overseas students which was recently announced by the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
Donald Woods showed in the accounts of the conversations he had with Steve Biko that the Western democracies were in danger of losing out to Communism in Southern Africa because the Russians

1899
appear to be relatively more sympathetic to the liberation movements. That point was made by the noble Viscount, Lord Mills. Mr. Biko was astute enough to see that the Communists were simply playing power politics and were not necessarily at all interested in the advancement of the black people for their own sake. I think that unless we ourselves provide more material aid as well as disengage ourselves economically from the apartheid regime, the blacks may well continue to believe that our priorities are first and foremost the investments that we have in Southern Africa, rather than the attempt to secure for others the freedoms that we enjoy.
I should like to say one word, in conclusion, on the question of Namibia. The whole world must applaud the idea of the transition to independence in a peaceful manner, with the orderly withdrawal of the South African forces. Coincident with the announcement of the South African acceptance of the Five-Power proposals, it was also reported to me that 27 persons leading SWAPO in Namibia have been arrested, although the newspapers refer to three only. If that is true, it does not exactly inspire confidence in the good faith of the South African Government, because without the approval of SWAPO, or at least its acceptance of the package, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to implement it. Yet we find at this critical juncture the South Africans taking action which seems to me bound to jeopardise acceptance.
I should like to raise one question about the proposal. I know that the letter which was transmitted from the five Powers on 10th April and published as a United Nations document provided that before the elections are held all the political prisoners will be released from detention and the emergency legislation will be repealed. Does it not seem contradictory to the Government that South Africans, at the very moment when they are accepting that as part of the general package, should take all the leaders of SWAPO into detention and thus render impossible any of the political activities in which they would wish to engage in the period leading up to the elections? As there is no timetabe laid down in the five-Power proposal, how can we ensure that the Administrator General will not comply with the letter of it by releasing the prisoners at the very
1900
last moment making it impossible for any normal political campaign to be conducted?
Finally, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury said in his cable to the President of South Africa that banning and detention could only strengthen the hands of those who regard violence as the only means of bringing about change. Of course, it had to be an Irishman who said:
"Violence is the only way of securing a hearing for moderatior".
However, there are many people in Southern Africa who might agree with that sentiment. The rule of non-intervention which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, cannot be absolute, otherwise the nations which pay lip-service to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights would be allowed to be judges in their own cause.
However, if we do not intervene peacefully in every possible way others will intervene with the might of arms. By all means let us condemn the violations of human rights wherever they occur throughout the world, but in the case of South Africa, in particular, let us combine with all the other nations of the world to see what joint action we can take, because it is the one issue upon which everybody throughout the world can agree. For Heaven's sake, let us do that before it is too late!
7.53 p.m.
The MARQUESS of HEADFORT: My Lords, the most prominent landmark on the political scene in Southern Africa is the settlement recently reached by Ian Smith and the internal black leaders of Rhodesia. It is a landmark from which hope for the region radiates for the first time since South Africa left the Commonwealth. As such, it is a turning point. Whites and blacks, instead of being opposed, now stand freely shoulder to shoulder to face a common enemy, that of Marxism paraded as patriotism by ruthless power mongers. The apparently impossible has been achieved. There is now no need for a massive white exodus, as there was from Angola and Mozambique. Namibia, where there are 100,000 whites, can take heart. More moderate internal policies can be considered by the South African Government.

1901
Much of the credit for this change belongs to Dr. Henry Kissinger, who succeeded in altering attitudes in Salisbury and so helped to free the log-jam into which Rhodesian politics had become stuck. The attempts of Mr. Andrew Young and Dr. David Owen to find a footing on the liberated timber can scarcely be said to be contributing to stability. Let loose on Africa by a President whom he helped bring to office by harnessing the black American vote, Mr. Young appears to regard the continent as a stage on which, in the spotlight trained on Rhodesia, he can cut a figure for home political consumption and domestic political ambition. The only role that Mr. Young can play that is of value to Africa is to use his influence in the United Nations, to which he is accredited by his country, to obtain international recognition of the Rhodesian internal settlement.
Dr. Owen has an even more positive role to play, but manages to fall between all stools in sight. Our Foreign Secretary should be giving unequivocal support to the settlement reached in Rhodesia, with a view to its recognition as soon as possible by Westminster and the lifting ofsanctions. Instead, he damns it with faint praise. A need to "widen the agreement is preached; in other words, the guerrillas bent on wrecking the agreement must be appeased.
The human suffering among the blacks in Rhodesia is immense. Town-dwellers are scared to return to their own tribal Trust land for fear of reprisals. Families have been broken up by abduction by the Patriotic Front—for instance, young children of between eight and 10 are literally dragged off and in cases have never been seen again since they have found their way to Zambia and been educated to the wishes of the Patriotic Front. The source of this information was brought up in Rhodesia by a Rhodesian who has never supported the Smith regime but who has never doubted Rhodesia's potential as a trading and self-governing country. He is substantially representative of the whites in Rhodesia and is utterly shattered that the United States and the United Kingdom are not prepared to put their all into an internal settlement. Without any doubt at all, I am informed that the majority internal thinking is that the United States and the United Kingdom should support an internal settlement, lift sanctions, assist
1902
the settlement internally by creating a development fund, offering assistance through the United Nations to return the country to peace and otherwise remain uninvolved except to ensure that the promises made by the Rhodesian Front are carried to their logical conclusion.
In the debate in this House on Rhodesia on 14th February, I drew on the analogy with Czechoslovakia in 1938—the year Dr. Owen first saw the light of day. Without wishing to go as far as the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, in rehearsing an analysis of the situation offered by Mr. Colin Legum in The Observer, may I say that I was interested to see that Mr. Peregrine Worsthorne in the Sunday Telegraph last week compared President Carter's attitude to Rhodesia to that of Mr. Neville Chamberlain at the time of Munich. Mr. Worsthorne also saw a parallel with Mr. Brezhnev over Eastern Europe in President Carter's evident determination to impose an external settlement. Perhaps Dr. Owen is not appeasing Messrs. Mugabe and Nkomo after all so much as an American President whose policy threatens to disrupt the whole Western Alliance. Certainly, never before has an internationally proclaimed plan failed so completely to represent the interests of those whose names it bears as the Anglo-American one for Rhodesia. Indeed, whenever the term "Anglo-American Plan "is used in connection with Rhodesia a sense of unreality descends.
One measure of the confusion that has overtaken values is that an uninstructed visitor to the region could be forgiven for supposing that it is not a vigorous Rhodesia, with its economy intact and strong, though under acute strain, which has suffered the tourniquet of sanctions all these years, but Angola and Mozambique whose once prosperous economies have been laid waste in a comparatively brief spell of Marxist rule, without any help from trade embargoes.
With the United Nations now in special session on Namibia, let it be known that this House considers the settlement achieved in Rhodesia by Ian Smith and his black colleagues not only an honourable and viable one, but the keystone to civilisation and Western interests in Southern Africa. To frustrate or fail to support what has been achieved by the

1903
new Government in Salisbury is to play even further into the hands of Moscow and Havana.
7.59 p.m.
The Earl of LINDSEY and ABINGDON: My Lords, first I should like to convey my appreciation to my noble friend Lord Carrington for initiating this debate on the broader problems confronting Southern Africa as a whole and not simply on the Rhodesian problem, as has seemed to be the custom in this House since UDI. I had the honour of making my maiden speech in your Lordships' House during the first debate we had on Rhodesia following the signing of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence by the Smith Government in 1965. I have never hidden my dislike of Mr. Smith's action then, but at the same time, without trying to sound too conceited, I also expressed my dislike of the imposition of sanctions as a means of bringing that regime down within weeks or months. Here we are, more than 12 years on, still trying to resolve the Rhodesian problem, with an internal settlement agreed but not knowing how to involve the outside forces of the Patriotic Front.
From listening to the most excellent speeches made by noble Lords this afternoon, I have come to the conclusion that it would be wrong for me to elaborate on individual experiences and comments on the failings of the South African Government. I, for one, would be the first to condemn any infringements of human rights and dignity. I say that with a certain amount of sentimentality because I was born in South Africa and lived there, as well as in Rhodesia, for the first 13 years of my life.
In 1959 I visited South Africa with an unofficial Conservative Parliamentary delegation and at times we had very heated arguments with South African Government officials about their policy of apartheid. Since then I have visited South Africa on two occasions and have noticed a marked improvement in their attitudes. Admittedly, I have not had access to Government officials, as I did in 1959, but from talking to individual South Africans—both businessmen and farmers —I came to the conclusion that their attitude towards apartheid was weakening
1904
and that they, and even the Afrikaners, realised that their salvation eventually lay in some compromise with other ethnic groups.
When considering South Africa we must bear in mind that it is not simply a question of black and white. In that country there are other minority groups such as Indians, the so-called "coloured "people of half-white and half-black descent, Malays and many other minority groups which quite often are never mentioned. These people are equally deprived of their rights under the present South African Government.
When listening to certain noble Lords giving details of grants for educational purposes and comparing the grant given to a white child with that given to a black child, it is most important to bear in mind that although there is this appalling disparity between the two groups, grants given to Africans in South Africa are, on the whole, a good bit higher than those given to Africans in many other parts of that continent.
To sum up, I should like to put three direct questions to the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, which I hope he will be able to answer when he winds up for the Government, because I think that this debate has revolved around these three questions. First, are Her Majesty's Government prepared to consider lifting mandatory sanctions on Rhodesia as a result of the internal agreement? —whether or not the Patriotic Front agrees to partake in the future elections for the government of a new State of Zimbabwe. Secondly, will Her Majesty's Government categorically deny that they are entertaining any suggestion of imposing sanctions on South Africa in order to bring pressure to bear on that country to change its internal policies? In that I also include a restriction on future investment, because I believe that this will affect the African population through unemployment, far more than it would the white population.
Thirdly, will Her Majesty's Government give every encouragement to the Prime Minister of South Africa, following his statement yesterday to the South African Parliament in Cape Town on initiating elections in Namibia that will lead to that country's independence before the end of the year? When I was in South

1905
Africa last year I put this question to a South African who said that he could never foresee South Africa relinquishing its mandate over that territory. There has been much criticism about how long it takes for decisions to be taken in relation to Southern Africa. I think that this is a supreme example of how such a country can be encouraged to change its mind.
8.6 p.m.
Lord FORESTER: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I must declare an interest in Rhodesia, though, fortuitously, it meant that I was out there at the conclusion of the internal agreement. Like other noble Lords, I feel that by far the most helpful and constructive step towards settling the Namibian and South African problem would be the setting up of a successful multi-racial State in Zimbabwean example which they would both wish to follow. Therefore, I shall confine my remarks to the immediate problems in Zimbabwe.
When Dr. Owen was asked last week whether the Government would defend the internal settlement come hell and high water if it were confirmed in free and fair elections, his short answer was: "Yes". From that answer I deduce that he must accept that the internal settlement includes all the Principles for majority rule laid down by successive Governments, excluding the fifth Principle. If that is indeed the Government's view, then I wish it could be repeated more strongly.
I had personally hoped that the internal agreement would receive immediate recognition by Her Majesty's Government, with possibly a qualified acceptance, subject to free and fair elections, and permission for the Patriotic Front to return unarmed for that election. It appears to me that the longer we sit on the fence and even tacitly accept the Patriotic Front, the more we encourage the Patriotic Front to attack Rhodesia. I should like to refer here to the disappointing news yesterday that, as the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, mentioned, the internal four have turned down the invitation to a wider conference. It was the three African members of the Executive Committee who decided this, largely against Mr. Smith's advice. The three
1906
felt that nothing was to be gained but delay. They have a cohesive, integrated entity at the moment—a kernel—from which they do not wish to hand over what they have and find themselves in a vacuum, as indeed Nkomo did when he reneged on his signature to the 1961 Constitution.
The Foreign Secretary also said last week that he did not think that the Patriotic Front had been given an opportunity to return to its country and fight free and fair elections with honour and dignity. My noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel and other noble Lords have confirmed that the door is open. I would point out that Mr. Nkomo's return to Rhodesia is fairly simple. The ANC(Z) led by Mr. Chinamo, which is the internal wing of Mr. Nkomo's party, is already operating within Rhodesia. His office and his base are awaiting him. I must agree with my noble friend Lord Carrington and other noble Lords that the Patriotic Front should be given every opportunity to return; indeed I very much hope that they do. I am assured that all the African politicians in Rhodesia actively want the Patriotic leaders to return and join their kernel, as I have called it, with honour and dignity: but I fear that Her Majesty's Government must apply some pressure to achieve this end, and if they have no success they may have to put a time limit on the Patriotic Front's decision.
There has been considerable talk in this House about Marxism and the Cubans. The aim of the Soviet Union is to seize power and keep it. if force can be applied without involving Russia herself, so much the better; hence the Cuban troops. Better still, the mere fear of war may cause weaker nations to give in to Communist demands, so the Kremlin encourages the rest of the world to disarm believing that weakness is a compelling incentive to patriotism. Belloc apparently would have advised this also when he wrote—
"Pale Ebenezer thought it wrong to fight but roaring Bill (who killed him) thought it right".
I would not like to think that we as a nation were akin to pale Ebenezer.
But, more seriously, Karl Marx himself, as correspondent of the New York Tribune, wrote in 1853:
"Russia may seem deeply and obstinately attached to certain fixed ideas; but as soon as

1907
the other Powers resist in a determined and united way, they find that Russia accepts a modest retreat".
This appears to be historically correct. In the 1940s and 1950s the Kremlin did indeed accept a modest retreat, but now American humiliations in the Far East, the economic recession and the Communist upsurge in Western Europe, have all encouraged Soviet leaders to exploit the present reluctance of the other Powers to resist in a determined and united way. What I do not understand, and the point which I should be most grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, would clarify, is that if the West is too frightened of the East to be able to accept what is clearly a sensible agreement now, why should it suddenly lose its fear and be prepared to stand up to the East the day after elections?
Finally, the Foreign Secretary said last week that,
"there was more understanding in Salisbury that the United Nations role would give an assurance that sanctions could be lifted before Independence".
Certainly the main issue before us today is the holding of free and fair elections and the control of law and order during those elections. I have no doubt that the Zimbabwe security forces will control the war and will control law and order during the elections, but it would be difficult for them to do it in such a way that they would not be accused of affecting the outcome of the elections. For this reason the United Nations' role and the acceptance of the internal settlement by England and America prior to, though no doubt subject to, the elections is of paramount importance.
Mr. Smith said in his speech on 12th March—and I would, with your Lordships' indulgence, quote from it:—
"One of the major functions of the transitional Government will be to supervise the arrangements for the registration of voters and delimitation of constituencies. This is a mammoth task, but there is complete agreement amongst us that it must be carried out thoroughly and that the whole electoral process must be seen to be scrupulously fair and free from any possibility of malpractice. This is of vital importance in relation to the acceptability of the settlement by the outside world. We have nothing to hide and observers will be welcome".
Surely the Foreign Secretary and Mr. Smith are very close in those two statements. With goodwill, they should be able to reach agreement. But we must understand
1908
the Rhodesian objections to the totally different suggestion in the Anglo-American proposals that a United Nations Force should hold the arena. It is unfair to ask the Zimbabwe Executive to accept an English resident commissioner with dictatorial powers, when he is unknown in that country, although let me state quite clearly that I personally admire the gallant and noble Lord to whom I refer.
Furthermore, to accept a United Nations Force of X battalions of Nigerian troops who would be unable to speak the language, and whose loyalties appear to favour the Patriotic Front, is asking too much. I should be grateful to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, what the position really is. If we can reach agreement with the transitional Government on a United Nations presence which monitors and watches the actions of the Zimbabwe security forces, safeguarding fair and impartial elections, and if this agreement would lead to acceptance of the internal settlement, we have certainly passed another milestone.
8.17 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I think the debate has proceeded at a very high level, and consistently so. The House has been deeply interested to hear some notable speeches and particularly interested I think to hear the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury who spoke so trenchantly on the subject of apartheid. We also had a notable maiden speech from my noble friend Lord McGregor of Durris, a speech which should encourage him to repeat his performance as soon and as frequently as possible. However, the debate owed its quality 1. think to the tone which the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, gave to it in an extremely thoughtful and constructive speech. If I may say so, it was a speech which will help to make peaceful settlements in Southern Africa more possible; certainly there was nothing in it to make the achievement of such settlements more difficult. I feel personally—and I am sure I speak on behalf of my right honourable friends, greatly obliged to the noble Lord for the way in which he opened this important debate.
As the House knows, our policy in Southern Africa rests on firm and, I think, widely shared principles. Chief among

1909
them is the fact that we seek peaceful resolutions of the problems of the regions. We do not accept—I certainly do not—that anybody who turns to violence in order to assert his case should somehow have an entitlement to a major part in a settlement. That is to put a premium on violence in regard to any situation of difficulty—and there are many in the world; some such situations outside Rhodesia were quoted here this afternoon—and it would be a dangerous thing indeed to lead the world, and certain elements in the world, to assume that the thing to do is to use violence in order to achieve one's objective. Once that is accepted as a kind of inevitable basis of action, or a tolerated one, the ends of it are not easy to define.
Secondly, we recognise and support African independence and the search for African solutions of African problems. My right honourable friend has made it absolutely clear to the Governments of the Soviet Union and of Cuba how we regard the later manifestations of their presence and activity in Africa. It is no part of our policy to deny to any other country a legitimate attempt to extend their influence, commercial and cultural, in any part of the world. We do it ourselves: why should not others? But it is the motive and the method of intervention in Africa that concern us at the present moment.
The statement which my right honourable friend made was crystal clear, and I believe that it has attracted wide support not only in this country and in the West but in the international community, and not least in Africa. So, although we recognise and support African independence and the search for African solutions to African problems, this country has a role to play. That role springs from the history of the continent, in which we have shared. This is recognised and welcomed by very many African countries, and I would say by the majority of Africans. They combine an appreciation of what we were able to do in the past with an understanding of our complete sincerity in looking to the future not as a dominant power but as a partner with independent African governments throughout the continent in the development of that continent.
We seek to play that role in consultation and in co-operation with others. First,
1910
we naturally co-operate very closely with the United States. Not for the first time in fairly recent history, co-operation between our two countries has been the means of great benefits to the world and to humanity. It is an excellent thing that the United States and the United Kingdom should have come together to try to solve this difficult problem in Rhodesia and cognate problems in Africa.
In both countries, we continue to believe—and the view is shared in many parts of Africa itself—that the Anglo-American proposals are a joint constructive basis for a solution. I have said, and my right honourable friend has said, that those proposals are, as we see them, the best framework, the best basis for the implementation of the Five and, indeed, of the Six Principles. They have been put forward in various ways, including in the White Paper. I personally —and I am sure that this is a widely shared view—have still to see a better basis for the implementation of the Principles that we all, with various emphasis, accept. The recent visit of our own Foreign Secretary and the American Secretary of State to Southern Africa is a proof of the urgency with which we together regard these problems.
Secondly, we co-operate with our partners in the Nine, and I would suggest to the House that whatever we do in the next few weeks or months in regard to recognition, or sanctions, which everybody hopes can be done as soon as possible, must have regard for the fact that we act in concert with others: with our friends and partners, and allies in Europe, in North America, and in the Commonwealth. We cannot take a kind of UDI of our own in this matter. We are acting with, and often on behalf of, a wide and powerful conscience on this matter. It is not confined to this country, not confined to Europe, not confined to the Atlantic area; it also embraces the Commonwealth. Both the old and the new Commonwealth want to see Britain handling this in a way which brings the consensus of purpose that we share to a fruition. Particularly on Namibia, we have acted with our Western colleagues in the Security Council within the meaning and purpose of the appropriate Resolution, and to good effect.

1911
I turn now to Namibia to state that it seems that the Western proposals which we put forward towards the end of March are attracting effective support. The attitude of the South African Government has been quoted, and I can give the assurance at once to my noble friend that his interpretation of the position of the South African forces in the working out of the transition state is right. I can confirm what he has said. Indeed, the statement made by Foreign Minister Botha, I think yesterday, both to the Western Ambassadors and I believe to the South African Parliament, is quite clear. South Africa has accepted the Western proposals for Namibia. There are points of detail. The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, raised the question of Walvis Bay and one or two other things. I do not think that those points of detail need impede the programme.of implementation which now seems to be within our grasp in Namibia.
As to the attitude of SWAPO, once more I refer to my noble friend whose influence in Africa is immense, and to thank him for the message which he has sent in this case to SWAPO urging them to accept the Western proposals. They have said that they are not yet ready to decide. Like him, I greatly hope that SWAPO will join the South African Government in welcoming these proposals and working to see them implemented in the next few months. There is nothing of any substance between Namibia and the peoples of Namibia and independence and a status of international recognition with prospects of considerable development in future; and our country has a legitimate interest in the future prosperity and development of Namibia.
We are not the only Western country to have a proper interest in the resources and possibilities of South West Africa, as we used to call it, and there is certainly no need to apologise for that. We look forward, do we not, to co-operating with the successor state, which we hope will be set up as soon as possible, on a basis of exchange, assistance and mutual benefit which will help their people and ours. I say no more about Namibia except to indicate that I am reasonably happy that we are on the right track there.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, does the Minister intend to say anything about the timing of that part of the agreement which provides for the release of detainees, the repeal of security legislation prior to elections, and how that can be reconciled with the arrest of persons on the list I sent him, among whom were 27 officials of SWAPO?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I should like to be a little more precise in my answer to the noble Lord on that point. Certainly, releases of political detainees must form part of the arrangements leading up to free elections. That is clear. As to the timing, that must surely depend—and here perhaps the noble Lord may be able to exercise a certain influence—on the alacrity and comprehensiveness with which SWAPO, like the South African Government, accedes to the Western proposals. The sooner the South Africans and SWAPO agree to these proposals the sooner the releases should begin, the scaling down of the South African military presence can proceed and arrangements for any overlap by agreement with the new Parliament can be put together. I cannot give a precise timetable but I am clear about the intention; perhaps the noble Lord and others will help to get the timing of the elections as early as possible.
We have also been working with the so-called front-line states, with Nigeria and with other friends and colleagues in Africa, and this must not be underestimated. Sometimes I feel that too much emphasis is placed on one aspect of the African attitude today. It is not all Marxist. One wonders sometimes whether it is at all Marxist.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, has the noble Lord left Namibia for good? I posed two specific questions on the subject of which I gave him private notice.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Indeed, my Lords, and I was hoping to deal with those when I came to specific points, if the noble Lord will allow me to do so. r have not left Namibia for good, except in the literal sense of the phrase.
I come now to South Africa. Apartheid is, I think, repugnant to every Member of this House, to the overwhelming majority

1913
of our people here and in the Commonwealth, and indeed to the international community. There is no doubt about the readiness of the United Kingdom to continue with the measures which have been internationally agreed, and there would be no doubt about our acceding, in order to influence the position in South Africa, to any other measures which were internationally agreed. Having said that, I do not agree that there has been no movement in the Republic of South Africa. Looking back over the past three years, I would say that there had been perceptible and in some cases substantial movement. Surely it is good policy and good sense to pause before taking strong nd drastic action and consider whether economic and other connections with South Africa may not be used to promote and accelerate a movement which some of us believe—I think, with reason—has been going on and can be further promoted.
In the meantime, of course, incidents of appalling repression and cruelty, which the noble Lord and others quoted, continue. However, for those who are anxious to see a revolution of mind—the only revolution that really counts; a change of mind, of spirit—in South Africa, I leave this thought with noble Lords who I know are as concerned as I am about what has been happening there: perhaps it is by the pressure of connection rather than of disconnection that we can hope to influence the situation in areas like South Africa.
It is tempting to go into the South African situation at some length. I shall restrain myself, except to say that, throughout the debate, noble Lords have said, one after the other, "I hope it is not too late". That is the history of colonialism, I suppose; too little, too late. The noble Lord, Lord Garner, reminded us of the waste of time and spirit that had been represented by the 12 years of UDI. If measures had been taken—I think I quote him rightly—even five years ago, what a promising and hopeful situation we should he in today. Bearing that phrase, "Too little, too late", in mind, I join noble Lords on both sides in saying to the South Africans: let it not be too little, too late there because the implications of an explosion there are perhaps even more frightening than in other parts of Africa.
Before dealing with Rhodesia and the specific points of which I have been
1914
reminded, I come to the question of intervention. I repeat my right honourable friend's statement that there is no intention arbitrarily to shut out anybody from proper influence and activity in any part of the world. There is every intention to resist improper intervention whose motivation is not the proper exchange of goods and services but the creation of a new dominance beside which old-fashioned imperialism would pale into insignificance.
On Rhodesia, everything I have said about Namibia and South Africa applies, but I think that the House would like me to address myself to one or two specific points on Rhodesia, and indeed Namibia. The outstanding point that emerged from the debate about Rhodesia is this. Here is an internal arrangement—the Salisbury arrangement. It is a multiracial set-up, whichever way one slices it. Surely this is what we have been asking for for the past 12 years. Therefore, if it is there, why not settle for it? I would ask the House to bear this in mind, because it is what those with whom we are constantly working (and whom I have mentioned) constantly put to us in Africa and outside. I am far from agreeing that the Salisbury arrangement is quite what it has been made out to be. Nevertheless, it is a very big step forward, and I have said so from this Box more than once. But putting the matter at its highest, there remains the very important question: Is it durable on the basis only of the present participants? It might be. But I do not think any Government, any Foreign Secretary, would be justified in these circumstances in taking that chance, because if that did not come off the only alternative would be the worst kind of civil war, one that for a very long time no amount of negotiation or discussion could arrest.
So I was very glad to hear from the Front Opposition Bench—not for the first time—the very responsible statement that we must go on trying to involve the Rhodesians outside this arrangement to get them into a more comprehensive, participative, and therefore more durable, peaceful settlement. The Patriotic Front have said, "Yes, we will attend a round table meeting at which everybody is present". The Salisbury regime have said in the last day or so that they see no point in that. This is a pity. They have asked us to reconsider our policy. I ask them

1915
to reconsider their decision not to attend a round table meeting. If their regime, and the way that they have gone about it, and what they are doing is firmly based, and is potentially so attractive, really the place to make the point is at a round table meeting to which we have invited them. I do not think that they have slammed the door on the proposal, and I hope that the tone of the debate, and the way in which we have all talked about it, will perhaps encourage them to look at the invitation once more. We believe—and I think that there is agreement on this between us—that it is not only well worth while, but essential, that we should persist in our efforts to convene a fully participative meeting of everybody involved in the Rhodesian problem.
I come now to specific points. The most reverend Primate put the point about a United Nations or Commonwealth presence to monitor any international test of opinion, and a number of noble Lords echoed this suggestion. My answer to that is: Why not? But it is unlikely, indeed unlikely in the extreme, that either the United Nations or the Commonwealth would be ready to monitor a test of opinion in circumstances where that test was not one in which all parties are given a genuine opportunity to participate.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, gave me notice of two questions which he put during his speech, and I am most grateful to him for this. He wished me to tell the House that now that the South Africans have accepted in toto the Western proposals—he was referring to Namibia—the West will stick to its plan, whatever may be the reactions of SWAPO, and that it will seek to implement that plan in the Security Council. I believe that the noble Lord knows the answer to that. It is the answer that I should think he would give if and when he speaks from this Dispatch Box. Certainly we will press the Western proposals in the Security Council, and as they are within the Security Council resolution, we expect that the Security Council will approve of them as proposals that all sides can accept.
As to the point that the noble Lord made about the reaction of SWAPO, I have to say that we do not know exactly what it will be. We hope very much that
1916
it will be favourable. I am not without hope that it will be. Certainly, putting myself in their place, I would say that this was almost exactly what I wanted. We will persist with the plan, even in the face of a rejection by one or other of the parties, because it is truly the answer to the question. But the noble Lord must not expect me to tie the hands of the representatives of our country and other countries. We must remember that we are one of five in this. It may be that certain aspects of this question not impinging on the essence of the proposals —and the noble Lord knows what those are—may need to be modified or adjusted. Within those terms I think that the answer to the noble Lord's question is, Yes; it is affirmative.
The noble Lord also asked me to tell the House whether the Soviet Union have accepted the validity of these proposals, which, he said, they have the ability to frustrate by veto in the Security Council. He said that it would be surprising if, after months of negotiation with the South Africans and others, we were to discover that the West had been negotiating without such an agreement from the Soviet Union. We have been negotiating within the terms of the Security Council resolution; indeed we comprise five members of the Security Council. We have been very careful to put together a package which is firmly within the terms of the resolution, and therefore by definition acceptable to any other member of the Security Council. What would be surprising would be for any member of the Security Council to veto what is seen to be completely in line with the intentions of the United Nations. I am making no hint, or threat, or warning. It is simply a matter of fact. The five have, I repeat, worked within the United Nations resolution. This is the result. The result is discernibly within the terms of the resolution. Therefore we have a right to expect—do we not?—that no one in the Security Council will veto the child of the resolution on which they were themselves so keen.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Plunket, raised the question of the possibility of placing what was described as a senior diplomat in Salisbury. We are prepared to consider positively sending a senior

1917
officer to Salisbury. There is no decision on this as yet, but this is certainly a possibility, and one that is constantly being considered (and I mean that literally; it is being considered continuously) by my right honourable friend. I am glad that, when it was put forward, I think by the noble Lord, Lord Plunket, and also, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, it was said that such a step would not be deemed to entail recognition. It is perfectly possible that we might decide to proceed in this way.
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, asked, in relation to the proposals of the Five about Namibia, whether South Africa had indicated any conditions attaching to its acceptance. I have just been looking once more at the statement made by Foreign Minister Botha, and I do not see any reservations of substance. There is an assertion of emphasis, which is usual in these cases. I think the fair answer is: No, I do not see that there are any substantial conditions attached. There are mode; there are points of means and methods which would normally be brought up in such a statement. Perhaps, if I make a copy of the statement available to the noble Lord, he will like to look at it.
The noble Lord also raised the question: Is there a Soviet general established in Mozambique? For the second time, I said I would look into this. My Lords, I have. I have been conducting my own indefatigable inquiry. I am afraid the quarry is somewhat elusive, because I have no evidence that there is such a presence, as of now, in Mozambique. No doubt the noble Lord will chase me so that I have to chase this point further, but that is my information at the moment.
Referring to Mozambique, may I say how helpful Angola has proved to be in helping forward the negotiations in Namibia. Here is the example of a State which is developing politically, perhaps not in quite the way we would like, but which nevertheless has shown evidence of wishing to see a peaceful settlement in that part of Africa.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, I do not want to interrupt unduly, but I did put a third question which I thought of some importance. It was: Do we recognise that the Soviet Union has a
1918
valid veto, if it cares to exercise it, upon the lifting of sanctions against Rhodesia?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, my Lords, I have a note of that third question, and I think the only possible answer is this. Like every other member of the Council, the Soviet Union can exercise a veto, and has been known to do so. Others have, too, including ourselves, though very sparingly. I think we must look a little beyond the entitlement to the veto. If it is proposed to lift sanctions on a basis which is clearly seen to be within the intentions of the United Nations—that is, a movement irreversibly, peacefully, into independence—then anybody who would exercise a veto against that would be vetoing the very purpose in which, originally, they themselves had joined. No one, as yet, can abolish the veto, even selectively. The veto remains for everybody and is used by everybody when it suits them. I do not think it will suit the Soviet Union to exercise it if the process and the programme of independence is seen to be within the intentions of the international community.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, made a fascinating speech. I have his apology that he was not able to remain, and this absolves me from the need to answer a number of points that he raised, except that he raised the question of petty restrictions on Rhodesians coming into this country. He knows—I am sure he does—that within the Thomson rules of, I think, 1968 there is enablement for people in situations such as he described to come here for treatment and to visit relatives. If he has the details of a case—and perhaps somebody will pass this on to Lord Goodman—in which a petty restriction has caused unreasonable difficult}, or hazard, perhaps he will let me know about it.
That leads me to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. He made so many points about how we should deal with people in difficulty and, indeed, danger coming here from areas of hazard that I should like to go through his speech and look at each point he made; and perhaps we might have a word about the last two points he made. His points about training and education, in particular, I should be interested to discuss with him.

1919
No, my Lords; I will not clarify The Times report. The Times can do that very well on its own. It is a matter of interpretation. I saw the report. I thought The Times, quite reasonably, was trying to interpret the way the South African Government looked at this matter of the troops; and I think the interpretation I have given is the right one.
The noble Earl, Lord Lindsey and Abingdon, put three questions. He asked whether the Government were prepared to consider lifting sanctions whether or not the Patriotic Front agreed to participate. On 18th April, in another place, my right honourable friend put the position very fairly, I think, when he said:
"We shall consider that in the light of the settlement as it emerges",
and he named most of the conditions and most of the principles which would make such a settlement acceptable. He ended by saying that we would have seriously to consider the position both (as I think he meant) in regard to recognition and in regard to sanctions. But not before then. As to whether we are contemplating further sanctions in South Africa, it is for the international community to consider and decide on that. We have co-operated in the past and we would co-operate in the future in any international action which was adopted by the United Nations.
The noble Earl next asked whether we would encourage the South African Prime Minister in his suggested plan to initiate elections in Namibia. I do not know precisely what suggested plan was meant here, but if the noble Earl is referring to the whole attitude of the South African Government to the Western proposals then I think we have encouraged them, and we feel encouraged by their acceptance of the Western proposals.
A noble Lord asked whether the interim government in Salisbury had agreed to lift the ban on ZANU and ZAPU. We have a nationalist source which announces that the bans on these two political movements will be lifted, but there has as yet been no official confirmation. Let us hope that these things develop in the right way as soon as possible. The more political detainees who are released and enabled to take part in the run-up to free elections in Namibia, in Rhodesia and, I would add, in South Africa, the better.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I do not want to compromise anyone else. I think that question was put by me and not by the noble Lord who was mentioned.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I had not named a noble Lord as having put that question. I guessed that it was my noble friend Lord Brockway because he knows his way round these acronyms—ZANU and ZAPU—better than anyone else in the House.
My Lords, the source is partial but let us hope that it is confirmed. I have indicated my view and that of the Government about the release of political detainees. The House has listened with great patience to my attempt to set out once more the broad basis of the Government policy in Southern Africa and to answer as many as possible of the specific points that were raised. It is a region of immense importance, and not only to Africa: because what happens in the solution or the non-solution of the problems in Southern Africa might well have repercussions throughout the continent and beyond it. I have often said from this Box that a solution of the Namibia question might very well help a solution of the Rhodesian and South African question.
I feel cautiously optimistic because of the favourable acceptance so far of the Western proposals about Namibia. These things are catching; at least, we hope so. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, well emphasised the importance, not only to the peace of Africa but also possibly to the wider interests of peace, of a sensible settlement of these problems. Also, he was right to emphasise our proper interest as a country, and as a member of the Western democratic community, in the stability and prosperity of Southern Africa.
9.3 p.m.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, your Lordships will be immensely relieved but not, I hope, surprised when I tell you that I do not intend to make another speech. I rise only to say three things. I should like to join with other noble Lords in saying how much we enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, and to confirm, if I may, from my amateur standpoint, exactly what he

1921
said. I have visited that university on two occasions. I rise, secondly, to thank the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, for the usual careful and courteous speech, the trouble he has taken in making it to your Lordships and for the answers he gave me to my two questions, on which I will not press him tonight; but it could be that in the future I will come back to them. Thirdly, I hope that noble Lords who have taken part in this debate—from the noble and hereditary Communist who sits in our ranks to those who are more royal1 blue in their approach—have thought that this debate was worthwhile and that those who had enough stamina to stay will have thought that it was a good debate. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

THE ELIZABETH GARRETT ANDERSON HOSPITAL
9.4 p.m.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS rose to ask Her Majesty's Government which groups, professional bodies and associations they are consulting before reaching future policy decisions in regard to the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital. The noble Lord said: My Lords, at this late hour it may seem, perhaps, inappropriate to start on an entirely new debate; but with your Lordships' customary vigour and rapidity of mind we are going to transfer our thoughts from the problems of Southern Africa to the problems of one very particular hospital in London. In rising to ask this Unstarred Question on a day when the business of this House has been long and of great weight, I feel that it is perhaps unfortunate that we are sitting at this hour. Nevertheless, this matter is of great importance and, as many of your Lordships who remain are anxious to speak, I feel that you have given currency to the same view.
The Unstarred Question invites the Government to tell us what consultations have taken place with a particular group of bodies and associations; but I would prefer to open this short debate on the background of the pattern of events which has taken place in regard to the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital. I think that this will be helpful both for record
1922
purposes and also for some of your Lordships who, like me, have perhaps not acquired until comparatively recently a working knowledge of the chain of unhappy events that have taken place within the last seven or eight years.
In 1972, the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital had a particularly unfortunate event. It was that the pre-convalescent facilities in the Rosa Morrison Home of Recovery—a home where there were a number of beds that permitted early recovery and a good patient turnover—were removed from the hospital. Hence, while patient turnover had been hitherto very much better, the costs were diluted. From 1972, patients were unable to enjoy that particular facility. Later that year, the rundown process continued and the National Health Service began a policy of non-replacement of consultants with permanent appointments and only locums were appointed to the particular task.
In 1974, a further serious blow occurred because the General Nursing Council complained of a number of minor matters and said that the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital was no longer needed in regard to nursing training in the area. I would emphasise here that the General Nursing Council did not withdraw its support of the whole remit of the hospital ——far from it! But it said that it was possible to get similar training elsewhere. In November 1974, the threat of closure became imminent. It was stated by the Department that the hospital was too expensive to run and, immediately, the Department became inundated with a very large number of inquiries. Our information is that over 25,000 signatures in protest were sent to the Prime Minister. That is one measure of the degree of public support which the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital has.
The noble Lord, Lord Platt, asked a Starred Question in your Lordships' House on 21st January, 1975. I should like, if I may, to remind your Lordships of what the noble Lord, Lord WellsPectell, said in reply on that day in column 9 of the Official Report. He said this:
"no decision has been reached on the future of the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital or of its maternity home in Hampstead. Because this hospital was founded with certain special objects,

1923
no decision on its future … can be made by the health authorities without the agreement of the Secretary of State for Social Services ".
Only a month later, on 19th February of the same year, the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, asked an Unstarred Question in somewhat similar terms to those of my Question this evening. At that time the noble Lord stressed that this was a matter of great urgency and he urged upon the Government the need for an early decision.
Here we are now, more than three years later, looking at the situation; and here I would pause in my remarks to say what very great stress the hospital staff have been under during these last three or four years. I believe it has been an intolerable experience for a staff loyal to their hospital and to the needs of the local population in that area, and indeed to a wider one, to have been placed in this position, not knowing perhaps from month to month or from year to year whether the axe would fall or whether it would not, and still most loyally continuing to support the hospital and all that it stood for in very trying circumstances. Many speakers who are to follow me in this debate will be able to identify the points at which the staff have been put under this particular burden, especially as regards journeys to the Whittington Hospital—a facility which they have used at a distance of some six miles from the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital.
The year 1975 continued and on 5th November of that year the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, pursued his earlier Unstarred Question with a Starred Question. He asked whether a final decision had been made, and to that Question the Government replied that they had not yet completed the study. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, at that time said that the matter was very urgent and that the problem had been going on for at least a year.
The situation at last received the attention of the Secretary of State for Social Services at that time, Mrs. Barbara Castle. She announced in February 1976 a proposal to close the present site of the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital and to graft it on to one of the following hospitals in the area: the Royal Northern Hospital, the Whittington Hospital, or possibly the University College Hospital.
A very unfortunate event took place in February 1976, which caused the most
1924
serious dislocation to the activities of the hospital. That was when the lift was closed. The lift, which operates on all floors of the hospital, is particularly important to the management and running of surgical operations because the connection between the operating theatre and the rest of the hospital is made by means of the lift. The reason the lift was taken out of service was a fault in its installation some 12 years earlier, in 1964. It does not cast any aspersions upon the structure of the building, and I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, who will tell your Lordships, so I understand, later this evening a little more about the structure of the hospital and its present condition.
I believe that there has been what amounts to a tacit silence—perhaps "conspiracy "would not be too strong a way of phrasing it—within the Department of Health and Social Security to see that the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital is phased out. A step in this direction, as I have suggested to your Lordships, was the removal of the pre-convalescent home, that is the Rosa Morrison Home of Recovery, the rendering of the lift inoperable and hence the cutting down of the numbers of surgical beds able to be kept in service. But the hospital continued in service, as there is a very large out-patient requirement. This is a particularly significant fact in the management of the hospital. At the present moment, there may be only 43 beds in service-I do not doubt that the figure is substantially accurate—due to this problem within the hospital. But the out-patient department functions as successfully as hitherto.
This sorry tale continued with a further Starred Question in February 1976, another in March 1976 by my noble friend Lady Brooke of Ystradfellte, and a further one on 25th May 1976 by the noble Lord, Lord Platt. I do not think that in recent years any hospital in the United Kingdom has been the subject of so much interest to your Lordships, or of so much continuous inquiry to the Department from outside. This is one of the matters of interest, but it goes very much deeper. This Unstarred Question refers to consultation, and that is something which has been woefully lacking throughout this long and sorry story. In particular, one should consider what

1925
ought to have happened when the Govern- ment published their consultation document.
In one of his replies, the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, referred to the role of the Community Health Council, and the South Camden Community Health Council has taken an active part in opposing the closure of the hospital. But there are responsibilities placed upon both the Secretary of State and the Area and Regional Health Authorities, and when a closure is intended wide consulta- tion should take place. I hope that the Government will be able to inform us further upon this point, because it does not appear that a number of inquiries have been set in hand.
To begin with the bodies which have supported the hospital in the past, one must first consider the family, the succes- sors, of Dr. Elizabeth Garrett Anderson, and I should like to ask the Government whether inquiries have been set in hand there. My noble friend Lord Stradbroke has written to me on this subject but I shall not pursue it now, except to ask whether the family have been consulted. Also, have the Government consulted the National Council of Women or the Federation of Women's Institutes, both of which bodies have expressed interest? I have here a resolution from the National Union of Conservative and Unionist Associations' Women's National Advisory Committee, which states:
"The Conservative Women's National Advisory Committee wish to express their support for the continuance of the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital, and the valuable service it affords and urges the Secretary of State to take the necessary steps to provide for its future ".
That is not the limit of the bodies which should have been consulted. I wonder whether the Government have published their intentions in medical and other journals, and whether there were notices in the national Press. Certainly we who have been following what has happened have not seen anythinglike that. Other bodies which are particularly con- cerned are the Regional Consultants' Committee, composed of those medical practitioners within the region who support the continuation of the hospital. In addition, there are an enormous number of donors and others interested in the continuance of the hospital. I mentioned earlier no less than 25,000 people who signed a petition to the Prime Minister.
1926
We do not expect the Government to contact each of those 25,000 personally, but through the mediums of publication which are open to any Government it should be possible to publicise what they have in mind.
On what does the Government's case rest, and of what should they have informed these various bodies? As we understand it, there are three pillars, starting with the view of the right honourable Barbara Castle and repeated by her successor in office, the right honourable David Ennals, who said that he believed that the future of the hospital would be within the ambit of a district general hospital. The second pillar was very accurately described by the North-East Thames Regional Hospital Authority, which said that they are,
"very doubtful whether there is today a sufficient need for a hospital for women entirely staffed by women to justify the high level of expenditure necessary to maintain the services of the EGA ".
We reject totally this point of view. Indeed, all of the arguments which I have been attempting to put before your Lordships entirely contradict that view. How can the Regional Hospital Authority say that it is very doubtful today whether there is a sufficient need, and what are the criteria for a sufficiency of need?
May I turn to the question of the Area Health Authority. That authority has stated in blunt terms in its document that already it has no need for the EGA in order to fulfil the hospital needs of the population. I believe that argument to be entirely untrue, for this reason. If it were the case that all of the present beds in the hospital were empty, and if there were no visitors to that very busy outpatient department, I think one could say that the Area Health Authority had a case; but if the needs of the population mean that there is a full waiting room all the time, that all of the beds which are in service are full and that the hospital could provide a further 100 beds because there is the capacity to develop up to nearly 200 beds, the Area Health Authority's case falls to the ground.
I believe, further, that the Government's claim that the relocation of the EGA would save a sum of £500,000 could easily be demolished. It has been suggested that this saving would take place if the hospital were relocated at the

1927
Whittington Hospital. After examining this proposition with great care, the health authorities have come to the conclusion that relocation would be unsatisfactory, for a number of reasons which it is unnecessary for me to go into now. However, I believe that the EGA Action Committee can demonstrate that for a sum of £60,000 the vital link, namely, the lift, can be repaired, and that for £120,000 the fire regulations can be fulfilled and the lift put into service. There is quite a substantial difference between that figure of £120,000 and the Government's figure of £500,000.
The Government claim that the hospital is too expensive to run. They claim that, because of the number of beds available, this is a very small, unsatisfactory and unviable unit. However, may I remind your Lordships of one fact which is borne out in an article in today's Daily Telegraph—and a very interesting one it is, too. It deals with the role of the small hospital in medicine. Two hospitals in particular are cited. The first is the Brompton Hospital, where streptomycin for the treatment of tuberculosis was originally set in motion in 1947. These experiments have had a worldwide implication. It is a small hospital, not particularly well found. The second hospital is St. Mark's Hospital in London's City Road. This hospital is also particularly significant, because at that hospital the colonoscope has been tried out quite recently and the tests and trials have proved to be satisfactory. Once again that is a small hospital which is similar in size to both the Brompton Hospital and the EGA.
How is it that these enormous new hospitals which are too expensive to run at full stretch—and I should like to mention two of them; namely, Charing Cross and the new hospital at Leicester which is a 1,000 bed hospital—can be said by the Government to be the most deserving hospitals to receive the resources which are made available to them by the Resource Allocation Working Party? Tonight is not the appropriate time to discuss the sharing of resources for health in England and Wales—the report of RAWP—but we shall do so on another occasion. I believe that in considering the future of the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital these arguments must
1928
be brought to bear. I have taken over long in my remarks, but I know that your Lordships are keenly enthusiastic to follow this argument.
9.25 p.m.
Lord AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, has just said and to add my few words in favour of maintaining the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital, which I know very well. I have been called in there for consultation about patients in the past and, indeed, I was there a day or two ago. It has the making of an extremely pleasant and attractive hospital where patients would be taken care of most efficiently. The site is quite a large one, being one acre in extent and there are a good many of what might be called temporary buildings there which could be extended if the Government make up their minds that the hospital should be preserved.
One or two rather unfortunate things have occurred there, which were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys. One concerned the Rosa Morrison Home, which was given to the hospital in, I think, 1912. Of course that passed to the Minister with the coming into force of the National Health Service Act in 1948 but the Home was closed in 1972. The number of patients who could be admitted to the main hospital was therefore cut down quite considerably, because the Home had been somewhere where people who had been treated surgically could go to continue their recovery. It was closed in 1972 and, so far as I know, it remained closed for five years and is now occupied by mentally handicapped adults. They are perfectly proper people to be there but that was not the original intention for the use of the building.
There appear to be two main difficulties confronting the hospital now. One has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys—namely the failure of the lift. It means that the two top floors of the hospital where the main wards were situated and where the theatre is, cannot now be used. I do not think it is because the lift or the lift shaft is faulty. I am not a technical engineer but I think it has something to do with the suspension of the lift. In the meantime, quite a considerable amount of

1929
money has been spent on scaffolding, hoists and other equipment to bring necessary articles up to the top floor. I believe the sum involved amounts to £27,000. Not being a technical engineer, I am not quite sure what it would cost to put the lift in order but probably it would not take long to recoup the money spent on repairing the lift from the saving made on the present expenditure on scaffolding, hoists and so on.
The second thing which occurred was that the General Nursing Council decided in 1974 that the place was no longer suitable for the training of nurses, partly because there were other places where they could be trained, the University College Hospital and others round about, and partly because the nurses training there would not get training with male patients at all. That situation has been in existence for quite a long time, but the training was done perfectly well; there was an arrangement made with the general hospital at Greenwich, which, I think I am right in saying, takes entirely male patients; so the nurses training with the women at the EGA got their training with men at the Greenwich hospital. That arrangement could have been carried out quite satisfactorily for a long time. I cannot see why it cannot be carried on now.
There was an alternative suggestion made to the EGA, which was to have beds at the Whittington Hospital, which is a long way away and is not really suitable for a rather specialised hospital like the EGA. It was one of the old Poor Law infirmaries, and it is a place which, although quite satisfactory in a way, is not what one would really choose as an alternative to a well-run and efficient hospital. I saw a statement in The Times yesterday in which the Regional Health Authority said that it was not really worthwhile continuing with the EGA because it could take only 43 patients, but that was solely because the lift had not been repaired and so the wards on the top floors were not available for patients.
What is the future, then, of this hospital? I am sure that the cause for which it was founded, so that women could be treated by women, whether that is a proper thing or not, is something for which people do wish. It is very well situated between the London termini. It is quite reasonably accessible by public transport. I should
1930
have thought that money would be quite well spent in making the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital work properly again. One is told that the site is an extremely valuable one and could be sold for a very large sum of money; but I was told by the people at the hospital, when I visited it one day last week, that the site value does not seem to he very much more than £200,000. I was rather surprised at that in that part of London. I should very much like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, has said, and to encourage the Government to see that the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital, whose structure, I gather, is perfectly sound, is put back into working order for the people for whom it was intended.
9.35 p.m.
Lord BOWDEN: My Lords, this subject of debate has very often been before this House and it has been much before the Department itself. The last time I saw the Secretary of State he said, "If ever the time comes for an autopsy to be performed upon me, the initials EGA ' will be found upon my heart". I have no doubt that he is aware of the problems. He said something else which I felt was very interesting. He said, "When first I heard of the idea of a hospital dedicated entirely to the proposition that women may need to be treated by women, I was extremely sceptical of it. I felt that in these days it was hardly appropriate. However, I looked into the matter and I am firmly convinced that there is a case".
Millions of women—certainly many thousands of women—find themselves almost unable to accept treatment from men. Some of the women are Asians, whose religion prohibits such treatment. But many more are Englishwomen, some of whom are forbidden by their husbands, believe it or not, to admit to treatment except by women. The case for a hospital decicated to this is evident. The Secretary of State, like his predecessors, has conceded that such a facility is essential and must he maintained somewhere in the Health Service.
The number of women's organisations which have petitioned that the facilities be provided and continued is very great. I cannot enumerate them all. However, they include, for example, the National

1931
Council of Women, the Women's Institutes, the Headmistresses' Association, the Inner Wheel, the Mothers' Union, the Catholic Mothers of Scotland and the Communist Women of Camden Town. That is a good representative cross-section of society. It cannot he held to be politically biased in one direction. There is no doubt that there is an enormous need for this peculiar service, which is available only north of the Thames in this one hospital, so that women may come to it from all parts of England.
It seems to me that its basic problem is due to the fact that it is not regarded as an institution of national importance and has somehow been mixed up with the ordinary provision of beds in Camden Town itself. Successive Secretaries of State and Ministers of State have gone on record as saying that somehow the provision of facilities for the treatment of women by women must be preserved somewhere. The question that we have to discuss is, where?
As the noble Lord said, there was a report in The Times yesterday from a reader who dismissed the case for maintaining the hospital in the same phrases and for the same reasons as have been adduced many times in the past, all of which are totally invalid. The first reason that we have heard is that the site is valuable and the building decrepit. Neither of those statements is true. We had the site surveyed and assessed by the appropriate people. The building has been surveyed in very great detail—I suspect in more detail than any other hospital in London—and has been found to be a perfectly splendid example of late Victorian architecture: solid, well built, with walls two-and-a-half feet thick, which will keep out the heat and the cold and allow the building to outlast the pyramids. In fact, it is my view that if the building was cleaned up and if some of the odds and ends that have been stuck on were removed, it should be classified as a building of special architectural merit and preserved, because it would be one of the finest buildings in the whole of the Euston Road. So much for the building and the site.
It is also true that at the moment it cannot be properly used for reasons to which other noble Lords have referred;
1932
namely, the failure of the lift. It is true that the cost of repairing the lift need not exceed £60,000 or £70,000. The cost of putting the hospital back into proper use, and providing perhaps 100 beds, would be one-third of the cost of moving it to the Whittington Hospital, supposing that had not been found to be totally impossible because of the administrative reasons which would flow were it done.
May I go briefly through the case which we have heard so often. It was said that the hospital is on a valuable site. Not so. The building is decrepit. Not so. It was also said in a recent report in The Times that the hospital was the most expensive in London. That is quite untrue and it is due to the extraordinary way in which the accounts have been cast.
A point which has already been made is the serious effect of the loss of the Rosa Morrison Hospital. However, I must explain that it was that hospital, rather curiously combined with an insane system of accounting, which gave the impression that the hospital was expensive. The patients in it stayed for only a few days before being moved out. If, on the one hand, we assess the cost in terms of beds per annum on the basis that each bed is occupied by a critical case for only a couple of days, the expense is great. If, on the other hand, we include the total cost of curing a patient as our criterion, the hospital has always been cheap. It is cheap today.
It costs, on average, £28 per patient in the EGA and £36 in the Whittington Hospital, which has been claimed to be cheaper. In fact, it is more expensive. The EGA has always had a record for treating its patients and discharging them very quickly which has made it much more efficient in the use of its beds than any other hospital in the district.
I have not time to deal with the matter in detail, hut a very complicated study has been made of the time it takes to cure patients in different hospitals and the EGA has always been one of the speediest. In the days when it had the marvellous facility of the convalescent home, it discharged patients after a very short time indeed. In terms of the cost per patient cured, it was, as it still is, one of the very cheapest in the country.

1933
Therefore, the ground that it is expensive is equally invalid.
I turn to the reason why we believe that it should be kept on its present site. Proposals were made to move it to the Whittington Hospital. It seemed strikingly inappropriate to choose that hospital because that was the one that pioneered the use of male midwives. It seems hardly likely that a hospital dedicated to the treatment of women by women could be fitted into another which had pioneered the use of male midwives. However, for all sorts of other administrative reasons it proved utterly impossible to devise any mechanism whatsoever by which the EGA could preserve its identity were it transferred to become part of another organisation. The idea of moving to the Whittington Hospital proved to be impractical and I suggest that it should be quietly forgotten.
That leads me to say that I do not believe that to move the EGA to any other site would prove possible either. If it is to survive, it must be where it is. It stands on a site which is ideally suited to its purpose. It can be easily reached from the main London termini and that was why the site was chosen. It is near not only to Euston, King's Cross and St. Pancras, but to the main tube stations and main bus routes, which make it easily accessible to women who come to it from far and wide. Therefore, the site is ideal from that point of view. The building could be repaired relatively cheaply. It could be brought into use for the purpose for which it was built 100 years ago, and the service which it would provide is one which was known even then to be necessary and which is necessary today.
Therefore, the case for moving it has, in my view, vanished. All the arguments which were adduced have been shown to be invalid. We have had tremendously complicated analyses of the detailed costs of the hospital and I shall not trouble your Lordships with the results. I can only say that there are many major matters of dispute between the analyses of the accounts which have been made by our own people—some of whom are extraordinarily experienced accountants—and some of the accountants from the Region. I should like to mention the fact that we found that the Region was
1934
charging, for example, porters, at the rate of about £7,000 a year each, which is about three times as much as the poor chaps actually earn and that that appeared as an addition on the balance sheet. We found that consultants who were actually working for about six or seven hours at the EGA were put down as working 20 hours at the EGA. The costs are inflated; they are almost certainly wrong. As I have said, this hospital is still cheaper than most others in the district.
It is a cheap hospital. It has potential and could be developed so that it becomes as good as it ever was. The number of beds could be increased to 100 or more. It is a splendid place. The most important thing is the tremendous demand for its services and the extraordinary dedication of the staff. When I went there some time ago I went into the picket room. This is a cubbyhole in which the pickets sit. They have looked after and cared for the hospital night and day for about two years, in case attempts are made forcibly to close it.
When I was there, a delegation arrived from Germany to learn how to picket English-style; I thought that that was a remarkable example of invisible exports to the Common Market. Furthermore, during the recent firemen's strike the firemen pickets sat there too, so the picket room became a little social club for those seeking to preserve the hospital, those trying to keep the fire station from working and the Germans trying to find out how to do everything. It was most extraordinary.
I have commented many times on the fact that the morale of the staff is wonderful. That is true from consultants down to kitchen maids. When the Secretary of State was there about three weeks ago I think that he was profoundly impressed by the eloquence of the girls who spoke in the hospital's defence. I wrote to the Secretary of State quoting Napoleon Bonaparte:
"In peace as in war, morale is to material as two is to one".
The hospital has earned the affection of women the world over. I have met doctors in New York who have said, "Whatever you say about the National Health Service, it has kept the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital going and I can forgive it anything for that". It is known

1935
affectionately in Africa. I was in Ghana the other day. It seems to be known to every woman one ever meets in London. They all know it and think it is very good, and they all view with horror the prospect that one of our great national assets may be destroyed.
The last time I saw Mr. Ennals, I told him that the hospital must not be allowed to die the death of a thousand cuts. In other words, it is impossible to expect it to survive in its present state, with about a third of its facilities available to it and no real hope for the future. It must be given the minimum support it needs to get it going again. I think that it would be possible to raise the money by public subscription, and thus repair it and get it going. Once that has been done, it must be guaranteed support as a national institution instead of a purely local hospital. The teaching hospitals are taken out of the ordinary system of costing. The EGA is an extraordinary anomaly; there is nothing like it in the country. To most administrators the fact that it is an anomaly is sufficient reason for wishing to destroy it. It is far too precious; it must be preserved.
9.49 p.m.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, after the splendid speeches that we have had so far I am left with very little to say. I shall simply pick on a few points, perhaps raise one or two new arguments and emphasise others. The need for the hospital has been clearly spelled out. That seems to be agreed by everyone, except the Regional Health Authority, which I suppose is part of the reorganisation of the Health Service. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, could tell us by what extraordinary expertise and skill the Regional Hospital Authority which I think has met only once on this matter—knows more about it than all those of us who have studied it for years and who really do know something about it. I should like it to be spelled out why they think their opinion overrides that of practically all others.
I was going to point out that the former Secretary of State, Barbara Castle, felt that the hospital should be closed at that time but nevertheless wanted it to keep its identity in some way, and of course
1936
its name, which is important to it. For this reason the Whittington experiment was tried. We need not go into that any further because Whittington does not want the EGA and the EGA does not want Whittington, and the Area Health Authority has agreed that this is an unacceptable solution.
Among the points that have been raised is one that a large number of its patients—a percentage has been quoted, but I am not sure what it is—do not come from the district in which the hospital exists. Of course, this is true of, I suppose, all our most famous hospitals, and it was Nye Bevan who was quite certain that the Health Service hospitals should be allowed to take patients who did not come just from the district in which the hospital was situated. This was a great relief to the medical profession at the time who thought that the original basis of the new Health Service, as it then was, might mean that, say, Guy's Hospital could serve only the South-East part of London and so on.
If you take any of our most famous hospitals, especially the specialist ones—the Neurological Hospital at Queen's Square, the Brompton which has been mentioned, Moorfields Eye Hospital, and of course the Royal Post-Graduate School of Chemistry—all have a clientele from the whole country, not just from Hammersmith or wherever they exist. This is part of their job, and goes to the building of their reputation, to make them known, in many cases all over the world. So that, far from it being an argument against the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital, it seems to me to be a very powerful argument in favour of it, though I can understand the Area Health Authority saying, "Yes, we agree with you "—I think they do— "but nevertheless we do not see why we should he paying for it out of a budget which has already been cut down".
This is a point which one must listen to, and it brings back to the Department and the Secretary of State himself, sitting over the Regional Health Authority, the need to support this hospital out of central funds, or as the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, has said, initially perhaps by voluntary effort, because most of us feel that a large amount of money would be forthcoming. Of course, even if the

1937
initial cost were covered by voluntary effort, it would have to be guaranteed in future. The cost of the renovations now —and nobody knows more about this than the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, and we have heard him on the subject—as far as I can see, is about three times what it would have been five years ago.
As to the site value, that, too, seems to he exploded; but if hospitals are going to be judged on site value, the sooner we sell the Westminster Hospital the better for the country. Nurse training and certain ways of overcoming that problem have been mentioned, but there is absolutely no reason why a nurse should not serve a certain hospital—it might be a geriatric hospital, a paediatric hospital, it might be the EGA—for a period of three months, or six months, of their training, although their base might he in some other teaching hospital.
I hope that this evening—and I mean this evening—we shall hear that at last a real attempt is to be made to rescue this hospital. For goodness sake! do not start looking for another site somewhere
1938
else—this is a perfectly good site; as we have heard, it is very well situated—because we shall only have another Whittington all over again. Everybody can get to London, but they cannot all get to Bedford or Letchworth, or somewhere like that if the hospital is put far afield. That would simply mean that the whole of this sorry story would begin again. I hope that is not what we are going to hear tonight.
I feel that throughout the two most important considerations have tended to be neglected. The first is the patients, although I would say they have come in for an honourable mention tonight. The second is the reputation of British medicine. It is the special hospitals of this kind—although by no means entirely—which have a big part to play in the worldwide reputation of British medicine. So my final word is to remind Her Majesty's Government. as I have done on numerous occasions in this House, that finally they cannot run a successful Health Service without the willing consent of the doctors.
9.57 p.m.
Lord HUNT of FAWLEY: My Lords, I do not want to repeat what I said in this House on 19th February 1975 about the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital. At that time the idea was being debated as to whether or not it would be feasible to close it and move the staff and equipment to the Whittington Hospital as an identifiable unit which could continue the good work of the care of women by women, and which would perpetuate the name of our first woman doctor, Elizabeth Garrett Anderson. That idea came to nothing: although nearly everyone agreed that there was a need, albeit a relatively small one (but not perhaps as small as certain people think), for some women to be treated entirely by women should they wish for this. We are now back where we were originally. The burning question before us now is: Should the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital be closed and used for other purposes, perhaps for offices, or should it be modernised and remodelled, or enlarged and rebuilt on its present site?
My noble friend Lord Sandys asks Her Majesty's Government this evening some most pertinent questions:
"which groups, professional bodies and associations they arc consulting before reaching future policy decisions in regard to the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital? "
The first of those people to be asked must, I feel sure, be the patients who use it now, who have used it in the past, or who may want to do so in the future. Second are the consultants and the Hospital Action Committee (composed of all grades of staff, social workers, voluntary workers and local groups). Then there are the sisters and nurses, ancillary medical staff, hospital administrators, and the general practitioners who send their patients to this hospital for diagnosis and treatment.
Many others are involved, too: the Camden-Islington Area Health Authority, other local authorities, the Area Medical Advisory Committee, the local Community Health Council, and some trade unions. Among other important bodies which should also be consulted are the major women's organisations, as has been mentioned: the Medical Women's Federation, the National Council of Women, the Federation of Women's
1940
Institutes, the League of Jewish Women and, importantly, the Association of Asian Women, all of whom are involved in some way.
Then, certainly are the larger local district general hospitals with which the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital might possibly be associated or affiliated, as it has been called, for very special investigations and treatment. Last of all, because of the hospital's clinical and teaching commitments, we must not forget the British Medical Association, the General Medical Council, the Royal Medical Colleges and Faculties, the Royal College of Nursing, the British Postgraduate Medical Federation of the University of London and the Council for Postgraduate Medical Education, though I understand that a few of these professional bodies have expressed a wish not to be drawn into this debate.
Some of the organisations I have mentioned feel very strongly indeed about the future of this hospital, more especially the consultant staff of the hospital and the trade unions. A report from the National Union of Public Employees said that NUPE members at the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital had voted unanimously that they would resist to the very end any removal of patients or equipment. The Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staff also wishes to be associated with the out cry against the hospital's closure: and so does COHSE, the Confederation of Health Service Employees, though we must bear in mind that these unions tend to oppose any closures anywhere for fear of increasing unemployment.
There are, as many of us must know, a number of important and formidable arguments against the continuation of the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital on its present site. Only two days ago, the Camden-Islington Regional Health Authority, in a report to the Department of Health and Social Services, recommended its closure as rapidly as possible. But there are also many cogent reasons and arguments in its favour.
When this hospital was founded more than 100 years ago, supported by private subscriptions, it was most important as a pioneering Victorian concept at a time when the very few women doctors had

1941
great difficulty in obtaining consultant hospital posts. The foundation of this hospital was an entirely reasonable and understandable emotional reaction to give women doctors consultant appointments. to allow women patients who wished it to he treated only by women, and to offer some part-time consultative jobs to those women doctors who were married and bringing up families. We must ask ourselves: Are these factors important now? I believe they still are. Nowadays, it is true, there are many more women doctors—about 50 per cent. of medical students are women—so, on the face of it, it should not be hard for a woman doctor to become a consultant, or for a woman patient to find herself a woman general practitioner or hospital specialist. But there are not yet enough consultant appointments for women to hold, and there will not be enough for a considerable time. I am told on good authority that only 9 per cent. of consultant posts in England are now held by women; that there are only 10 women general consultant surgeons (two of whom are on the staff of the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital); and that only 25 per cent. of all senior registrars are women.
Where, then, do all the young women doctors go? Many of them, of course, get married and have children and drop out of medical work, perhaps only temporarily. More than half of them enter general practice or take up community medicine or public health, family planning, child welfare, child guidance or health education of various kinds.
We must ask ourselves: Does the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital fulfil a district need now, or does it fulfil an important national need? The answers to both these questions are, "No", according to many people including the Regional Allocation Working Party. Although the figures are approximate, 80 per cent. of this hospital's patients come from London postal districts, but only about 27 per cent. are from the Camden-Islington area. About 18 per cent. are from South-East England outside London, and about 2 per cent. come to the hospital from abroad.
Women who wish it can now be treated by women in many large hospitals elsewhere in England, but these do not always have enough women consultants,
1942
resident and domestic staff to do this completely. We all have our likes and dislikes as to who is to look after us. Some women have very deep religious and personal convictions about not being cared for by men, and not only for gynaecological conditions and obstetrics. The nervous and shy adolescent girl worried about her bosoms, or her boy friend, may want sympathetic and intimate advice from a woman rather than from a man. There must also be considered elderly unmarried women, nuns, Moslem women in general from many countries, and some orthodox Jewish women. In most hospitals arrangements are now made for them to be looked after by women if they wish, but with the best will in the world this cannot always be guaranteed with all consultants and resident staff with night duty rota systems, combined with staff shortages, sickness, holidays and so on.
In the North of England there is no hospital where women can he cared for entirely by women, from which it might be argued that no such hospital is really needed anywhere. The answer to this is that we do not know how much such hospitals in the North would be used did they exist. The Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital has nearly always been fairly full. Four years ago I suggested in your Lordships' House that there was a need for a country-wide assessment of how many women really do prefer to be looked after entirely by women doctors, in order to try to determine patients' needs in this field. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, whether any such survey was carried out.
The site of the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital is not perfect, but I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Bowden and Lord Platt, that it might he very difficult indeed to find a better site. It was deliberately chosen, originally, not far from three main railway termini, for the convenience of patients coming from the Home Counties and the Midlands. Set back from the Euston Road, it is said to be rather noisy, but this, I am assured, is not a great problem. When double glazing was suggested this was turned down by nursing staff and patients. As has been mentioned, the site could not now he sold for a very large sum—probably for not more than about

1943
£300,000. Camden, I am told, does not want it for building purposes.
The hospital is at present shabby and in a poor state of repair, because very little has been done to preserve, decorate, or improve it during the past few years. As we have heard, of the two main lifts, one is unusable, and the other needs frequent repairs. But the shell of the building (with 18 inch walls, good brickwork and pointing) and the roof (except in one place where the lift shaft goes through it) are structurally sound. Modernisation of the present building could be carried out at not too high a cost—I believe that about half a million pounds has been suggested—but the number of beds would then be rather small, only 80 to 100. Rebuilding of the hospital to give it about 200 beds would be ideal, and this, I am told, could be done for about £11 million to £2 million, at 1976-77 rates—so it may be more than that now. Some people tell us, although this is strongly denied by others, that it would be impossible to build a 200-bedded hospital on this site, even though it was considerably higher than the present building.
Another question that is asked is: Is the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital viable? Yes, I am assured most emphatically that it is professionally viable. It is busy, it sees more than 2,000 new out—patients a year, many of whom become in-patients; and it has more than 22,000 out-patient attendances a year now, in spite of the publicity given to its possible closure. Some people say that the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital is now redundant because it is in an overbedded area. But whose fault is that? Many of the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson beds were there first!
The Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital does not aim to be a complete multi-specialist unit or a miniature district general hospital, but it does provide a supra-regional and supra-national healthcare service for women from about eighteen special departments in its building. It has a highly qualified specialist staff, and adequate (though not extremely sophisticated or very expensive) equipment. A hospital such as this, much smaller than
1944
a large district general hospital, is often attractive to doctors, patients, nurses and medical students, with its friendly, personal atmosphere. Humanitarian, emotional, and traditional factors cannot be entirely ignored in solving a problem of this kind.
The Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital has always offered a useful range of services within its capacity. It has been helpful in pre-registration training—and there are not now enough jobs in London for this—and in the post-graduate continuing education of women in part-time and full-time training posts. For expensive diagnostic and treatment equipment and services, such as for high-powered intensive care, difficult or complicated obstetrics, organ transplants, neuro-surgery, open-heart surgery, artificial kidney machines, EMI body scanners, cobalt therapy and so on, a small general hospital like this could easily be attached to, or affiliated with, one or more larger nearby district general hospitals, such as University College Hospital, the Royal Free or the Whittington.
Other small hospitals are linked in different ways with their larger neighbours, and are helped by them. We appreciate, however, that many of the big hospitals have been asked to reduce the number of their beds, and no one would expect them, in order to look after women from the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson, to introduce sex differentiation or restrict the work of their wards which are common to men and women, or of their male staff or students, in order to enable ill women patients from another hospital needing very expert treatment to be looked after entirely by women in that special environment.
During the war, in the RAF, I learned that very few patients were ever too ill to be moved over hundreds, or even thousands, of miles to a place where they could be better treated, so long as the move was done carefully and well. A move of only a few hundred yards from the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital to University College Hospital, or of two or five miles to the Royal Free or the Whittington, should be completed quite safely by almost any very ill patient.
We should not be daunted by the cost of a modest, phased rebuilding programme for, say, half a million pounds

1945
now, and a further £11 million revenue or more for maintenance. Much, if not all, the money for rebuilding could, I am sure, be raised by a well-planned appeal run, after consultation with the Secretary of State for the Social Services, according to Sections 90 to 92 of the National Health Service Act 1977. Such an appeal would, I believe, have countrywide support, and it is not only women and women's organisations who would contribute. If the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital were closed, its patients would have to be looked after somewhere else by the National Health Service, which might be willing to contribute some revenue towards the maintenance of a modernised or a new building. The result of such an appeal would be a good indication of how much popular support there was for the treatment of women by women, though the trade unions would, I am sure, prefer the National Health Service to supply all the money, without involving a private-enterprise appeal.
In conclusion, may I, at this period of our country's history which is dedicated to the advancements of women's rights, make a special plea to the Government through its Department of Health and Social Security and the Secretary of State for Social Services to allow the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital to be modernised and up-graded on its present site, and that the Department should look carefully and sympathetically at the possibilities of permitting a public appeal to be launched not only in this country but in the Moslem States (who, I feel sure, would be very generous) and elsewhere.
The problem of the future of this hospital, which is now part of our national heritage, has been hanging over us for many years. It must be faced squarely and solved quite soon. A favourable decision—to give this hospital a further lease of life—could safely be made now. But I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, that any decision remotely unfavourable must be very carefully debated during the next few months with the help of all those people and organisations whom he and others have mentioned. To close this unique hospital with its great traditions, a hospital which many people believe still has a useful and necessary part to
1946
play in our National Health Service, would be against much public opinion, against the wishes of a considerable part of the medical profession and against those of several trade unions.
It is refreshing nowadays to find the doctors on a hospital's staff and four trade unions, whose members work there, all wanting the same thing. To keep this hospital would, I and many others believe, be a reasonable and popular gesture which would be right historically, be good for the morale and confidence of many members of the medical and nursing professions and of many women patients. It would prove that the Department of Health and Social Security, whichever Government are in power, has an imaginative, sympathetic and humanitarian approach to the medical problems and needs of women in Britain.
10.18 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to have the opportunity to join in this debate. I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Sandys for opening it and giving us such an interesting description. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Fawley, really proved the point. He said that these people were coming from all over Britain, and from overseas also; so that this hospital is not just serving a local area. If it is needed so badly that, surely, has proved the point that we should try to keep the hospital open.
I was interested in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bowden. He reminded us that the Secretary of State, Mr. Ennals, has stated that if he dies of a coronary, the initials on his heart would be those of the hospital "EGA". I think it would be useful for him to decide that he is going to live happily. Therefore, if he can, through his Minister, the noble Lord, give us an assurance that he is going to keep this hospital open, he will get the whole thing off his conscience and not have this trouble in the future. He also remarked in a Press conference that he was impressed by the dedication of the staff, the concept of hospital treatment for women, and he added—and this is important— "For a long time I did not understand, but now I appreciate their views". I hope that he also

1947
appreciates the views of all the various organisations, like COSI, NALGO, NUPE and a few others, including the BMA.
There is a very interesting book called The Administrative Reorganisation of Women's Health Needs and Hospital Planning in London, written for the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital by Linda Clark and John Mason. This will be advantageous reading for anybody deciding what is going to happen to this hospital. The hospital, I should like to remind your Lordships, has a Royal Charter which was granted by King George V and the foundation stone of the building—which, the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, rightly reminded us, is a nice building—was laid by Her Majesty Queen Alexandra.
It has been remarked by one or two noble Lords that women have always had a great struggle to become doctors. I understand that 97 per cent. of the consultants in general surgery and 96 per cent. in general medicine are men. Even in obstetrics and gynaecology only 12 per cent. of the total are women. It may be remembered that Miss Garrett herself had a great deal of difficulty in getting training. She tried in England and in Scotland, and eventually had to go to Paris to take her examinations and become a fully fledged doctor.
It is also interesting to note, I think, that very often when women have become doctors their families carry on in the profession. In her case, her daughter, Dr. Louisa Garrett Anderson, was joint organiser of the Women's Hospital Corps in the First World War and chief surgeon in a military hospital at Endell Street. I mention this because it is often said: "Women get trained and then they get married". I may say that one of my cousins, who is a doctor in Ireland, has two daughters who are both now doctors. They very often carry on a family tradition when given a chance. One also has to remember that up to six years ago there was a quota system for women training at medical schools. I believe the proportion was one in five. I should also like to mention another interesting book which proves the case; it is The Fight for a Health Service that Provides for Women's Needs, by Candy Unwin. It gives an excellent
1948
description of what is needed and I think proves the need for this hospital.
Mention has been made of Moslem and Jewish women. I know what has been said is true, because I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, will remember that when we were rescuing prisoners of war and internees there were nuns on board our ship and he was not even allowed to see them: they had to stick their foot out when they had a bad ankle and I had to tell him about their complaints. That is some proof of what occurs.
If I may cite what women can do, there was the Women's National Cancer Control Campaign which was started by Mrs. Joyce Butler, MP, and that marvellous woman Dame Josephine Barnes. I do not want in any way to be rude to men doctors, of whom there are still two left in the Chamber, but I think this campaign would have not got along very well without women doctors and, in particular, the type of hospital we are talking about. In Plymouth, I myself started two clinics with part-time women doctors. It took a long time to get women to come to them. One interesting point was that I got another clinic installed in the Royal Naval Hospital, and women would go there because they felt they could see a woman doctor and also that people would not know why they were going: they would think they were going to visit husbands or fiancés.
Unlike men, women make demands on health care not only when they are really ill—this point has not so far been mentioned—but because they need care during pregnancy, through difficulties of menstruation and during the menopause. At such times I think they really appreciate seeing another woman. As mentioned by my noble friend Lord Sandys, 23.000 signatures were sent to 10 Downing Street, also the shop stewards marched in July 1976 and there were pickets by ex-patients and many other supporting groups. I think this is the first hospital to have what is known as a "work-in", which gained great support from many people.
Mention has been made of the amount of money that has to be spent. This seems to vary considerably. However, I understand that without making the building any taller it will be possible to

1949
modernise the kitchens in a way that would not cost too much, because now that we have pre-prepared food we do not need large kitchens. That will make available quite a lot of room for extra beds. There are special facilities in this hospital. There is the infertility clinic, and clinics for family planning and matrimonial problems, together with a gynaecological and cancer clinic, in addition to the normal hospital facilities. Therefore I suggest that, for these other reasons, this hospital is giving good service.
I should like to end by quoting from a booklet called The Reorganised National Health Service 1977, published by the Office of Health Economics.
"In the final analysis, it is to be remembered that the object of ultimate importance is not the Health Service as such, but the health of the community it seeks to serve. The responsibility for achieving such ends is not exclusively the Health Services'. It is shared by the entire community".
I think that what the entire community wants to do is to save this hospital, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give us a satisfactory reply.
10.25 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I first became devoted to the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital as a hospital for women, staffed by women, 71 years ago when I came to London as a young journalist. At that time there was the beginning of an upsurge of the movement for women's equality and I became involved in it. I used to go to meet my first girl friend at the gates of Holloway Prison when she was released as a suffragette. It was probably my becoming involved in the women's movement at that time which led me to have an almost religious fervour for Elizabeth Garrett Anderson as the first woman doctor that our country has known. Nevertheless, I want to acknowledge this fact. I did not intend to take part in the debate this evening. I have been fairly fully engaged in this Chamber since 2.30 this afternoon. But last night a councillor from Camden came to me and made such urgent representations that I did not feel I could avoid saying a few words.
Councillor Joan Hymans is, in the first place, devoted to the people of Camden itself and to their service; but, equally, she has been involved on behalf of the
1950
Commonwealth immigrants in that borough. She is a very active member of the Camden Community Relations Council. Knowing that I have some interest in this subject, she asked me whether I would emphasise this side of the issue that we are discussing tonight. She stated, first, that the experience of the Community Relations Council is that there are very many Moslem women who will not be treated medically by men. Indeed, some of their husbands will not even allow another man to touch them. I shall comment a little later upon that prejudice. But it is, undoubtedly, the case that there are very many women of the Moslem faith who need hospital treatment but have this deep objection to medical treatment by a man. Figures have been given in this debate as to the minority of women doctors and women consultants, and the experience on the Camden Community Relations Council has been that many of these women have to wait long periods before there is a woman doctor available to them.
I was surprised to find that the evidence of the Camden Community Relations Council referred not only to Moslem women but to Bengali women from both West Bengal, which is still in India, and Bangladesh which has become an independent country. The Camden Community Relations Council employs a woman officer who is specially concerned with the health of Bengali women. Her reports to the council state that Bengali women, even if they are not Moslems—perhaps their attitude is connected with the culture of that area—also refuse repeatedly to be treated by men The figures show that only 27 per cent. of the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital patients come from the Camden and Islington area and that the great majority —over 70 per cent.—come from all over the country. I believe that these figures indicate that there is a special need for one hospital at least of this character to serve, in particular, Commonwealth immigrant women from all over the country.
I do not think I need to say more than that. I hope very much, however, that in reaching a decision on this issue the noble Lord the Minister will take into account, together with the other arguments which have been put forward this evening, the need among the Commonwealth immigrant community for a women's hospital.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, at this time of night I am sure that everybody who has taken part in the debate will be anxious to hear what the noble Lord the Minister who is to reply has to say about all the facts that have been put before him. I have great pleasure in supporting the case that my noble friend Lord Sandys has made for keeping this hospital in good form and making provision for the patients who are so devoted to it.
My first point has not been made so far this evening. May I put to the Minister the point that, although, naturally, there has been quite a lot of comment about the EGA hospital in this part of England, the suggestion has frequently been made throughout the country that the National Health Service is on the point of collapse.
I like to say that I live on the right side of the Border; I come from Tyneside and am very devoted to it. I happen also to be a Vice-President of the Royal College of Nursing.
If a full report appears on the comments which have been made in our debate tonight, in particular on those with which my noble friend opened the debate, unless the Minister is able to give a satisfactory answer one might begin to wonder whether there is something wrong with the National Health Service and whether it may be on the point of collapse. That is really very sad indeed for the people in the country who, after some years, have learned to appreciate the National Health Service, who have received very good treatment from it and who have been well looked after. We have made great progress in curing all sorts of diseases and finding new methods of dealing with some of the worst diseases that people can get. Therefore I should hate the facts that have been given tonight to be known, unless we can get a really satisfactory answer from the Minister.
My noble friend Lord Hunt of Fawley said he did not know quite what women in the North thought, but as I have lived up there and belong up there and was in another place for 38 years representing them, I know very well what they think. They are always very helpful when I
1952
want to make any points in a debate, whether it is on this subject or on industry or anything else.
The question of money has been raised in regard to the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital and I should like to point out to the Minister—although I think perhaps he will know—that we had a very famous hospital called the Sanderson Home for Crippled Children, which was given by some well known people in the North of England. It was heavily endowed and did a great deal of good work for crippled children. When the National Health Service acquired the Sanderson Home, they took the endowment money, and I can only assume that it went into the general funds of the National Health Service. At any rate, we did not get any support from it in the North of England. So I do not think we are asking too much when we suggest to the noble Lord that some of the money which has been taken from private hospitals which were endowed by private people, presumably like the particular hospital we are discussing tonight, might be returned to us by the National Health Service.
I should like to make one other point about the North of England. It has been found fairly recently that the use of swimming baths is important in the treatment of certain complaints from which people suffer Not so many months ago, the people in the small place where I live just outside Newcastle-upon-Tyne were asked to collect money for a swimming pool to be attached to the Sanderson Home. The people from my part of the world went to it and we collected £75,000 and built a marvellous swimming pool. At that moment the Government decided to close the Sanderson Home, take the money, and take the crippled children who were still there and put them on the fifth floor of our new hospital, the Freeman Hospital, with no balcony, no garden and no chance of getting to the swimming pool. Now, when only a very small amount of money appears to be needed to put the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital fully into operation again, there seems to be some suggestion that there is no money available. That is a most unfortunate thing.
Although I have not taken part in the debates on this hospital I felt that as a Vice-President of the Royal College of

1953
Nursing I might express some of the things that I feel about it. I hope the Minister will not say either that the National Health Service is about to collapse or that there is no money available, because I would then ask whether he would let us have back, to use for this hospital, the money that was taken at the time the Service acquired the Sanderson Home.
I will not keep the House long, There is always the temptation to put all the points of view one has, and I always have a great many points of view; I am rather a talkative person really, and sometimes it is difficult not to talk when an opportunity like this occurs. I want to say to the Minister that I have great admiration for him; I think anyone who has come into contact with him would agree he is most helpful, most kind, and willing to consider points of view put forward. Sometimes I look at what I call the constitutional position of Ministers. I cannot believe that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, can have listened to all these very important comments without feeling that the case has been made for dealing with this hospital in a satisfactory way.
Of course, it must be an awful bore being a member of the Cabinet if the Cabinet does not agree with the point of view with which the Minister wants it to agree. I have a sort of feeling—I may be wrong—that the noble Lord would really be delighted to get up and say "yes "to the point of view we have all expressed about this hospital. At any rate, I am hoping that he will. If he does not feel he can do that, I think we might send a very strong deputation to the Secretary of State, and it would not be too difficult for the deputation to set out again all the very forceful arguments that have been put. I feel that the noble Lord is so good at listening to our points of view that in his heart he is longing to say "yes". But, of course, I do not know what goes on in the Cabinet. I sometimes think that on matters relating to the Health Service the Cabinet and the Ministers concerned do not know anything about the problems which hospitals like this have to face; nor do they know what a tragedy it would be if it did not stay there for very many years to come.
The point has been made that people come from all over the country to go to
1954
the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital, but as I am sure the Minister knows perfectly well, there are long waiting lists all over the country; thousands of people are on waiting lists. If they can find room in this hospital, knowing its reputation, of course they come down to it. Now and again people like myself write rather nasty articles about Departments of State. I hope the country will know exactly what points are being put forward.
My noble friend who opened the debate quite rightly made it appear that some extraordinary things go on in the Department dealing with the Health Service, and I think it would not please the Department if all the facts my noble friend gave were properly reported for the public to see. Then they may say: "Oh, my goodness, we had better get this hospital closed down, and that will be the end of it". But it will not be the end of it, because, as I said in my opening remarks, there is a feeling among the general public as a whole that the Health Service is collapsing due to shortage of money for one thing and another.
The noble Lord will be glad to hear that I am the last speaker before he gets up. I ask him to please bear in mind, much as I like and admire him and think that he is very helpful and kind, that this is an awful business. Women have a rather peculiar approach. I will do things for Ministers whom I like that I will not do for Ministers whom I do not like. But as I like the noble Lord I should love to think that he will say: "Yes, a wonderful case has been made by all the experts, and I am only too delighted to give them my pledge, on behalf of my Government, that such action will be taken". I shall now look forward to a nice, helpful reply from the noble Lord who will answer the debate.
Lord SWINFEN: My Lords, I rise on one small point. I wondered, on the question of the lifts, what the cost per bed would be for repairing the lifts and putting them back into service, so that the beds that are no longer in use could be brought back into service, in comparison with the average cost of new beds supplied to the National Health Service. I wonder whether this would not be a much cheaper method of producing additional beds, and so reducing waiting lists in other hospitals.
10.48 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I think that I should begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, for introducing this debate—if only because it gave the noble Baroness, Lady Ward, an opportunity of saying many nice words about me. I am indebted to her. I think that, by the end of my contribution, even if I cannot satisfy her noble friends that there is a strong case for the Government doing what they wish to do in this matter, I shall at least perhaps satisfy her.
I was a little upset. I took exception to something that the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, said, when he implied—in fact, he did not imply it, he said it—that he felt that there was some kind of conspiracy going on in the DHSS to find ways and means of closing the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital. What sort of people does the noble Lord think we are in the Department of Health and Social Security? What kind of integrity does he think the Ministers who are running the DHSS have if he can make a statement implying that there must be some kind of conspiracy? I take exception to that.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I—
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: No. Just a moment. I take exception to that. I want to ask the noble Lord—we are very good friends—to withdraw that implication, for it was unworthy of him.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, after what the noble Lord has said I would naturally he willing to withdraw the word "conspiracy". However, I think that there was a pattern of events, as I attempted to display to your Lordships, that showed the progressive running down of the hospital. It was a conclusion which led me, in company with my noble friends, to feel that perhaps something less than support for the whole management of the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital was being displayed by the Department.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Sandy's, for withdrawing the implication that there had been a conspiracy, so let us leave that particular matter there. The only other point that I want to make
1956
at the outset is that the noble Lord complained of the length of time which he said it has taken my Department to come to some sort of conclusion on this matter. He would have been the first to condemn the Government if they had made a very hasty decision. Is it not true to say that the length of time which my right honourable friend and his predecessor have taken to arrive at a decision—a final decision has yet to be made-is a very clear indication that a good deal of thought and a good deal of heart-searching have gone into this particular matter? As I have said, I shall come to the charge of lack of consultation-which, again, I think the noble Lord made-when I deal with the procedures which must precede any attempt at closure.
I am well aware of the widespread loyalty and affection in which the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital is held and I welcome this opportunity to set out the present position on the consideration of the hospital's future. I know that almost everybody, both inside and outside your Lordships' House, looks with sympathy at a hospital purposely conceived for the treatment of women by women. Let me assure your Lordships right at the outset that both I and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State fully accept the principle that a woman should, whenever possible, be able to consult a woman doctor. We believe that, at hospitals with women doctors, female patients who want on conscientious, religious or other serious grounds to see a woman doctor, should be allowed to do so provided this can be done without disrupting work or imposing too great a burden on the individual doctors.
In the past, the small number of female doctors has tended to restrict the availability of such a service, but I am glad to say that, since the proportion of female medical students is, as the noble Lord. Lord Hunt of Fawley said, now approaching 50 per cent., it should become increasingly possible for such requests to be met in the future. The chief characteristic of the EGA has always been that it was a hospital where medical care could be guaranteed to be given by women to women and, let us face it, my right honourable friend and his predecessor have gone to some considerable trouble to preserve that facility.

1957
I hope that your Lordships will bear with me when I say that I believe that the current position cannot be satisfactorily understood without a fairly full résumé of the background to date. I am not unmindful of the time, but this is a serious matter and, although I shall not keep your Lordships unnecessarily long, I believe that, because of the importance of the matter, I must go into it fairly fully.
At its inception in 1974, the Camden and Islington Area Health Authority inherited from the North West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board an uncertain and fairly long-standing situation regarding the future of the EGA on its Euston Road site. The EGA had long been considered expensive in terms of unit and departmental costs in relation to similar 100-bed hospitals and, in March 1975, the Area Health Authority opened formal consultations on the hospital's long-term future.
The Area Health Authority quite rightly sought the opinions of many different bodies, including the medical staff of the hospital itself, the South Camden Community Health Council, the staff associations, the unions involved, local Members of Parliament, the District Management Team and the London Borough of Camden, among many others. I have a whole list of people who were consulted, which I shall not go into because it would take me some considerable time to read.
After studying the results of this extensive consultation, the Area Health Authority informed the Department of Health and Social Security that:
"if the policy of maintaining a general hospital service in which women are treated by women is continued, the Authority—or some other Authority —should introduce into the strategic planning a requirement that a suitable unit wherein the treatment of women by women doctors can be carried out should be included in its plans for a new District General Hospital or the redevelopment of a District General Hospital".
That was the recommendation by the Area Health Authority. In February 1976, therefore, having visited the hospital, my right honourable friend the then Secretary of State for Social Services, announced her decision in the following terms:
I am aware of the line traditions of the hospital and of the loyalty it has aroused as a result of its services to women and am anxious to preserve the
1958
concept of treatment of women by women for which it stands. Unfortunately, this is a small, uneconomic building in an expensive location and the continued use of the hospital on its present site, together with its associate maternity home, would entail considerable capital expenditure, together with annual running costs of over £1 million. I have decided therefore that the best solution is to transfer the facilities provided by the hospital and the maternity home to a District General Hospital within the same Area "—
and this is the important part—
"in an identifiable form which preserves the original concept of the hospital".
That decision was endorsed by my right honourable friend in October 1976 when he said in another place:
"I am convinced that if this special service for women to be attended by doctors of their own sex is to survive, it can only be from within a District General Hospital. I am sure that it would be wrong to encourage the Health Authorities to spend our precious resources to restore and continue this small and ageing budding which can never be developed to fulfil the proper functions of a modern acute hospital".
We must face the fact, whether we like it or not, that the EGA is a small, ageing hospital in need of substantial capital investment of upwards of £500,000 and costing, as I said a moment or two ago, £I million a year to operate. All the available evidence suggests that, whatever capital monies are invested in the hospital, it would not be possible to create the conditions under which patients could be assured of the resources which modern hospitals enjoy. Doctors must know this —they must know it. Nor would it be possible to provide modern working conditions for the staff. The most that could he provided would be an upgrading of an existing fabric, possibly with the introduction of a few maternity beds and some improvement in bed accommodation, but this would generally be at the expense of reducing the total number of beds, which would lead to even higher costs per patient. Hospitals have changed today. They arc very different places from when the EGA was built. There are far better facilities and we want to provide those facilities.
As a result of these decisions, the Area Health Authority established a planning group to investigate how it could best re-locate the EGA to satisfy the conditions outlined by my right honourable friends. After receiving advice on sites from a project team fully representative of staff and management interests, the planning

1959
group recommended that the EGA facilities should be sited at the Whittington Hospital, which is in the process of being redeveloped as the District General Hospital for Islington. After further preparatory work, the Area Health Authority issued a formal consultation document in October 1977 and requested comments on its proposal to create a facility for the treatment of women by women identifiable under the name of the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson within the Whittington Hospital.
Given the co-operation and the goodwill of all the staff of the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital, those facilities can still be provided. What does that mean? It means that, in the Whittington Hospital, we can provide four wards, wards 12, 13, 14 and 15, which will provide ordinary medical facilities, surgical facilities, obstetrics and gynaecology—a total of something like 88 beds.
Lord BOWDEN: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the fact that this proposition was put to the people in the Whittington Hospital, who said that it was totally impractical? It has been rejected by everyone who has considered it and no amount of goodwill will get over the fact that it cannot be done unless capital is made available.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am saying that those facilities are available at the Whittington Hospital. The reason why they are not acceptable by the staff at the EGA is, I believe, because nothing can persuade them, however good the facilities, to leave the EGA. I think we have to face the fact that these facilities —better than those which they have at the moment—can be provided, and that, what is more, if they were willing to show some goodwill and co-operation, it would be possible to take the staff, lock, stock and barrel, to the Whittington Hospital where all the facilities that have been provided in the past at the EGA could be provided in a much more modern hospital.
Lord BOWDEN: My Lords, the Whittington will not have them there.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am not going to give way. I am not going to continue being interrupted. As the noble Baroness said, I have listened
1960
without interruption myself, although I wanted to interrupt on a number of occasions and, however unpalatable things are, I must say to certain noble Lords that I am afraid they will have to be prepared to accept what I am saying. I should like to mention at this point that the consultation procedures now followed in the National Health Service when a Health Authority proposes to close a hospital, to change its use or to re-provide its facilities elsewhere, as in the special case at present under discussion, are deliberately designed to balance two essential requirements—the need to redeploy resources with maximum speed and effectiveness and the need to undertake adequate local consultation. I hope noble Lords will agree that both sides of this equation are necessary if the National Health Service is to develop and to respond to changing needs and demands in a rational and democratic manner.
While I am talking about the whole question of consultation, those noble Lords who are interested in this will know that my right honourable friend has seen a large number of deputations consisting of quite a number of Members of Parliament. He has visited the hospital and, in addition, he has seen a number of individuals, including my noble friend Lord Bowden, on this very matter, and nobody can say that there has not been adequate and proper consultation. He has seen a very wide section of the community.
In general, responsibility for determining the pattern of change in the use and location of health facilities rests with the Area Health Authority concerned, and it is the Authority's duty to consult very widely on its proposals. This policy was very clearly adhered to in the case of the proposal to transfer the EGA to the Whittington. The groups and professional bodies who were consulted, many of whom had also been consulted on the hospital's future in 1975, included Community Health Councils, the Area Medical Advisory Committee and the Area Nursing and Midwifery Committee, local Members of Parliament, the Joint Staff Consultative Committee, Family Practitioner Committees, the London Boroughs of Camden, Islington and Haringey, and many others. In addition, both my right honourable friend and my honourable friend the Minister of State for Health

1961
have received a number of deputations and many letters from groups and individuals about the EGA's future.
I think we can say that we have a very comprehensive knowledge of what people are thinking and of what people have felt and are feeling at the present moment. I do not, therefore, believe that either the Area Health Authority or my right honourable friend can be accused of a failure to take account of the wide range of views expressed to them. I am personally aware of the individual efforts which a large number of people have made, and I congratulate one woman doctor, who had perhaps better be nameless, on her persistence in writing to a number of noble Lords, including myself.
I mentioned earlier the Area Health Authority's consultative document on the proposal to transfer the EGA facility to Whittington. Having received some 30 replies, the Authority considered them at its meeting in February. It concluded that it was in fact unable to carry out my right honourable friend's request that the EGA facility be transferred to a district general hospital in the area because of the almost universal opposition to using the Whittington Hospital and the rejection by the EGA staff of a move to the Royal Northern Hospital, the only possible alternative location in the area.
The Authority also expressed the view that the EGA was not needed to meet the Authority's service commitments. The teaching hospitals in the area are increasingly committed to providing a service for the local population and the two specialties of most concern to the EGA—gynaecology and obstetrics—have both shown a declining demand for beds in recent years. If I may further expand this point briefly, the AHA is regarded as considerably overprovided for so far as acute beds are concerned, even after its very important teaching commitments have been met. Moreover, by all accepted criteria, the area is better provided for in comparison with other parts of the country and, indeed, is far better provided for than other areas in the Region.
I have to say to your Lordships, however unpalatable it may seem, that the Government are committed to a fairer distribution of National Health Service resources not only between Regions but also within
1962
them, and the implications of that policy arc that Inner London—historically well-endowed with hospitals, with facilities and with money—must expect a lower rate of growth in the next few years. We have to see that some of the under-provided areas get a larger slice of the financial cake and better facilities than they have enjoyed for some considerable time. Hence the Area Health Authority that we are discussing is faced with the need to reduce the demands on its budget if the redevelopment of its district general hospitals is to take place.
The latter is by no means the sole reason why the AHA has concluded that it could not give high priority to financing any capital works on the EGA buildings on Euston Road. That site is heavily constricted, which means that the hospital could not in our view and in their view be economically developed there. Moreover, the AHA feels that, if upgraded, the Euston Road hospital will have too few beds to form an acceptable multi-specialty unit, and the inclusion of obstetrics would make the situation worse. The AHA takes the view that the very extensive upgrading and rebuilding which would be necessary to make the Euston Road hospital viable as a modern unit would inevitably mean a loss of ward space and a reduction in the number of beds to 80 or less.
Quite apart from the conversion costs, a hospital of this size is increasingly regarded as undesirable, since the complete range of services necessary for acute medicine cannot adequately be provided with so few beds. The ever-growing complexity of medical care and the recognition of the interdependence of the various branches of medicine in the treatment of individual patients have dictated an emerging pattern of hospital services where single-specialty hospitals or small multi-specialty ones, like the EGA, are being replaced by a district general hospital complex operating from a single building or integrated group of buildings.
It is for all these reasons—the size of the site, the need to conserve resources and the fact that the hospital is surplus to service requirements—that the AHA has decided that it cannot give priority to the refurbishing the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson on Euston Road. The Area

1963
Health Authority cannot be expected to fund out of its revenue allocation a hospital which it regards as surplus to its service requirements.
Might I say briefly that I recognise that the analysis of the running costs of the EGA has been a source of contention between the AHA and the EGA Action Committee? Both the Regional and Area Health Authorities have considered the comments made by the EGA staff, who I understand were advised by the firm of Mott, Hay and Anderson. The health authorities have expressed misgivings about the methodology adopted in the Mott, Hay and Anderson report, particularly the assumption that the present average length of stay at the Whittington would automatically apply to the EGA in-patients when they were transferred, since the case mix at the Whittington, which includes long-stay patients, is quite different from that of the EGA.
Lord BOWDEN: My Lords, would the Minister permit me to submit to him privately afterwards the statistical survey on which that was based?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, also the assumption that the addition of a comparatively small number of beds will add pro rata to all the costs of the Whittington. However, may I therefore repeat my right honourable friend's assurance that he intends to satisfy himself that this question has been satisfactorily dealt with before he approves any proposals by the health authorities?
The Area Health Authority's report was then referred to the North-East Thames Regional Health Authority and, in anticipation of that Authority referring the matter to him for final decision, my right honourable friend visited the EGA in February to see for himself the physical condition of the buildings and to meet the staff and patients and hear their views at first hand. I understand that he found his visit both helpful and informative. I think that this illustrates the determination of my right honourable friend to ensure that the final decision is taken in full knowledge of the relevant information, and having heard the views of those most concerned about the EGA's future.
At this stage I want to try to answer some of the points that have been raised.
1964
Various noble Lords referred to selling the hospital. and the value of the site. So far as I understand the situation, this does not come into the matter. My understanding is that when the National Health Service has no further use for a building, it must offer that building to another Government Department. If no other Government Department requires it. I believe that the next stage is that the building has to be offered to a local authority. It may be that this site would be taken up by a local authority, perhaps for housing purposes; I do not know. I am saying that we just cannot sell it. So there is no thought in our minds that here is a very valuable site from which we can make an enormous sum of money.
The noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, referred to patients coming to the hospital from all over England, and my noble friend Lord Brockway gave a figure of 70 per cent. in this regard. It is nothing of the sort. The hospital does not fulfil a national role. Thirty-four per cent. of the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital patients come from outside the North-East Thames Regional Health Authority in which the hospital is situated. All the rest, with the exception of 2 per cent., come from the four Thames regions. So about 98 per cent. of the patients who use the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital come from the various Regional Health Authorities in London and the Home Counties. Only 2 per cent. come from outside that area. So we ought not to say that this is a national hospital in the sense that 70 per cent. of the patients come from all over England; this just is not so.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Fawley, asked me whether a survey had been carried out to determine nationally whether women would prefer to be treated in an EGA-type facility. So far as I know, no national survey has been carried out along those lines.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ward of North Tyneside, raised the question of endowments. Under the 1946 National Health Service Act any trust funds endowed to a particular hospital were made the responsibility of the appropriate management body for that hospital, with an obligation that the money should be used so far as possible to secure the

1965
objects of the endowment. The National Health Service did not take this money: it remained with the hospitals—
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to intervene, I should like to point out that the National Health Service closed down the hospital to which I referred, and so the money could not be used. I can assure the noble Lord that I have had quite a row about this. I asked whether the National Health Service had taken the money, and it certainly had. We have a very good Area Health Authority up there, and I am on very good terms with it. The Authority would not tell me things that were not correct. The money could not be used. It was not given to build the swimming pool, I can assure your Lordships. It was taken away.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, it is quite clearly set down in the Act that if a situation like that arises—
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: Perhaps sometimes you do not keep the law.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: We will not go into that. All monies that are left over in the event of a hospital closing must be used for purpo:;es similar to those laid down in the charity. and I can only say that to the best of my knowledge and belief this is so, because the conditions laid down in the charity are controlled by the Charity Commissioners, whose responsibility it is to see that monies are used for the kind of thing envisaged in the charity.
My Lords, I must stop now, but the Area Health Authority's report was considered by the North-East Thames Regional Health Authority at its meeting on Monday of this week, the 24th April. I understand that the Authority decided, in view of the unsuccessful efforts to provide alternative accommodation for the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital in a district general hospital, to recommend to my right honourable friend that the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital on Euston Road be closed. The Regional Health Authority has now submitted its conclusions to my right honourable friend, and I know that he is going to give this
1966
matter urgent consideration. It is his intention to announce his decision as soon as possible in order to end the prolonged uncertainty over the future of the hospital. He knows that this debate is taking place here tonight, and I know that he will want to take full account of the points which have been made in today's debate in reaching a final decision. But I can assure your Lordships that a decision will be made before very much longer.

  HOME CIVIL SERVICE: DEPARTMENTAL LETTER
  HOME CIVIL SERVICE: DEPARTMENTAL LETTER
  MENTALLY HANDICAPPED CHILDREN: FUTURE CARE
  MENTALLY HANDICAPPED CHILDREN: FUTURE CARE