I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I have it in Command from the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Bill, has consented to place Her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

The Bill now before the House provides for the independence of the Kingdom of Swaziland within the Commonwealth. The Independence Constitution itself will be provided for separately by Order in Council. The moving of the Bill represents a further milestone in the progress Britain has made in bringing dependent territories to full independence.

Apart from the special case of Rhodesia, where Britain never enjoyed, on the ground, the power to provide peaceful constitutional progress, with the passing of this Bill every country in Africa for whom Britain has had responsibility will have been brought to independence.

There is another feature of the Bill which I believe is unique. The entire period of the British responsibility for Swaziland from the time we undertook it at the beginning of this century to the time that we handed over on 6th September is encompassed in the life of the present king of the Protected State of Swaziland—King Sobhuza II, whom I had the pleasure of meeting there in 1964.

It was in 1903 that the rights of the then South Africa Republic passed to Britain, and provision was made by the Swaziland Order in Council of 1903 for the administration of Swaziland by Her Majesty's Government. King Sobhuza II was only a child then, and his grandmother, Labotsibeni, was Chief Regent until he was installed as Ngwenyama, or Paramount Chief of the Swazi, in 1921. As Paramount Chief, he was responsible for advising the Resident Commissioner on matters affecting Swazi nationals and in this, by tradition, he acted in concert with the Swazi National Council.

By 1960, he and the Council had reached the view that representatives of Swazi and European interests should meet together in a legislative council. A similar view had been reached by the European Advisory Council, which advised the Resident Commissioner on matters directly affecting the interests of European residents. This marked the beginning of the constitutional progress to independence for which the present Bill provides.

This is an occasion on which it will probably be proper to recall briefly the stages by which, in the space of less than eight years, it has been possible to plan and fulfil progress from Government by proclamation, provided for in the 1903 Order, to full independence. The first stage, from the recognition of the need for the establishment of a legislature to the establishment of a constitution, took three years of deliberation, consultation and discussion. Even then the first Constitution of Swaziland was not entirely the product of agreement, and the final decision on what form the constitution should take, especially as regards the powers and composition of the Legislative Council, had to be made by the Secretary of State for the Colonies of the day on his own responsibility.

In the circumstances, it is not a matter for surprise that at the first meeting of the newly-constituted Legislative Council thoughts turned immediately to a review of the Constitution. Within a year a further Constitutional Committee was appointed. It was composed of 12 unofficial members chosen from the membership of the Legislative Council and two officials, under the chairmanship of Her Majesty's Commissioner.

Its task was to review the Constitution and make recommendations for the new one. It published its report in 1966. In the course of its deliberations, the Constitutional Committee was informed of certain decisions about the constitutional future of Swaziland which Her Majesty's Government had taken in the light of the views expressed in Swaziland. They had decided that Swaziland should be granted internal self-government in 1966, and that they were ready to enter an agreement with the Paramount Chief under which Swaziland would become a Protected State and the Ngwenyama would be recognised as King. They decided that they wished independence, always the final goal, to be achieved by Swaziland not later than the end of 1969.

In these circumstances, the Committee knew that it was virtually planning a constitution for independence. Its recommendations, which were unanimous except for two minority reservations, were endorsed unanimously by the Legislative Council. Except on one question, who should have control of the mineral rights held by the Ngwenyama in trust for the Swaziland nation, its recommendations with this unanimous endorsement formed the basis of the present Constitution, which will provide the basis for the independence constitution.

There is, in present circumstances, provision for all the institutions necessary for the functioning of a parliamentary democracy for internal government. Almost all that is needed to fit the constitution for full independence is the transfer of the responsibilities and powers of Her Majesty's Commissioner to the Government of Swaziland. At the General Election held in April, 1967, all 24 elective seats for the House of Assembly were won by the Mbokodvo, a nationalist movement, which polled 80 per cent. of the votes in an 80 per cent. poll. The opposition party, with 20 per cent. of the popular vote, gained no seats.

The request for independence on 6th September, 1968, was made by the Government of Swaziland following the unanimous approval of resolutions in the House of Assembly and the Senate. The same resolution requested Her Majesty's Government to seek, at the appropriate time, the support of other member Governments of the Commonwealth for Swaziland's desire to become a member of the Commonwealth. Before the close of the representative Conference which I convened in London last February to settle the lines of the Independence Constitution, I was happy to be able to inform the delegation from Swaziland that the Commonwealth Secretary-General had confirmed that all members of the Commonwealth had agreed that Swaziland should become a member on attaining independence.

The Swaziland Independence Conference, the Report of which has been published as Cmnd. 3658, took as the basis for its consideration of the independence constitution the proposals of the Government of Swaziland which they had published in a White Paper, and invited comment from the public through announcements in the local Press. Subsequently, they submitted them to debate in both the House of Assembly and the Senate. Both adopted the proposals, subject to two amendments, by unanimous votes. The conference approved the proposals, so amended, subject to certain modifications set out in the Report of the Conference.

I mention all this to emphasise the degree of consultation which there has been and the unanimous backing which has taken place from the Swaziland Parliament. The Ngwane National Liberatory Congress, the main opposition party, had no representative at the conference because no member had a seat in Parliament and, as is normal on such occasions, the delegation which I had invited from Swaziland had to be drawn, apart from official advisers, entirely from among the elected members of the Swaziland Parliament.

The National Liberatory Congress offered no comments on the Swaziland Government's White Paper when it was published, but the conference had before it representations made earlier by this party and by the Swaziland United Front, both of which had criticised the existing electoral law. I recognise that these criticisms are strongly held of the electoral law, but I remind the House that it is not entrenched in the Constitution, but is a law which can be changed at any time that the Parliament wishes by a simple majority of that Parliament, which, I remind hon. Members, was elected on an 80 per cent. vote of an 80 per cent. poll.

In the circumstances in which the conference has approved the constitutional proposals, there will be no necessity for fresh elections before independence. The Prime Minister of the Protected State of Swaziland will be the first Prime Minister of independent Swaziland. It was for me a great pleasure to meet the Prime Minister, Prince Makhosini, again when he led his delegation to the independence conference. The whole House will agree, I think, that his wide and firm command of the issues at stake greatly impressed all those who have followed the affairs of Swaziland and I am sure that they augur well for the serious conduct of Swaziland's affairs in the days ahead.

Although the conference reached agreement with singularly little difficulty on the constitutional questions and the arrangements connected with the attainment of independence, a difference of view emerged when the Swaziland delegation sought to reopen certain questions relating to the alienation of land in Swaziland and decisions taken in this regard during the earlier period when Britain was responsible for the administration of Swaziland. An account of the views of both sides and the failure to reconcile them is included in the Report of the conference. I think that it is a pity that it was not possible to reach agreement on this matter. The suggestions which Her Majesty's Government then made, although they did not then commend themselves to the Swaziland delegation, could still, I believe, contribute to a solution.

Swaziland goes to independence endowed with good natural resources to support a growing and diversified economy. These resources include a varied mineral wealth, large areas of fertile soil and, not least, a population which has shown itself both talented and adaptable. With these natural resources and substantial investments by Government and by external sources of capital, extensive economic growth has already taken place and will, I believe, continue in the years ahead. Asbestos has been produced in the North-West since before the war but in recent years the coal mine at Mpaka was reopened in 1964 and the iron ore mine at Ngwenya was opened in 1964 and is to supply 12 million tons of high grade ore to Japan over 10 years.

The greatest potential for general economic development, however, still lies with agriculture. The greater part of the population are engaged in agriculture Provision has been made for agricultural credit by the establishment of the Swaziland Credit and Savings Bank, and the expansion of settlement schemes for Swazi farmers is planned. A number of large irrigation projects are in operation, and this type of agriculture is expected to increase in economic importance. Sugar is the principal irrigation crop and Swaziland benefits under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement.

One cannot think of the economic development of Swaziland without considering the Commonwealth Development Corporation. With a total investment of over £20 million, ranging from man-made forests stretching over hundreds of thousands of acres to irrigated sugar vultivation where Swazi farmers can find themselves a new way of life, the C.D.C. plays a vital role. I saw some of this in a brief visit to Swaziland last year and was particularly impressed by what it was doing not merely in large scale farming, which one expects the Corporation to do well, but in giving the necessary help and know-how to the small Swazi farmer to help him to establish himself. I wish to pay tribute to the C.D.C. for what it has done.

Despite that account of the economic foundations of Swaziland, on which I believe vigorous development can be built, the Swaziland budget is in deficit and there is also need for substantial contributions to the development programme. Following discussions in London earlier this year, the amount which it is proposed to make available to Swaziland in the current financial year has been settled at £1,925,000 for the recurrent budget as budgetary aid and £694,000 for capital grants and loans. This is the position for the current financial year up to April of next year.

Britain has, as yet, undertaken no commitment to continue ordinary budgetary aid or development aid beyond 31st March, 1969, but it is recognised that, because Swaziland lacks the skills and capital to develop her potential fully, she must, for some time to come, continue to look outside for assistance. A new three-year development plan to cover the period 1969–72 is now in preparation and it has been agreed that negotiations on post-independence aid should be held in London later this year. With the natural resources with which Swaziland is blessed and the determination of the Government to exploit them, as well as the assistance for which Swaziland can look to the developed countries, the prospects of a steady economic development seem good.

Hon. Members will agree and will wish to acknowledge today, I think, that the fact that Swaziland has reached this position is due in no small measure to the contributions of all those who have left their homes in this country and elsewhere to serve the people of Swaziland. Many of them will, I know, be welcome, and willing, to serve on, for their services are still required. For others, like Her Majesty's Commissioner, Sir Francis Loyd, there will be no further rôle in the government of the country after independence. To all of those who have served, I should like to express the gratitude of both sides of the House on their devoted work, and to those who will serve in the future I offer our good wishes.

Let me briefly run over the Clauses of the Bill. They are in what must be a fairly similar form to those hon. Members who have taken part in many debates on independence Bills in recent years. Clause 1 provides for the termination of Her Majesty's jurisdiction in Swaziland. Clause 2 generally continues the law applying to Swaziland as if its status had not changed but modifies certain United Kingdom enactments in consequence of Swaziland becoming an independent member of the Commonwealth.

Clauses 3 and 4 are concerned with citizenship. The effect of Clause 3 will be that citizens of Swaziland will cease to have a status of British-protected persons and, with the exception provided for in Clause 4, a person will cease to be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies if he is a citizen of Swaziland at independence. Clause 4 provides for the retention of citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies by persons with close connections with the United Kingdom and its remaining dependencies.

Clause 5 deals with the disposal of appeals from the Swaziland Court of Appeal pending before the Privy Council at independence. After independence, there will be no further right of appeal to the Privy Council. Clauses 6 and 7 contain supplemental and interpretative provisions and Clause 8 contains the Short Title.

I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in conveying our very warm good wishes and congratulations to King Sobhuza, the Prime Minister, Government and people of Swaziland as their country goes forward to independence. This they eagerly expect to achieve on 6th September this year, when Swaziland will become a full and equal member of the Commonwealth and will take her place as an independent nation in the international community.

A new chapter will open in the relations between our two countries, but Swaziland can be confident of our continuing good will in Britain and our continuing concern for her welfare. Independence certainly does not mark the end of our long friendship. Rather, it marks the establishment of that friendship on a new and sounder basis of equality, the achievement of which gives us just as much cause for rejoicing as it gives the people of Swaziland.

I commend the Bill to the House.

I rise to welcome the Bill on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I welcome it, too, in a personal capacity. I have very happy memories of a visit which I paid to Swaziland, as an Undersecretary, in 1961, when I had the privilege of meeting the head of the Swazi nation, King Sobhuza who, I know the right hon. Gentleman will agree, is one of the most remarkable leaders in Africa. He is a great traditionalist, but he is also one of the most shrewd and far-sighted Africans I have met. I was enormously impressed by the charm of the Swazis and the considerable potential of their country.

I welcome the Bill in another sense. Swaziland is the last of the three British-protected States in Southern Africa to achieve independence and, now that Botswana and Lesotho have become independent, it would be wholly wrong if Swaziland were to lag behind.

Independence is the fulfilment of a long period of trust and co-operation between the British and the Swazis which started about a century and a quarter ago when the then Paramount Chief, threatened by his traditional enemies, the Zulus, voluntarily asked for the protection of the British Crown. I have little doubt that the Swazis will use their independence wisely. It is true that theirs is a conservative society, that the authority of the elders is considerable, and that radical movements of a pattern seen elsewhere in Africa have had no great success in winning the popular vote in free elections.

Those who won the election held in June, 1964, won over 84 per cent. of the total votes cast and, in the second election held in April last year, nearly 80 per cent. of the votes cast. With votes of that size, it is clear that the governing party represents the authentic voice of the Swazi nation.

Independence was an issue in the second election. The constitutional committee set up after the 1964 election recommended that Swaziland should receive internal self-government and that the Ngwenyama should be recognised as King. Her Majesty's Government then made it clear that they wished Swaziland to become independent by not later than the end of 1969. These proposals were endorsed by the Legislative Council in February, 1966. A second election followed in April, 1967, and in February, 1968, an independence conference held in London considered proposals for a constitution produced by the Swaziland Government themselves. We can, therefore, say that the movement towards independence has proceeded smoothly, peacefully, and in a way highly creditable to the British and Swaziland Governments. It is right then that we should accede to the wishes of the Swazis and formally grant them their sovereignty and independence.

From my knowledge and experience of Africa, I believe that Swaziland can go into independence with greater confidence than many other former Colonial Territories. She has no racial problems. I was greatly struck by the good relations, based on mutual respect, between the Swazis and the Europeans, of whom there are about 8,000 living and working in the Territory. The vast majority of the people belong to a single tribe, and it has long been a blessing that the authority of the traditional ruler extends over the whole territory and not just over part of it, as has been the case almost everywhere else, with fragmented Bantu societies living in territories where boundaries had been arbitrarily determined by alien powers.

Moreover, as the Secretary of State reminded us, Swaziland is rich in natural resources. It has asbestos and high-grade iron ore in quantity. It has a good soil and abundant water. It enjoys a delightful climate. It produces timber, sugar, citrus, cotton and tobacco. It is potentially a very rich country, indeed. For those reasons alone the future should be bright.

There is, however, as the Secretary of State pointed out, a gap between what will be realised one day and what exists now. In the last five years British bilateral economic aid, if one excludes the very profitable C.D.C. investment, has totalled over £11 million, and we have been giving grants in aid of well over £1 million a year, and development aid for communications, education, health, electricity, water supply and agriculture has totalled well over £1½ million a year.

We understand from what the right hon. Gentleman told the House that budgetary aid for an independent Swaziland has been agreed. Of course, the whole object of independence is to give a people the opportunity to master their own environment and to solve their own problems—with as much help, of course, as they can get from their friends, and so to move towards economic, as well as political, independence. My first question, therefore, to the Under-Secretary of State, who will wind up the debate, is, "Has a date been fixed by which time it is expected that Swaziland will be able to dispense with budgetary aid altogether?" The House is entitled to an answer to that question. It is all the more important a question since it would be idle to pretend that Swaziland is not heavily dependent upon its powerful neighbour, the Republic of South Africa. It has no seaboard of its own and, bearing in mind the climate of African opinion north of the Zambesi, the situation of the new State, wedged, as it is, between the Republic on the one side and Mozambique on the other, will test the quality of Swazi statesmanship to the full.

Yet I am optimistic on that score. There is no reason to think that the wise and cautious Swazis will not be able to resolve any of the difficulties which lie ahead. It is indeed our hope that they will be able to overcome these difficulties which have assailed so many other African States. I am delighted to learn that they have applied for full Commonwealth membership.

In general, the Bill follows the traditional pattern of independence Measures, which means that the agreed independence Constitution will be embodied in an Order in Council and will not be debated in the House. We can only judge for ourselves what form that Constitution will take by studying the Report of the Constitutional Conference which was held last February. I ask the Minister to confirm that the Constitution will not depart in any way from the guide lines laid down in that Report.

I am bound to ask for this confirmation because in our view the Report lacks the usual clarity which we expect from such documents. Instead of setting out clearly what the Constitution will contain, we have in Annex B the proposals of the Swaziland Government, but we must then read those proposals against the modifications set out in paragraphs 2 to 27 of the Report. This is untidy, unsatisfactory and not good enough for busy legislators who must decide on such a matter of great importance. I hope that this will not be repeated.

It would have been better if Annex B had contained the essential elements of the Constitution which had been agreed by both sides. I hope, therefore, that in future such matters will be presented in a clearer form. This is important because the situation is complicated somewhat by a point which the Commonwealth Secretary admitted; namely, that the Opposition in Swaziland was not represented at the Constitutional Conference. I make no complaint about that, except to say that we are a Parliament ourselves and are handing over independence to a country with a Parliamentary form of Government. It is important, therefore, that we should be meticulous about these matters.

The Government have given way to Swazi representations both in the matter of constitutional representation and the question of mineral rights. Since the Swazi governing party received nearly 80 per cent. of the votes in the last election, I do not doubt that the Government were right to have given way. But precisely because of this, the Report should have set out what was agreed in the clearest possible terms.

The position in regard to the ownership and control of land—my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), who has intimate and direct knowledge of this matter— will speak on this subject when he winds up the debate—is by no means clear. The Report explains the dispute between the British and Swaziland Governments as to whether the ownership and control of land should be vested solely in the Ngwenyama in accordance with Swazi law and custom or in a democratically elected control government, but it does not say what decision will be arrived at. This matter is of fundamental importance to the future of the territory. What will be the final decision? Will it be covered in the Constitution or will it be left open for an independent Swaziland to resolve for itself? We are entitled to know what is intended.

Now I turn to the question of naturalisation and citizenship. Clause 3(2) says:

"… any person who immediately before the appointed day is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies shall on that day cease to be such a citizen if on that day he is a citizen of Swaziland."

This follows the common form in Bills of this kind, but in the absence of a citizenship law—such a law has not yet been promulgated—we cannot know who is to become a citizen of Swaziland. How can Parliament approve the Bill if we lack this information?

I am making this protest on a point of principle. We had exactly the same difficulty over the Mauritius Independence Bill. That Measure had completed all its stages through the House with all our queries on the subject of nationality remaining unanswered. We pressed for information but we did not get it, even by the time the Bill reached another place, and we had to take on trust the Government's assurances that all would be well on the appointed day. This was not satisfactory or Parliamentary and it carried great risks. I serve notice that we will not be so tolerant in future.

An independence Statute is, after all, a Measure of great importance. This is why I object to the way in which the Government have tacked on the Swaziland Independence Bill after other Measures to be discussed "if time permits". This is a Bill of very great importance to the people of Swaziland who, as a result of it, will become equal partners with all other Commonwealth nations in this great worldwide association of free and independent States. It is also important to us, who must be convinced that we are giving up our trusteeship in a responsible way.

I press the Minister to deal with this matter in categorical terms before the Bill passes from us. If he does not, it is possible that many persons living in Swaziland will retain their citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies in circumstances which may later cause considerable complications.

It is not clear from Clause 5 exactly whether appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council are to be continued, although we were told this morning that they will not. No explanation has been given for this decision and, in view of the importance of this step, we are entitleld to know why, in this case, it has been decided that the normal practice of appeals to the Privy Council will not be continued after independence.

Despite the criticisms I have voiced, I would like once again to make it plain that my hon. Friends and I warmly welcome the Bill. For both the Swazis and ourselves the advent of independence marks the end of a special relationship which has lasted for a very long time. On the whole, it has been a happy and honourable relationship, based on a genuine liking and mutual respect. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we must not imagine that independence is the end of the story. Rather, it is the beginning of a new chapter. If, as the Swazis desire, Swaziland becomes a full Member of the Commonwealth, the obligation to help one another will remain. That is, after all, the essence of the Commonwealth relationship.

All that now remains to be said is that we wish every success to a Sovereign independent Swaziland in the tasks of developing its undoubted economic potential, in avoiding the political disruption which has unhappily assailed so many other new States and in building a worthwhile society for all its people. If we have judged the signs correctly, Swaziland will succeed.

Hon. Members and the people of Swaziland will appreciate the Secretary of State having come to the House personally to send the Bill on its way at a time when he is facing particularly heavy burdens in critical situations in many parts of the world.

As one who knows Swaziland well, hon. Members might care to know, as I bid the country good will on this occasion, how my knowledge of Swaziland arises. In 1948 some friends and myself bought a farm in the Big Bend area of the Great Usutu River in Swaziland. After many vicissitudes, this area has developed into the pioneer sugar-growing and production region of Swaziland and is today responsible for the production and export of half of Swaziland's sugar. As I gaze over this area of Swaziland, I recall that 20 years ago not one person lived in the area of the Big Bend of the Great Usutu River. Now, 10,000 people live there, dependent on the production of the sugar industry. For many years I have visited Swaziland at least twice a year. I had the honour to be received in audience by the Ngwenyama on many occasions. I know well Prince Makhosini, the Prime Minister, and many of the Swazi leaders.

I agree with the Secretary of State and with my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) in believing that we can look forward to the prosperity, progress and stability of Swaziland under independent conditions with a great deal more confidence than we could in the case of some other countries in Africa. I believe this to be so mainly for two reasons. First, Swaziland is a small country, but a remarkable one. Is it not remarkable that such a tiny country, by African standards, should have a king who Mr. Harold Macmillan, as Prime Minister, designated as one of the great African leaders of this century? While the Ngwenyama may be said to be the fine flower of the national temperament, he presides over a people with a strong and mature national character. There is a basic loyalty and cohesion about the Swazi nation which is admirable and which reminds me of what, in our better moments, we feel we have here. These Swazi leaders are men of high calibre, and I agree very much with what has been said about the wisdom and vision of Prince Makhosini, the Prime Minister.

As has been pointed out, the country has the great advantage that the Swazi leaders lead a united and conservative people—conservative, of course, in the sense that Walter Bagehot used the word. They have no racial or tribal dissensions, and their traditional political system has evolved and has never been threatened by any violent breaks as is the case with very many other African countries.

Secondly, Swaziland has valuable natural resources. I agree with the Secretary of State that on the occasion of the Second Reading of the Bill it is only fair and right that tribute should be paid to the Commonwealth Development Corporation for its great work in the country. The C.D.C. is now producing 62 per cent. of Swaziland's exports and affording a livelihood to 10 per cent. of the population. As the Secretary of State has mentioned, this derives from a variety of enterprises but, in particular, one must give praise to the courage which the C.D.C. showed some years ago when it brought this canal over 40 miles long from the Komati River and began the great irrigated production of sugar in the north of Swaziland, as well as that of citrus and other crops very successfully. It is in connection with this scheme that we have the irrigation farms where 120 Swazis are themselves being taught as irrigation farmers.

I should also mention that the C.D.C. made a loan of £100,000 to private enterprise development in the south of Swaziland which was crucial in enabling the area on the great Usutu River also to have a canal and develop as a big irrigated farming area. It is now working in co-operation with Courtaulds in (he exploitation of the great pine forests, producing sulphide pulp for the international market—pine forests, which are themselves largely due to the initiative which Lord Howick took as High Com- missioner in Swaziland many years ago. It must be very satisfying to him to be able to help on another large stage these tremendous forests, which everyone who has visited Swaziland believes to be one of the most impressive features of the country.

The C.D.C. has done great work in Swaziland, which I hope it will continue, but I want to bring out one other point. The investment by the C.D.C. in Swaziland is the largest investment that the Corporation has in any country. In other words, with a wide-ranging international choice and responsibilities, it has chosen to put such a heavy investment into one of the smallest countries in Africa. I believe that this is a vote of confidence in Swaziland on both the economic and the political side.

As the Secretary of State said, Swaziland is the last territory in Africa for which Great Britain maintains responsibility, apart from the very special case of Rhodesia. This is the last of, as it were, the orthodox independence Bills which we shall have for the continent of Africa. I note that it is just 8 years and 7 months since a British Prime Minister visited Swaziland, and it was after that trip that Mr. Macmillan made his famous South African speech when, after an extended tour of the continent, he said:

"The most striking of all the impressions I have formed since I left London a month ago is the strength of African national consciousness. In different places it may take different forms, but it is happening everywhere. The wind of change is blowing through the continent."

I do not suppose that any of those who listened to Mr. Macmillan's words or any of those who were sitting in the House of Commons at the time realised that we would be handing over our responsibilities in the African continent so quickly.

The result of our rapid withdrawal has, let me admit it, been a severe psychological blow to those of us who believed that Britain's physical presence in the continent was necessary to the maintenance of peace and order and progress. If we had stayed, I have no doubt that British blood would have been shed in many parts of the continent, and the drain on our material resources would have been heavier than it has been over the last few years. On the short-term balance, then, it is possible to argue that this country has probably not lost from the withdrawal from Africa which, in a sense, will be final and complete this morning.

It is more doubtful whether a similar happy balance can be struck in the continent of Africa itself. It is ironic that Mr. Macmillan seems to have reached his decision to withdraw so swiftly from Africa while staying in Nigeria, which today stands on the edge of a major human catastrophe.

Order. This is too wide for a debate on Second Reading of this Bill.

I fully appreciate that Mr. Speaker. I thought that in looking at the independence of Swaziland, which completes the process of withdrawal from the Government of Africa, I might make some remarks on what has happened in those other parts of Africa, but, as you say, this is a narrow debate.

I shall not seek to look in any detail at what is happening in other parts of Africa, although I think that one must acknowledge that only too many territories at this moment stand on the edge of severe tribal conflict and some degree of administrative collapse. It is possible that many Africans will themselves think in years ahead that our withdrawal from the continent has been too rapid.

As for Swaziland itself, it is perhaps inevitable that the question of the success of independence will rest on its relations with South Africa. The other protectorates which have achieved independence, I note, have been able to secure for themselves a reasonably satisfactory relationship with their large and powerful neighbour. I hope that Swaziland will also be able to reach a state of relationship with South Africa which will be of mutual benefit to both countries. I must admit that this is a matter of conjecture for the future.

What cannot be a matter of conjecture is the contribution which has been made to the strength of Swaziland by the British overseas civil servants who have served there. I was glad that the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Brain) paid tribute to them. This Bill also marks the end in a sense of the British Colonial Service in Africa as a whole. Even if it is out of order for us to pay tribute to Mr. Alec Rose this morning, it surely cannot be out of order to pay tribute to those civil servants from this country who have made such a vast contribution to Swaziland and other territories which we once controlled.

It was that great African leader the Sardauna of Sokoto who said that in all ex-British territories in Africa a vast debt was owed to the wisdom, vision and devotion of British colonial servants. The Sardauna of Sokoto is dead, but the generous tribute which he paid to the British Colonial Service was certainly well deserved and we should remember it today. It is right as we pass this final independence Bill that we should pay our tribute to him.

All the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who have spoken on this Bill has emphasised that it is important not only because it brings independence to the Swazi nation but because this is the last British dependency on the continent of Africa. I wish to add a personal note. I believe the Bill is also important because the history of this constitution demonstrates the strength of traditional leadership in Africa. It could have formed a bridge between the old authoritarian tribal system and modern democracy. The strength of this bridge has been underestimated over the years by British Governments, which may be the cause of some of the troubles in independent States in Africa today. I think I have my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) with me in that thought.

We on this side of the House are very pleased that the Secretary of State came to the House himself to introduce the Bill. That shows the tribute which all, on both sides of the House, should pay to the Swazi nation and to its leader, the Ngwenyama Sobhuza the Second, to whom everyone who has spoken in this debate has paid tribute. I remind the House that King Sobhuza succeeded as a minor in 1921. Except for the Emperor of Ethiopia, he is the monarch who has been longer on a throne than any other crowned head in the world. I also remind the House that the first action taken by King Sobhuza when he succeeded was to introduce a European elected advisory council to advise him on the desires of the Europeans in his country.

The second act he took in 1921 was to petition the British Government against the Partition Proclamation of 1907, which attempted to deal with the confusion caused by King Mbanzeni granting concessions to European farmers between 1878 and 1890. Both those acts have considerable significance in the debate we are having this afternoon. I would pay personal tribute to King Sobhuza for his wisdom, single-minded-ness and devotion to his people. All three characteristics will be borne out by today's debate.

I follow most hon. Members who have spoken, and certainly my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham, in paying tribute to the British civil servants. As this is the last British dependency in Africa, we are justified in paying tribute and expressing our gratitude to those men who have given their working lives to Africa. In this connection I mention Sir Frank Lloyd, the Queen's Commissioner in Swaziland, the last of a long line of Governors, Lieutenant Governors or Resident Commissioners in Africa and a man whose devotion to the Swazi nation is recognised by all, black and white, in that country. I have found Sir Frank, who served both in Kenya and Swaziland, to be a man who never believed in weakness or appeasment. He has proved a very wise counsellor and friend of those Africans whom he had the privilege of serving.

In these days when the trend seems to be to denigrate our Commonwealth and Empire, it may be appropriate for me to quote the words of an American historian, Henry J. Taylor:

"Considering its scope, the British Commonwealth of Nations is the most remarkable political achievement in history. It has overcome more tyranny, supplied more safety, removed more fear, taught more justice, and given more freedom to more people than any other institution on earth."

For that we have to a large extent to thank those hundreds of thousands of civil servants who have served the British Commonwealth and Empire throughout the world.

I turn now to the Constitution itself. I want to follow the example of the Secretary of State and go back a few years, because I think that the parts of this Constitution which are still in dispute are rooted in history. Therefore, I want to develop for a few moments how these historical disagreements occurred. I need not go back very far, to remind the House that the first political party in Swaziland—Dr. Zwana's Swazi Progressive Party—was formed only eight years ago, in 1960. In that year, the King proposed a Federal Legislature under which the Europeans would elect representatives and the Swazis would choose their representatives by the traditional methods.

A Constitutional Commission was set up to consider these proposals. The House will recall that in 1962 the Report of this Constitutional Commission supported the King's views, which were opposed by the political parties. The Constitutional Commission's Report was however rejected by the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), on the advice of the then Resident Commissioner.

In the following year, a Constitutional Conference was called in London. It failed to agree. The then Secretary of State published his own Constitution in Cmnd. 2052, which I suggest, and suggested at the time, was biased in favour of the political parties. Whether this is right or not, it was rejected by the King, who then submitted a petition to this House, which I have in my hand. The basic grounds of the objection to the proposed Constitution were the system of election, the position of the King, and regulations conferring land and mineral rights. I submit that these three all have relevance in this debate as we are considering the final Constitution of Swaziland.

This petition was rejected by the Government. King Sobhuza then had to decide what to do, whether to boycott the Constitution or to fight it. He decided to fight. In 1963 he formed the Imbokodro Party, which won a 99·5 per cent. victory in the referendum, 122,000 out of 125,000 adult Swazis voting for and 154 against, 1,400 Europeans voting for and only 8 against. The British Government did not recognise this Referendum and tried to pour ridicule on it. In this context researchers into this question in the future may gain a certain amount of amusement from Questions tabled by myself at the time and answered by my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) from his seat in the Colonial Office.

However, the Government of the day brought the Constitution into effect by Order in Council in January, 1964. In the succeeding general elections, as we have been told today, the Imbokodro Party won all the seats, with 85 per cent. of the votes, which I think is clear proof, if proof were needed, of the desire of the Swazi nation to remain united under their King.

In 1964 the Government of the day recognised the inevitable and set up a Constitutional Review Commission. This Commission reported in 1966. The Report was endorsed by the Legislative Assembly. At that time the Swaziland Democratic Party joined the Government. A Constitutional Conference discussed internal self-government, and the results were published in Cmnd. 3119, though there was still disagreement over mineral rights and land.

The following year—1967—in another general election, the Imbokodvo Party won 80 per cent. of the votes and Prince Makhosini Dlamini, to whom I would also like to pay a personal tribute, became the Prime Minister—a man of mature judgment and great moderation.

Finally, we have the basic document which we are considering today, the Independence Conference Report, Cmnd. 3568. In this we find that the Government have conceded some of the Swazi's objections which have been running through the short historical survey which I felt it my duty to give to the House. They have conceded the three member constituency. They have conceded a solution, or a compromise solution, over mineral rights. However, as paragraph 27 shows quite clearly, no agreement was reached over land.

I want now to deal briefly with the land question and the financial question which is tied up very much to it. The land question dates, as I have already explained, from the 1880s. The Swazis still maintain that the alienation by the British after 1903, when they took over the administration of Swaziland, of cer- tain land in that territory was not justified. They maintain, first, that it was in breach of treaty; secondly, that the grant of freehold titles of two-thirds of Swazi land to those who were then enjoying a leasehold title with terminable dates was contrary to the traditional system; thirdly, that the sale of Crown land was a breach of the undertaking given by previous British Governments.

This is a complicated question, and I shall not waste the time of the House by trying to argue it or trying to judge it one way or the other. I must, however, emphasise, and draw to the attention of the House, the importance of the suggestion contained in paragraph 27 of the Independence Conference Report that this last remaining dispute could be solved in the context of British financial assistance to a development plan of Swaziland after independence.

Therefore, the land question has become linked with financial talks. My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine), who opened the debate from this side of the House, said that the position is unclear and that land is a fundamental issue in Swaziland. I suggest that, unless this matter is settled before independence, it could prejudice the very excellent race relations which exist in Swaziland and endanger European land tenure. I therefore think that it is a matter of considerable importance.

I turn, finally, to financial aid. I echo the tribute paid by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd) and others to the C.D.C. I also pay my right hon. Friend a tribute to all that he and many other Englishmen have done for the development of Swaziland. I think that the record of C.D.C. and of private enterprise in Swaziland is second to none.

As to Government aid, in February, 1966, I tabled a Question on the aid given to Swaziland between 1963 and 1966. During that period, budgetary aid rose from £855,000 to approximately £1½ million. Development or grant aid rose from £1½ million to approximately £2½ million. Recently, I tabled a Question covering the succeeding years. Unfortunately, this has not yet been answered. The Secretary of State told us today that in the next financial year —1968–69—approximately £2 million will be granted in budgetary and approximately £700,000 in grant aid, which is rather reduced but much on the lines of previous grants.

I make this specific plea to the Minister. I hope to get a very clear answer from him when he winds up, because this is repeating the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East. All other African countries have had their financial aid for the three years after independence settled before independence. The Swazis have repeatedly asked that the same courtesy should be applied to them. Why are the Government digging in their heels on this question? I have tabled a number of Questions on this matter but have not yet received a satisfactory Answer.

We have been told that there are to be preliminary financial talks in July. Independence is to come early in September. We have been told today that the three-year development plan, starting in 1969, will be negotiated later this year. When? Before or after independence? "Later this year" could mean either. This matter of land and development assistance must be settled, otherwise it will leave a legacy of distrust.

I conclude by emphasising this. I have tried to show that over the years that Britain has been responsible for Swaziland our relations have been good, but that there have always been certain issues in dispute. These disputes have led to common respect as between friends. Broadly speaking, it could also be said that successive British Governments have tended to neglect the three High Commission Territories, for reasons which are well known to the House. Surely the Government can now make a gesture and settled this dispute over land which has been going on in Swaziland for 80 years. I hope and believe that Swaziland can be made viable within the next five years.

Surely, therefore, it is not too much to ask that the Government should negotiate a three-year aid programme to Swaziland, that this programme should be generous, and—I emphasis this— should be settled before independence on 6th September. Only if this is done will the friendship and mutual respect that have endured for so long between the Swazi nation and the British people continue. I hope today to receive a very positive answer to this most important question.

Many questions have been put to me, and I shall endeavour to answer them as quickly and, I hope, as satisfactorily as possible, in view of the other business to come before the House.

The hon. Gentlemen the Members for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) and for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) both asked questions about aid and the future economic progress of Swaziland. As has been said, we have not yet undertaken a commitment to continue ordinary budgetary or development aid beyond 31st March, 1969. However, it is recognised that, because Swaziland lacks the skills and capital to develop her potential fully, she must for some time continue to look for assistance.

A new three-year development plan to cover the period 1969–72 is now under preparation. It has not yet been completed. There is some delay in the consideration of aid. But in this connection two officers of the Ministry of Overseas Development will be visiting Swaziland this month preparatory to post-independence aid negotiations which are expected to be held in London later this year with Swaziland delegates.

Does "later this year" mean before independence? Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the Swazis are demanding that the talks should be completed before independence?

I should think that this will be settled after independence, largely because of difficulties over the three-year development plan.

To answer the hon. Member for Essex, South-East, and to echo his confidence in Swaziland, it is not doubted that that country will move towards complete economic independence, but no date can yet be fixed for when it can do without budgetary aid. We are as optimistic as the hon. Gentleman is that, as he put it, the wise and cautious Swazis will overcome all economic difficulties in the minimum of time, and they will have every encouragement from us so to do.

Questions have been asked about the Constitution. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the Bill is not directed to the independence Constitution, which will be provided separately by an Order in Council. But the present Constitution will be the scheme for the independence Constitution, with modifications, as in Appendix B to the White Paper. Hon. Members can find what is in the present Constitution from the Order in Council Statutory Instrument No. 241 of 1967 and the White Paper of 1966 presented to Parliament as Cmnd. 3119. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to find the answer to all his questions by looking at those documents.

I have no doubt that I shall be able to find the answer—indeed, I think I have—but it is wrong that the House should have to seek answers in several different documents. I invite the Under-Secretary of State to ensure that this practice is not continued in future and that the document laid before the House immediately preceding the tabling of a Bill of this nature sets out clearly for all to see exactly what is proposed.

Perhaps there is some validity in the hon. Gentleman's criticism. I shall look to future occasions and see that any doubts about a matter such as this are cleared up for hon. Members and that everything is shown clearly to the House on the occasion of a Second Reading debate.

Points have been made about mineral rights. What was agreed at the Independence Conference made no change whatever in the ownership of mineral rights. What is vested in the Ngwenyama in trust for the Swazi nation under the present Constitution will be unchanged. What the conference did was to deal with the disposal of what is held in trust for the Swazi nation, that is to say, the tribal Swazis and not the population as a whole, which includes Europeans and others.

These rights are held in trust by the Ngwenyama, the Paramount Chief, and there can be no doubt that it is the desire of the large majority of Swazis that this shall be so. Whether wise or not, it is the feeling of the Swazis that the control and disposal of those rights should rest with the person who holds them and not with the Government of Swaziland.

The Swazis have their own way of making their views known on how the Ngwenyama should conduct their affairs. The Independence Conference agreed that there should be a minerals committee to advise the Ngwenyama on the matter, and this committee is to be appointed by the Ngwenyama in Libandla, which is the council of the whole nation, every adult male in Swaziland having the right to attend the Libandla. There is little need, therefore, to feel that as between the Ngwenyama and the Swazi nation there will be any dissatisfaction over this arrangement.

Questions have been raised about land. The hon. Member for Haltemprice referred to paragraphs 26 and 27 of the Report of the Independence Conference. As was pointed out in that Report:

"When the British Government had assumed responsibility for the administration of Swaziland, they had inherited a land problem of indescribable confusion resulting from concessions which had been granted by King Mbanzeni between 1878 and 1890."

It was the view of the British authorities of the day that the problem concerning land was such that it could be solved only by compromise and accommodation.

As the hon. Member for Haltemprice said, the United Kingdom delegation at the Independence Conference suggested that a practical way of tackling the problem might be for the Swaziland Government to include suitable land settlement projects in the development plan which they were formulating, and the question of assistance towards financing this plan could then be discussed with the United Kingdom in the context of future negotiations. We are still in touch with the Government of Swaziland on this point. I am afraid that I cannot at this stage make any more helpful comments to the hon. Gentleman than that, merely saying that we hope it will be possible that we reach a solution satisfactory from the point of view of the Swaziland Government.

Now, the question of citizenship. All persons who have citizenship of the Protected State of Swaziland will become citizens of the independent Swaziland. Who citizens of the protected State are can be found in the citizenship chapter of the present Constitution, S.I. 241 of 1967. They include all persons born in Swaziland up to independence. I understand from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr-Braine) that there is doubt about the possibility of difficulty arising here such as has arisen in Kenya.

I should like to make it clear that there is no problem here comparable in scale with that of the Asians in East Africa. There are understood to be about 200 white South Africans who took up Government posts in the Protectorate of Swaziland and for that purpose became registered as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. Under South African law, they will thereby have lost their ctizenship of South Africa.

Since last year, when Swaziland became a Protectorate with its own citizenship, these people have had the right to acquire Swaziland citizenship on application to be made not later than 15th August, 1968, and any who have done so will, on independence day, lose their United Kingdom citizenship under Clause 3 of the Bill.

The hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that a guide to the acquisition of Swaziland citizenship has already been published in Swaziland and has been given publicity through local Press and radio. I will certainly consider asking Her Majesty's Commissioner there if anything further is necessary to ensure that the persons concerned are fully aware of their rights to Swaziland citizenship if they apply before 15th August, 1968.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his explanation. I am sure that access to Swazi citizenship will be fully understood. I am much more concerned about the effect on such persons of the new citizenship law, as to whether or not, for example, they might retain British citizenship if they are already citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. There are difficulties, are there not, over dual citizenship as between South Africa and this country? Would such persons who have been serving the Crown in Swaziland have an automatic right to British citizenship if they so required?

I was about to explain that. If any of these people have still not become Swazi citizens by independ- ence day they will remain citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. Attempts were made at the time to persuade the Swazi Government to grant citizenship automatically to these people, but it was impossible to press them beyond a certain point, because in Bechuanaland and other African independent countries there has been no automatic grant of citizenship to people registered as United Kingdom citizens before independence.

While, as I have stated, such people who have not become Swazi citizens by independence day will continue to be United Kingdom citizens, they will not thereby acquire any right of entry into the United Kingdom. They are at present subject to the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1968, and under the provisions of that Act they will continue to be so subject. There is, however, no reason to suppose that any considerable number of them are desirous at present of coming to live in this country. If any of them are so desirous, they will be able to apply under the special quota made available for people subject to the 1968 Act.

At present, the pressure on the quota is not great and, even if it were, as has already been announced, it is a flexible quota and if necessary it can be enlarged. In the last resort, if there were a possibility that any of these people were forcibly expelled from Swaziland, and if they satisfied the immigration officer that they were in danger of life and liberty if they returned to Swaziland, they would be admitted to this country.

The hon. Gentleman has asked about appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I gather that the Swazis did not desire this. They felt that this would not be compatible with their new status of independence, and, therefore, no provision has been made for this, although there are a number of precedents for such an arrangement in other Commonwealth Independence Acts.

I hope that I have answered satisfactorily all the points which the hon. Gentleman has put to me. The whole House has welcomed the Bill and echoed the very warm good wishes and congratulations offered to the King of Swaziland, to his Parliament and to its people. Everything which has been said gives evidence to the people of Swaziland of the continuing good will and concern for their welfare of this House. Those who have spoken have shown great affection, esteem and regard for the people of Swaziland. We wish them success in their entry into their new status, and godspeed.

Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), who said in his speech on the Budget in March that this was one the few Government Bills which he would welcome, and like my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin), who, when speaking in the Second Reading debate on this Bill last week, also welcomed it, I should like very much to express my support for the Bill.

It is a Measure which introduces into our domestic field matters which are primarily of international concern. It was perhaps a little unfortunate that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury last week, in describing the Bill, in his perora- tion referred to it as a "giant step forward". His hyperbole raised some unfavourable reactions on this side of the House.

What it undoubtedly does—I think that this explains both the Financial Secretary's enthusiasm and the feeling of importance which I attach to the Measure —is to embody a fundamental change in principle. It is an innovation in our international monetary arrangements, and as such is of very great significance.

It is true to say that the question that we are dealing with was summarised in the heading of an article in The Times on 28th May by Professor Richard Cooper, of Yale University:

"Gold is on the way out as a monetary base. But is it going to go gracefully or disastrously? The S.D.R.s are the key and this week's Stockholm meeting is crucial."

Happily, the outcome of that meeting was a success. As a result, we now have to go through the various procedural steps which will enable the S.D.R. system to come into operation.

It is a very difficult technical matter, but its significance was emphasised in the speech which Mr. Pierre-Paul Schweitzer, Managing Director of the I.M.F., made in Rio de Janeiro in 1967, when he said that he was dealing with a measure which, in his view, constituted the most significant development in international financial co-operation since Bretton Woods. However, enthusiasm for the Bill needs some qualification. The first is that the quantity of international liquidity which will be created if the scheme goes through in this House, as I hope it will, and if it is subsequently ratified and then implemented, is very small by comparison with the sums normally involved in international trade.

It is an experiment at this stage, and it may be some while before we can expand its scope, but there is a very great need to implement the scheme as quickly as possible. Therefore, we on this side felt that the right thing to do today is to make a few comments, as I shall do, in the "Clause stand part" debate rather than put down a Motion for a Third Reading debate. There are a number of points which need to be made in the"Clause stand part"debate and some questions which were not asked in the Second Reading debate last Friday which I hope the Minister of State will be able to answer today.

The fundamental point is that we are now in the international field in much the same position as we were in national finance a century or more ago following the change made in the 1844 Bank Act. That was a victory for what was known as the currency school as against the trade school. As a result, it became impossible for the currency to be expanded, as might otherwise have been thought desirable, to fit the needs of trade and commerce. As a result of that we had the development of the cheque system, which filled the gap for a long time, and, finally, we reached the stage where currency was created in the form of ordinary £1 and 10s notes which were not entirely backed by gold.

12.45 p.m.

We are now in very much the same position internationally as we were nationally in the latter part of the 19th century. We had for a long period in international commerce a gold exchange system, and the development of, so to speak, cheques in the form of bills of exchange, and, finally, we have reached the stage which is equivalent to that major breakthrough in the last century currency notes. We only have to contemplate what would have happened to our domestic trade if we had had to rely entirely on a pure gold based currency to realise how significant this Bill and the precedent which it creates is likely to be, though there are dangers to which I shall refer in a few moments.

It is important to distinguish between two separate problems. There is a danger that they may become confused. One is the difficulties which arise from individual currencies and countries' balance of payments surpluses and deficits, the disequilibrium problem which requires them either to inflate or deflate to restore balance of payments equilibrium or to devalue. The other problem is that sufficient money should be available in an international sense to finance an increased volume of trade. It is important to distinguish those problems, although they are, of course, related both economically and politically.

This Bill is fundamentally concerned with the quantity problem rather than the equilibrium problem, though some may feel that there is a danger that the measure will reduce the sanctions imposed on countries to maintain or achieve an equilibrium in their balance of payments. I was glad that the Financial Secretary stressed last week that the purpose of the Measure is not to enable Governments to avoid putting their own domestic affairs and their balance of payments in order.

It is, of course, true that the disequilibrium problem itself imposes a strain on the international monetary mechanism. I believe that if this Measure can be passed through the House rapidly we can set an example to other countries which are also concerned with the scheme, and encourage them to set it up and get it working quickly. If this is done, I believe that from a psychological point of view it will have a good effect on the whole international atmosphere, and this is vitally important, particularly for the United Kingdom, which, after all, has more to lose from any monetary crisis in the international sphere, which could shrink world trade, on which we depend for our whole standard of living.

There are two alternatives to this S.D.R. scheme, but I should like to stress that they are second and third best to the system which is embodied in this Clause and Bill. The first alternative is the one which has served the international community since the Bretton Woods arrangement. An increase in international liquidity has been created by the United States and the United Kingdom, the two key currencies countries, running large deficits on their balance of payments, thereby adding to international liquidity.

But this has resulted in considerable antagonism from other countries, mainly France. Given the steps which our country and the United States are taking to put their balance of payments in equilibrium, it is clear that we cannot rely on this process to increase international liquidity in the future. In this case there is a danger that commerce will be inhibited by a failure of international liquidity to expand in line with the increase in trade. I do not think that we should have to rely on continuing United States/United Kingdom deficits to increase liquidity in the future. In any case, it is far too arbitrary for it to provide a really sound basis for the expansion of international trade.

The second alternative is to increase the gold price. This was debated at considerable length last week, and I do not propose to go into that in any detail. It is clear that for a long time gold will provide an important and fundamental basis of international finance, but at the same time measures of the kind embodied in the Bill will enable us to reduce our dependence on gold and arbitrary fluctuations in the production of gold.

This is bound to produce some political reactions, notably, as was said last week, from the producer countries such as Russia and South Africa, and from France who has adopted a dogmatic attitude on gold. Clearly, if the gold price were increased, France would tend to gain because of the large stocks which she has recently accumulated, whether she would gain as much this week as last week is perhaps another matter.

I do not follow the argument that an increase in the price of gold is the best solution to our international liquidity problems. There is an extraordinary schizophrenia developing amongst those who advocate an increase in the price of gold. If one concertinas their argument, they say that the important thing about gold is that it has an intrinsic value, and therefore it is necessary to double it. When one expresses the argument in that occluded fashion its absurdity becomes apparent. Gold, like other commodities, has an intrinsic value provided it is scarce and people want it, but to a large extent the value of gold depends on the value which national Governments are prepared to put on it and the precise figure at which they are prepared to buy and sell it. Its value is, therefore, like other things, something which is determined by supply and demand. General de Gaulle's famous phrase that gold is immutable, universal, and impartial seems to me absurd, because it clearly is none of those things, and his own interests in the matter are fairly easy to discern. I do not think that the best answer to our problems is an increase in gold price, and it would be unfortunate if we had to rely for ever more on the supply of a particular commodity which does not necessarily bear any direct relationship to the needs of international trade.

I propose, now, to refer to the question of the special drawing rights, and to raise one or two difficult points which arise on them. One of the main reasons why many of my hon. Friends, and indeed hon. Gentlemen opposite, have expressed concern is that they are worried about the extent to which new liquidity may be created, and that a world wide inflation may result. I believe that we can rely on the mechanism which has been suggested for the control of liquidity. Perhaps I might quote briefly from an excellent article in the American Journal of International Law, by Mr. Joseph Gold, General Counsel and Director of the Legal Department ofthe I.M.F. He said:

"The major feature"

—of the special drawing rights system—

"is that it provides for the deliberate control, whether by creation or cancellation, of international liquidity. Hitherto, the volume of international liquidity has depended on such moral as fortuitous factors as the amount of new gold production and the pattern of its absorption, the deficits of the reserve currency countries, and the predilections of countries with respect to the composition of their reserves …."

The great advance for which the

"special drawing rights system will be responsible when it is translated into law is that the creation and contraction of international liquidity will no longer be determined solely by aleatory influences, but to an important extent will now be the subject of rational and deliberate international control."

That raises some difficult questions even at this experimental stage.

Personally, I am sorry that progress could not be made on the original Stamp plan for increasing international liquidity which would have related the amount of liquidity created to the amount of aid which was given to developing countries. Professor Stamp suggested that the I.M.F. should add to liquidity by a fixed amount each year and invest in developing countries either directly or through their capital markets. They could then use the I.M.F. certificates when they bought goods from advanced countries and these certificates would go into the international liquidity pool.

It is unfortunate that what Professor Paul Streeton described as the link between aid and international liquidity has been broken and we have not been able to secure agreement on a scheme as ambitious as that. It is correspondingly important in welcoming this Bill to pay extra attention to the Bill next on the Order Paper, namely, the Overseas Aid Bill. Given that we do not have an automatic restraint imposed on the amount of liquidity created by a link with aid we shall have to rely on the international monetary authorities exercising a degree of discretion. But I am satis-lied that adequate control on liquidity creation will be exercised.

That brings me to the other point about which hon. Members are right to express concern; that is that there is a danger that individual Governments might use their special drawing rights to finance domestic projects and delay putting their balance of payments in order. During the earlier part of this year we were engaged in debates on the National Loans Fund Bill. This was concerned with the whole system of Government accounting and in particular the relationship of the National Loans Fund and the exchange equalisation account.

In Committee, at c. 126, my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) made a speech which, I think, might usefully be used as a text for economic students. He spoke about the way in which the Exhange Equalisation Account is used. We were concerned on that occasion with knowing exactly how the account works and how movements in and out of it could be identified.

Because of the fears which many of my hon. Friends have that the S.D.R.s may be used to finance domestic policies of which they do not approve it is vital that the figures for the special drawing rights held in the Exchange Equalisation Account should be made readily available to the House. I do not think that it can be denied, because of the provision made for it to designate currencies and to exercise control, that the I.M.F. is bound to know what S.D.R.s are held by particular countries. If the I.M.F. is to know what the position is, it is important that the House should know. I therefore ask the Minister to say whether these figures will appear in the normal National Loans Fund accounts once a year and whether they will also be published at more frequent intervals.

The Government surely ought to make it clear to the House that they are not using these special drawing rights to finance their policies but only as they are intended to be used, as an addition to reserves and as a new form of international liquidity which will oil the working of international trade.

In this connection, I ought to say, because there seemed some confusion about it during the debate last week, that the position is that once the scheme is brought into operation the special drawing rights will be created and they will then be allocated to member countries in accordance with their quotas. It is not the case, as some hon. Members seemed to imply last week, that individual countries will have to apply for an allocation if they are in balance of payments difficulties.

1.0 p.m.

I wish to put two final questions to the Minister. First, we are told that members will be required to hold, over the initial five-year period, an average of 30 per cent. of their S.D.R.s. Would the Minister clarify this point? It is not clear from the Bill or the White Paper what the position is if a country has absolutely zero S.D.R.s in its reserves for four years and then 150 per cent. for the last year. Would this reasonably be considered by the I.M.F. and the operators of the scheme as fulfilling the 30 per cent. requirement? Over what period is this average to be calculated? Is it the five-year period or a shorter period?

Secondly, have the Government any information about the position of the French? We understand that it is not possible for the French to block the scheme. Indeed, they appear implicitly to have agreed to the scheme going forward, though this does not necessarily mean that they will participate. If the Minister has any information on this point, we shall be grateful to hear it. However, we shall understand if he is not able to give it this morning.

A significant precedent is being created by this Bill. The amounts involved at this stage are comparatively small in terms of international liquidity. But the innovation is important. This is a change in our international monetary affairs which, I believe, will have the support of the large majority of hon. Members and of the country.

It is an agreeable coincidence that today we are to discuss two Measures which will greatly improve international arrangements for monetary institutions and trade and aid, namely, this Bill and the Overseas Aid Bill, which is concerned with I.D.A. This demonstrates the value of institutions of the United Nations, particularly those concerned with the more technical matters of trade and monetary arrangements and aid generally. It emphasises the value of the I.M.F. in helping the world generally and this country in particular to deal with certain problems of exchange and currency.

I have been a little alarmed from time to time during the past six months about the suspicion and dislike of some of my colleagues concerning the I.M.F., as though it were an international big brother directing our own Chancellor of the Exchequer about what he should be doing. I hope that they recognise that in the Bill and this scheme we have something not only of great importance to the world system, but of special importance to Britain, which is landed with the problem of controlling and managing a reserve currency. The S.D.R. scheme will, to some extent, help this country to deal with the long-term problem of managing a reserve currency.

I agree with almost everything that the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) said. I am pleased to know that the Bill has, as I understand it, the full support of hon. Members opposite. I agree that it is quantitatively a small break-through, but it is an immense break-through in principle, because it creates a completely new international reserve unit which is not dependent in any way on gold. I hope that it is a step on the way to the demonetisation of gold altogether.

I share the regret of the hon. Member for Worthing that the scheme has not been linked with help to developing countries. This was perhaps too ambitious for the first stage. However, I hope that the possibility of using the creation of international liquidity for the purpose of helping poorer countries will not be lost sight of when further progress is made along this road, as it must be made.

It is, I think, appropriate to pay tribute to the work of the Home Secretary, who, when he was in a previous office, did so much to lay the foundations for the scheme. His work was of immense value, and will in future be recognised to have been of immense value, to the general financial management of this country.

I welcome the Bill and the fact that it appears to ave the unanimous support of hon. Members.

I wish to ask the Minister of State a couple of nuts and bolts questions about the currencies into which S.D.R.s may be converted in the exchange equalisation account. Can S.D.R.s be disposed of from the exchange equalisation account in exchange for sterling? I emphasise "sterling" because it has some bearing on the use to which this asset may be put.

Line 3, in paragraph 5, of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, states:

"The main transactions will be the exchange of Special Drawing Rights for other countries' currencies …"

This seems to imply that the use of S.D.R.s, once they have been allocated to the United Kingdom, will be limited to the acquisition of other currencies. Nevertheless, provision is made later in the same paragraph for the exchange of S.D.R.s for sterling or other currencies.

There seems to be the possibility of reconstituting an S.D.R. position by allowing sterling to flow out. If sterling can flow out of the Exchequer Equalisation Act in exchange for S.D.R.s, the implicacation seems to be that S.D.R.s can flow out from the account in exchange, not only for other currencies, but for sterling.

It is important that we should be clear about this matter. One of the intriguing possibilities which looms up if S.D.R.s can be used to acquire sterling is that the whole problem of Government internal finance can be diverted from the money market in the home country, where the Government have to raise sterling to finance their internal operations and, incidentally, pay a very substantial rate of interest and where, in certain circumstances, they are insulated from the United Kingdom rate of interest, from the credit-creating repercussions of borrowing in the market, and they will be able to acquire sterling in the international market in exchange for S.D.R.s at a very low rate of interest. As far as I can see, the rate of interest is 1½ per cent.

I should be interested to know whether the Minister of State visualises a situation arising in which the United Kingdom Government, anxious to finance their internal expenditure and to insulate the banking system and the money market from increasing their own liquid debt, can acquire the sterling which they wish for internal use from other countries prepared to exchange it for S.D.R.s. It is not clear from the scope of the Bill whether this operation could be undertaken. That is a technical question.

My second question is also technical and limited. Are we to understand that only those who are members of the I.M.F. will be participants in the S.D.R. scheme, or will it be possible for other countries which are not I.M.F. members to participate in it? This is of some importance, because if countries which are not members of the I.M.F. participate in the S.D.R. scheme they will not be inhibited by the I.M.F. limitations about devaluation. There might be severe embarrassment if we found ourselves holding, in exchange for S.D.R.s, a currency which was suddenly more heavily devalued than would normally be permitted under the I.M.F. regulations, and we had to use this currency to re-acquire our S.D.R.s when reconstitution came along. It seems to me that there is scope for non-I.M.F. members to participate in the S.D.R. scheme. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman would clear up these two points.

I shall do my best to answer some of the points in different ways. I agree with the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) that it was a pity that the plan finally adopted was not more closely in line with that of Professor Maxwell Stamp. It was quite clear that this was not negotiable. It was clear that it was more in the interests of developing countries for the amendment to be made to the I.M.F. than not at all, because their reserves are increased pro- portionately more than the actual reserves and they stand to benefit from the growth of world trade.

I have no information about any change of attitude on the part of the French. As the hon. Member for Worthing said, although it is regrettable it will not prevent the scheme coming into operation because the French will not have the right of veto under the scheme.

I was asked about the actual figures being made easily available. It is clear that the annual picture will be published. It will not be published through the National Loans Fund, but when the E.E.A. holdings are published in the balance of payments accounts. It will be made clear what has happened, on an annual basis, in terms of the S.D.R. scheme. I agree with the hon. Member's desire to see these figures made available for general knowledge more frequently than annually, but I am not sure that I can answer the question as clearly as the hon. Member would like.

It seems that, in any event, these figures will become available through the publication of the international financial statistics, and one would expect that in future there would be a new entry when the new scheme is in operation, showing the S.D.R. holdings of individual countries. There are publications on the part of the Government relating to the reserves position three months back. At the moment, I can see no objection to the exact S.D.R. position being shown. I shall have to look further into that question, however, although I cannot see any difficulty about the House being fully informed, at any time, what the S.D.R. holdings of this country are.

1.15 p.m.

The hon. Member also asked about averaging. If the average were below 30 per cent. the country concerned would be obliged to reconstitute its holdings. The hon. Member asked what would happen if a country's holdings were zero for four years and then 150 per cent. in the fifth year, thus arriving at an average of 30 per cent. The way in which that average would be dealt with is one which will have to await the deliberations of the I.M.F. But I find it difficult to conceive that such a position would continue.

As the hon. Member will be aware, one class of country which may be designated to increase its holdings of S.D.R.s is that whose holdings are falling consistently below the 30 per cent. level, and it is inconceivable that a country would allow itself to get into a position in which it would be under the threat of a designation from the I.M.F. In those circumstances, I do not feel that there is much danger of a country being at a zero level for four years and then at a very high level for the fifth. However, it is not easy to say how this would work out in practice.

Some more technical and difficult questions were asked by the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison). As I understand the position, S.D.R.s can be disposed of in exchange for sterling just as they can be acquired with sterling. The position which the hon. Member was concerned could not arise in practice because Article XXV, 3 (a) lays down that

"except as otherwise provided … a participant will be expected to use its S.D.R.s only to meet balance of payments needs"

or its reserves need.

Although this will be a decision for the country itself in the first place the Fund may make representations and it may ultimately suspend the participant who fails to fulfil the expectation of Section 3(a). The danger that worried the hon. Member is, therefore, not likely to arise.

The hon. Member also asked about the participation of non-I.M.F. members holding S.D.R.s. There are certain circumstances in which non-I.M.F. members can participate in the S.D.R. scheme, and all I can do now is to refer the hon. Member to Article XXIII, and (3). There is a reference in paragraph 4 of the General Statement in the First Appendix to the White Paper to allocations of special drawing rights being made only to participants, and the holding of such rights not being restricted to participants, although it refers mainly to bodies like the Bank for International Settlements. If the hon. Member reads Article XXIII he will find a detailed explanation which I am not really in a position to expound more briefly now.

As there is to be no Third Reading debate, I want to say something of a general nature following upon what was said by the hon. Member for Worthing. I will restrict my remarks, because the matter was fully dealt with in a debate of a very high standard. Despite reservations which some hon. Members then expressed, most people accept this as a major break-through in principle, as it has been described by my hon. Friend and others.

As M. Schweitzer has said, it is the biggest step forward since Bretton Woods. The point of biggest significance in the longer term is that we will no longer be dependent for the growth of world trade on the rate of accretion of gold to the monetary system or the increase in the balances of reserve currencies. Further, it is important because it illustrates a degree of international co-operation in this all-important sphere. It shows a determination to proceed in an orderly and rational fashion, and at a controlled rate.

I agree with what the hon. Member for Worthing said about the importance of speedy implementation. The separate question of activation is one for the Fund, but the completion of ratification and the acceptance of this amendment will increase international monetary stability, which is a factor of the greatest importance.

I echo the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary and my hon. Friend the Member for Heeley in paying tribute to the work of the Home Secretary and the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling). We should also mention three other names—Mr. Ossola, the Chairman of the Group of Ten Study Group on this question, which reported in 1965; Dr. Emminger, Chairman of the Group of Ten Deputies during the formative period when this scheme was discussed and, above all, M. Schweitzer, the Managing Director of the Fund, whose part in bringing this scheme to fruition has probably been greater than that of anyone else. I therefore echo the remarks of the hon. Member for Worthing.

I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 36, after 'order' insert ' made by statutory instrument'.

I think that it would be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendments No. 2 and No. 4.

I am obliged, Sir Eric.

These are purely drafting Amendments. Originally, the wording was that the Minister may,

"with the approval of the Treasury by order provide for the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament …"

The usual form of words is to add after "by order" the words "made by statutory instrument", which the Amendment proposes.

I realise that the House is once again faced with a grossly overloaded Order Paper and that there is much business ahead of us. I will comment no further on that, except to say that we have, unfortunately, come to regard this state of affairs as typical. Nor will I comment on the fact of the characteristically discourteus way in which the proceedings on the Bill have been handled by those responsible for Government business, but the Committee will remember that we were promised more time for the debate on Second Reading and that this was allocated, at very short notice, late at night. I expected that it might be and have only myself to blame for not being here at that time, but I thought that there were some limits to the liberties which the Government would take with our right to discuss this important matter.

Clause I makes provision for the payments over three years of £64·8 million sterling, or 155½ million dollars, whichever is the greater. Therefore, apparently, if there is a devaluation before this full sterling payment has been made, we shall be committed to a larger sum than at present appears in the Bill. If this is not so, I should be grateful to be told that I am wrong.

The argument behind the Clause turns upon the somewhat new point in the jargon of international aid, the slogan that, for every £ we spend, we get 30s. back. As a statistic, I find that as unconvincing as the statistic published the other day in that otherwise sensible newspaper, the Daily Mail, that a third of all members of Parliament wear corsets. I am in no position to adduce evidence on the second statistic, but I can assure the House that the first one, that, for every £ we lay out under the moneys funded for the I.D.O. we get 30s. back, is fundamentally misleading.

The truth is that we are selling 30s. worth of goods for 10s. and that is how the situation should be described. We lay out £1, we get £1 back and we get 10s. from the pool which some other mug has put in, and which he does not get back, but we are not 30s. better off at the end of the day. We are providing goods and services to that value and we sell 30s. worth of goods for 10s. I wish that the Minister, when he supports actions of this kind, would use figures which correspond more closely to the facts.

To put it another way, we derive as much advantage from this state of affairs as would be gained by a shopkeeper whose till had been robbed if the thief returned to his store the next day and spent in his shop the money which he had stolen, plus 10s. which he had "nicked" from the shop next door. That is the mathematical way in which the facts should be presented, and I can see in that no justification for the action which we are now being asked to take, to commit £64·8 million worth of the British taxpayer's money.

If we consider the outflow in relation to our international commitments, we will get back only £324 million. This is pretty poor value for money. I do not believe—I have said this before, and no doubt will have to repeat it—that the argument that we derive positive benefit can be sustained, although it is remarkable how often it is used.

Nor do I believe—here, perhaps, I touch on a point on which I threatened to cross swords with my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) on Second Reading—that the question of whether the International Development Association itself is a wonderful organisation has anything to do with the merits of the case. This is another of those pieces of international jargon on aid. This is the "fine body of men" argument, which has about as much relevance to the facts as the argument that, because prison warders are a fine body of men, prisons are desirable. The two are not related. The fact that international civil servants can be splendid men or can include splendid men has nothing to do with the merits of the case.

Would not the hon. Member concede that, although prisons are not desirable, they may be essential?

If the hon. Gentleman is saying that prisons are essential and that therefore we are always to have a state of society in which they exist, we could have an interesting debate and still disagree at the end, because I would far rather that prisons were abolished, just as I would prefer aid to be abolished.

There is a great deal of evidence to show that much of the effort of the I.D.A. has, in the past, been wrongly orientated. It has been as guilty as most other people in the aid field of putting a wholly distorting and undue emphasis on industrial development at the expense of agricultural. The price which has been paid for that in terms of peasant suffering —let us talk about this for a change, rather than aid on a Governmental basis —is a very heavy one. Too often in argumentation about aid we confuse the Government and the country receiving aid, and we believe that because we have aided a Government, we have necessarily aided the people who make up the nation which is governed. It is not necessarily the same thing.

1.30 p.m.

Another argument which the Minister is fond of using, tied to the £1 and 30s. argument, is,"What would happen to our own economy if this aid were not granted?" It is the argument, with which the Minister is familiar, "Heaven help the people of Teesside." We may suppose that the people of Teesside will benefit directly from the expenditure of £64·8 million because, if the Minister is right in his mathematics, orders to the value of £97 million may be expected to come back to this country and to benefit areas in which, for one reason or another, there are particular problems.

But in that argument the Government never examine what else could be done with that money, supposing that it had to be raised in taxation at all. No one ever goes back to square one and asks,"What would happen if we did not provide this aid?" I ask the Minister, "If a large proportion of the sums of this kind were spent on improving communications with Teesside, would that not be very much more to the benefit of the people of Teesside?" Would they not be more benefited if they were put in the position in which they were no longer forced to rely for their employment on industry which, by definition— because it has to be subsidised—is non-competitive?

Would it not be for the benefit of the people of Teesside if their unemployment no longer had to be exported but genuine efforts were made to produce in Teesside conditions in which they could stand on their own feet, instead of having to be subsidised through the medium of Bills such as this, which are intended, one supposes, primarily to be of assistance to people living outside these shores but which have often been supported in argument as being of great benefit to the people of this country?

The latter I do not believe to be the case, because we are living in a climate of economic restrictions, and yet we are giving away 30s. for 10s. The people of this country are being forced to contain their economic activities, many of them to the extent of being put out of work. If public expenditure were to be curtailed, this is the point at which a cut should be considered. It gives me no comfort at all to see the increase which the Clause represents in the total commitment of the country to public expenditure.

The timing of the Bill and the timing of the commitment seem to me extremely undesirable. It could hardly be worse. May I refer to an exchange which took place—although with an interval of time between—involving my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst), if I may so call him, and the Parliamentary Secretary, an exchange of analogies which is summarised in c. 1260 of the Report of the debate of Monday. The hon. Member for Shipley had been so bold as to criticise the business ethics or behaviour implicit in this commitment of a substantial sum of money at this point in time. The Parliamentary Secretary replied with a homely but I believe misleading analogy of his own. He put us in the position of a man buying his house on mortgage and having difficulty in repaying the building society, suggesting that that did not preclude him from lending a few pounds to his neighbour if his neighbour were out of work and his neighbours children were sick and hungry.

That is a very misleading analogy and I put what I believe to be a more correct analogy to the Parliamentary Secretary: when a man is deep in debt, as this nation is; when he is living above his means, as this nation still is; is it right that he should refuse to curtail any of his own unnecessary or frivolous expenditure? Much expenditure of that kind is being funded by the Government at the taxpayer's expense. Yet the argument is that, after that refusal, he says that he can improve his own long-term economic prospects by taking on part-time work at one-third of the standard rate. That is the analogy, and that is why I oppose the Clause.

I agree with only one point made by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow)—and that is that it is a pity that the Bill has been debated in rather a spasmodic and fragmentary fashion. But I entirely acquit the Minister of any responsibility for that, and I certainly do not agree with the churlish and ill-mannered assertions made by the hon. Member for Woking about where the fault for it lies. In the Parliamentary Session drawing to a close, we have succeeded in carrying through a vast amount of enormously valuable legislation—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO."]— and I regard this Bill as a very important although a minor item in that programme. I dissent entirely from the narrow, petty, parochial, shopkeeper mentality displayed by the hon. Member for Woking, with his fine calculation of pennies and shillings—

It was millions of £s.

The hon. Member was talking about £1 and 30s.

The Minister said that.

The hon. Member was talking about whether this individual or that individual, this country or that country, on balance, as far as can be calculated, will be 10s. better off or 10s. worse off. That is the kind of approach which is disastrous for any statesmanship in international dealings and, in particular, in international trade, commerce and monetary affairs. It is the kind of approach which was disastrous in the 1930's when the Conservative Party had charge of our affairs.

The value of the I.D.A. is that it recognises that the problem of world poverty is global and must be tackled, to some extent at any rate, by combined and carefully calculated international effort. The immense importance of the I.D.A. is that it provides funds—I am sorry to say on a rather limited basis—which are not tied directly to the commercial or political policies of an international government. For that reason, I very much welcome the fact that the British Government are participating vigorously and fully in the replenishment of the funds of this institution. It gives me particular pleasure that on one day in our business we are dealing with two institutions of the United Nations—the International Monetary Fund and the International Development Association—which are extremely impor- tant for promoting the well-being of the world at large.

I congratulate the Minister on persuading the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it is in the direct interest of this country—I repeat, in the direct interest of this country—that we should participate in the replenishment of I.D.A. funds. I have noted with concern that in recent months we appear to have adopted political criteria for the granting of aid to particular countries. I refer to the South Arabian Federation and to Tanzania. I hope that the contribution of this Bill will be regarded as a counterbalancing act, as moving more in the direction of international co-operation and away from narrow short-sighted political considerations in the giving of aid.

I welcome the Bill on the ground that it strengthens international co-operation and that it is a further token of the Labour Government's determination to take part fully in dealing with the problem of world poverty.

I agreed with only one remark made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley), and that was in regretting that the Bill had been discussed in such an intermittent fashion.

I fully apreciate the Minister's anxiety to get the Bill through as quickly as possible. There is talk of further Government cuts, amounting to at least £15 million, and I understand that he would like to get the Bill safely on the Statute Book and so shield this contribution from any possible cuts.

We cannot dismiss the fact that this debate is taking place as we are tottering on the edge of yet another financial crisis. Anybody—particularly anybody looking at the matter from outside—loking at the way in which we conduct our affairs must think it odd that we should be busy trying to borrow money on the international monetary exchanges so that we can then contribute money to an international organisation that will lend it to other countries. I admit that, at this time of pending financial crisis, we are contributing to this Fund much more than other countries which are far more favourably placed than ourselves.

Some think that the size of the German monetary reserves is a major source of imbalance in world markets today. Nevertheless, the Germans are contributing a mere 117 million dollars while we are contributing 155 million dollars. France, which had enormous reserves before its recent troubles struck—and which certainly had enormous reserves when this bargain was struck—is to contribute only 97 million dollars, little more than half our contribution. Japan, our major industrial competitor, is due to contribute 66 million dollars. Thus, Germany and Japan, our major and highly successful competitors, with—and this particularly applies to Germany— large reserves, are together contributing only slightly more to the Fund than we are.

1.45 p.m.

Although I agreed with the financial analysis of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), who referred to our receiving 30s. back for every £1 we put in, the Minister conceded on Second Reading that this balance would move sharply against us in the next period covered by the Bill. I hope that the Minister will expand on those remarks.

One reason why the terms of trade concerning this aid will move against us is the new position in this matter of the United States. Another reason is the fact that in the past a great proportion of the funds that I.D.A. paid out went to India and Pakistan, which, because of their long association with us, placed a higher proportion of those sums than would normally have been the case in orders with this country. That situation may change and perhaps in future not so much of the Fund's resources will be devoted to assisting India and Pakistan.

It is difficult to ascertain what I.D.A. proposes to do with the new replenishment. It is noticeable that on Second Reading the Minister did not refer to the uses to which this money will be put. Are we likely to continue to see the major flow of money from I.D.A. going to India and Pakistan, or can we expect that in the years ahead there will be a change of emphasis, with more money going to Africa?

Looking through the Press cuttings file in the Library on I.D.A., the only reference I can find to future proposals for I.D.A. is the suggestion that a large loan will be made to Egypt. At a time when we are tottering on the edge of another financial crisis, it seems strange that we should be borrowing money to make a soft loan to Egypt. I can think of better ways of using our resources.

One of the disadvantages of contributing our aid funds to a multilateral organisation is that one loses control of them. When we distribute aid directly it is possible for hon. Members to discover how it is spent; and I acknowledge the co-operation which the Minister and civil servants extend to hon. Members who are interested in this subject. It is possible to see them, to discover how our aid is distributed and to make suggestions about how it might be better channelled. But one of the disadadvantages of channelling one's aid into a multilateral organisation such as the I.D.A. is that if one does not have this liaison one cannot have control over the funds. It will, therefore, be exceedingly difficult—it is difficult now, but it will be just as difficult in future—for hon. Members to find out how the funds we contribute are spent. Quite frankly, at a time when we have to look with increased care at the funds which we are spending on international aid, it seems to me that we should be ever more anxious to keep control of those funds in our own hands.

I would not have intervened at all in this debate but for the rather depressing speech of the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), and I very much hope that the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) will, in due course, be able to put in better balance the attitude of his party. I have rarely heard a speech that was more obscurantist in its terms, which contained analogies that were no analogies and which clearly would, if the hon. Member were to succeed, lead the country into attitudes which would be condemned throughout the world and gravely endanger our position.

I note also that, although the hon. Member referred to the sums being made available for industrial development as compared with agricultural development —a matter of deep concern and of con- siderable importance—he made no attempt to suggest that the international funds to which we are contributing are making provision that is in any way unbalanced—

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take it that my anxiety not to develop to the full all the points I might have opened up was simply to enable the House to make some progress. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I could speak for three hours on the subject if he were to provoke me.

The one welcome feature of the hon. Gentleman's remarks was that they did not detain the House very long. I hope that his future contributions will be as brief, if they need to be made at all.

The kind of comment that everyone will resent was the hon. Gentleman's reference to money being stolen out of the till. That kind of remark is obviously made to catch a great deal of Press publicity when it has no reality attached to it. Seeking a great deal of personal publicity with a catch phrase like this, which we know is quite meaningless, creates ill-will and ill-feeling in the country, and I believe that it is reprehensible for an hon. Member to make such statements.

I have more sympathy with what was said by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) about control and information of the work being done by the international bodies to which we contribute. This is a fair point, and an important point. I have always argued in favour of multilateral aid as against bilateral aid, but I admit quite frankly that it is always a problem to ensure that there is adequate and effective control over the use of funds in multilateral schemes. There are very great political and other advantages in increasing the proportion of multilateral aid. It is clearly of immense importance to avoid individual countries feeling themselves completely tied to a certain country, which may even be regarded as an old colonial country linked with attitudes of Empire, and so on. As against that, we have not fully and satisfactorily worked out means of proper and adequate control.

The argument on the balance between agricultural and industrial provisions in many territories has gone on for a long time, and it is a matter to which the international bodies themselves have given a great deal of attention. It cannot be dismissed lightly. I know from the contacts I have had with many of these bodies that it is not true that they simply accept propositions that countries put forward, as though we were making funds available through these organisations to Governments without any kind of prior examination of the way in which the proposals link up with others, and so on.

That is far from the truth. Negotiations and discussions with Government and expert advisers go on, and in many people's view go on far too long, in order to try to make sure that projects being supported by international funds are viable, that the aid is not available only for one year but for long enough to ensure that a certain project can stand up until it can be completely taken over by the aided country, and that in all cases the country being aided is itself making the biggest contribution to the project. These are all matters of great concern.

Speaking for myself and, I am sure, for most of my hon. and right hon. Friends, I very much welcome the extra provisions that are being made. We regret that, inevitably, because of financial circumstances, those provisions are not as great as many of us would have wished. I share the anxieties of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) about the way in which, increasingly, political issues may be creeping into our decisions. We are anxious that they should go no further.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Working (Mr. Onslow) about the way in which those responsible for arranging Government business have handled this Bill. This Measure is of immense importance, not merely to ourselves but to the other member Governments of the International Development Association and to a large number of developing countries which have been looking to that Association for assistance but have been left in some degree of uncertainty in recent months. This has been unfair to the House, and to the Minister himself. I hope that the lesson has been learned, and that this will not happen again.

My hon. Friend made a forthright attack on the principle of aid. He is right in saying that aid involves some transfer of resources—a giving of resources—to another country. He is right, too, to argue—and I think that we would all agree with him—that it would be a very good thing if the world's economic affairs were ordered so sensibly that aid was unnecessary. If, for example, developing countries could get reasonably stable prices for their primary produce so that they had a fair certainty of what they would receive over a number of years, if they could get selective preferences for some of their manufactures in the markets of the developed world, the movement from dependence on foreign aid towards self-dependence would be more rapid.

Unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world but in a very divided world —divided less, perhaps, by ideology than by the fact that two-thirds of the human race live in relative poverty, and in which, whatever efforts they may make, with or without our assistance, the gap between their standard of living and ours will inevitably widen.

2.0 p.m.

Perhaps it would be right to say at this stage, because this is the crucial Clause of this Bill, that aid programmes have had much more success in the last decade than they had been given credit for generally, especially the aid programmes of the I.D.A. itself whose funds we are seeking to replenish. Some countries have moved out of the aid field altogether as a result of the effort which has been made—Taiwan, South Korea, Mexico, Brazil are examples—others like Kenya are moving out of the aid field too, reaching the point where they can dispense with foreign aid. In these cases the aid programme is achieving precisely the end which my hon. Friend rightly thinks desirable.

According to the World Bank, the gross national product of the developing countries as a whole has doubled over the last 15 years and their per capita income has risen by 40 per cent. That is a massive achievement by any standard of measurement. But what matters to the people of a developing country is not the overall picture of growth, but their own performance. Unhappily, the stark fact which this House must recognise is that for the majority of developing countries the performance has been disappointing. It seems unlikely now that the minimum 5 per cent. growth target set for those countries at the beginning of the United Nations Development Decade will be reached by many of them.

Yet that target of 5 per cent. growth was modest enough. It simply meant that, in about 70 years from now, the developing countries would reach the same average income per capita as the developed countries of Western Europe were enjoying in 1960. By all past standards, that would be a massive achievement, because it would mean that the developing countries would compress into a little less than a century the evolutionary processes which have taken advanced industrial countries like ours three or four times as long to accomplish.

But, of course, the developed world would not be standing still in that period. Indeed the mind boggles at the enormous strides it is likely to take in the next 10 years let alone the next 70. Whatever progress is made by the developing countries in that period the gap between them and us will not be narrowed unless some quite exceptional effort is made such as is envisaged by I.D.A. and other aid programmes to which all the richer countries are morally pledged. Nor can we reasonably expect—this is a harsh political fact which we have to face as realists—that the leaders in the poorer countries will be content to wait so long to secure what by contrast seem pitifully small returns. As the President of the World Bank once said:

"Humanity really can do better than this."

We are dealing here with the most important Clause in the Bill, empowering us to make a substantial contribution to the funds of I.D.A. In the view of my hon. Friends and myself it is both significant and right that we are making that contribution at a time when our own economic situation is far from satisfactory. It is significant because it is a recognition that in the long run our own prosperity is bound up with that of the rest of the world.

I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Woking has left the Chamber because these remarks are directed as much to him as to anyone else. We have a deep and abiding interest in helping to quicken the tempo of world economic activity. It is right to make this contribution, because of all the ways of helping the poorer countries to speed their economic development the I.D.A. method is one which ensures effective use of resources and can show considerable benefit not only for the recipients but for our own economy.

The reason I am sorry that my hon. Friend left the Chamber is that I do not agree with the arithemetical calculation he was making. It is a fact that our contributions to I.D.A. of about £60 million have produced £90 million worth of export orders. It is true that if one is measuring the benefits to the United Kingdom economy one must make allowance for the import content of the goods exported. One must also make allowance for the fact that if the goods were not exported under an aid procurement programme they might have been exported in the normal way to other markets. But this is very difficult to quantify. While there is an element of trulh in what my hon. Friend said, namely, that the benefit is not absolutely 30s. for every £ invested in I.D.A. funds, the benefit is considerably greater than he sought to show.

The provision we are making here, however, is but one contribution to an imaginative partnership of 18 relatively wealthy countries. The agreement does not become effective unless at least 12 of the partners whose contributions total not less 950 million American dollars ratify their agreement to contribute. On Second Reading the Under-Secretary told us that so far eight countries have ratified their agreement and two more were soon to do so. Their contributions, if one excluded our own, came to only 240 million American dollars. Thus even with our contribution this means that at this moment the venture is short of the qualifying minimum.

There is no point in glossing over the fact that unless the United States Congress ratifies the agreement on the replenishment of I.D.A.'s funds, the organisation as we know it will collapse. All of us in this House recognise the great difficulties which face the United States at the present time. It is no part of our function to advise, or even to comment, on the parliamentary proceedings of other countries, least of all of the United States to whose unparalleled generosity in times of difficulty we owe so much.

No European should ever forget the generous and timely help given under the Marshall Plan, which gave our war stricken continent a new lease of life. No Briton should ever forget Lend-Lease, which Sir Winston Churchill was once moved to describe as the most unsordid act in human history; but the United States Congress is now in effect answering at the door of history to an urgent call for help. It is answering, not only for itself, but for all the richer nations of the world. This is an awesome responsibility. All of us must fervently pray that wisdom will guide the actions of those in the United States on whose decision in this matter so much depends.

There is one point about the American contribution to which reference was made on Second Reading and which we on this side hope that the right hon. Gentleman will make clear. In normal circumstances the aid provided by I.D.A. is untied. We understand—the Minister went to great pains to explain this to us—tlhat certain arrangements have been made to help the United States overcome its current balance of payments difficulties. We make no complaint about that, but I am not sure that the way that the matter was explained to the House is very clear.

The Parliamentary Secretary said this:

"… the whole of the United States' contribution will be available in a free form within the period of three years."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st July, 1968; Vol. 767. c. 1264.]

Surely that is not correct. Page 14, paragraph II(d), of the Report of the I.D.A. Executive directors—Cmnd. 3599 —shows that the United States' contributions not used for procurement in that country cannot be drawn before 1st July, 1971. Therefore, the money will not be available

"within the period of three years".

I thought that the right hon. Gentleman himself got it wrong. If I have it wrong and he can put me right, he will be doing a great service. However, I think that he got it wrong when he said this:

"The United States' share will need to be made available at the end of the three-year period, and once the money is in the organisation, it leads to untied orders."—[OFFICIAL RKPORT, 28th June. 1968; Vol. 767, c. 1032.]

This surely implies that the whole of the United States' contribution would be made avaliable immediately during the three-year period. This cannot be the case. Paragraph II(e) on page 14 of Cmnd. 3599 makes it quite clear that the deferred contributions only become available three years after they become deferred. Since the contributions, like those of other members, including ourselves, are made in three equal instalments in 1968, 1969 and 1970, the United States' contributions for each of these years will not be available until 1971, 1972 and 1973 respectively. It is no part of my business to criticise this arrangement; it was entered into freely, but it is imperative that the Committee should be clear about what the arrangement is before we approve this legislation. I therefore invite the right hon. Gentleman to clarify the matter.

Finally, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reply to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) and say something about how the I.D.A. proposes to use the fresh funds it will obtain the years ahead. We do not ask this question in any critical spirit, because anybody who wishes to do so can study the detailed record of I.D.A. achievements over the past few years. After all, the key to the future lies in past performance. The benefits that have flowed from the use of I.D.A. credits can be measured in many Commonwealth countries. I have no doubt myself that the money will be utilised satisfactorily.

I think I am right in saying that the President of the World Bank estimated that developing countries could quite successfully and economically utilise between 50 per cent. and 60 per cent. more resources in their development than they are at present doing. This is spread over developing countries as a whole and must not be taken to be a figure for any particular country. I have little doubt, therefore, that the I.D.A. will be able to utilise its funds in a useful and economic fashion. Nevertheless, as my hon. Friend said, we are making available money for aid at a time of economic stringency and I think that Parliament and the nation are entitled to have as much information as to how that money will be used.

I am in very much the same position as my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop). It had not been my intention to speak, certainly not at this stage of the debate. However, I was so disturbed and distressed by some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) that I am minded to intervene. I did not hear the speech of the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), but I do not altogether regret that, because I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would have raised my blood pressure even more than the hon. Member for Beckenham did.

I am moved to seek to rebut as firmly as I can some of the points which the hon. Gentleman made, because it would be wrong if it were to go out from the House of Commons that the attitude of the House to the question of aid is similar to that which was expressed by the hon. Gentleman. His first point was that it was disturbing or wrong that we should be voting money for this purpose at a time when our own economic situation was so bad.

I cannot reply more effectively to this point than did the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine). It is precisely because we are in a somewhat difficult economic position that it is all the more admirable that the Government have decided to go ahead with a comparatively generous contribution towards the I.D.A. replenishment. This will be accepted by anybody who believes in the whole principle of aid, certainly by any Socialist who believes in the redistribution of funds from wealthier sections of the population to another section. Most people—many Conservatives, too; many right thinking people in all parties nowadays— are convinced of the enormous and inestimable value of aid, not only to the recipients of aid.

One of the most essential points which must be stressed over and over again is that aid is valuable, not only to the recipients, but to many of the donor countries as well, for reasons which have been made plain during the debate. It serves to keep the flow of international trade moving and to bring back funds, even to the countries which make the aid available. The figure of 30s. return for every £1 which we have given is very important as regards our contribution to I.D.A. Although this may not be maintained in quite the same proportion in future, we shall continue to reap a considerable and important benefit from our contribution.

I would not want the hon. Gentleman to distort anything that I said as he seeks to reply to some remarks that I made. I did not argue that we should cancel our aid programme. Nor did I argue that we should even at this moment slash it. I argued that we should retain control ourselves over aid and that it was odd to borrow money internationally and to give to an international organisation. I did not argue that we should not be performing this function.

The point that at a time when we are borrowing it is strange that we should be giving applies just as much to bilateral aid as much as it does to multilateral aid. I agree with the hon. Member for Essex, South-East that it is admirable that we should be doing this even though we are in some economic difficulty.

The hon. Gentleman's second point was that it is surprising that we are giving more generously than some of our competitors which are in a similar stage of economic development. This is totally irrelevant. The fact that certain countries are not very generous in giving aid is no reason why we should not be as generous as we can be. I do not deny that one or two of the countries the hon. Gentleman mentioned have not been conspicuously generous. But there are several others—France is the most notable example—which have been much more generous than we have in aid generally, although they are not so outstanding in multilateral aid.

The hon. Gentleman's third point was that the form in which this contribution is to be made does not give us so much control over the way in which the aid is used. True, it is difficult for us in advance, at the time when we are voting this replenishment, to know to which countries the funds will be given, but it is not true that we have no idea of the kind of control exerted over funds which are used for replenishment. The control exerted by the I.D.A. is extremely strict, and it is generally on a multilateral basis in which we ourselves have representation since we have representatives on the Board of the I.D.A.

Furthermore—this is, perhaps, the crucial point—it is a form of control which is much more acceptable to the developing countries than any kind of control undertaken by an aid-giving country giving aid bilaterally. I do not deny the necessity of some kind of control over the way in which the aid is used, but it is essential to recognise that the control which a multilateral agency can exercise is not only more acceptable but, because it is more acceptable, is usually more effective than control which an individual aid-giving country can itself exercise.

I accept entirely that there is a British voice in the control over these funds, but what exercises me is that, at a time when Parliament is asked to make available 155 million dollars, we do not know how the money is to be spent. We cannot know precisely how the I.D.A. proposes to spend it, but, before Parliament passes the Bill, we ought to know broadly whether it intends to follow the same pattern as in the past. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman himself would like to know how the money will be spent.

It depends what one means by "how it is to be spent". If, as I suspect, the hon. Gentleman is asking to which countries the money will be lent, I should regard that as an unreasonable request to make in advance.

Why?

This is a fund which is available to all developing countries. A decision has to be made on an annual basis as to how the fund for any year or period will be allocated, and it would be impossible if one were to decide in advance exactly how the whole fund was to be distributed. What one can expect to know—and what one can know already —is roughly on what principles the fund operates. We know roughly the kind of projects for which it makes loans. Moreover, it is an essential feature that we know on what terms the loans are made. One of the inestimable advantages of aid in this form is that it is given on particularly generous terms.

Nearly all developing countries now, and some in particular, are reaching a stage when the repayments of aid given to them in the past are becoming a severe burden on their balance of payments. It is fairly generally recognised now that, for this reason, an increasing proportion of aid, if not all of it, must be given in a generous form, in the form of soft loans which do not represent such a heavy burden on the balance of payments as the full market terms of interest would represent. This is one of the main advantages of loans through the I.D.A.

For that reason, I congratulate the Government on their present move. I regard it as a welcome step forward. Aid in this form is given in one of the best ways possible. In particular, I contrast it with some of the bilateral aid arrangements and some of the conditions attached thereto. For example, our recent aid to Tanzania led to an extremely unfortunate situation. We all welcome the resumption of diplomatic relations with Tanzania, but the cutting off of aid to Tanzania because that Government would not meet one particular requirement was an extremely unfortunate example of what can happen in bilateral aid. In the present case, however, I congratulate the Government on making considerable funds available in a multilateral fashion.

I apologise to the Committee for not being present when the proceedings began. It has been difficult enough for a Member interested in the Bill to discover when it would be debated. To announce, at the very earliest, at mid-morning on Monday, when most of us had made our arrangements for the Monday, that the Second Reading would come on on the Monday night was not treating the House with the respect it deserves or, for that matter, treating the Bill with the respect it deserves. I must register a protest about it. Having made other arrangements, I arrived early on the Tuesday morning only to discover that the Second Reading debate was almost over. One almost suspects that the Minister hoped that he would get it through rather more quickly by taking it last Monday night than he would otherwise have done.

The Bill, and Clause 1 in particular, commits this country, in the middle of a balance of payments problem, to heavy overseas payments. This has been said before, but it ought to be said again. I welcome the speech of the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Luard), and I agree with much of what he said, because it should be made clear to the country, and to the other countries of the world, that there are two sides to the question of aid. A discussion of this kind is admirable.

It is, perhaps, wrong to discuss in detail on Clause 1 the merits and morals of aid as a whole, but we must look at the effects of a very large payment from this country on both this country and the recipient countries. We have been told about the 30s. worth of British exports resulting from every £1 of aid given through a multilateral organisation. That is a useful figure, but not much more. It has been argued that the 30s. worth of British exports mean, in fact, £1 worth of British exports for which we are not paid and only 10s. worth for which we are paid.

One can ask whether the figure of 30s. worth of British exports for every £1 of multilateral aid which we give is marginally correct. If we give an additional £1, do we achieve an additional 30s. worth of British exports? Of course not. If we give an additional £10 million, do we achieve an additional £15 million of British exports? Of course not. If we gave no aid at all through multilateral agencies, I should be prepared to agree that we might well achieve a considerable level of British exports for every dollar of aid given to multilateral organisations by the United States. The figure has some validity, but not complete validity, and the Minister would be unwise to hammer it too much.

Whatever be said we are giving away about £40 million over four years. We have considerable balance of payments difficulties. America has succeeded in negotiating a special deal to help its balance of payments problems. Could we have done something on those lines? One wonders. Only last night, one hon. Member remarked in rather cynical terms that aid giving was a good idea when one was in balance of payments deficit because one was always giving away borrowed money. There is a certain cynical logic underlying that comment.

This country might, perhaps, be compared with a Victorian gentleman in difficult circumstances. He maintains his West End tailor, his subscription to his club and his subscriptions to charity, largely to keep up appearances. There is something to be said for keeping up appearances. But every Victorian novel —and they nearly all seemed to deal with gentlemen in straightened circumstances—always viewed the chap who kept up his West End tailor as a silly ass.

We have every reason to look rather critically at Britain's aid giving. We have played a leading part. I am not one to think that many methods could not be used to stimulate development in underdeveloped countries, but I look also at the effect of aid on the recipient countries. One can almost invariably regard with satisfaction individual projects and the results of individual projects—I had something to do with one or two of which I am rather proud—but, now that aid has grown to considerable proportions, although it is still only a minor factor in the development of developing countries, we must look at the totality.

It is probably wrong to generalise about them, because they vary so much, but the nearest comparison one can take in looking at underdeveloped countries as a whole is that an underdeveloped country is rather like a developed country in a state of absolute slump in which almost all commercial activity has come to an end.

2.30 p.m.

It is noticeable in most underdeveloped countries that the public sector is the largest employer in the country, and in most underdeveloped or developing countries that I know the public sector, if it is not the largest employer, is considerably larger in proportion than the public sector in a developed country. The public sector does not add a great deal to productivity. It is the development of the private sector which adds wealth to a developing country. Countries which receive aid in large quantities almost invariably pay out the aid received through the Government, and thereby automatically increase the power of the public sector and increase the number of public servants.

Anyone who has recently, rather than 10 years ago, visited a developing country will notice that Parkinson's Law has had the most dire and terrible effects. In many cases, for quite simple operations, the number of civil servants necessary to administer a particular area has doubled or trebled. The power given by aid to the public sector is one reason behind this, since Governments do not take on too many civil servants unless they have the money to do so. The continuous building-up of the public sector is, I believe, thoroughly dangerous in totality, although I am not prepared to argue against the admirable effects of some minor projects.

There is another factor which must be looked at very closely when we are considering giving large quantities of aid to developing countries. When a new teacher training college, a new road or an institution is built in a developing country, because the money has come in aid and it is in an overseas currency, the tendency is to build it to a higher standard than is customary in that country. Only last year I visited a thoroughly admirable nurses' training school. It was built to a standard that had never before been seen in the area. It was to a considerable extent built of imported materials; corrugated iron sheets, concrete, steel window frames, expanded steel and glass. The previous nurses' training college in that part of the world was an excellent one which was built almost entirely of indigenous materials such as burnt brick, bricks, thatch, and locally-grown timber for the doors and window frames, and shutters rather than glass. This might be too low a level, but the money spent on the earlier nursing training college all went to people in the area, the people who cut the timber, the people who made the bricks and did the thatching, and the money was, therefore, kept circulating in the country. However, now that there is a training college of a higher standard, will any nurse put up with a training college of a lesser standard, and will that country have to depend in future upon imported corrugated iron, imported concrete, imported expanded metal and imported door latches? It is a thoroughly doubtful proposition.

I believe that we need to have a long look at the totality of aid. I hope that the Minister will say that he gives the fullest possible support to the notion of the President of the World Bank for an international audit of aid, an audit that could be a Radcliffe Report, setting down guidelines and showing the dangers which exist of over-high standards and overemphasis on the public sector. If, in our difficult circumstances, we are to give such a hugh sum, some conditions must be laid down, just as the United States of America has laid down conditions. Although I have made these qualifications, I think that I.D.A. is probably one of the best institutions for administering the aid and probably the best of the multinational ones. I do not grudge this section of aid, but every time we discuss international aid we must qualify our recommendation.

If I may be critical of my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Braine), he tends to get carried away. He is a bit starry-eyed on occasions. One must be down-to-earth. I am not at all sure that, if we had an additional £200 million of British commercial investment in developing countries, thereby strengthening the private sector, we would not be doing a great deal more good.

I was talking on Clause 1 "stand part", as we all are, and relating my remarks solely to aid. I have always held the view that aid is only one part, perhaps not even the most important part, of the job of helping underdeveloped nations. Trade is vastly more important, but it is difficult to argue this with one-crop country in great economic difficulties and needing help for the early stages of development, in order to enable private investment to take full advantage of the opportunities. This is the problem.

I am glad to hear my hon. Friend say that. I go further and say that aid can never be much more than a catalyst, and the main effort must come from the chaps themselves. The arguments of infrastructure are frequently carried too far. One sees the laying-down of a tarmac road from Nairobi to Mombasa directly parallel to the railway track, while a very important road in Tanzania remains one of the nastiest and dirtiest roads I have ever seen, and one wonders whether infrastructure arguments operated. One sees the encouragement of universal education, with the result that the infrastructure takes all the educated men. This country became industrially rich before it even had universal primary education, or even 80 per cent. primary education. The underdeveloped countries must realise that some things are luxuries which they cannot afford in the earliest stage of development.

Is the hon. Gentleman seriously wishing upon underdeveloped countries the atrocities that happened in this country in the nineteenth century?

No one is suggesting atrocities, but I suggest that a 50 per cent. or 60 per cent. rate of primary education would allow almost every child who wants to go to school, or whose parents want him to go to school, to do so, and is something which could be afforded. I am suggesting that compulsory 100 per cent. education is not something a country needs. The number of educated men who are involved in teacher training colleges and as teachers is one thing which is holding up the development of developing countries.

I wish to speak for a moment more exclusively on Clause 1 than I have done so far. In both Clause 1(5) and Clause 2(1) are to be seen the phrases to which we have become so accustomed in all overseas aid Bills:

"… may with the approval of the Treasury …"

During the passage of the last major Bill on this subject, hon. Members on this side of the House spoke at considerable length on the candle-end controls imposed on aid by the Treasury. I am not certain that Treasury control is valuable in the day-to-day operation of aid. Will the Minister make a statement on this?

What is in my mind as probably the most sinister part of Treasury intervention in aid is the aid to Tanzania and the souring of relations between this country and Tanzania in the last two years. The Minister is well aware that a number of hon. Members for a long time have thought that it was entirely wrong that developing ex-colonial countries should be burdened with a huge pension bill. I am sure the Minister agrees that they should not. There may be a legal equity about it, but, believing as he does in the nationalist philosophy, no African politician will see his country burdened by £1 million of £1½ million a year for the payment of pensions to the nation's ex-colonial overlords. This, I believe, has been materially responsible for souring the relations between this country and Tanzania, which is a friendly and progressive country. I know that the initial reason for breaking off diplomatic relations was tied up with the O.A.U. decision on Rhodesia, but when I saw President Nyerere last summer the only reason why diplomatic relations had not been renewed was that negotiations were being carried out over these pensions.

Can the Minister give a clear statement about the resumption of diplomatic relations now that Tanzania is not paying these pensions? Has he at last broken the grasp of the Treasury, which stuck to its guns? Can we see a change in policy over a much wider area and not just over Tanzania? If so, I congratulate the Minister. I wonder whether in any future overseas aid Bills Treasury control needs to be so closely written in.

We were all delighted to read the official news in the newspapers this morning, but the House requires a clear statement about the negotiations with Tanzania and the renewal of diplomatic relations and what agreement has been reached about the payment of pensioners.

I do not expect an immediate answer to this, but I would remind the Minister that a number of pensioners are not living in this country. A particularly large number of pensioners of Tanzania come from Malawi, India and Pakistan. Have we done anything to guarantee that persons from Malawi, India and Pakistan, who served not only as clerks but in senior posts, are receiving pensions from the Government of Tanzania? I hope that we are not leaving them to the tender mercies of their own Governments, because they are too few in number to justify high level negotiations.

This matter needs the fullest examination by the House. The country has increasing doubts about the benefit of aid. A debate like this can do something to get sane thinking throughout the country on the subject, particularly on the Tan-zanian aspect. I trust that we may have a clear statement about this.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Mr. Henry Clark), I apologise for not having heard what my hon. Friends the Members for Woking (Mr. Onslow) and Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) said, but I was tied up with matters concerning the grave problems of Nigeria and could not attend the Committee from the start of the debate.

I welcome what my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North has said about private enterprise and pensions. I have heard many people in Merseyside argue against giving aid. I am in favour of it, and particularly in favour of multilateral aid, but I can understand their argument when aid is wasted. I remember seeing a nurses' home which had been built at Sokoto. It was utterly unused because the Northern Nigerian leaders would not accept Ibo nurses and no others were available. That was many years ago. I have also seen immense sums of money—£8 million, I think— wasted in Ghana—not that we gave Ghana very much aid; this was Ghana's own money—on Job 600, a vast palace of many storeys, completely useless to man, built by Nkrumah.

Nigeria has had, I think, more aid per head than any other country in the world. It is now engaged on a ghastly civil war, with atrocities far worse than anything from the Victorian Age that an hon. Member opposite referred to. One has to convince one's electorate that it is better to build, say, a dam in Asia than reclaim the Dee estuary and make it a place, like the Plover Cove in Hong Kong, for the benefit of the people of Merseyside.

It is arguable that if we reduce our aid over the next five years or so we may have much more to give in five or six years' time. It is a balance of decision. It is not all black and white and easy for everyone to say that £200 million or thereabouts is the right sum of money to give in aid. For the time being it may be that very much less is right, and in a few years' time it might be very much more. It is by no means an easy decision.

2.45 p.m.

I agree with hon. Members who have said that one wants, if one can, to prime the pump whenever it is possible to do this, but I am afraid that occasionally the pump is allowed to get a little rusty or badly maintained, and if one does not produce enough money the pump may never be primed. I have seen a wonderful example of proper priming—not by this country but by America—in Taiwan. There the sum of £500 million was spent, and the country through it reached the take off stage.

That is a wonderful example of the success of aid. But if one dribbles out the aid, as we have done over the years —both Governments have done so—we may get a Durgapur steel works set up —not all that successful—in India when possibly we ought to have spent the money on helping the agricultural revolution rather than the industrial one. Occasionally, the wrong decisions are made.

I, as a believer in private enterprise, wonder whether some help could not be given to insure investment overseas. Because of what is happening in many countries in Asia and Africa, private capital is very loath to enter some of those territories. I should like to see a stock exchange in almost every capital. I believe that the capitalist system works. But we shall not get the investors of the world putting money into those unstable countries which threaten to sequestrate or nationalise their properties or else say that they cannot, because of balance of payments reasons, remit profits.

I hope that in the coming year the Minister will give further thought to whether a certain amount of aid should not be given, preferably with other countries, for the purpose of establishing an investment guarantee fund or some form of insurance against exproporiation.

I turn to what my hon. Friend said about pensions. I believe that we have a moral duty to look after those who have served the Crown well in the past. Alone of all ex-imperial Powers, we insist on putting the burden of pensions on the newly-independent countries. France has not done so, Holland has not done so, Belgium has not done so, but we have done it. I am not sure that it has been a wise thing to do. The problem has been stated in much better words than I can use by Mr. A. H. Jamal, the Minister of Finance of Tanzania, in a speech on 18th June:

"Hon Members will recall that during my Budget speech last year I referred to the continuing burden on the Tanzanian taxpayer which resulted from pensions commutation and compensation payments to former expatriate pensioners."

He went on:

"In the case of expatriates an entirely different situation exists, and the Government is not prepared to continue with the arrangements which we were obliged to accept at the time of our independence in 1961."

I am sure that this is the opinion of many Ministers of comparatively recent independent territories of the Commonwealth. The trouble is that the problem comes up every year in the Budget that is debated in their assemblies, and we get no thanks and many brickbats.

I am suggesting—and the Minister has known my views for a long time—that from the totality of aid—£200 million or whatever it is—we should take away the pension obligations of about £15 million, leaving a lower totality. If we did that, pensioners themselves would feel secure. They would not be frightened of things going wrong. I hope, too, that their widows would feel much more secure than do the widows of those who served in the Ceylon Administration and who are paid in depreciated rupees. Whatever the Government do, nothing seems to come out of Ceylon.

I propose to quote one further short passage from the statement to which I referred earlier:

"These arrangements are clearly unsatisfactory and unfair. The public officers' agreement refers to a particular category of officers, those who were employed on overseas leave terms, and who were selected for appointment by, or at the instance of, the Government of the United Kingdom. By insisting on the execution of the public officers' agreement as an integral part of the arrangement for granting independence the Government of the United Kingdom formally acknowledged that the officers in this particular category were in a special sense their responsibility."

I agree with that, and I hope that careful thought will be given to this problem by Her Majesty's Government.

I accept that there are certain territories such as Hong Kong, Bermuda and the Bahamas, which are rich enough to look after their pensioners, but all these public officers' agreements are bilateral, and there is no reason why, with a bit of trouble, one should not renegotiate them and take the price of these pensions off the totality of British aid.

Finally, I suggest that we have a moral duty to the people who have served this country of ours so well, and who were engaged, not by the Government of Tanzania, or Zambia, or Malawi, which did not exist at the time, but by either the Governor or the Secretary of State for the Colonies as he then was, and I very much hope that the Minister will look into this matter over the next few months.

We have had a long and wide-ranging debate on Clause 1, which I welcome. I share the views of those who have said that these matters have not been sufficiently debated in the House in recent years or, indeed, for several years. When I was on that side of the House, and there was a Conservative Government, I used to complain about the lack of opportunity to debate these matters, and I therefore welcome the chance presented to us this afternoon to debate Clause 1 in this way.

While I was listening to the hon. Members for Woking (Mr. Onslow), and Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart), I wondered when either of them would express any word of concern about the human problems of poverty in the developing world. What I found most depressing about their speeches was that there was no hint that these tremendous human problems should be of any concern to them, or to this House, or to the Government of this country, or to other relatively affluent countries.

rose—

I rather think not, and I shall tell the hon. Gentleman why.

I should like to correct what the Mnister said.

Very well, I shall give way just this once.

If the Minister reads HANSARD he will find that I referred specifically to the problem of peasant poverty. I hope to have an opportunity, when we come to Clause 2, to answer the Minister's challenge. There is an answer to it, and I shall give it to the Minister.

I am glad that the hon. Member made some brief reference to it, but the greater part of his remarks seemed to ignore the moral aspects of the problem.

I think that I should tell the Committee that I do not propose to give way again. I have a number of points to refer to, and I should like to deal with them as well as I can but without taking up too much time, because, for reasons which I hope are shared by everyone, I trust that we shall complete the remaining stages of the Bill this afternoon.

When the hon. Member for Beckenham interrupted my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Luard) he said that he was arguing for a cut in the aid programme. I do not think that that was clear to me from his earlier speech, but, having said that, I should draw attention to the distinction. The speech of the hon. Member for Woking sounded like a slightly more sophisticated version of the kind of speech one would expect on these matters from Alf Garnett.

The aid programme has developed in this country under both Governments, and with the support of all parties and informed public opinion. It has done so for three basic reasons which many of us have stated before, and which I need not state now at any length.

First, there is clearly a moral obligation upon the people who are fortunate enough to live in those countries of the world which have had an industrial revolution, and which enjoy a standard of living based on that, to do something about their fellow human beings in poorer parts of the world. We should not pull the blanket over our heads and ignore the problem of world poverty.

Secondly, every trading nation, and Britain above all, has a vested interest in the growth of the world's economy. The economic growth of developing countries produces benefits for us and for other trading nations which, in the long run, are very considerable indeed.

I agree that we cannot measure the issue precisely in such terms as 30s. worth of orders for every £1 put into a particular fund. These figures have always been qualified both ways, but the longer-term benefits which cannot be qualified are greater than figures of that kind suggest.

The third basic reason for supporting a development aid programme is that this must surely be seen in our time and in the generation ahead as one of the factors most likely to lead to world peace. If the standards of life remain so different between the Northern and the Southern Hemispheres, or if the gap continues to grow, and we allow it to grow so that there is an indifference to the standard of life in the poorer countries, this will build up in the world tensions which, sooner or later, are bound to react on ourselves, on our children, or on our grandchildren, in a most disastrous way.

I insist that there is nothing anomalous about the situation of Britain, with her own economic problems, and owing money to those who have loaned it to us, taking part in the problems of world development. Whatever our economic problems, we have a national income of about £600 per annum per head, and we are talking about countries where the national income per head may be £50 per annum, £30 per annum, or even less. It would be a great tragedy and mistake if, in our time, the wealthier countries became so obsessed with the debts that they owe each other that they were to turn their backs on the rest of mankind.

I turn to some of the specific points which have been raised. I should like to deal particularly with those concerning the provisions for I.D.A. The hon. Member for Woking asked whether the commitment under the I.D.A. agreement was in terms of dollars. That is so, under Article 4 of the I.D.A. agreement. This led us, following devaluation of the £ last year, to make up the value of our earlier contribution. This is a continuing commitment to every country concerned.

3.0 p.m.

The hon. Gentleman spoke about the emphasis which I.D.A. had placed on industrial rather than agricultural development. Clearly, developing countries need both, and the right ratio between industrial and agricultural development must vary with each country. But, as a generalisation, I would agree that until the last few years it was true that in many developing countries there was rather too much emphasis on the creation of new industries and too little emphasis on rural development, and that this was an error made by developing countries, also by donors of aid, whether on a bilateral or a multilateral basis.

However, there has been a shift in recent years, including a shift in the I.D.A. programme. About 300 million dollars have been invested by I.D.A. in the last three or four years in agricultural development. This was not so at the beginning of I.D.A.'s activities, but it has become a much larger part of their operations in recent years.

The hon. Member for Beckenham asked about the proportion of I.D.A. funds going to India and Pakistan and whether this would continue. I cannot say at this stage what proportion will go to India and Pakistan in future or to any other country. In reply to the wider question, executive directors are carrying out a very active review of I.D.A. activities, bearing in mind the decisions about investment in the period ahead. They will continue to give help to countries which, in the main, have a per capita income of about £100 a year or less, which need capital development and which have shown that they can use it efficiently, but which should not be expected to take on the burdens of conventional loans.

I feel confident that India and Pakistan will be major recipients of I.D.A. money —whether it will be in precisely the same proportion remains to be seen; that has not been decided—some critics of the I.D.A. programme have suggested that India and Pakistan have received too much of the I.D.A. money. But if one works out the amount per head of population one realises that they have received about the same as many recipient countries in Africa, Latin America and elsewhere. Because of the enormous size of their populations, the amounts necessarily form a very large part of the whole.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the percentage of contributions from Britain as against other countries. The percentage we are paying this time is the same as that worked out originally. It could have been argued that we should be paying a rather smaller proportion and that certain other countries should be paying a rather larger proportion. The negotiations leading up to the I.D.A. replenishment were so complex in the matter of the amount and the terms of the replenishment—and we regarded it as a matter of such urgency that we should get agreement—that we decided not to press that point. We are reinforced in that by the fact that the I.D.A. operations are beneficial to the British balance of payments. Therefore, we did no wish to argue about one or two per cent. as against somebody else's contribution.

There is no proposal before I.D.A. for a loan to Egypt. That is not among the proposals being considered by the directors.

The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. Henry Clark) raised a number of practical points about the administration of aid generally. In view of the time, I merely say that I found them most interesting. Although I would not agree with everything that he said, I agree that all aid donors must constantly keep under review the effectiveness of their programme and the need to get value for money in terms of development in the country concerned.

This is the constant effort of my Department. I believe that it is done more effectively in this country because the Ministry of Overseas Development has been formed. The concentration in one Department of all the relevant experience and expertise means that we are able to learn lessons from experience and are able to become more effective in the administration of the money.

In this connection, I beg the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) not to generalise too much from one or two selected bad examples. Over the years there have been mistakes in development, as in any other field of private and public activity, and I sometimes worry about the fact that those who are hostile to development aid—I am not including the hon. Member in this—seize upon any bad example and magnify its importance while ignoring all the success stories which can be told.

I cannot go into detail on the question of pensions. I make two points only. First, I see no reason to change the view which I expressed to the hon. Member for Wavertree at about 3 o'clock in the morning, some time last January, when we debated these matters. The major argument against the proposal that we should take over the burden of pensions and deduct the cost from the aid total is that this would lead to our doing more for some of the countries who are better off and, therefore, doing less for many of the poorer countries that we were helping. It would mean a net cut in development aid to some of the poorer countries, and I could not contemplate that, in view of the tightness of the aid programme generally.

I could not have expressed myself clearly. I was not suggesting that the payment of the pensions of those employed by the Hong Kong, Bahama and Bermuda Governments should be taken over by Her Majesty's Government.

We should have to consider whether it was practicable to make a partial change affecting some countries and not others.

The second point is that, given the present situation and the fact that when a country repudiates a pension liability, as Tanzania has done, the British Government must assume that responsibility, and that the cost of assuming it must come from within the aid programme. Those who criticise our recent decision about Tanzania should ask themselves, "Who else should be expected to find the £1 million a year that is involved?" Surely it should come from Tanzania, who made the decision, and surely we should not cut off aid to some other country, which did not.

I could deal with this point in detail and if hon. Members can find some method of arranging a debate on it between now and the Recess I shall be happy to do so. It is a little remote from the precise terms of the Clause.

I must deal with two other points raised by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine). He asked for a more precise definition of the arrangements being made to deal with the problem of the United States balance of payments, and the concessions made to the United States point of view in arranging the new replenishment. I agree that the explanations both of my- self and my hon. Friend in the Second Reading debate were perhaps oversimplified for the sake of brevity. If I am to give the more detailed information which the Committee deserves I must sacrifice brevity for a few moments, to explain precisely what is involved.

Hitherto, the arrangement for spending the donors' contributions to I.D.A. has been that when I.D.A. came to draw upon these contributions to provide the cash to enable the recipient countries to pay for their projects it was drawn down from I.D.A. funds proportionately to the size of the donors' contributions to those funds. This is what is meant by saying that the drawings were pro rata. Thus, if the United States provided 40 per cent. of I.D.A.'s funds, 40 per cent. of every disbursement would be made by drawing upon the United States contribution.

Under the scheme in the second replenishment this kind of arrangement will not apply until the United States waives the special safeguards provided to it to protect it against adverse balance of payments effects of I.D.A. for as long as the United States is in balance of payments difficulties. Instead, when I.D.A. comes to make a drawing against donors' contributions, they will first make an estimate of how much of that drawing has to be spent in the United States and will draw only that amount. The difference between that amount and what would have been the pro rata drawing against the United States will then become the deferred amount. Accelerated drawings against the contributions of certain other donors, including the United Kingdom, which have agreed to this arrangement, will then be made in order to make good the shortfall.

Thereafter, the deferred amount of the United States contribution is subject to two conditions. First, it cannot be touched at all until after 30th June, 1971, and, second, each sum which is deferred cannot be drawn until three years after the date of deferrment which of course, now means some date after 1971 and will probably mean that some of these amounts cannot be touched until 1974 or 1975. When the money becomes available, however, it becomes fully and freely available to I.D.A., to spend where it will, in any donor country, regardless of the United States balance of payments position.

The balance of the United States contribution, other than the deferred amounts, however, can be drawn fully and freely at any time after 1st July, 1971, regardless of the state of the United States balance of payments, and can be spent fully and freely in any donor country.

As I have said on a previous occasion, the Government take the view that this is an unfortunate departure from previous practice, but it is one which we felt that we ought to agree to, since the United States is the largest donor and has these balance of payments difficulties and as the operations of I.D.A. have meant a net balance of payments cost to the United States. We thought that this was a price worth paying for a substantial replenishment of I.D.A.

It will certainly reduce temporarily the balance of payments advantage to this country in the earlier stages of the period head, tut that will be only a temporary difficulty and even during that temporary period I would not expect the balance of payments advantage to disappear altogether, and it will be made up when the full amounts become available and can be freely spent.

Finally, I welcome the hon. Member's reference to the decision which needs to be made in the United States Congress. He said that it was difficult for hon. Members to lecture American Congressmen on the decision which they must make and I may say that it is even more difficult for a member of the Government to do this. At the same time, I think it fair to add that the replenishment has been agreed between Governments after long and difficult negotiations, and we are all now entitled to hope that it will be ratified by the legislative assemblies concerned.

Specifically, I hope that it will be ratified by the United States Congress, without too much further delay I hope that the Members of Congress, like the Members of this House and all the other assemblies concerned, will see the replenishment of I.D.A. as being in their own countries' long-term interests, as well as something which wealthier countries should do for the sake of people in much poorer lands.

I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 34, leave out 'any such body' and insert 'the bank'.

The Amendment is to make it clear that the institutions concerned are regional development banks, as referred to in line 17 of Clause 2 and defined in subsection (2). This is a purely drafting Amendment.

I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 3, line 42, leave out 'any region of the world' and insert:

'any developing country as defined by the United Nations'.

The Committee will recall that on Second Reading I expressed the view that the provision in Clause 2 for the Minister to make a contribution to a regional development bank—as defined in subsection (2)—was far too wide. The subsection reads:

"In this section 'regional development bank' means an international financial institution having as one of its objects the promotion of the economic development of any region of the world."

That seemed to us to imply that the provision applied to development anywhere in the world. It made no distinction between developed and developing countries, and it hardly seemed to us to be in line with what the Bill is designed to do, namely to bring aid to the developing or poorer nations. That is why the Amendment seeks to make it clear that we are concerned in the Clause with "developing countries", as these have been defined by the United Nations. In short, it seems to me that in order to justify taxpayers' money being invested in any regional bank, economic development should be the main and not just one of the bank's objects, and that it should be concerned specifically with developing countries.

I appreciate that the explanation may lie in the fact that existing regional banks have constitutions or articles of association which lay down a number of objects or purposes, and that if we were to seek in our legislation to define what should be their main objective or purpose, we might be in difficulties, not merely over interpretation. Nevertheless, the debate today has made it clear that all aid activities are coming under much more critical scrutiny than ever before. I am sure that the Minister agrees that it is right that that should be so.

It is right, too, that we should be as precise as possible when we consider the provision of aid money. We do not wish to see taxpayers' money used in circumstances in which, given the right kind of encouragement, normal private investment would flow. It is our view that official aid, whether bilateral or channelled through a multilateral agency such as the I.D.A. or the regional development banks, should be devoted to infrastructure projects—to the creation of conditions which encourage normal economic growth. It is right, therefore, that Parliament should be very wary of any general power to invest in any regional development bank anywhere in the world.

I agree that there is a safeguard in that, if the Government wished this country to become a member of a particular bank, Clause 2(1) offers us the opportunity to examine both the objects and the purposes of the institution in detail when the Order comes before us for affirmative Resolution. That is all right as far as it goes, but such an Order would come before us only after the Government had made a decision, and I submit that it is essential that the principles involved are understood now while the Bill is going through the House. That is the purpose of the Amendment.

The hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) moved the Amendment in his usual reasonable was—so reasonable, in fact, that he gave most of the reasons why I must ask him to withdraw it or, failing that, for hon. Members to reject it.

There is no difference of principal between us because our intention in seeking these powers is that we should be able to assist economic development in developing countries. I am, therefore, only too willing to concede the point of the Amendment. The difficulty about the wording of his proposal is that it could possibly lead to some doubt about whether the Clause would allow us to operate in cases where, in the view of hon. Members and the Government, we should operate.

As the hon. Gentleman said, the regional development banks often have a list of objects. Indeed, of those development banks that already exist, the purposes and functions that have been included among their objects are the social development of members, the preparation of projects, the financing of investment, the promoting of investment by private capital, the provision of technical assistance, the promotion and orderly growth of foreign trade, the promotion of regional co-operation and so on.

There might be some difficulty of interpretation if we were tied down by the wording of the Clause in such a way that the object of the bank concerned had to be economic development. We want to draft the provision so that no artificial restrictions are created.

Similar considerations apply to the Amendment in which the hon. Gentleman seeks to deal with the problem of developing countries only. A number of regional development banks have highly developed countries among their members. Sometimes these highly developed countries are in the region and sometimes they are further afield. For example, the Asian Development Bank has among its members the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands and New Zealand. The Inter-American Development Bank's largest member is the United States itself.

Where a developed country is geographically located in the region which the bank is designed to serve, its constitution would generally not preclude that country from the benefits available from the operations of the bank, even though in practice it would not be expected to benefit in the sense of receiving direct financial assistance from the bank. We do not want to run into any possible difficulties of interpretation, and for this reason I cannot accept the Amendment.

The hon. Gentleman said that there would be a safeguard in the sense that we could never have authority to provide funds for the purposes of Clause 2 without submitting an order to the House and without it coming within the affirmative procedure. This will ensure that the House has a clear opportunity of examining the purposes we have in mind.

As I said at the outset, there is no difference of principle between us on this issue. It would be our intention to use these powers for the economic development of developing countries, and I hope that, in the light of this explanation, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the Amendment.

In view of the reasonable explanation of the Minister, and since he seems fully seized of the importance of the motive which led me to table the Amendment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

In speaking on this occasion, I intend to set a model of brevity which both Front Benches may wish to emulate.

I take this opportunity to emphasise the essentially open-ended nature of the commitment which we are being led into in the sphere of aid. We are told that the sums to which we may be committed are unknown. At the same time, we are taking steps which will minimise the power of Parliament to control those sums. This is a blank cheque element in overseas aid with which hon. Members should be familiar. We should recognise how often we are giving blank cheques to meet demands which are insatiable.

This point is quite insufficiently debated, because very often we get the counter-argument from the protagonists of aid that there must be more aid: that where it has succeeded there must be more, and where it has failed there has clearly not been enough. That is one of the reasons why I think the House should fully debate the fundamental issues involved.

The Minister was, I suppose I should say, predictable enough to have attacked me for speaking on this subject without making reference to the great moral issues involved. It is an odd thing that this is a subject on which one should apparently never speak without making reference to the great moral issues, but, since he invites me to do so, I shall gladly comply, because his response and that of some of his hon. Friends to the purely practical points I put was very revealing.

It is my experience, and I have had some experience of criticising the work of the aid protagonists over some years, that aid has a very powerful and vocal lobby. I remind the Minister that a great many people make their living out of aid. That is quite as important in this context as it is to remember that there are a great many people whose livelihoods depend on what can be done for them. The two things are not necessarily the same.

Even though that may be condemned as a sophisticated argument, I want to remind the House of some of the things I said and of some of the arguments I did not use. I did not use the groundnuts argument, and I did not use the gold bedstead argument. That is easy enough to do, but that is not the kind of ground on which I seek to attack aid. Again. I could probably have spoken much longer and so made it very much more difficult for the Minister to get his Bill today, but I have not tried to do that.

What I am seeking to do is to promote in the open forum a debate on the real issues involved. At the risk of being called a 20th century Scrooge I will still do so, because my desire is to see that the aims we set ourselves are achieved. There are two aims. The first is to do what it is always the duty of hon. Members to do—to protect the interests of the people they represent, who are the taxpayers. The second is one that we share as members of the human race, which is to do the best we can for one another. I attack the whole concept of aid because I believe that it is a positive barrier to the achievement of the second aim. I do so because I want to see more progress made.

I believe that the philosophy of aid, the bureaucracy of aid, the motivation of aid givers is a direct burden upon the potentiality for progress of people all over the world. I could produce much evidence in support of that view. It puts power into the hands of bureaucrats in under-developed countries. It makes their positions very covetable, but it does nothing for the poor, wretched peasants, and it is on behalf of the poor, wretched peasants as much as the British taxpayers that I seek to argue.

The Minister says, as many people say, that one is immoral if one attacks the concept of aid. I do not concede that point. Neither he nor I become more moral because some of the money we pay in taxes has to go on aid—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying somewhat far from the Clause. I would ask him to come back to the Question, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman is at present making more of a Second Reading speech.

I do not think that I am the first to have strayed marginally out of order today, Sir Barnett, but I shall seek not to offend again.

The purpose of the Clause as a whole is to undertake an unspecified commitment in funds to various organisations which will use those funds for aid and it empowers the business to be carried on in a certain way. I attack this. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) is not here today, but on Second Reading he attacked one development bank as being preoccupied with quick returns. If there is anything to be said for a development bank it is that it should be preoccupied with returns and the quicker the better.

3.30 p.m.

If we are ever to close the gap between the haves and the have-nots, there are two ways of doing it, but we may agree that it should be done as quickly as possible. In this Clause we are presumably attempting to promote economic progress, which we all want. I do not yield paramountcy to the Minister on this, but I believe that there are two ways of closing the gap. We can either make the have-nots into haves or the haves into have-nots. The way which the Minister chooses and which the Clause and the Bill adopt and which the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Luard) would prefer, is a redistribution of taxation on an international basis.

Order. I must ask the hon. Member to speak to the Clause. He is going far from this in the argument he is adopting. This is a question about the regional development bank. If he speaks on that and explains how what he has been saying so far can be related to that, he will be in order but that I cannot see.

If you had allowed me to go on for another three words, Sir Barnett, I think I could have explained it. The regional development bank is one of the vehicles for a redistribution of taxation on an international scale.

Will the hon. Member allow me to interrupt him, as he has referred to me? He is trying to develop the argument that economic aid is not necessarily in the economic interests of people who receive it. Will he explain this?

I am sorry, but the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Luard) is pursuing, or rather replying, to an argument which itself was not in order. If the hon. Member is referring to regional development banks and the Clause itself, that is an entirely different matter.

I am referring to regional development.

Regional development banks.

It would seem more profitable if the hon. Member and I were to continue this discussion outside. If we continue it here I think we would both be out of order.

Outside the Chamber hon. Members may do what they like, but when they are speaking in the Chamber they are under the direction of the Chairman and I have to seek to protect the House.

I am sorry, but if I replied to the intervention that would lead me further astray.

My interest, and that of my hon. Friends who have also criticised aid, is that we should seek to do the best we can. We criticise development banks and other establishments of aid on the ground that they do not do the job as well as we think it could be done.

The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) was wrong in suggesting that this is an open-ended commitment. No funds can be voted under this Clause unless an Order is presented to the House and is approved by an affirmative Resolution of the House. Therefore, of course, the House at that time can consider the Order and, if it thinks fit, it can reject the Order. Any provision, therefore, will be under the control of Parliament just as all the funds used for aid are voted by Parliament in one form or another.

I shall not pursue the hon. Member on this issue, except to say that I was not accusing him of being immoral. I may have said that he was amoral and was not giving sufficient consideration to moral issues, but I would be out of order if I pursued that further.

I rise briefly to seek clarification of the Clause. We sought this on Second Reading, but we were not altogether satisfied with the Parliamentary Secretary's reply. He said that the Clause

"simply includes people from the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man as people who are qualified to serve in this way."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st July, 1968; Vol. 767, c. 1264–65.]

Surely the hon. Gentleman was wrong? If I am wrong, this again provides the Minister with an opportunity to put me right. The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum makes it clear that, as well as extending participation to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man

"The Clause also permits a prescribed period after leaving overseas service to count as qualifying service, whether or not the person concerned enters other employment approved by Minister."

Any dispassionate examination of those words will show that these have nothing to do with the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. If a man takes a job after leaving the Overseas Service, a period will count as qualifying service for a pension, which it would not do if the Bill was not passed.

Therefore, surely, additional money will have to be found by the Government. Yet the last sentence of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum says this:

"No additional sums will be required consequent upon clause 4."

If additional money has to be found, this seems wholly reasonable to us but it is absurd for the Government to pretend that it is not so. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to explain the matter. If additional money is to be spent for this purpose, Parliament should be told. I cannot see how it can be argued that

"No additional sums will be required consequent upon"

the Clause.

The question of Overseas Service pensions and their transferability is always rather close to my heart. Unfortunately, I came to the House of Commons at a time when it was impossible to transfer an Overseas Service pension as a contribution towards one's pension earned from service in the House of Commons. I do not think I can foresee an Amendment to the Clause which would put me in funds, even if the Committee were prepared to vote for it.

In our rather extensive discussions on Clause 1, we had a discussion on the question of the payment of pensions by this country rather than by the ex-Colonial Territories. The Minister presented an argument which, for aught I know, may be an excellent one. He said that if we took over about 15 million Colonial pensions it would distort the pattern of aid, in that some relatively rich countries would get more than they were entitled to and some relatively poor countries would not do so well. For aught I know, careful examination will show that argument to be sound.

If I table a Question to the Minister asking him to publish a table showing the average annual aid to all the ex-Colonial countries and the bill for pensions, which we think the Treasury rather than the country itself should meet, will he publish this so that we can see just how valid the argument is and just how great the distortion would be if the Treasury or his Ministry took over these pensions rather than the ex-Colonial Territories?

I want to raise again a point which I raised on Second Reading. I was not altogether clear about the meaning of my right hon. Friend's reply. Subsection (3)(b)says:

"where any such participant leaves any employment so mentioned before reaching the age at which a pension may become payable under the scheme and without entering other employment which is approved employment …"

What is meant by "which is approved employment"?

I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Mr. Henry Clark) has said. I suspect that the Minister will say that, because the pensions are paid by overseas Governments, he will not have all the information available immediately both of those who are pensioners and also of their widows. However, he must have had quite a lot of information about Tanzania. We on this side have given him warning for many months about what was likely to happen in Tanzania. The Tanzanian Government themselves wrote to the British Government as long as ago as 12th June of last year about this very matter. They did not receive any answer from the British Government until 5th February of this year. Even those of us who are used to Ministerial delays think that that is a bit long.

I hope that the Minister will consider this carefully again because, as every public service officer's agreement is a bilateral one, there is no reason why he should not exclude the rich territories and deal only with the developing countries.

I support the plea made by my hon. Friends the Members for Antrim, North (Mr. Henry Clark) and for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney), and, at the same time, I welcome the Clause. Even in a small fashion, the Clause increases the help given to technical assistance, and at this time of financial stringency for the country as a whole, it makes good sense to devote more effort to technical assistance than to put it into soft loans.

To deal, first, with the point raised by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine), I confirm that no extra cost results from the Clause. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary was correct in one of the reasons which he gave on Second Reading, namely, that the fact that cover is extended to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man does not itself increase the number of people in the corps of specialists or technical assistance appointments. It means merely that we can take such people from those areas as well as from other parts of the United Kingdom.

The hon. Gentleman then asked whether the other provision of the Clause gave rise to extra cost in that we shall be taking into account employment after the officer concerned had left his assignment overseas. The answer is that, under the original scheme provided for in the 1966 Act, I have no power to use Government funds to make payments into the scheme for any period except when the officer concerned is in the employment of the British Government. Therefore, all we are providing here is that, if the officer concerned decides that it would suit him, a period after he has left the British Government's employment could be reckoned for pension purposes, but in such period he would have to make the payment himself, and those payments which he would make into the scheme would have to be sufficient actuarially to cover the extra burden on the scheme resulting from the higher pension. Thus, the part that the British Government would play would still be the same as originally. I must insist, therefore, that there is no extra cost to public funds resulting from the Clause.

I am sorry that I cannot elucidate the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy). I was trying to do so, but I have not in mind the answer to his question. I shall, if I may, write to him about it. I am sorry that I cannot respond more fully now.

The hon. Members for Antrim, North, Wavertree and Beckenham (Mr. Good-hart) all mentioned the wider question which goes outside the scope of the Clause, which deals only with a comparatively small scheme, the Overseas Service Pensions Scheme relating to people employed by the British Government. I think, therefore, that I had better not pursue the wider matters which hon. Gentlemen have raised, though I shall do my best to give as much information as I can to any Questions which they put down.

I have posted the Amendments which are to be considered. The first one is new Clause No. 1 and the Amendment thereto.

I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

This is the first occasion on which I have had the pleasure of meeting with this Bill. I am aware that I shall need in even more generous measure the goodwill which was shown towards it and towards my predecessor during the course of the Bill through Committee.

I do not believe that either the new Clause in its present form, or the Bill itself, is fundamentally contentious. I can see from reading the debates in Committee that the objective of each member of the Committee has been to work together to improve it. So I approach this stage in a spirit of goodwill and I hope that I shall, perhaps, find the same spirit on the Opposition side. There is no need for me to speak at length about the new Clause since hon. Members will be familiar with the events in Commit- tee and how the new Clause came to be put before the House this afternoon. There was full discussion on the principles involved on the eighth sitting of the Standing Committee. At that time, an Opposition new Clause was resisted as being unnecessary for the less-used aerodromes and unduly oppressive if applied to all aerodrome owners, whether or not a need for consultation existed. My predecessor undertook to consider a new Clause on the same lines, with the mandatory requirement omitted, and the present new Clause is the result. It limits the requirement for consultation to aerodromes designated for the purpose by the Board of Trade.

I hope that the Clause will win general approval.

Although the Minister in his new capacity made a statement to the House a few days ago concerning an unfortunate air crash, this is the first time that he has taken part in this legislation and it is, therefore, appropriate for me, as the first Opposition speaker, to express our welcome to him, and also to express the hope that he will be as conciliatory and as kind as was his predecessor. Since I have been in the House, I have never known a Committee which functioned so well as the Committee on this Bill. We virtually rewrote the Bill from top to bottom, and are still engaged in doing so.

The new Clause, as the Minister said, is one which his predecessor kindly promised to reconsider. It appears on the Notice Paper with little or no change from the one put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) in Standing Committee.

I want to reiterate a point that I made in the Standing Committee, that there is not much point in having powers of this kind unless they are used. The point that I made in Standing Committee was, by analogy, to draw attention to the situation at Stansted Airport. I know that it is not covered by the new Clause, but I think that the experience gained there may be helpful in considering the Clause.

Under the British Airports Authority Act power was granted to the Authority to set up consultative committees and facilities for consulation of this kind. That has been done with considerable success at Heathrow. It has not been done at Stansted for reasons which I will not go into, although certain undertakings were given, to which my hon. Friend referred in Committee, which would appear to make it necessary that it should be done. The consequence of its not having been done is to create a very serious situation, about which I have corresponded with the Minister's predecessors, and I am now in the process of corresponding with and speaking to the Minister about it.

It is essential for the Board of Trade to bring home to the operators of airports the very real need for good public relations with local communities. What has happened at Stansted has been a denial of any kind of good public relations on the part of the Authority, and it has led to endless problems. None of us wants to see the problem again at municipal airports or private airports.

During the Committee stage the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) suggested that for municipal airports the power was unnecessary because the general public could sack their local councillors every three years to show their displeasure at the way in which they were running the airport. I never thought that a strong argument, and I am glad to see that it has not been accepted by the Government. Not only do local elections take place over a much wider field than airport management, but in many cases the people disadvantaged do not live within the area run by the Corporation, and many municipal airports are outside the area affected. This is all the more reason why airport managers should have good relations with local authorities.

So I welcome the new Clause. It is excellent that this procedure is being extended to airports other than Authority airports. But I hope that the Minister and his officials will draw to the attention of everybody who runs airports the disastrous consequences that we have seen at Stansted of not carrying out the procedure which is laid down in this way.

I welcome the new Clause. Those who live in constituencies with aerodromes in them or adjacent to them are well aware of the need for appropriate consultative machinery to be in operation.

I should like to ask one or two questions about the Clause. Subsection (2) states:

"and for any other organisation representing the interests of persons concerned with the locality in which the aerodrome is situated".

Does that include such bodies as residents' associations? Many of us have had letters of protest from residents' associations and individuals complaining about aircraft noise, and so on, and I consider it very important that residents' associations in the neighbourhood of airports should be brought into this in a very real way.

Secondly, the phrase "adequate facilities for consultation" is used. I should like the Minister to explain a little more clearly what that means, particularly where an aerodrome is privately owned. For a municipally-owned airport there are all sorts of methods of consultation; one can approach one's councillor or members of the appropriate committee. But in the case of privately-owned airports—Southampton Airport is privately-owned—I should like some clarification of what is meant by "adequate facilities for consultation".

What does the phrase

"with respect to any matter concerning the management or administration of the aerodrome"

mean? Does it mean consultation in respect of flight paths, the construction of runways, and so on, which are vital factors from the point of view of noise for residents in the area?

I welcome the Clause, but I should like answers to those questions to get the position clarified.

It might be convenient if I were to add one or two questions so that the Minister has an opportunity to consider them at leisure.

I add my welcome to that which has been expressed to the Minister on his new appointment, and on appearing before us in charge of the Bill. I hope that he Las read the Committee debates. If he has not, I recommend that he does so, because certain aspects enshrined in the reports of those debates are pure Parliamentary curiosities which it would not be in order to expand on now, but which we may be able to revive in our memories when we come to the Third Reading debate.

I am particularly grateful to the Minister for doing what has never occurred before, namely, accepting a proposal which I made and incorporating it in the proposed legislation. The original suggestion that a similar Clause should be added to the Bill originated from my side of the Committee, and I am naturally glad that my judgment that it was unnecessary to use the majority which we enjoyed at that point in Committee to convince the Government that the legislation was needed has been borne out by experience.

Will my hon. Friend remind the Committee that no fewer than 23 undertakings were given by his predecessor in Committee? Perhaps the Minister will use the time available to look at all 23.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making the Minister's weekend. I am sure that that knowledge will hearten him when he goes home tonight.

I admit that the wording of the Clause is much better than originally proposed. That is merely a reflection on the inadequacy of the Airports Authority Act from which I lifted nearly all the original wording. I have no doubt that the wording is much improved, and I welcome it, but there are one or two points which I hope the Minister will clarify for the benefit of the House.

First, we want to know his view of the Amendment which my hon. Friends and myself have tabled to the Clause. We also want to know how far he intends to apply the powers in the Clause in practice. What type of airfield does he consider will qualify for designation? What does he consider are adequate facilities. I recognise that these may not be the same in every case. If there is an airfield where traffic is relatively heavy, there will need to be a more elaborate system of consultation than will be necessary at other airfields which may come on the margin of designation.

I hope that in the application of the Clause the Minister will err if possible on the side of the interests of the general public, and not be deterred by representations from aerodrome owners. It is for this reason that our Amendment seeks to apply the Parliamentary intervening process where a burden of this kind might be taken away from aerodrome owners.

I am convinced, and I think the House will be, that the problems arising from airport noise cannot wholly be solved, but people must be as happy as they can be in the knowledge that if they have a grievance and a grouse there is someone to take it to. It may be of marginal benefit that they will not automatically bring it to us first, that there will be a consultative committee with which they can discuss their grievances. It would be helpful if the Minister could give us an idea of what he feels should be the consequence of consultation. In his view, will it be enough to have a safety valve? Should there be some onus on the aerodrome management, after consultation, to alter—

I have one question to ask on the Order. As my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary knows, a situation developed in Turkey a year ago under which any haulage concern doing business with Turkey had to pay £300 every time it sent a vehicle through. I have a constituent firm in this position. The Order aims to deal with that situation.

My question is this: when the Order is passed, will this at last be the end of the road, and can my constituent send his vehicles through free tomorrow; or, if this is not the end of the road, what further steps, if any, have to be taken, and when will the process be completed?

There is something of a chicken and eggs situation about this matter. Under the terms of the Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) Act, 1952, Orders cannot be made except to give effect to an international agreement, but the Government cannot give effect to such an agreement unless and until they have the necessary legislation. We get out of this circular situation by providing for the Order to have effect from a date which has to be notified in the London Gazette once the Order has received affirmative Resolutions and been approved by the Privy Council. The agreements can be ratified and then the operative day which has to be notified in the London Gazette will be determined by ratification provisions of the agreement.

In this case, the governing factor is the provision in the Swedish agreement which brings it into force 30 days after ratification. The Turkish agreement comes into force as soon as we notify the Turkish Government that our processes of law are complete.

Therefore, the remaining stages after the affirmative Resolution are approval by the Privy Council, ratification of the Swedish agreement by the Foreign Office, and then the putting into force by notification in the London Gazette 30 days after ratification of the Swedish Agreement. The necessary notifications to the Turkish Government will be arranged to coincide with this. It would be fair to assume that the agreement should be in effect by about mid-August.

I wish to raise the subject of the seriousness of the unsatisfactory situation concerning secondary education in the London Borough of Ealing. I am grateful for the opportunity to do so.

I am disappointed to some extent that my hon. Friend's colleague in the Department of Education and Science is not present to reply to the debate. In 1967, the annual conference of the Labour Party, at Scarborough, passed a resolution asking for legislation on comprehensive school development, if necessary, at the request of her colleague, the Minister of State, whose specific responsibilities included the comprehensive reorganisation programme.

On that occasion, the Minister of State said that she was speaking on behalf of the national executive committee of the party, and went on to say:

"I want to say quite categorically on behalf of the Government that …if local authorities refuse to comply with requests to change to a non-selective system, or delay unreasonably, then I give you my pledge that the Government will not hesitate to legislate."

I want to show that the situation in the Borough of Ealing—more especially the Southall end, which comprises a great deal of my constituency—is, quite apart from what might be happening in other parts of the country, a good enough reason for the remarks made by my right hon. Friend. It is not necessary to point out to my hon. Friend the urgent need to develop and expand the major sector of our education system as it affects the bulk of our children and young people.

The idea of national expansion of comprehensive schooling, by new building and by the adaptation of existing secondary schools, has been with us for a long time. It has occasioned animated discussion, but, as we all know, support for comprehensive schools goes far wider than narrow circles of Socialist thought. Nowadays, it is more and more difficult to find a voice raised in support of the barbarous practice of the 11-plus examination as a means of sorting out children for differing educational requirements. Yet we still have this antiquated selection hangover of secondary modern and grammar schools. Such is the case over most of the area within the Borough of Ealing which includes my constituency of Southall and also Hanwell.

The purpose of this debate is to bring to the Floor of the House and to the attention of my hon. and right hon. Friends a story of party political strife which has quite deliberately and, I maintain, cruelly become the vehicle for ob- structing comprehensive advance affecting hundreds of children in my constituency. It confirms my view that the main fabric of Tory support rests on a prop of social snobbery which is shored up by an almost apartheid system of schooling long overdue for extinction.

If this is not so, why do local Tories in Ealing act in such a manner. A few local parents forming an association to obstruct progress do not seem to realise that they look foolish to far more parents in the district. It is significant that they have made no approaches to the hon. Member for Southall at any stage of their activities.

As I indicated in a recent Question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the political party now controlling the Ealing Borough has wantonly suspended the comprehensive scheme for Southall. It cannot possibly have any excuses for so doing. Ealing is comprised of the former boroughs of Acton, Ealing and Southall—

Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. We cannot discuss something for which the local authority has responsibility. The hon. Gentleman must deal with Ministerial responsibility.

I wanted lightly to touch upon some of the aspects to show the background of feeling in this matter in my locality, and I shall find it difficult to do so within the terms of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, because it has to do with the history of London government reorganisation and the feeling of the people in Southall, in particular, who are not now part of the whole borough, but have become part of an enormous conurbation. Their feelings are that the Government are not sufficiently mindful of these matters.

I wanted to quote from a recent speech of a member of the Ealing Borough Council so that my hon. Friend would be fully conversant with what is going on. All the plans have been made for the development of comprehensive schooling in Southall and all the arrangements for the changeover have been made. Head teachers and heads of departments have already been appointed at increased salaries. That is why it is all the more mystifying to local people to know why, if not necessarily within the law as it stands, my right hon. Friend has not spoken out more sharply.

This is bound to lead to waste of teaching and equipment resources, which are geared to get under way along with the reorganisation. Already, this has been successful in Acton over the last two years. There were mixed feelings about another part of the borough and there has been some suggestion and counter-suggestion locally and to my hon. Friend's Department, all of which, I think, she is fully aware of. But whatever one may feel about that—my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) is here to supplement it—there is a deeply-engrained feeling at my end of the division. Children do not yet know to what schools they will be going.

In conclusion, because of the shortage of time, I will add only that the Secretary of State should speak out sharply about what is happening in Southall and elsewhere, especially if, as I believe, this is part of a pattern of reactionary Toryism. I only ask that the Government's leading members should break away from what is apparently a posture of despair, and fight the Tory leaders. There is no surer way of unifying the Labour movement and there will be no shortage of followers for such a cause.

I regret that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who should have been here to answer the debate, is not here, but I express my thanks and appreciation to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, since it would be wrong to vent my wrath on such a charming person.

This is the siutation. For three years, the formerly Labour-controlled borough of Ealing's education department strove to evolve a scheme of comprehensive education. It involved a great deal of time. Parents and school teachers were all taken into the consideration and a sub-committee worked for two years on proposals which were then submitted to the Department of Education and Science. The Department was not happy and sent them back with recommendations, which were absorbed into a second scheme. This was also submitted to the Depart- ment, which again found that it could not accept it.

This shows that the former education committee took cognisance of every possible aspect, from parents to the Ministry, to try to evolve a scheme which would be acceptable to all and, what is more, one which offered efficient education for the children themselves, who are the most important people involved. After the local elections, these three years have been criticised as a process of rushing and arriving at conclusions far too quickly, yet the new Conservative-controlled local authority, within virtually a few moments, firmly decided to to abolish the scheme already prepared by the former authority's education department, and endorsed by the council.

It was inevitable that, in such a situation, bringing about a comprehensive scheme, would have to be phased and that it was easier to intoduce it first in Southall and Acton, and then right through Ealing. The gravamen of my complaint is this. I must not be tempted to go into the whole history.

The phased part of the comprehensive scheme existed almost before the introduction of the major scheme. As that would be the first part to be introduced, all that was required in the way of administration had been carried out. Parents had been circularised by the local authority asking them to indicate which school they wished their children to attend. Very many had opted for their children to go to what would be the new comprehensive school.

The parents are now in the dilemma that they are told by the new authority that the school for which they opted will never exist. While I can understand that in her reply my hon. Friend may say that she has no authority to intervene—

Order. If she has no authority, then the debate must stop.

I anticipated that she might say so and I was about to say that, if she were to follow that line, the debate would have been a complete waste of time. I hope that I am wrong in my anticipation.

I am asking my hon. Friend to agree that there is a grave danger that the future education of many children will be impaired simply because of a spiteful. political, doctrinaire, rash action by the new authority in Ealing. I believe that such circumstances call for the Minister to intervene to bring back sanity to the agenda—sanity which has departed since the Conservatives took control in the London Borough of Ealing.

First, I must apologise on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for her absolutely unavoidable absence this afternoon. I know that she would wish this apology to be conveyed not only to the House in general but, in particular, to my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) and Southall (Mr. Bidwell). I hope that they will accept that apology in the spirit in which it is offered.

I am not wholly unfamiliar with the early stages of the contorted story of comprehensive reorganisation in the Borough of Ealing. It feels as though I am being taken back, I cannot say to an old friend, but at least to an old relation, when I reply to the debate.

Let me, first, take the central difficulty—the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North. I will come in a moment to the other issues. I believe that the previous local authority did all that they possibly could to produce a comprehensive scheme which would be acceptable. The difficulty did not arise from a lack of will or a lack of intention. It arose from one of the most difficult building and accommodation problems which existed anywhere in Britain in terms of comprehensive reorganisation.

The authority first put forward a proposal which involved schools running from 11 to 16 years of age, followed by sixth-form colleges. In our view, educationally we could not sustain a programme for such a scheme because the schools for the junior groups would have been too small for comprehensive purposes. The then authority came back, after a great deal of thought, with a scheme which, in principle at least, would have been acceptable.

Unfortunately, for it to be attained within a reasonable period, it depended upon a very large sum of money for a building programme—a sum which was estimated by the local authority to be just under £500,000 and which the Department for Education and Science estimated at very nearly twice that amount. Because there was no prospect in the very short term of such a sum being made available for a borough where the problems related to improvement and change and not to an influx of new population, and in a situation in which we had a problem in meeting the need for an increasing building programme, we could not allocate to Ealing resources of that kind. No one has followed this story more vigorously than has my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North. He knows that we were unable to agree, consequently, to the scheme starting, as the authority wished, in September, 1968.

We now have a different situation, one in which no comprehensive schemes have been brought forward and nobody at the moment is putting forward such a scheme, although we hope that a scheme will be brought forward shortly. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southall pointed out, this creates difficulties for Southall, in particular, because a number of parents, I suspect rather misguidedly —but people are always frightened of circumstances which they neither know nor understand—opted for grammar schools in Ealing.

The result was that the number of form entries in Southall for the schools that existed was rather smaller than the capacity of these schools. Particularly in the case of the grammar-technical school, the number of youngsters who have been selected by the 11-plus is well below capacity to deal with them. On the other hand, the number of children who would be going to the secondary modern schools, the two combined, is rather greater than the capacity of those two schools.

We hope that the authority might give consideration to making a rather different division; in such a way that schools should not be side by side, one group over capacity and the other group under capacity—this for reasons which, to be honest, might be thought to be rather dogmatic. Nevertheless, I hold the view of my hon. Friend that the sensible solution to these problems is to try to find as quickly as possible a comprehensive scheme for the two areas which are not yet comprehensive.

It is difficult to run an educationally mixed economy when Acton is comprehensive and the other two areas remain selective. The fact is that one either gets parents opting for the comprehensive scheme and pulling out of the secondary modern school or, alternatively, opting for grammar schools and, therefore, having no true momentum in the comprehensive system.

I say to the parents of Ealing Borough that our experience is that where parents have become familiar with the work that is done in comprehensive schools they rapidly find that their children are able to attain a high educational standard as well as a genuinely socially mixed pattern, so that many parents have themselves chosen, as a first choice, comprehensive schools.

One of the real difficulties is to try to convert people to a sense of what the comprehensive system is all about. It is really about the maintenance of standards with the disappearance of social or intellectual divisions, and there is every reason for people to opt for the comprehensive system. One can attain high educational standards by this means and the fears of the traditionalists have not been borne out in practice.

When my hon. Friend refers to traditionalists, is she aware that one of the reasons why we could not produce a more reasonable scheme which was acceptable was because we suffered from the stagnation of the traditionalists in school building in Baling over the past 30 years?

I am pleased that I allowed my hon. Friend to make that point.

In the case of Ealing, a further delay was occasioned by the court case which originally arose in Enfield and led to the Education Act, 1968. Procedures had to be taken and these made it unfeasible to start the comprehensive scheme rapidly. It is interesting to note that at the Labour Party Conference in 1967 my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said, referring to a resolution:

"… it asks the Secretary of State for Education and Science to use all the means in his power, including legislation, if necessary, to ensure that progress towards a national system of fully comprehensive education is not retarded."

I very much appreciate the feelings of my hon. Friends, but I ask them to step outside what is undoubtedly a difficult situation in Ealing and consider the force of my right hon. Friend's remarks. She said "if legislation is necessary", and I will not say that it may not prove necessary. However, there has been a consistent onward movement towards the comprehensive system. This has occurred in most parts of the country. Some authorities have been persuaded eventually by the educational claims of the comprehensive system, although presumably they were not persuaded by the political claims. More than two-thirds of the authorities have had plans for reorganisation accepted. So strongly do we feel about this matter that my right hon. Friend takes the view that the progress being made is satisfactory, although that cannot be said of every authority.

The educational system in the Borough of Ealing cannot be sustained, in fairness to the children and to their educational standards, for a long time. The mixed economy in education is virtually an impossibility to make work successfully in this way and I hope that the authority will set aside whatever other considerations it may have in mind and submit an effective comprehensive scheme which will take in both areas as soon as possible.

I thank my hon. Friends for raising this matter and for the great energy and effort which they have put into discussing education problems in their constituencies.