We have asked for this emergency debate on Rhodesia in order to express our disappointment and disgust at the Foreign Secretary's failure to make sure that the Smith régime kept the promise it had made to him to allow normal political activity during the test of acceptability, and also to seek answers to certain important questions on which the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers have promised us answers in the last few weeks.

We on this side of the House have never disguised our view that the Foreign Secretary's proposals for Rhodesia represent a betrayal of the five principles and a sell-out of the African majority in that country, but we have always recognised, nevertheless, that if the Rhodesian people as a whole do find them acceptable then this fact must weigh heavily with us in taking our final decision in this House on the proposals, and I said this in the first debate after the Foreign Secretary's return. For this reason we attach the greatest possible importance to the nature of the machinery used for the test of acceptability and to the conditions in which this machinery is used to carry out the test.

I think that any external observer who came to the problem for the first time would feel, as the Foreign Secretary himself did in 1964, that the only satisfactory test of acceptability would be a referendum, because there is no parliamentary democracy in Rhodesia, and there is no means other than a referendum for finding out with obsolute certainty what the views of the majority in Rhodesia are. I must say that I was rather surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, as Vice-Chairman of the Commission, described the idea of a referendum as ludicrous; particularly I was surprised as the Foreign Secretary himself supported this idea in 1964. Of course, we all know that Mr. Smith would not permit a referendum and that a referendum carried out under the Smith regime would have no guarantee of being carried out with total honesty—

Oh!

Oh, yes, certainly—and for this reason the Government, naturally enough, proposed to carry out their own test of acceptability through a commission.

Again, the House is well aware that we on this side regard the composition of the Pearce Commission as quite unsatisfactory. It does not, as we proposed, contain an African of distinction who might be expected to carry the confidence of the majority of the population in Rhodesia itself, a man like Robert-Gardner or Mr. Adu, of Ghana; it does not contain a Churchman with knowledge of Africa, like Bishop Skelton or Bishop Reeves; it does not even contain a white man who is known to have the confidence of all races, like Mr. Lester Pearson or Mr. Malcolm Macdonald. We deeply deplore the fact that the Commission is unbalanced, as, in our view, it is.

I must say that anyone who watched Sir Frederick Pedler, who was appointed as Vice-Chairman of the Commission by the Foreign Secretary—who watched him on Panorama on Monday attempting to answer questions on how the Commission prepared for its task must have the gravest doubts about the way in which the Foreign Secretary made his choice, and, indeed, about the way in which the Commission approached its task. I think that none of us can feel satisfied with the reason the Foreign Secretary gave for not attempting to replace Sir Frederick, when he found he had to resign from the Commisison, with a man who falls into one of the three categories I have mentioned. His only reason for not doing so was that there was not time, but a week later he appointed two new commissioners to carry out the onerous job of carrying out the test on the ground in the tribal areas.

I think it was the view of most British newspaper correspondents who covered the first few days of the Pearce Commission's presence in Rhodesia that it had got off to a very bad start.

The right hon. Gentleman is not, I hope, criticising the Commission? He does know that his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition on Monday said:

"We want to get an honest answer out of this Commission and it wants to give one."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 24th January, 1972; Vol. 829, c. 985.]

So apparently his own Leader has quite a high opinion of the Commission.

No, what my right hon. Friend said was that the Commission wants to give one, and I do not for one moment dispute that, but the way in which the Commission set about its task was in many respects very unsatisfactory and was criticised as such in, for example, an impressive leading article in The Financial Times last week. One of the points of criticism I might well repeat since the Foreign Secretary appears to have none. The first point was that it appeared to acquiesce in Mr. Smith's refusal to interview Mr. Sithole.

Secondly, the Commission having sensibly issued forms for the Africans to fill in to express their views, withdrew them after seeing Mr. Smith. Incidentally, the House will now know that the reason Lord Pearce gave for withdrawing the forms was quite different from the one which the Foreign Secretary gave on the very same day for withdrawing the forms.

There is still dissatisfaction, I can tell him, on this side of the House that the Pearce Commission has chosen to shut its office in Salisbury during the only hours in which it is accessible to most Africans, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will look into this point and give us some assurance later in the debate.

Finally, there have been cases, quoted in the newspapers, in which the Commissioners on one or two occasions have appeared to argue in favour of the settlement proposals rather than simply to explain what they mean.

In other respects the Commission's action has been perfectly satisfactory, and, indeed, encouraging. A fortnight ago Lord Pearce asked Mr. Smith to explain and to comment on the complaints which had been made to him by the leaders of the African National Council as to the interference with its normal political activity in Rhodesia during the test. Bishop Muzorewa had pointed out that 200 meetings in tribal trust areas had been refused and that many meetings in the urban areas had been barred ostensibly for reasons connected with insurance. Since then the African National Council has complained that a hundred of its active members have been imprisoned without charge. We are told that Lord Pearce has asked Mr. Smith for an explanation of these facts but has at yet had no reply.

Secondly, we are very satisfied that the Commission should have asked Mr. Smith to explain the arrest of Mr. Garfield Todd, an ex-Prime Minister of Rhodesia, and of his daughter, and of a number of leading African nationalists, particularly Mr. Chinamano and his wife. It has asked, moreover, why Mr. Todd is being kept in a cell like a common convicted criminal, although, as far as we are aware, no charge has been brought against him. We are told that Lord Pearce has also raised with Mr. Smith his refusal to allow Sir Dingle Foot to enter Rhodesia to advise the African National Council. Lord Pearce has now asked that the Commission should be allowed to interview Mr. Sithole in gaol. I hope we shall have some clarity from one of the Government speakers on this matter later in the debate. The complaint from this side of the House is that although Lord Pearce has asked these questions he has had no reply, and that the Foreign Secretary, so far as we know, has done nothing to help Lord Pearce to get replies to these questions.

Moreover, Lord Pearce, on 21st January, issued a statement in which he pointed out that to gaol people simply to silence them was not to allow normal political activity. We have had no comment from the Government on this statement. Lord Pearce also pointed out in that statement that he was not satisfied that normal political activities were allowed in the tribal trust areas, although he admitted—the Foreign Secretary rightly made this point on Monday—that it was difficult to establish the facts as to whether any political activity at all had been permitted throughout the trust areas. It appears that some political activity has taken place.

It was the clear duty of the Pearce Commission to raise these questions as soon as they were raised with the Commission by Rhodesians. It was the clear duty of the Foreign Secretary to ensure that they got satisfactory replies. But what has the Foreign Secretary done to support his own Commission? The Commission has charged the Smith régime with not permitting normal political activity, in violation of a direct promise made by the Smith régime to the Foreign Secretary and transmitted by the Foreign Secretary to this House.

What the Foreign Secretary made completely clear on Monday was that he had not the slightest idea what was going on in Rhodesia and gave no evidence of the slightest desire to find out. Mr. Derek Marks, writing today in the Daily Express, a paper whose owner has played a leading rôle in helping to negotiate the settlement and which is totally committed to the settlement, had to point out:

"The most extraordinary feature in the whole Rhodesia business at the present time is the apparent complete lack of communication between London and Salisbury."

That is the Editor of the Daily Express writing in Sir Max Aitken's newspaper this morning.

Can the Foreign Secretary explain to the House how it is that, when he had some 30 commissioners, appointed by himself, on the ground in Rhodesia, when he had a diplomatic representative permanently established in Salisbury, he had not the slightest idea what was going on, and then, when he sent out a Foreign Office Official last Wednesday to find out what was going on, he seemed, when he came to the House on Monday, to have no more information than he had five days earlier?

Instead of facing Mr. Smith with the violation of his pledges, the right hon. Gentleman tried in this House to excuse Mr. Smith's behaviour. In answer to a question on Monday, he uttered the following extraordinary statement:

"…I could not question Mr. Smith's right to maintain security provided the minimum of force was used."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th January, 1972; Vol. 829, c. 986.]

The Foreign Secretary of Great Britain asserts the right of a rebel against the Queen to shoot British subjects in a British territory. He talks of "minimum force": 15 Africans have been killed in the last fortnight by the Rhodesian forces, about 50 have been wounded, not by rioters but by the security forces of the Smith régime, and hundreds have been gaoled. Does the Foreign Secretary regard this as "minimum force"? Would he regard this as a proper way for any colonial régime in Britain to have behaved in similar circumstances?

Yet Lord Pearce told the country in a television interview last night that no threats of violence have at any time been made to the Commission in its work, that violence has not been used anywhere that the Commission itself was working, and we know from the Press—although not from the Foreign Secretary—that the first case in which violence appears to have occurred in a political context, rather than in an industrial dispute context, was in Gwelo, and that there violence was used by the Africans only after the Rhodesian police had fired tear gas against a peaceful demonstration of Africans who were seeking an interview with the commissioners.

The Foreign Secretary went one worse than this. In seeking to excuse his inertia and complacency about what was going on, he said that he had no power in Rhodesia. That of course is true. And he cited the inability of the Labour Government to ensure that certain things that they wished to happen in Rhodesia actually happened.

But the situation of the present Government vis-à-vis Rhodesia is one which has not previously existed since the unilateral declaration of independence. The Foreign Secretary has signed a formal agreement with the Smith regime in which each side undertook certain obligations to the other.

It is interesting to quote what Mr. Smith himself said about this in his television broadcast last Friday in Rhodesia. Speaking of the proposals he said:

"As you are all aware, we accept these proposals as part of a package deal in which we made certain concessions in our present constitution in return for recognition of our independence and the removal of sanctions."

In other words, Mr. Smith regards the recognition of his independence by Britain and the removal of sanctions as something of great value to his régime, something in return for which he is prepared to make what he regards as certain concessions to the British Government.

Of course the Foreign Secretary has power in this situation. He has the right and the ability to cancel our part of the agreement if Mr. Smith breaks his side of the agreement. The key to this situation is the maintenance of sanctions. The Minister of State told the House as recently as 10th November, when we were discussing the sanctions Order:

"I therefore ask the House unhesitatingly to give its full support to the Order. To show a united front on this issue is the best way in which we can give my right hon. Friend the complete backing in this difficult task which I think he is entitled to expect…I should like to think that we shall have a unanimous view on this matter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1971; Vol. 825, c. 1188.]

In other words, the Government's undertaking to maintain sanctions unless they get their way is an indispensable weapon in their negotiation with the rebel régime.

No doubt this is the reason why on 25th November, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart) asked:

"…is it understood that if the test of acceptability is not passed this agreement has no validity and that it will still be the duty of this country, with the help of the United Nations, to endeavour by sanctions or other means to restore the rule of law in Rhodesia?"—

a very sensible question—the Foreign Secretary replied:

"If the test of acceptability proves that the Rhodesians do not want this arrangement and this constitution, we revert to the position we were in before."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1971; Vol. 826, c. 1550.]

That is a clear undertaking to maintain sanctions if the agreement proves unacceptable.

Only last week, in another place, the Minister of State, Scottish Office, in reply to one of my right hon. Friends who had asked whether the Government were quite firm that they intended to keep sanctions, said:

"If a settlement is arrived at…the White Paper makes it clear that it will be necessary for the Rhodesian Government to introduce certain legislation. Only when we are satisfied that that has been done, shall we commend to the House the termination of sanctions or of other economic measures."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 19th January, 1972; Vol. 327, c. 157.]

One could not have a clearer pledge by the Foreign Secretary and his colleagues that the maintenance of sanctions, if the agreement is not accepted, remains part of Her Majesty's Government's policy. This is an indispensable tool for the Foreign Secretary in keeping the Smith regime up to its undertakings to him. Yet on Monday this week, when the Foreign Secretary was asked whether it was his policy to maintain sanctions, he refused to give that undertaking. He said:

"As for the future, I shall not speculate far ahead."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th January, 1972; Vol. 829, c. 947.]

rose—

I shall give way as soon as I have finished with this point. What the House, the country and the world will expect from the Foreign Secretary this afternoon is an unequivocal pledge that, if the agreement proves unacceptable or if the test of acceptability for any reason is not carried through and the fifth principle is not maintained, then it is for Her Majesty's Government to maintain sanctions against Rhodesia and to stick to the policy which the right hon. Gentleman himself has stated in the past remains Her Majesty's Government's policy and an indispensable element in their bargaining power with the Smith régime on the test of acceptability.

Apart from the breaking of sanctions over a long period of time by many Powers, has not the situation been considerably altered by the decision of the United States to buy Rhodesian chrome? This means that the situation will not be the same.

In answer to that question I can only say that Mr. Smith as recently as last Friday, which was two months after the United States Senate voted to rescind the ban on the buying of chrome, stated that the possibility of the removal of sanctions was the reason he was prepared to make concessions. Therefore, unless the Government are prepared to maintain sanctions if Mr. Smith does not keep to his side of the bargain, they are throwing away their bargaining power and abdicating their responsibility to this House and to the Rhodesians.

rose—

With respect to my hon. and learned Friend, this is a short debate. No doubt he will have an opportunity to make his comments later in the debate. I do not want to speak for too long and would like as many hon. Members as possible to be able to speak.

We are asking the Foreign Secretary this afternoon to insist on immediate and satisfactory replies to questions, the answers to which the Foreign Secretary or other Ministers have already promised to the House. If necessary, we want him to send a senior Cabinet Minister to Rhodesia to get satisfactory answers.

Among many questions, I believe that the four key questions—all of which the Foreign Secretary has previously promised to pursue—are as follows. First, what are the grounds for the imprisonment of Mr. Todd and Miss Todd, of Mr. and Mrs. Chinamano and of other African leaders? If they have been imprisoned, as Lord Pearce has suggested, simply in order to silence them, will he insist on their immediate release? [An HON, MEMBER: "HOW can he insist?"] I will explain how he can insist. He can threaten to break off the whole agreement unless Mr. Smith carries out his promises to the Foreign Secretary.

This is very important for the rest of the debate. Is the right hon. Gentleman asking me to withdraw the provisional settlement and, with it, the Commission?

I am asking the Foreign Secretary four questions—[An HON. MEMBER: "He has asked you one."] I am answering if hon. Members will listen. They may not like what I am going to say, but they will hear it. I am asking the Foreign Secretary four questions and am saying that, if he does not get satisfactory answers to those questions, it is clear that normal political activities are not being permitted and it is his plain duty to this House and to the Commission to withdraw the Commission and to declare that the proposals are at an end. I could not say clearer than that.

The second question is: will he ensure that the African National Council gets permission to hold meetings in the tribal trust lands and elsewhere? The noble Lady, the Minister of State at the Scottish Office, in another place in a debate last Wednesday said that the Government were seeking an answer to this question, but we have not yet heard one.

The third question is: will he ensure—and in answer to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in an intervention on Monday the Foreign Secretary promised to ask Mr. Smith this question—that there is freedom for the opponents of a settlement to use television and radio, as Mr. Smith himself has done?

Finally, will he ensure that there is freedom for public figures in the United Kingdom, who have a legitimate interest in the test of acceptability, to enter Rhodesia in order to observe it? This applies not only to members of this House, but to persons like Sir Dingle Foot, an ex-Attorney-General, and members of Labour Party National Executive delegations, who are not members of this House, just as much as it applies to members of this House. Unless the Foreign Secretary gets satisfactory answers on these questions, he is betraying his assurance to the House and is committing collusion with a rebel.

rose—

I will give way later. If we look back at the Foreign Secretary's behaviour on this matter in the last three months we can see a miserable decline in his sense of responsibility. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] He was telling us as late as last September that he would not go to negotiate a settlement unless preliminary contacts had satisfied him that there would be a settlement which met the letter and the spirit of the five principles, but with an agreement which he could honestly recommend only on the grounds that it was better than nothing and the best he could get. Nobody argued this point more eloquently than the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, who was one of the Foreign Secretary's colleagues in this matter. But now, finally, when Mr. Smith apparently defaults on his side of the agreement, the Foreign Secretary still proposes to make concessions to the rebel régime which were strictly contingent on Mr. Smith carrying out his side of the bargain.

Most of us on this side of the House, certainly I myself, like and respect the Foreign Secretary as a man—I find him one of the most agreeable occupants of the Conservative Front Bench. But we cannot admire his performance in the last few months on the Rhodesian question. He began as a champion of the African majority in a British colony. He is finishing up as a doormat to a dictator.

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept that I am as concerned as he that this country should honourably discharge its obligations to the 5 million Africans in Rhodesia so far as it is in our power to do so. But does he not think that, in the present situation in Central Africa, the best ways we can do that is, first, by allowing the Pearce Commission, if it so chooses, to continue its work and report back to this House on the test of acceptability? Secondly, that he and his right hon. and hon. Friends should respond favourably to the Foreign Secretary's suggestion that both sides should join in sending an all-party delegation from this House to Rhodesia?

I made it very clear on Monday that I very much hoped the Pearce Commission will be able to continue its work, but Lord Pearce himself made it clear that he could only honestly continue his work if he came to the view that the conditions he was promised for carrying out his work exist. Lord Pearce has pointed out in a statement on 21st January certain respects in which he fears that these conditions are not being met. I have gone over these points with the Foreign Secretary in this debate, and I am asking him to ensure they are met.

If the future of the Africans in Rhodesia depended on the Foreign Secretary and Her Majesty's Government at present, it would be dismal, but that is not the end of the matter. I think that we are all becoming conscious that the historic irony of the present situation is that an agreement intended to put Rhodesia to sleep in fact has woken a sleeping giant. As a result of the Foreign Secretary's proposals, for the first time in the history of that unhappy country the African population, who outnumber the whites by 20 to 1, are being allowed a say in their own future, and they are responding to the opportunity in a manner which can only command the admiration of those who know anything of their history, not only in the towns but also in the villages and in the most remote rural areas. The answer that they are giving so far is, overwhelmingly, "No".

How does the right hon. Gentleman know?

Because I have been following very carefully the reports of meetings which have been held and statements which have been made—

rose—

The hon. and gallant Gentleman gives a very good imitation of a jack in the box, but his interventions add very little light to our proceedings—

rose—

Give way.

No, I shall not give way. What is equally striking, quite apart from the answers that the Africans are giving to the Pearce Commission, is the questions that they are asking. They are questions which are extremely penetrating, and they are being put with typical African pith and wisdom. Alas, through no fault of theirs, the commissioners have found themselves totally incapable of answering them. Among other questions, the Africans are asking, "Why are not we allowed a referendum?"

rose—

No, I shall not give way. "Why cannot we have majority rule now like all the other African territories round us?" "When shall we get majority rule if these proposals go through?" "What is the use of giving us more education if, when we have got the education, we cannot get the jobs either because of discrimination against us or because the Smith régime keeps importing white immigrants to fill every vacancy that arises?" "Why is the Land Tenure Act remaining?"

No one can claim that these questions are by far the most important which could be asked. They show a deep understanding of the proposals and a deep insight into their own situation. It is a tragedy of the Government that the Commissioners are unable to give any answers to any of these questions.

The Foreign Secretary has tried to persuade us that the choice in the test of acceptability is between a slide to apartheid and a real chance of democracy and majority rule. I believe that the Africans have clearly come to the same conclusion as we on this side of the House, namely, that the real question which they are being asked is, "Do you want the British people and the United Nations to abdicate the responsibility that they have so far accepted for human and political rights of the 5 million Africans in Rhodesia in return for insignificant changes in a racialist constitution which a racialist régime has the power to cancel at any moment, as it is at this very moment cancelling its undertaking to allow normal political activity?"

What the Foreign Secretary and Mr. Smith have done, though I am sure that it was not their intention, is to put the problem of Rhodesia back on the agenda of the peoples of the world with a very high priority. The movement for African dignity and freedom which we have seen gathering strength in Rhodesia in the last few weeks is not confined to Rhodesia alone. Further south, we have seen the strike of the Ovambo people in Namibia, and we have seen the gallant struggles of Chief Buthulezi to establish the rights of the Zulu people in South Africa. The struggle to liquidate the remnants of racialism in southern Africa is now entering a new phase, and, in the course of this test of acceptability, the British people, no less than the Rhodesian people, are being asked to decide which side they are on. I believe that the British people and this House must decide for dignity and freedom and that to take that decision is not to betray the Europeans in southern Africa. It is the only way to save them.

I hope that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite will listen to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Alport in a recent article—[Interruption.] I notice that right hon. and hon. Members oppo- site sneer at his name, but there is no question that he knows more about Rhodesia than any other Member of this or the other House. He is an ex-Conservative Commonwealth Minister and an ex-High Commissioner in Rhodesia itself. He said:

"When Mr. Smith, and those who surround and support him, triumph over the statesmanship and will-power of the British Government and the British Foreign Secretary, I frankly fear the worst not so much for Britain, as for the future of all races in Southern Africa."

I ask right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to bear those words in mind, because I fear for the future of the Europeans as a result of this settlement. I believe that Lord Alport was speaking for many who study the situation in southern Africa most closely.

I appeal to the Foreign Secretary today to accept the evidence which is being collected by his commissioners in Rhodesia, to recognise the power and sincerity of the Africans' aspirations for freedom and equality, and to range himself and the country with these historic forces.

The right hon. Gentleman can start today by fulfilling his own promises to Parliament by ensuring that the Smith régime fulfils its promises to him.

From the start, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) has taken the strongest objection to the provisional settlement which I was able to make with the Smith régime. Of course, I do not object to that. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to his opinion. I think that he, too, wishes the Pearce Commission to stay in Rhodesia and do its job. The right hon. Gentleman asks me to accept his opinion on what the Africans are thinking in Africa today. I cannot accept his opinion. But I will accept the opinion of Lord Pearce and his Commission when they report.

The right hon. Gentleman is apt always to spoil his case. He did so again today. He misquoted Lord Pearce. Lord Pearce did not charge the Smith regime with not allowing normal political activity. The right hon. Gentleman misconstrued Lord Pearce, who said very carefully that the facts were in dispute and that he himself suspended judgment—

That is precisely what I said.

It is within the recollection of the House that the right hon. Gentleman did not say anything of the sort. He implied—indeed, he said—that normal political activity was not being conducted and that the Commission could not continue its work in that case. But Lord Pearce did not say that. Lord Pearce said that the facts were in dispute and that he was suspending judgment.

I know that the right hon. Gentleman does not want to be unfair. On Monday, I quoted Lord Pearce's statement verbatim, and the right hon. Gentleman admitted that my quotation was accurate. I made it clear that, with regard to political activities in the tribal trust areas, Lord Pearce suspended judgment until he knew all the facts. I asked the Foreign Secretary to ensure that Lord Pearce was able to discover the facts and to report them to this House.

However, the right hon. Gentleman has not commented on the other statement which I made on Monday and repeated today, that, if people are detained simply to silence them, then, even in existing conditions, that is not allowing normal political activity. Will the Foreign Secretary comment on that?

Both on Monday and today the right hon. Gentleman misquoted Lord Pearce. The noble Lord is not prepared to come to a judgment whether the normal political activities are sufficient for him to continue his job as yet. He has suspended judgment. The right hon. Gentleman a few moments ago—it is within the recollection of the House—suggested quite the contrary.

When the right hon. Gentleman again asks the rhetorical question, "Why not N.I.B.M.A.R. now?", he cannot carry any conviction. N.I.B.M.A.R. was the policy of the Labour Party before "Tiger". At "Tiger" it was dropped. It then became the policy of the Labour Party after "Tiger". At "Fearless" it was dropped. So again the right hon. Gentleman lacks conviction when he asks that kind of rhetorical question.

I want to deal with these matters in a rather different tone from that which the right hon. Gentleman spoke this afternoon. I welcome the debate as a chance—I think that we should take it quietly and soberly—to define the Government's attitude on a matter which is of supreme concern to all the people of Rhodesia. We should remember that we are dealing with their lives, their country, their future, and the choice, which is of supreme importance, whether there is to be a racial or a non-racial society in Rhodesia. This is a sobering matter which we should be able to discuss without the kind of passion and distortion sometimes introduced into these debates. I will try to do that.

Rhodesia is a country where a white European minority rules the African majority. For the present, all the power lies with the Europeans. If their present constitution—the 1969 constitution—is continued, nothing in the future, as far as anybody can foresee, will change that situation except for the worse. The Europeans are in physical command. Some refuse to face that conclusion. But that the Europeans have the power and the ability to use it to keep themselves in power in Rhodesia is a fact of life.

Sanctions have been used to try to force a change and break that grip. They were to succeed, first, in weeks, then in months, and then in years. They have curbed investment in Rhodesia. As a result, there is extensive African unemployment, as I saw for myself lately. They have limited Rhodesia's ability to earn foreign exchange, but, as anyone can see the moment he visits Salisbury, they have not even scratched the surface of the standard of living of the European or his control of Rhodesian society. That, again, is a fact of life.

During the last five years, which coincided with the Government of which the right hon. Member for Leeds, East was a distinguished Member—I am not blaming the Socialist Government for this—there is no doubt, as any hon. Member must agree, that, year after year, the situation of the Africans in Rhodesia has deteriorated and got worse.

Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot contest that fact. But most of them have declared themselves totally against the terms of the provisional settlement agreed with Mr. Smith. They cannot, on principle, object to negotiating with him. Twice they did it, twice they very nearly succeeded in coming to an agreement with Mr. Smith, and twice, in the end, they failed. They cannot blame us for trying to achieve a result which they themselves tried so hard to win.

Since they were prepared to negotiate, it must not be the act of negotiation to which they object. That cannot be so. But this afternoon I am going to ask the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to face the question arising from the terms: What is it that they are asking the Rhodesians, and particularly the Rhodesian Africans, to reject?

At present, under the 1969 Constitution, there is no effective blocking mechanism whatever to prevent the parliamentary situation of the Africans from deteriorating. In the terms of the proposals which were negotiated an effective mechanism is introduced involving—[Interruption]—I think that the hon. Gentleman ought to listen to this, because it is very important that we should judge these matters right. In the terms of the proposals an effective mechanism is introduced involving not only a two-thirds majority in the Assembly, but a separate vote of each race in the Assembly. Is the ability to prevent amendment of the entrenched clauses and thus to block discriminatory legislation something which the Africans should be asked to reject?

At present, again, the representation in Parliament for the African rests on a complicated income tax formula applied in accordance with the relationship between the aggregate earnings of the European and African communities. That is an iniquitous system. It can be varied at will. Any Finance Minister in any year can put paid effectively to African representation in Parliament.

For that, the settlement substitutes a system whereby representation in Parliament depends on the number of voters who qualify on the same income tax, education and property qualifications as the Europeans.

Are the Africans in Rhodesia to be asked by the Opposition to spurn that in favour of staying with the present arrangements?—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will follow me.

Now the Africans in Rhodesia have no hope of returning to a common voting roll. Now they have no declaration of rights enforceable in the courts. There is an absolute bar to any progression beyond parity to majority rule. The settlement, which the right hon. Gentleman has a perfect right to dislike, removes all these disabilities which are now placed upon the Rhodesian Africans.

When I was in Salisbury, the two elements of a settlement on which every African insisted were: first, progress to a common roll because, without it, they said that there would be no harmonious society, and, secondly, rights which could be protected in the courts.

Under the terms of the settlement both these purposes are achieved. New discriminatory legislation, if ever it got through Parliament, could be disallowed by the courts, as could secondary legislation derived from previous legislation like the Land Tenure Act.

Are the Opposition really ready to advise the Africans to throw away all those gains? That is what they would be doing. I know that they will argue that Mr. Smith will not carry out his side of the bargain. But they were prepared to negotiate with him. If they had been successful, as they very nearly were, they would have had to rely on Mr. Smith to carry out the bargain. They were prepared to accept a settlement—

rose—

without the only possible cast-iron guarantee which one can get, which is the use of force to make sure that it is implemented.

In this context of trust and mistrust, I ask right hon. and hon. Gentlemen to consider the political situation as it will be in Rhodesia if these proposals are accepted. Mr. Smith will have to pass through his Parliament all the legislation with his and his party's authority behind it. He has to engage his political reputation on these changes, and the changes are big. What is more, he will have to do so before this House is asked to pass any consequential legislation at all.

Since Mr. Smith does not seem to be honouring the bargain regarding normal political activities, why should we trust him regarding the rest of the package?

I will come to that. I am deploring the opinion which has been expressed and asking right hon. and hon. Gentlemen to think seriously about what they are asking the Africans to reject. It is a fair question.

Indeed, if the settlement were to go through—I am prepared to leave it to the African and not pre-judge his opinion—at least we should have created some hope for the future where at present, I underline this, there is none at all.

If the African population vote "No" to the settlement, they will not be saying that they prefer the 1969 constitution. That is a dialectical distortion.

By Mr. Smith.

Yes. I think that the right hon. Gentleman sometimes makes dialectical distortions.

Let us face it. Although that is so, they will be left with the 1969 constitution. They will be saddled with it for as far as anybody can see into the future, by their own hand, if that is their decision. There will be nothing else, and the next instalment of repression of freedom—because the right wing will have won a victory if the settlement is rejected—will be harsher than that of today.

When the right hon. Gentleman makes the kind of speech that he has made ever since this provisional settlement was proposed he really is, in effect, saying that there is no solution except fighting it out. That is a terrible thing to say, because, in the end, it will mean bloodshed, and more bloodshed, in Africa, and we have a chance to prevent it. No one has presented an alternative, except fighting it out. We shall be onlookers, 6,000 miles away. It will be the Africans who will bear the brunt of it, and for any foreseeable future they cannot win. The Opposition, at present, anyhow, are not offering them anything better than this kind of martyrdom. At least from this side of the House we have provided a plan which could give them a better political, social and economic future than anything they could otherwise enjoy.

I now turn to answer, as far as I can, some of the right hon. Gentleman's questions today, and some which took up much of the time on Monday at Question Time.

The main question raised by the Opposition—and I do not think we can blink the fact—is really whether Her Majesty's Government should intervene with Mr. Smith, over the head of the Commission, and insist on certain conditions for the continuance of the test of acceptability. I think that that is a fair way to put the problem which we face on both sides of the House.

I can give the answer. The Government feel that the Commission should carry on so long as, in its view, political conditions are such that it can perform the task with which it is charged. It might be that the political conditions will change and the Commission will find it impossible to stay. I do not know whether that will happen, but for the moment that is not the Commission's position.

As I reminded the right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition said that he wants to get an honest answer, and he added that the Commission wanted to get it, too. So do we. Therefore, I want to leave the Commission in the field so long as it considers that there are political conditions in which it can operate. I hope, therefore, it is agreed that the Commission should carry on.

Does the right hon. Gentleman mean by that that it is the judgment of the Government that the conditions which prevail in Rhodesia while the test of acceptability is being carried out is a matter of no concern to him? If that is so, why did the right hon. Gentleman send Mr. Philip Mansfield to Rhodesia, and what is he doing there? Is he not bringing back to the Government some indication of whether conditions are normal?

Of course we are concerned about the political conditions, but I think I should repeat the question at issue, because it is pertinent. The question is whether we should intervene over the head of the Commission. There may be circumstances in which I should feel it inevitable to do so, but I do not think that those circumstances have arisen, because, quite clearly, the Commission feels that it can carry on at present in the context of the present political activity in Rhodesia.

The right hon. Gentleman has put his question very fairly. What we are asking is that he shall intervene in support of the Commission, because there are five or six issues on which the Commission itself has sought assurances from Mr. Smith and not received them. From what the right hon. Gentleman said, it seems that he would regard it as a tragedy if the Commission had to withdraw because normal political activities were not being permitted. What we are asking the right hon. Gentleman to do is to intervene in support of the Commission and get satisfactory answers from Mr. Smith to the very questions which, on the instructions of this House, and perhaps as a result of the Commission's own discussions, Lord Pearce has put to Mr. Smith and not had answers to.

If Lord Pearce wishes me to intervene, I have no doubt that he will say so, but I can just imagine what the right hon. Gentleman would say if I were to try to intervene and interfere with the workings of the commission. I can just imagine the speech that he would make.

Let me repeat this to the right hon. Gentleman, because I am trying to deal with this matter as carefully as I can. In the context of political activity, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are constantly exhorting me to act to compel Mr. Smith to do this or that, for example, in relation to internment. I accept that I have an obligation to press Mr. Smith to create conditions in which there can be the maximum political freedom of expression and in which, for example, persons such as Mr. Todd and Mr. Chinamano can express their views in public. I have the right to press him to do so, and I have done. But what effective sanction did the right hon. Gentleman have, not in a matter like this, but in a matter of life or death? None. When the hangings took place in Rhodesia—literally a matter of life or death—the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition had no sanction whatever.

I shall use all the influence that I have, but what is the ultimate sanction that I have? It is to withdraw the settlement and therefore to withdraw the Commission. That is what the Leader of the Opposition asked me to do on Monday. The right hon. Gentleman has asked me to do something different. They had better co-ordinate their positions.

I doubt whether the Opposition really want the settlement withdrawn. At any rate, I am not willing to do that, for two reasons. The first I have given. It is that the terms of the settlement for the Africans are as good as could be obtained in any circumstances. The second is that I am not prepared to deprive Mr. Todd, or Mr. Chinamano, or the 5 million Africans in Rhodesia of the option of constitutional reform, which in my view is the sole alternative to despair. I propose to keep the provisional settlement in being and to leave the Commission there unless it says that it wants to come home. If it says so, that will be the Commission's decision.

If Lord Pearce and his Commission are to come home, it must be because he has decided that a combination of restrictions on freedom and of violence and intimidation has made it impossible for him to bring in a true verdict on the opinion of the Rhodesians on the settlement. He has not reached that decision. It must be left to him and his very experienced colleagues.

I have already dealt with the fact that the statement by Lord Pearce has been misconstrued. There is really a danger in misconstruing his statement. He said:

"To say that there has been no political activity in any of the Tribal Trust Lands would seem untenable…"

but there is a danger, because constantly it is said that normal political activity must rule, and almost equally constantly from the other side of the House the rest of the sentence is not added, which is that it must be in conditions which lead to security and to the proper working of democracy in Rhodesia.

The right hon. Gentleman confidently quotes one part of the sentence, but omits the proviso that politcial activities must be conducted in a peaceful and democratic manner. So far Lord Pearce has decided that the political conditions allow him to carry on. In other words, he is leaving the situation open and under review, and in my opinion that is right.

Six days ago the right hon. Gentleman sent Mr. Mansfield to Rhodesia. The Foreign Secretary is on record as having said that he had made representations about the detention of Mr. Todd. When questioned about this, the right hon. Gentleman said that he would not feel able to make a public statement until he had been supplied with the reasons why Mr. Todd had been detained. Are we to know those reasons? Has Mr. Smith told the right hon. Gentleman why Mr. Todd was detained? Are we to know whther Mr. Smith is mute of malice or by visitation of God?

Mr. Mansfield is returning tomorrow. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Mr. Smith has told me that he has detained Mr. Todd for reasons of security, but the evidence on which Mr. Smith made the decision is not available to me at the moment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Resign."] The Leader of the Liberal Party asked me if I was in a position to answer his question—[Interruption.]—and what I have said is a matter of fact.

The right hon. Member for Leeds, East and others questioned me about visits by hon. Members of this House to Rhodesia, and I promised to give further information as soon as I could. Hon. Members will have noticed that a number have gone there lately without any fuss or hindrance. The Government naturally have no objection whatever to hon. Members going to Rhodesia, and we will certainly ask our liaison officer there, although he is a busy man, to offer any facilities to hon. Members when they are there.

I do not disguise my view that it would be wrong for political parties in this House to go to Rhodesia—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I wish hon. Gentlemen opposite would for once wait to hear the end of a sentence before interrupting. In my view it would be wrong for us as political parties to go to Rhodesia and take the opportunity publicly in Rhodesia to support or object to the settlement. [Interruption.]

No one ever contemplated, when the fifth principle was laid down, that we should transfer our political squabbles on to Rhodesian territory—[Interruption]—and the security situation in Rhodesia confirms me in my judgment that to have done so would have been totally wrong. However, for hon. Members to go there and observe is an entirely different matter, and I shall, within a day or so, be approaching the leaders of the parties with suggestions on these issues.

In one country after another in Africa the Western pattern of democracy has been superseded by military rule or by one-party States. Here is an attempt to introduce, gradually it is true, but surely, a common roll and a parliamentary system which will make it possible for all races to co-exist and co-operate in the political affairs of their society.

It surely cannot be an affront—I believe that this is at the back of a lot of the thinking of hon. Gentlemen opposite—to modern Africa to try to recover for Africans rights in Rhodesia which they have lost.

I ask this House and all hon. Members to re-read the terms of the provisional settlement and each to ask himself in conscience whether he is justified in advising the Rhodesians, and particularly the African Rhodesians, to turn away this opportunity to start down a new road. [Interruption.] I have searched my conscience and I cannot bring myself to believe that I would be right to withdraw the provisional settlement, which gives such an opportunity. [Interruption.] I have no doubt whatever about this.

I pray that extremists will not blind or divert the Rhodesians from a true appreciation of where their interests and the interests of their country lie.

The Foreign Secretary is right to invite the House to accept two of his propositions, first that this is a very serious situation and second that we should examine what he is doing and putting to the House.

That means that hon. Members who, like myself, have always opposed the kind of settlement that the right hon. Gentleman has put before us, and have deeply deplored the fact that Lord Goodman should have had anything to do with this manoeuvre, must this afternoon start with the Foreign Secretary's remarks at the point at which he started, which is with the present situation.

The right hon. Gentleman completely failed to reply to the cardinal point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), and referred to by the Leader of the Liberal Party, about the Foreign Secretary's responsibility in all this. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman deliberately confused the responsibilities of the Commission and those of himself.

A deal is not being proposed between Lord Pearce and his Commission on the one hand and Mr. Smith on the other. In my view, the partners are Her Majesty's Government and Mr. Smith, and the responsibility for everything that has so far been agreed by Mr. Smith does not rest on the shoulders of the Commission but on those of the right hon. Gentleman, and this afternoon he once again tried to escape that responsibility.

It is a shameful reply to offer to us, as he offered to the Leader of the Liberal Party, that he is satisfied with the reply he has received from Mr. Smith; that Mr. Smith alleges that he has arrested Mr. Todd, the former Prime Minister, not because he wants to silence him but on security grounds and that he, Mr. Smith, is not prepared to tell the Foreign Secretary what evidence he has for that allegation. The reasons why Her Majesty's Government are approaching the point when they must call off this settlement are reasons which hon. Gentlemen opposite must judge for themselves.

It is not as though the Foreign Secretary fully represented the views that Lord Pearce has expressed. For example, Lord Pearce said on television last night—I believe the film in which he said it was made on Sunday—that he was calling back all his advisers for a weekend conference at headquarters and that only then, after consulting them, would he say whether he was prepared to make a first assessment about whether normal political activities were being permitted.

The Foreign Secretary was less than fair when he largely repudiated what my right hon. Friend had said because Lord Pearce said, among other things, that he would regard it as very disturbing—there is beginning to be some evidence of this—if difficulty arose in the implementation of the pledge of normal political activities being permitted. He said that he would not go further than that. Nevertheless, he went that far, and anybody who watched the film and heard Lord Pearce must have concluded that there are already doubts in his mind.

I said that Lord Pearce had deliberately left the matter open.

But the right hon. Gentleman did not say that there was already a clear expression of doubt in Lord Pearce's mind. The right hon. Gentleman made it appear as though my right hon. Friend had completely misrepresented the position. [Interruption.] I know that hon. Gentlemen opposite who support the racist régime in Rhodesia do not like to hear the truth about these matters. They want sanctions called off and the Commission to report, whether or not it is true, that the settlement should be implemented, but they do not count in this debate.

rose—

I will not give way. The Foreign Secretary is clearly avoiding his responsibility in this matter, particularly in view of his comments about Mr: Todd.

We have had the moving experience of large numbers of African citizens making their opinions clear. Nobody with knowledge of Rhodesia and with contacts among the Africans there cannot but have been deeply moved by the way in which, after many years of political repression during which it has been made difficult for them to inform themselves politically, they have shown how well informed they are when they have made contact with the Commission.

As my right hon. Friend pointed out, the cardinal question they have asked—a question which the Commission cannot answer but on which we must give our opinions—is, "How do we know that the money which is allegedly to be supplied for educational purposes by Mr. Smith will be supplied for those purposes?" That question is bound to be taken into account when they give their opinions to the Commission.

It is clear, therefore, that we must receive certain assurances. One must be about the Chairman of the African National Council, who I understand is also threatened with arrest. He has previously been placed under restriction. Another must be about Mr. Todd. We must not only be told what will happen to him but be assured that the right hon. Gentleman will call the deal off if any further inroads are made into the opportunities for normal political activities. He is quite wrong to say rhetorically that he wishes to preserve the right of Mr. Garfield Todd and the right of the treasurer of the African National Council, though he be in prison, to take all the advantages of the agreement when the fifth test is being broken every day.

The right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary misrepresented the views of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. My right hon. Friend said that he does not wish the Commission to be recalled at this moment. I agree with him. Nothing that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East said from the Front Bench contradicts that in any way. If the right hon. Gentleman wanted a serious debate, it was unworthy of him to play at politics and waste so much time on an alleged disagreement between two of my right hon. Friends. We have said that the Commission ought to continue its work but that the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary must see to it that normal political activities are allowed. The evidence is now overwhelming that people are being arrested and are not being put on trial. The evidence for the arrests and allegations is not being made public, or even being privately communicated to the British Government. The time is fast approaching when the settlement must be called off because Mr. Smith is not living up to his engagement.

The matter goes further than that. From the threatening speech made by Mr. Smith last Friday, it has clearly emerged that he had a completely different idea about the proceedings that were to take place than what the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary said in the previous debate. It has become evident that Mr. Smith thought, "We are going to run these through, with white employers calling in their black employees"—which has already happened in some cases—"and telling them in the privacy of the general manager's office, 'look here, you say' yes 'to this, do you not?' "Mr. Smith thought that the employer would then report to the Pearce Commission saying that most of his employees were in favour of the settlement. One of those white employers appeared on television last night. He was bitterly disappointed. He appeared to be astonished at the human spirit and courage of some Africans. This has surprised them. Some hon. Gentlemen opposite are deeply disappointed, because they shared Mr. Smith's expectation. I do not say all hon. Gentlemen opposite, but some are disappointed. What is now happening is clearly something that Mr. Smith did not bargain for but it is of the very essence of the contract that the British Government asked this House to enter into. Those are the things on which the debate must concentrate.

On the subject of police violence, anyone who has been to Rhodesia will know that as soon as Africans assemble, the police are too ready to bring out the dogs and the guns. I remember being in Salisbury about six weeks before Mr. Joshua Nkomo was first interned. He has never been allowed free since then to meet his associates and engage in normal political activities.

On that occasion, when there was already a ban on him holding public political meetings, it was announced one Sunday morning that he would be visiting Harari to see a friend whose daughter was celebrating her 21st birthday. Within about two hours, according to the police 60,000 African supporters of Mr. Nkomo assembled in the streets. According to the Africans I knew, it was only 20,000. But within another half an hour the police dogs were on the streets and Mr. Nkomo was forcibly prevented from even shaking hands with some of his supporters. That is the sort of background to remember when we hear that a group of Africans assembled somewhere. This would encourage any group to say "No". If our constituents were living in such conditions, they would find it advisable to gather in groups and not to go alone to the protected polling booths, which they have achieved for themselves over many years. There was a time in Britain, as Dickens well describes, when the British electors preferred to go in groups rather than alone. Under police state conditions—I am using the Prime Minister's words—in Rhodesia today nobody has to be surprised nor should they hold anything against people who prefer to go in groups. There was no violence near Salisbury until the police started attacking them, and that started very soon.

The right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary is a guarantor for the honour of Britain and this House in the fulfilment of a settlement. He has a responsibility to both the people of Rhodesia and the people of Britain. It is no good him saying that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition might have entered into agreement. My right hon. Friend did not. Why not? If the right hon. Gentleman would question, for instance, my right hon. Friend who was then the Attorney-General and a member of the delegation which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition took out with him to this conference he would see why the negotiations broke down. They broke down precisely because the kind of guarantees on the fifth principle demanded by my right hon. Friend could not be pledged after Mr. Smith had returned to Salisbury having entered into this agreement in the first place. Mr. Smith was told by his party and the right wing, "You cannot allow this to happen because we might get the wrong result if we agreed to it."

Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary has a duty to be as sober and serious in this debate as he asks us to be, and not to introduce this rhetorical political question to confuse the issue. He has a serious responsibility. If he finds that Mr. Smith is not living up to his part of the bargain, the right hon. Gentleman must honour his agreement with the House and call off the settlement, anti tell the world the truth.

My concern in this matter is no less passionate than that so recently displayed by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) but I shall express myself a little more quietly, but with no less conviction.

I maintain very strongly that it is right and proper that the Rhodesians of all ethnic backgrounds should have this opportunity to express in full and in the maximum possible freedom their feelings on the proposals for a settlement as negotiated by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I agree with the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and others that the fact that Africans are taking part in discussions is itself a major step forward and contrasts very strongly with the six years during which the Labour Government were in control, during those and years of U.D.I. when African expressions of opinion were seldom heard either inside or outside Rhodesia.

I refer those who think that the debate on Rhodesia is one-sided, and those who think that the views put forward are only against these proposals, to a selection of the various documents which are at present circulating around Rhodesia giving different views and opinions on the merits and demerits of the settlement. One should look behind the rioting and the Press headlines, conscious as one is of the vast distances in the continent of Africa, to the serious consideration of the alternatives, which is taking place in Rhodesia today and is taking place only as a result of the initiative of my right hon. Friend—although it is undeniable that many of the documents being circulated press the Africans to refuse the terms of the settlement as proposed.

Equally, many have not quite made up their minds. Many say that the settlement is a bad one. But I think that the House would be impressed by the views of Father R. H. Randolph, published in The Shield, which is the journal of the Roman Catholic Church in Rhodesia and reported in the Rhodesian Herald. Father Randolph is communications secretary for the Rhodesian Catholic Bishops' Conference.

"The success of the proposals, even as they stand, will depend on the sincerity and goodwill of all people in observing the spirit of the proposals and upon the necessary change of heart of those who see them as a change in ideology."

I shall refer again to that observation shortly. Father Randolph continued:

"But if the proposals were accepted they would check the tendency for Rhodesia to go towards a South African apartheid system. Majority rule for civilised Africans is now in sight."

It is up to the Pearce Commission to decide whether it can carry on with its task of gathering the opinion of the whole population of Rhodesia. But whatever the Commission's findings are, British public opinion will want to be assured that those findings were arrived at in the best possible manner. To put it no higher, many consider that the reason given for the detention of the Todds and Mr. Chinamano is less than adequate.

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has reminded us of the paragraph in the White Paper which calls for normal political activities

"provided that they are conducted in a peaceful and democratic manner".

Mr. Smith is quoted as showing his understanding of this paragraph. In an interview on 7th December he said this:

"As you know, part of the agreement is that we shall allow as much freedom of discussion as possible and we will release as many detainees as possible. We would honestly hope to do this to try to stimulate fair and constructive discussion."

Many of us would question whether the sentiments there expressed are consistent with the rather bald statement by the Rhodesian Minister of Justice recently on the arrest of the Todds and Mr. Chinamano. The Minister of Justice said:

"The making of this order"—

that is, the order to arrest them—

"is based on the belief that you are likely to commit or incite the commission of acts in Rhodesia which would endanger the public safety or disturb or interfere with the maintenance of public order."

I appreciate that my right hon. Friend has no writ, in the final analysis, to demand that the Department of Justice of the illegal régime provides all its secret documents. However, many people in Britain are extremely disappointed that Mr. Todd was not able to keep his engagement to speak in Britain this week and we would like my right hon. Friend to convey in the strongest possible terms our concern about this matter. The British public wants to see far greater evidence of Mr. Smith's "sincerity and good will", to quote Father Randolph again, and we believe that for the sake of public opinion alone Mr. Smith should be prepared to make a statement explaining in detail why these people have been detained.

Does the hon. Gentleman believe in Smith's sincerity?

Certainly, I speak for many people on both sides of the House, for many of my constituents, and for members of the British public elsewhere, when I say that we need reassurances as to Mr. Smith's intentions, his sincerity and his good will before we can take any action in this House to legalise his position.

I begin on at least one note of agreement with the Foreign Secretary. He knows that I and my party, like the members of the Labour Party, voted against the settlement proposals. We do not like the proposals. We do not believe that they are in the best interests of the African majority.

However, I recognise that there is another point of view, which was perhaps best put by Lord Goodman in another place—namely, that these were the best terms that could be obtained and that they should be accepted.

What is important is not what is the view of the different parties in the House, or what is the view of the House as a whole, or of the British people as a whole about the settlement, but whether the settlement proposals are acceptable to the African majority. I agree with that point of view. That was why, as soon as these proposals were made, it was the fifth principle—the test of acceptability—that became all-important and crucial.

Although it may be our private opinions or our party opinions that this is a bad settlement and it does not do justice to the African cause, if the Africans were to take a different view it is they who would face the consequences. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Liberal Party said at a public meeting at Central Hall last night, it is easy for us in Britain to advise against acceptance of the settlement when we do not have to face the consequences. I start with the proposition that this is what the debate is about and that the test of acceptability and the proper carrying out of that test is of crucial importance to the whole deal.

On that point of agreement I remind the Foreign Secretary of what he said on the afternoon after the arrest of the Todds. There was a genuine sense of shock in the House, shock which the right hon. Gentleman shared, because he said this to us:

"On hearing the reports last night I immediately sent a personal message to Mr. Smith seeking to establish the facts behind these arrests."

The right hon. Gentleman said later that he was sending Mr. Mansfield out. He concluded in this way:

"In a matter of such importance I am sure that hon. Members will appreciate that it would not be right for me to say more about these arrests until I have received further full information from Rhodesia. I will keep the House informed.''—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th January, 1972; Vol. 829, c. 465.]

The House has not yet been informed. The House is waiting to be informed. The comment by the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler) that the answer had been "less than adequate" was a masterpiece of understatement. The Foreign Secretary has had to return to the House and say, "In response to the assurance I gave you eight days ago, I have not been able to get an answer to my questions". That is totally unsatisfactory and cannot create confidence in the House or amongst the British public that the test of acceptability is being carried out properly.

Mr. Chinamano is one of those whom I had intended to see when I go to Rhodesia. A few days before he was arrested I learned that he had been suffering from a very serious cardiac illness and that he had been advised, mainly on medical grounds, that he should give up his post as Treasurer of the A.N.C. and should come to London to get away from the political pressures of Rhodesia and receive the specialist medical treatment he requires. Knowing this, I was not surprise to read in the Press that Mr. Chinamano had fainted on the way to the police station. I understand that he is in hospital in Salisbury. I should like the Government to find out what his condition is and, if there is any danger to him, I trust that it will be possible for him to come to London and to receive adequate medical treatment.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned visits by Members of Parliament. As the right hon. Gentleman probably knows, I have already written to the Government Chief Whip saying that in principle we are perfectly happy to contribute a Member to an all-party delegation but it is a little late in the day. If the Government had been serious about an all-party delegation, it should have been proposed at the beginning. In the absence, still, of any firm dates or firm proposals for an all-party delegation, it is right that the Labour Party and the Liberal Party should press ahead with their plans for their own surveys of what is happening in Rhodesia. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and myself that clearance for our visit has been arranged.

One of the crucial differences of opinion across the Floor of the House is on the basic question whether Mr. Smith's intentions are honourable. This is not the time to go through all the differences which have since arisen on the interpretation of the settlement. To take but one example, the White Paper "Proposals for a Settlement" contains a proposal for a commission to review existing legislation with a view to ending racial discrimination. Page 15 of the White Paper says this:

"The Rhodesian Government recognise that the findings of the Commission will carry special authority and have given an assurance that they will commend to Parliament such changes in existing legislation as are required to give effect to its recommendations, subject only to considerations that any Government would be obliged to regard as of an overriding character."

Many of us were suspicious of that phrase, and in the debate on 1st December the right hon. Gentleman was pressed to say what it meant. He said:

"…the wording of the proposals clearly carries an obligation to act and to change the law in respect of those recommendations which are made in the context of improving and fostering racial harmony."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st December, 1971; Vol. 827, c. 468.]

That was his interpretation of those words in the settlement, but let us see what Mr. Smith said in his Parliament on precisely the same point. In his speech commending the settlement to the Rhodesian Parliament on 25th November, he said:

"The evidence of this Commission will be made public and in the event of the Rhodesian Government accepting their recommendations they will commend such changes to Parliament."

In the phrase "in the event of the Rhodesian Government accepting their recommendations" the word "unlikely" is almost understood. It is Mr. Smith's interpretation of the proposals that matters and not the right hon. Gentleman's because it is Mr. Smith who will be left in charge under the settlement.

The reason why we are so concerned about what has happened during the visit of the Pearce Commission is that we are being seriously asked to believe that Mr. Smith, once sanctions have been lifted, once the legality of his Government has been recognised through diplomatic channels right around the world, will be a changed man and will behave better than he does now under the pressure of sanctions, under the pressure of not being recognised by a single State.

That is why we are entitled to say that the present conditions during the visit of the Pearce Commission are not the normal conditions that have prevailed since U.D.I. I hold no brief for the conduct and handling of the Rhodesian situation by the previous Administration, but it is not right to compare the position of the then Prime Minister, faced with the hangings in Rhodesia, with the present position, because now we have tried to restore some degree of normal relations between the two Governments. An agreed settlement is being discussed undertakings have been given to the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. An almost normal political situation is supposed to be created. It is in that new situation that the right hon. Gentleman must exercise his responsibility. I agree with the observation of a previous speaker that the right hon Gentleman has been inclined to shuffle off that responsibility on to Lord Pearce and the Commission. The undertakings about the test of acceptability were given—

That was not my contention. If the hon. Gentleman reads my speech in the OFFICIAL REPORT he will find that that is so.

The hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. I said "a previous speaker". It was the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) who was making the point, so the hon. Gentleman need not be quite so sharp.

The point I want to make is that the undertakings about the test of acceptability were given to the House by the right hon. Gentleman, and on that basis the House voted on 1st December on whether it accepted the proposals. I and my colleagues dissented. The House agreed, but on the conditions the right hon. Gentleman gave us. Therefore, we are entitled to demand that he, not Lord Pearce, satisfies himself that the conditions are being met.

The scenes we have witnessed in Rhodesia in the past few days make it clear that the majority of the population, who have for the past five or six years been suppressed and politically quiescent, have accepted the quiesence on the understanding that the world community was still interested in their fate. Sanctions were operating, and not a single country was recognising the legality of the Smith régime. But now the majority are being asked to change the situation and accept a set of proposals that leave them fairly and squarely in the hands of the Rhodesian Front, with the hopes that the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary holds that progress will be made. That is their choice. They are being asked to take themselves off the agenda of world politics. That is why they are reacting in a very strong way.

I am sorry to say to the right hon. Gentleman, because I think he knows of the high personal regard in which I hold him, that in his speech this afternoon he gave the impression yet again of being a very weak man being pushed around by a ruthless one.

I do not want to delay the House for long, because many hon. Members wish to speak, but I want to draw attention to the extraordinary position in which the shadow Foreign Secretary finds himself. I do not know why he asked for this debate. Is he against the Pearce Commission? Does he wish it to be withdrawn?

In part of his speech the right hon. Gentleman seemed to lay down a number of conditions my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary should seek to have fulfilled. He wanted my right hon. Friend to insist on free use of radio, on the African National Congress having a full right of assembly, and that leading people should go out from here. But when, in the five or six years when the right hon. Gentleman's Government were in office, under any circumstances could any of those ideas have been put forward with any hope of success?

If those conditions are not to be fulfilled, apparently, the Labour Opposition wishes the Pearce Commission to be brought home. I wish hon. Members opposite would read what Lord Goodman said. Lord Goodman said that it would be a matter of absolute folly to reject the terms, because the alternative is to go down the road to apartheid. That is clear beyond a peradventure of doubt.

Doubtless in Penistone the elections are run the right way and the people have the right to a proper and free expression of opinion. But when the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) talks about the conditions of Penistone applying to Africa he is talking about the change from what is a police State to a State in which there is some chance for African advance. That is the whole point of the settlement. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman may point at me, but I, with Lord Goodman, was strong on matters like Biafra. I do not know how the hon. Gentleman felt about those Africans being massacred out there. There are people in the House who believe in advancing the rights of subject peoples and seeing that we get the best possible deal.

I believe, with Lord Goodman, that the proposed settlement is the best deal that can be obtained. I am amazed that Labour right hon. and hon. Members should say that it is the duty of my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary to lay down this or that condition for the operation of the Pearce Commission. We have the Pearce Commission there, and it can judge whether the conditions are being properly met. Labour hon. Members say, "We have seen the police dogs out". They say that we have seen this out and that out. I agree, but it is for Pearce and not my right hon. Friend or even the House, least of all hon. Members going by Press reports, to judge whether the conditions are being properly met. That is why I believe not only that the Pearce Commission should not be withdrawn but that the House has a duty to see that the tone of debate here is kept at a proper level, and that there is a chance of the Afri cans having the proper question put to them.

The question is not, "Do you wish to be removed from the African stage?", and it is not, "Do you wish the United Nations no longer to be thinking about you?" The United Nations long ago ceased to think about them. With the purchase of chrome and all those other things, the whole sanctions policy is dead. The question that should be asked, as Lord Goodman clearly said in another place, is, "Are the proposals better than your present state?" That is proved by the speech of the hon. Gentleman, when he talked about police dogs and a police State.

The grapes of wrath we see on the other side of the House are of a bogus vintage, being merely the sour grapes resulting from six years of failure on the part of Labour right hon. and hon. Members.

I will not try to comment in full on the speech of the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser), who recommended to us the speech of Lord Goodman in another place. From my reading of it it seemed to me to be a great speech. But the trouble with Lord Goodman's speech, and the trouble with Lord Goodman, is that when he went to Rhodesia to make his inquiries he was not instructed, and so far as I can make out made no attempt, to gauge likely African reactions to the settlement proposals he was negotiating. One of the most appalling mistakes made by the Government and the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary is that African opinion in Rhodesia has been caused to become highly suspicious of the whole exercise.

Whatever the merits or otherwise of the settlement—and at present I am not going into those—we cannot imagine a means of making the African population more suspicious of the whole exercise than for Lord Goodman to go to Rhodesia several times to negotiate with the régime to work out some kind of agreement and attempt to foist it on the Africans. Therefore, I take less seriously than the right hon. Gentleman remarks Lord Goodman may have made in another place.

I am not surprised that the Africans in Rhodesia are highly suspicious of the whole operation. They have had the experience of about six years of U.D.I. and they are faced with public statements by Ian Smith such as the following, which he is reported as having made in the Rhodesian Parliament:

"It is our carefully considered assessment that in view of the expansion of the economy and the increase in immigration to which we can confidently look forward, no European need harbour any anxiety about the security of his future in Rhodesia."

I cannot think that any African can interpret those words in any other way than to assume that Mr. Smith hopes—in fact, is certain—that if the settlement proposals are agreed the level of investment in Rhodesia from outside the country and the rate of immigration of into Rhodesia will be at such a level as to frustrate completely any hope of African advancement. If such suspicions are abroad in Rhodesia, I am not surprised, and I am not surprised by the degree of opposition that we have noticed.

A point needs to be made during this debate about the course of events since Lord Pearce arrived. I was not the slightest bit surprised by the outbreak of violence. If, after six years in a police State, unable to express oneself, one finds people coming out from Britain, including a very learned and very old judge, who start asking what kind of political future one wants, if that is the first occasion for years and years anyone has even taken the trouble to ask what kind of régime one wishes to live in and what kind of political future one wants, it is bound to cause a considerable degree of excitement.

What is most impressive is that, after the initial wave of excitement, all the evidence, confirmed by Lord Pearce on "24 Hours" last night, is that the Africans have settled down to a firm and careful consideration of the proposals and are indulging so far as they are permitted—and that is not very far—in perfectly reasonable political activity in an attempt to assess the terms, for what they are worth.

It would be wrong for any of us to attempt to predict what the result of a settlement will be. But I shall not be surprised if they reject that settlement for a reason which must be obvious to every hon. Member, and that is, in the words of Mr. Harold Macmillan 10 years ago:

"The winds of change are blowing through Africa."

Although the African majority in Rhodesia has been gagged, I shall not be surprised to discover that the winds of change have been blowing through Rhodesia as well.

One surprising piece of evidence which appears from the Press reports about the work of the Commission is the degree to which Africans in the trust lands as well as in the towns and townships are politically conscious, politically aware and politically interested in their future. I should not be surprised if they make a choice which involves the sacrifice of the small benefits which might accrue from a settlement, because they understand that their only hope may be self-determination for them and their children. If they make that choice, I hope that the people of Britain and throughout the world will have the courage to stand by it and do everything they can to ensure that the Africans get the thing they have asked for.

The speeches of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) exemplified that attitude of total and almost splenetic hostility to the white man in Africa which has been one of the most significant elements of Socialist policy in the last 20 years and has done untold harm in many parts of Africa. It goes so far that, if there emerges, as, for example, in Malawi or Uganda, a ntive African leader who is not anti-European, he becomes one of their bogymen just as much as Mr. Smith or anyone else.

The speech of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East showed the Jekyll and Hyde attitude of the Opposition to the Rhodesian question. Ministers of the Labour Government sought to get a settlement on terms which went miles beyond the 1961 constitution, because they thought that it was harmful on all sides and in every way for this dispute to continue. Now those Ministers are back in Opposition they become and begin to speak as the leaders of a party in which the left has filled a dominant rôle and is concerned with every country but its own.

That produces the unrealistic nature of this debate. It was highlighted by a phrase used by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East when referring to the present activity in Rhodesia. He said:

"for the first time in that unhappy country"

the Africans are begining to play a part. That shows just how little he and other hon. Gentlemen know about Rhodesia and its development.

The British ruled a quarter of the world, and ruled it very well, but as an imperial race. When we left we handed over power from an imperial race to an indigenous race. Nowhere ever did we create or form part of a multi-racial society, because to do so does not come natural to the Anglo-Saxons. In Rhodesia alone, which has never been ruled from London—which some people forget—British people began spontaneously to build a multi-racial society, the only one which has ever taken root in the British Commonwealth of Nations. They did it; we did not. By some quirk that odd example occurred. Before U.D.I. there were no rules of racial differentiation in Rhodesia. There was a limited electorate, but the qualification of property and education was the same for everyone—

What!

It was the same for everyone. I do not think that hon. Members have done their homework on this subject.

rose—

I will not give way. if I am subjected to a good deal of interruption this will slow me up, and I have been asked to speak briefly. No doubt the hon. Gentleman may seek to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.

This is the society against which we have chosen to take this repressive action. I put the proposition that all the trouble in Rhodesia has come from outside because we had not the common sense to let Rhodesia go on with that unique and hopeful experiment. By some extraordinary error of judgment the Central African Federation was broken up. We gave independence to Nyasaland—the most backward of them all—which became Malawi. We gave independence to Northern Rhodesia, which was quite backward. We refused indpendence to Southern Rhodesia which had enjoyed home rule since 1923 and had never been ruled from London.

There is no point in going back to that moment of folly. This was done, and all the trouble has stemmed from that initial error of judgment. Let us not talk about Mr. Smith and the Rhodesian Front. We refused independence to Rhodesia, on the terms of the 1961 constitution, to Mr. Garfield Todd, and to his successor, Mr. Winston Field. There is nothing unique in the position of Mr. Smith.

Many territories in Africa were British and we gave them independence. We devised constitutions for them on the Westminster model at Marlborough House or Lancaster House. With the exception of two enclaves in South Africa, they all went back and tore up those constitutions. I had a small hand in devising one of them on behalf of the Barotse tribe. That constitution was solemnly signed and delivered, guaranteed by a personal pledge and torn up within 14 months. That is the record.

We mean well, but the Westminster system, which works well in Britain, is not suited for Africa—not yet anyway, it may be one day. Therefore, we have a record of total failure in Africa. We have not devised a single constitution suitable for the conditions of Africa. Totally unabashed by this unblemished record of failure, we impose sanctions on Rhodesia for not letting us think up a silly constitution for it. That is the basis of all this. We should approach this problem in a humble frame of mind, knowing that our judgment of what is good for Africans in Africa is practically worthless.

Let us start from that. It is an immensely complicated subject. I doubt if there is anything which is good for Africa. There are East Africa, West Africa, Central Africa and many different tribes. I had the good fortune to get right inside the life of one highly organised tribe when I was their spokesman, but every tribe is different, and we cannot generalise about what would be the right dispositions and the right constitutional arrangements for Africa just like that.

We have made this provisional agreement, which is wise and sensible. That agreement now is in danger because, unhappily, it was linked to a very slow method of implementation. It is a wise and bold stroke, but the method is so slow that it will be imperilled, because into Rhodesia are pouring the accomplished mischief-makers of the world. Trouble is being stirred up in a country where there has never been trouble since 1923, where the races have lived together in harmony and mutual respect.

The hon. Member for Penistone plainly thinks that normal political activity is the same in Africa as it is in Chelsea and Westminster.

I said nothing of the kind.

The hon. Gentleman said something which came extremely close to it.

I did not say anything of the kind. The hon. and learned Gentleman, who has never misquoted me in the past, should not do so now. I said that the Foreign Secretary has engaged the House and the country to see to it that the fifth principle of normal political activities is fulfilled during the period when opinion is being tested.

I was not quoting the hon. Gentleman. I said that he seemed to believe this, because the whole tenor of his speech and most of its content was how normal political activity was not being allowed in Rhodesia. That was the case he was making. It is extremely difficult to carry out this operation at all even with complete order and quiet in Rhodesia.

How can one approach all those people, the African in the tribal lands where there is not much else but fish and the de-tribalised urban African? Does one say to him, "You know the terms which have been agreed between the British Foreign Secretary and Mr. Smith, are you in favour of them?". Of course, he has not read them. How many hon. Members of this House have read them? The African does not know, and he wonders why he is being asked. Let us be sensible about this. This is an operation which must be gone through because of what is called the world community, which tends to mean the people who hang around the corridors of the United Nations and have got it into their heads that this lunatic operation must be gone through.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the spokesman of the Batonka did not know that there was a dispute with Britain?

I am not surprised. Once they were told that there was a dispute with Britain which started six and a half years ago and that there was now a proposed settlement, they would have to be told what the settlement was. They would be completely baffled at every stage of the proceedings. All we shall have is a froth, whipped up by South African Nationalist politicians and their supporters outside. How Mr. Smith will derive a conclusion from this, I do not know.

For Heaven's sake, let this process be quick, because the longer it goes on the more will the rats get at this sensible settlement. Nobody making the broadest judgment and assessment, which is all we can do, can believe other than that the Africa population of Rhodesia was extremely happy before U.D.I. and would like to go back to that system of racial non-discrimination and gradual advance which they had then. If we can give them that, we shall have performed a notable service for them.

I feel that the present events have had at least one good result and that is that they have brought those who criticise the settlement face to face with the consequences of its failures. Sanctions had considerably broken down, they have now broken down altogether. No one really believes that it is possible to re-impose them. The Foreign Secretary put the matter almost exactly right at Question Time the other day when he pointed out that we have never had power in Rhodesia and we have not the power now; that we had influence, that we still have some influence, but less, and that our duty is quite simply to use that influence to gain for our African wards a better settlement and a better future than they could otherwise get.

That seems to be the whole question before us. The Government, having decided that the terms they got were the best obtainable, are under a duty to implement them. I am sorry that they were diverted by the five principles. Those were, it is true, produced by the right hon. Gentleman seven years ago, but they were produced in very different circumstances. It was a great mistake to try to revive them. It is almost always a mistake to go to a conference table with rigid remits or points or even rigid principles. Perhaps in this I find myself in agreement with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in feeling that principles are generally a mistake.

In this context I remember well President Wilson's 14 points at Versailles. I remember that Prime Minister Clemenceau observed that God Almighty had found 10 sufficient. Certainly the Conference at Versailles could have done with less than 14, as Lord Goodman and the negotiators at Salisbury could have done with less than five. Frankly, acceptability was always a nonsense. I did not think it would be such a mischievous nonsense as it has turned out to be but a nonsense it always was.

I am opposed to the Common Market but I believe that a referendum on an issue of that sort would be a nonsense, and I have always said so. If a referendum would be a nonsense with as sophisticated an electorate as we have, with all the vast experience of a hundred years of democratic institutions, what kind of a nonsense is it to pass these kind of proposals to people without any experience of this sort?

Look what has happened. One of the most remarkable things has been the attitude of the M.P.s elected by voting and those appointed by the chiefs. The democratically-elected Africans—if that be the right word and perhaps it is not—are in favour of a settlement but the chiefs' M.P.s are against it. Why? Do they regard it as too democratic? Do they regard it as contrary to chiefly influence? To this nonsense my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) wishes to add four more points. Good heavens! Do we not have enough?

The first of those points concerns Mr. Todd and his most charming daughter. I know Mr. Todd, I like him, I admire him, he is the most attractive of individuals and I think that any of us would be proud to have a daughter such as he has. For all of this, I am a great deal more sympathetic with the men of his own village of Shabani who died because of his silliness, just as I was deeply sorry for the men of Sharpeville who died because of Harold MacMillan's silliness. We heard that great speech about the wind of change, but its only real effect was a massacre in Sharpeville and the repression of African progress. This is the trouble with the liberals, they make the boldest assertions, but their martyrdom is always by proxy. [Interruption.] The other points which are being put forward and which we are asked to accept are the A.N.C. going into the tribal areas, television and Sir Dingle Foot. These are a nonsense in this situation and we all know it.

Here we have a situation in which we have very little influence. What influence we have is disappearing. For Heaven's sake let us use what we have got while we have it to try to make things better instead of pandering to our own vanity and coddling our own consciences by producing principles which we know we cannot impose. As to the future, brilliant as I found Lord Goodman's negotiations, I do not think that the result is all that important. What is important is that Rhodesia should be released and allowed to go forward.

It was only by repressing economic progress in Rhodesia that we could keep the African under domination. Let me make myself perfectly clear, when I talk of Rhodesia I am on the black man's side not the side of the white man. I have no doubt about that at all. I never have had; they are the vast majority. I have seen apartheid work in South Africa. It has worked there because the South Africans have succeeded in avoiding dependence on a black proletariat. In none of the industries of South Africa have the South Africans ever allowed an indigenous proletariat to develop.

They have allowed only contract labour, to come for a short time. They have always had a white labour force sufficient to keep the industry going. When the figures are in the ratio of one to three, that is possible: when it is one to twenty it is not. The moment Rhodesian policy begins to advance there must be a trade union movement, development must depend on the black proletariat, a black labour force. That must mean African rule. It will not be because of the details of a constitution, because constitutions do not stand up in Africa. It will be, and I am enough of a Marxist to believe this, because the economic circumstances as they develop will force this kind of dominion—[Interruption.] The people sitting behind me who giggle do so from their ignorance of this situation, and their prejudices. They are in a fix now that they are up against the rejection of a settlement which they denounced. They funk that rejection because they know the consequences will be disastrous to the African. I urge the Government to have the courage to do what they know is right and not to be diverted by this nonsense about a principle of acceptability which they know means nothing and which was developed seven years ago in quite different circumstances.

Not for the first time I find myself the spokesman by accident, following the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), of those who agree with his sturdy common sense. [Interruption.] It was refreshing to listen to him although I did not agree with everything he said. I returned from Central Africa two days before the House re-assembled after our short Christmas Recess. The chief purpose of my visit, which did not, alas, include Rhodesia, was commercial, and I declare that interest.

I should report, incidentally, although perhaps not as incidentally as might he thought at first, that I am convinced, speaking as a practical man, that the potential for British trade in West, East and Central Africa is vast. Conditions certainly are not always easy. Sometimes they are almost intolerably frustrating and difficult, but given a flexible approach and the abandonment of certain older attitudes not fashionable today, and possibly partnership with local enterprises and with Governments, there is much there aching for us to go in and achieve.

It is insufficient alone for us to talk in this House about improving living standards. The imperative is to do something about it, and I am quite certain that the advancement of commerce is an important, practical and constructive step which we in this country could increasingly take. Not only Dr. Johnson would remark

"A man, Sir, should keep his friendship in constant repair."

It was said that trade followed the flag in the old days. I believe that political liaisons can well follow trade, to the benefit of many countries, not least that of the Commonwealth countries where we still have many friends, and this applies to Rhodesia too.

Having so recently met and talked with a number of Ministers in four countries, having met commercial figures and having had substantial conversations with three Heads of State, from that and other experiences I venture to express an opinion about the Rhodesian problem to to this House.

Whatever the constitutional position, or indeed the practical position, to which my right hon. Friend the Foregin Secretary referred this afternoon, whatever it may or may not be, it is entirely clear what in Africa it is generally assumed to be. Our friends there, inside and outside Rhodesia, hold us, and no one else, responsible for the constitutional developments in that country. I believe we have a moral commitment which we cannot deny. We cannot opt out. Nor should we. We must accept the trust which others have put in us. The reason why others besides myself have accepted this settlement and support it most warmly, congratulating my right hon. Friend and his colleagues on what they have achieved, is that we believe that this provisional settlement really has marked a tremendous advance, as others have said so clearly in this debate.

Having said that, let us recognise the facts behind it. The wish of the indigenous population is to rule themselves and is now more determined than it has ever been. The African may be young in terms of education, literacy even, sophistication, experience of command, commercial leadership or government, but he is no longer placid. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), in what, I thought, was a mischievous and unfortunate speech this afternoon, quoted the Ovambos. I think it right to quote them as an example of the pace of change of opinion. Who in this House would have suggested a year or two ago that the Ovambos would take this step by striking as they recently have? The African will have his way. Perhaps he is following the example of all of us who, as young men, wanted to set off on our own.

The trouble with all of us who have children is that we know they will want to set off on their own too soon. We know and recognise this, but to stand in the face of this development and attempt to prevent it is to act like Canute. The trend is there and we must recognise it, and recognise that we cannot stop it. We may be impatient of it, but there it is and it is a fact. Our historical reaction to this scene has been honourable and realistic in the history of the British Empire, now the British Commonwealth. Indeed, it has been courageous and quite often ahead of popular opinion in this country.

Looking today at contemporary Africa I find we get credit for our realism and sense less often than we should. Too often now, I suggest to this House, it is the Communists, the Russians, perhaps through the front of other nations, or the Chinese more directly, who are regarded as the apostles of freedom and self-rule in certain territories in Africa. Such is the irony, such is the falsehood, for it is those who cry anti-colonial slogans the loudest who are the modern slavers in the contemporary scene. It is, surely, an error to allow the position of the West in general, and of Britain in particular, to be represented as reactionary. This House should be jealous of its good name and sensitive particularly of it at present.

If in the past we have been tolerant and patient, we need to show those qualities more than ever today. It is easy to laugh at the mistakes which some of these new States are making, to complain about them, to criticise them. There is plenty of wretched examples to put one's finger upon. But is it not romantic to visit a country like Zambia, where, at the time of independence, there were only a hundred graduates, to see today 1,500 young people in the university?

We need to show sympathy and to remember that, especially in African political life, the moderates' part is not always an easy one to play. Extremism is so much more fashionable, so much easier than moderation, but if we do not encourage reasonableness, who will? Above all, we dare not forget the reality which, I think, was much in the mind of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, that behind all the talk, behind all the politicking, the risk of savage racial war in southern Africa is real, and the danger is not distant, amorphous: it is, I believe, almost imminent.

I spoke to one Head of State of my visit to the Victoria Falls and looking out over the Zambesi River to Rhodesia. I shall not easily forget his reply: "All of us", he said to me, "are on the edge of a cataclysm. We have moved slowly. inexorably towards it. You and your colleagues in the British House of Commons have a duty, in the ways that are open to you, to attempt to throw us a lifeline."

I make no comment on the circumstances in which the Pearce Commission is honourably attempting to make its inquiries. I have supported the attempt at a settlement. It is bold and rght, I believe, to attempt it. We all hope, of course, that the Report which the Commission will make in due course will be a positive one. If the attempted settlement is right, the further we can advance, and the more constructively we can advance, the better.

There is one other thing which requires to be said, I believe, in this debate if we are to act responsibly. We in this House must face the fact that it is possible that the Pearce Commission will report adversely. It is equally possible that the Commission will report favourably. That report will be contentious, and in some places highly contentious. I do not know how long it will be before we can receive the report—perhaps a few weeks only—but at least we have time. I am not asking for an answer tonight from my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, who himself has played a great part in this provisional settlement and who is to answer the debate, but I want to say this to him. Our aim must continue to be to lead Rhodesia to an honourable, legal independence as a sovereign democratic State—and I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary empha-sised the word "democracy". Eventually the majority must rule, and it will do. I believe the only way now for us to avoid the possibilities of repression, at the least, and of bloodshed, at the worst, is to accept this and to be seen plainly to accept it, in honour and in truth. In line with British policy in regard to the Commonwealth over many years we have no alternative.

One matter for consideration, is whether we should not announce at some stage our view of what the timetable should be. At least it would avoid the disappointment of the "sometime, never" suggestions which can be such a powerful influence on men's minds in Africa at the present time.

With whatever reluctance, but with full awareness of the practical difficulties and their immensity, we can no longer rule out perhaps in extreme conditions, that we may need to take command of the situation in Rhodesia. I do not advocate that now; I merely say that we cannot rule it out. We may have to take command by direct or indirect methods. Be that as it may, I repeat: we have time to plan. I hope that it will not be wasted.

It is a real honour to follow the speech of the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) who has made one of the most serious contributions that we have heard for many months from the benches opposite to this whole debate. I should like to spotlight three issues to which he referred, in which I am in almost complete agreement with him.

First, I too would commend to the House the opportunities for greatly strengthened trade with the majority of the African continent north of Zambesi—east, west and centre. Second, I would also draw attention to the real danger that, in the present context of African politics, it is the totalitarian Communists who too often take the opportunity to present themselves as the champions of progress and emancipation. Third, I agree that there is no reason whatever for us to be complacent about the time-scale within which savage racial warfare could develop within the southern part of Africa.

It has not been a happy spectacle for anyone to watch the difficulties of the Foreign Secretary in recent weeks as he has become increasingly enmeshed in the pressures and counter-pressures of his hon. Friends as they affect this issue. I believe that he is a man with real sensitivities who feels acutely the embarrassment and the difficulty of his position.

What I am most sad of all to see is the increasing tendency for the difficulties with which the right hon. Gentleman is confronted to distort quite seriously the objectivity of his assessment. On Monday he made what I think he himself may come to regard as a rather unfortunate statement, in which he suggested that the violence and disruption of order in Rhodesia at the moment was largely to be laid at the feet of the Africans who were taking the law into their own hands.

Of course, the right hon. Gentleman said that it was a minority, but this was the overall impression conveyed in that statement. There was no attempt, as there should have been if he were being honest with the House, to look to the origins of that frustration and activity, as other hon. Members have tried to do today. The origins of that problem lie in the violence and in the techniques enshrined in the police state system of the régime as it stands.

I believe also that the right hon. Gentleman may come to regret, when he reflects on it, the slant of his speech this afternoon. I would agree with others that we have very little power on the ground in Rhodesia, but the issue with which the right hon. Gentleman totally failed to grapple was why, if Smith had all the cards in his hand with the 1969 constitution, he ever got himself involved in negotiations for a settlement. It is, of course, because the pressure of sanctions, even if they may have hit the African majority worst, is being felt by the community of Rhodesia as a whole. He wanted to do his best to release himself from the pressures and the consequences of sanctions.

Some cynics suggest that Smith now believes that things have gone so far that sanctions will not be reimposed, that it does not matter to him whether the agreement goes through or not. That is why it is all the more important for the Foreign Secretary to make it absolutely clear that, if the people of Rhodesia do not endorse this settlement and it is therefore impossible for the Government to sign an agreement with the existing régime, sanctions will be reintroduced with all the authority at our disposal.

Has the hon. Gentleman noticed that Mr. Smith has been somewhat clearer on this matter than the present Government and that, in his speech commending the settlement on 25th November, he said:

"The alternative to accepting this agreement is to maintain the status quo which means retaining the present constitution without amendment and the continuation of sanctions"?

Are we not entitled to expect as clear a statement from the Government today?

I am deeply grateful to the hon. Member for his intervention. Not for the first time, in this debate, I agree with everything he has said.

I am deeply disturbed by the increasing tendency of commentators who should know better to say that the agreement is so much in the interests of the African majority, if only they would understand it, that, even if they did not endorse it, it would be important for the Government to go ahead and implement it in any case. I hope we can have a clear assurance from the Government today that they are not contemplating any such folly.

My concluding observation is very much in line with the thoughts of the right hon. Member for Taunton. Of course, many of us who recoil from the concept of violence would welcome any opportunity for evolutionary gradual change, but if that is to succeed in any political situation it is essential that the concessions available are always ahead of the aspirations of the relatively deprived section of the community.

The reality of the situation in southern Africa is that, increasingly, a majority of the deprived section of the population, following its articulate leadership—it is always articulate leadership that matters initially in these situations—has aspirations which outstrip any available concessions. The aspirations of the majority are for majority rule. This is the one basic concession which the minority who hold the strings at the moment are not prepared to make.

I therefore conclude sadly by saying that, since we have a responsibility to the white minority as well as to the black majority, that responsibility demands that we say clearly and without prevarication what we believe the reality to be. I am sad that so few have recognised, here and among the white community in southern Africa, that the only hope for a rightful place in southern Africa for the white community, who have genuine roots there, is to come to terms as rapidly as they possibly can with the inevitability and the justice of majority rule.

I am very glad to have the privilege of making a brief contribution at the end of what has been a very good and constructive debate. One of my hon. Friends said that he regretted, and indeed questioned, the necessity for it. To some extent I would agree with those sentiments, but I believe that we have seen the House at its best today. We have had some very forthright and constructive speeches from both sides. What is apparent to everyone is that there is deep feeling on this issue and great sadness, even though we might differ in our interpretations of some of the really contentious points.

I shared the sadness and concern which was evident throughout the House when the news came through last week of the arrest of the Todds. This is an act which one finds it difficult to explain rationally. It certainly puts Mr. Smith's credibility on the line to some extent. On the other hand, it is only right to try to be fair to all parties in a debate like this. After all, twice in the past, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, negotiations have almost succeeded. Twice in the past Mr. Smith has been a very tough negotiator with a previous Administration and surely we should consider that he could have conceded all sorts of things. He could have reached a settlement with the previous Administration and then abrogated it immediately afterwards, having had his hands freed and being completely free to do so. Though it is difficult to rationalise what happened last week, we should bear in mind that we are dealing with a man who has great problems with his own extremist minority and who might well be utterly sincere in wanting the settlement which he says he wants.

To me, the real issue is the future of the black people of Rhodesia. I hope the House will forgive me if I try to draw something of an analogy. I hope that nobody doubts my own deep concern for those in all parts of the world who are oppressed and the subject of difficult, and indeed savage, régimes. I have the honour to be chairman of an all-party group concerned with the lot of the Jewish citizens of the U.S.S.R. The thing that worries me more than anything is the fact that we are powerless to do anything to help those people. We can seek to influence, we can talk, we can send telegrams and letters which are not answered, but we are powerless to do anything.

In the case of Rhodesia we have a little power, a little chance to influence the situation and to try to make sure that the lot of the black African in Rhodesia can be improved. It is either this settlement or the 1969 constitution and progress towards apartheid and possible union with South Africa. These are the realities we must face.

The hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) feels deeply on these issues, as I do, and for the most honourable reasons reaches rather different conclusions. The reality of the situation is that in Rhodesia today the lot of the black African is not a happy one from a constitutional or political point of view. If this settlement is not implemented the lot of the black African in Rhodesia will not improve in the years ahead. It is easy for us to sit here in this House and to pontificate and talk glibly of what might or might not happen if the settlement is not implemented. It is very easy to be martyrs by proxy, which was a matter mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), although I did not agree with everything he said. It is the people of Rhodesia who should be our concern. It should be our prime purpose today to try to exercise a moderating influence so that the Pearce Commission can complete its task in an atmosphere of peace and tranquillity and can report back to my right hon. Friend what, so far as it can gauge, is the true opinion in Rhodesia.

I hope that the balance of opinion in Rhodesia will be in favour of the settlement. I believe that it is not the most glorious moment in the history of the British Commonwealth but I believe that my right hon. Friend has made a very notable achievement. If the settlement succeeds, I believe that this House, this country and the people of Africa as a whole will in future have good cause to thank my right hon. Friend and Lord Goodman for what they have done. Therefore, it is my earnest hope that the Pearce Commission will be able to get on with the job in Rhodesia without feeling that this House is seeking to breathe down its neck. I also hope it will be able to get on with its job without feeling that the Africans are being intimidated in Rhodesia; I hope it will be able to come back and say to my right hon. Friend, "Yes, they believe that this offers the best solution for them". I hope the message can go out today that this is the only chance they have, short of fratricidal strife and terrible bloodshed, to make orderly and proper progress to the sort of constitution that hon. Members on both sides of the House would wish them to enjoy.

I hope that the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) will forgive me if I follow his remarks only in brevity. I am sure he will agree that this debate has been an example of normal political activity at its best. This has been exemplified by the speeches of the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) and my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd). This is a debate about normal political activity and the meaning of that phrase, and about the extent to which the fifth principle enshrined in the agreements which have for so long been sought by Governments of both parties may be and can be carried out by the Pearce Commission in Rhodesia.

How far is there a proper test of opinion in that unhappy country at the moment? I submit—and I shall confine my brief remarks to this one issue—that there is cause for concern which should be expressed to the Foreign Secretary in this House about the way in which the Pearce Commission has gone about its task, as well as about the sequence of events which followed the arrests and shootings at Shabani and elsewhere.

First, it seems to me that in some ways the Pearce Commission set about its task in a somewhat tendentious manner and that there is throughout the doings of the Pearce Commission, as in the many statements which we have had from the Government both today and on previous occasions, an assumption that the only alternatives before the Rhodesians are, first, the 1969 constitution, with all that that implies and, secondly, the settlement which has been negotiated by Lord Goodman. We would argue that there are other alternatives which may have to be considered in the fullness of time if the Pearce Commission returns with a negative report.

I am sorry that the Pearce Commission has underrated the value of radio as a medium for getting over its message to the mass of the African population, particularly in the tribal territories. Indeed Lord Harlech, who has been the most voluble member of the Commission, was asked a question about this matter a week before the Commission set out on its task. He replied that spouting about the Commission on the radio might not be the best means of putting things across. I would have thought that spouting on the radio was the best way of putting things across to the vast majority of Africans in the tribal territories.

I should not repeat the sad catalogue of shootings and arrests which have taken place since then. However, we should like to hear from the Government in their reply tonight the reason that the free expression of written opinion by urban Africans to the Commission was stopped. We wish to hear more about why the expensive journey by a Foreign Office official, Mr. Mansfield, resulted in no more information to this House than we could have learned a week earlier from Mr. Lardner Burke—no more information about the reasons for the detention of Mr. and Mrs. Chinamano and of the Todds. In view of the somewhat flippant remarks of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), may I say that I have known Mr. Garfield Todd for a long time and his daughter Miss Judith Todd is one of my oldest friends. Nobody could say that they are leaders to darkness and death. Those who say that they would connive at terrorism must be out of their minds. Mr. Todd and his daughter Judith, as anybody who has shared a platform with them and who has been involved in putting the case against the present régime in Rhodesia must know, are the most careful and legalistic representatives of enlightened opinion against the present settlement. They are not people who have flirted with terrorism.

We want a more sufficient answer by the Foreign Secretary on why these detentions have taken place. If we do not get answers and the Pearce Commission continues to be frustrated as in the past, hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree that it may be necessary at that stage for the Commission to come home. The Commission itself has been left in the position in which it is the only judge of whether its mission could be accomplished. It is responsible to the Government and to this House. This House is not a broker for the settlement negotiated by Lord Goodman. The House has to decide whether the agreement is acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole.

The hon. Member for Cannock said that the settlement would be in the best interests of the Africans. There are two views about that, equally sincerely held. But if the Africans appear to be putting the contrary view and seem to be so frustrated that, in the opinion of this House, normal political activity is impossible, I fear we should say to Lord Pearce that he is entitled to receive the advice of Her Majesty's Government on whether the mission should continue.

I wish to make only two or three points. The first is that the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser), and to a lesser extent one or two other hon. Members opposite, made the point that Southern Rhodesia was a police State and, therefore, that the only hope of avoiding a deterioration in conditions in Southern Rhodesia and an inevitable drift towards apartheid was to get the proposed agreement signed. However, there is no evidence to suppose that the very men who are dedicated to apartheid and the enforcement of a police State will change their attitude overnight simply because they have signed a piece of paper. In fact, since the Pearce Commission began its work we have seen the endorsement of all that some of us feel about the Smith régime.

The Foreign Secretary said that he has no power to do anything about what is taking place in Southern Rhodesia in relation to the settlement. He also quoted from a speech of the former Prime Minister in which my right hon. Friend said that we had no control over the hangings which took place in Southern Rhodesia. But the two are not synonymous. Arm in arm with the presentation of the settlement proposals to this House was the understanding that the Foreign Secretary had reached an agreement with Ian Smith, which would be upheld, that in a certain climate and with certain guarantees the settlement would be put before the people of Southern Rhodesia as a whole. If these guarantees are not met, the Foreign Secretary says that he has no power to do anything. We say that he should proclaim that the Smith régime has not fulfilled its commitments to him when the proposals were put to it.

I was disturbed to hear the right hon. Gentleman say on Monday that he could not question Smith's right to maintain security, provided that the minimum amount of force was used. The minimum amount of force being used in Rhodesia is that which has locked up those who oppose the settlement. I asked the Foreign Secretary, and I ask him again, how many of those who have been detained, gassed, arrested, shot or murdered are people who were advocating acceptance of the settlement. That is the test.

The Foreign Secretary's reply about the proposed Labour Party delegation filled me with foreboding. First, there was nothing in the exchanges between the General Secretary of the Labour Party and the Foreign Secretary or those between my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman to say that the delegation would go out to Southern Rhodesia advocating non-acceptance of the settlement. That was not the position. It was going to see what was taking place in Southern Rhodesia.

The Foreign Secretary is behaving very much like Ian Smith. He is preventing people going to see what is happening in Southern Rhodesia because he knows them as individuals who disagree with the settlement. Smith has locked up the Todds not because of anything they have done but because of what they might do. That is why the Foreign Secretary is unhappy about a Labour Party delegation going to Southern Rhodesia.

Perhaps I might remind the hon. Lady that one member of the party opposite is in Rhodesia now, and there has been no trouble. I have said that I think that hon. Members should be able to go to Rhodesia to observe.

The right hon. Gentleman did not say that. He said that he did not—[Interruption] The right hon. Gentleman should not quote himself out of context. He said that he did not see any point in a delegation made up of members of a political party going there when we were opposed to the settlement. That appears in HANSARD. That is why I am apprehensive about the whole conduct of the settlement and the attitude that the right hon. Gentleman has directed to it.

What this House should be discussing and what it will have to face—some of us said this when we opposed the "Tiger" and the "Fearless" proposals—is what we do when the settlement fails and when Lord Pearce comes back and says that it is not on. What then will be the future of both the whites and the blacks in Southern Rhodesia?

This debate was initiated by the Opposition to consider one specific and urgent issue. The debate concerns the fifth of the five principles; that is, the acceptability to the Rhodesian people as a whole of the agreement negotiated by the Foreign Secretary in November. The debate concerns the promise of normal political activity while this test of acceptability is applied. I shall deal almost entirely in my speech with that specific and urgent point.

But it is first necessary to record that the Foreign Secretary's response to our concern about the fifth principle during the last 14 days has made a number of general conclusions about the Rhodesian settlement inevitable. The first is that, since the Commission has been in Rhodesia, no one has seriously argued that Mr. Smith has kept his word about the test of acceptability. Since he has not kept his word about the fifth principle, we believe that this bodes ill for the prospect of his keeping his word about the other four.

Secondly, the last 14 days have revealed a great deal about the relationship between the Foreign Secretary and Mr. Smith. It is clear, and it was made tragically evident today, that the right hon. Gentleman is continually willing to carry Mr. Smith's messages to this House. To us, that bodes a great deal of ill for the future if the future involves, as involve it may, new negotiations between Her Majesty's Government and the régime in Salisbury.

The Foreign Secretary's defence of his attitude is that he has no power in Rhodesia and that he can do no more than repeat to this House the will of Mr. Smith. The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He claims that in November he struck a genuine bargain with the Smith régime. If it was a genuine bargain, he has the power and the ability to say to the Smith régime, "Break or change your side of the agreement, and we shall change or abandon ours." To be able to say that, the right hon. Gentleman has to retain power and influence by at least retaining the prospects of sanctions. But he has to tell us clearly what it was that happened in November and whether there was a bargain with concessions and promises made by both sides. If he made a genuine bargain he has power. If he has no power, it was capitulation.

The judgment of the Opposition and of the country on the November agreement needs no repetition. The Foreign Secretary has never pretended that it was any better than the lesser of a series of evils. Today, the best that he could say about it was that it was "as good as could be obtained". If that is the best he can say about it, he will understand why we regard the test of acceptance on the part of the Rhodesian people as being crucially important.

That is why we want the Pearce Commission to continue its work. It is why we need to be told something about the Commission's continuation which we might have hoped was self-evident, namely, that the work be continued according to the promise that Mr. Smith made to the Foreign Secretary and the promise that the right hon. Gentleman repeated to this House.

I make no criticism of the Commission except, if it be a criticism, to express surprise at some of the comments by the Commission's deputy chairman on Saturday evening. On a number of specific issues the Commission has been a great deal more active in pursuit of the promise of normal political activity than has the Foreign Secretary.

The Commission has made it clear that it wants to see the Rev. Sithole. We do not know whether the Government think that that is right and will press for it to happen. The Commission is concerned about the prospects of public meetings in the tribal trust areas. I do not know hether the Government will press for them. The Commission is specifically critical about the detention of Mr. Garfield Todd and his daughter and of Mr. Chinamano.

We do not know any more about the detention of Mr. Todd, though we have been promised some sort of statement for the last six days, than the simple reiteration by the Foreign Secretary of this memorable phrase: "Mr. Todd was detained for reasons of internal security…The reason for that decision Mr. Smith was unwilling to reveal." I have to say to the Foreign Secretary, I hope calmly but after very great consideration, that I regard that as a shameful answer. It is shameful on the Foreign Secretary and vicariously shameful, I fear, on those Members of the House of Commons who had to listen to it.

I was asked, as I understood it, to ascertain from Mr. Smith why he had interned Mr. Todd. I repeated what Mr. Smith said to me. I thought that the House wanted that information.

My original contention was that the Foreign Secretary had become nothing more than Mr. Smith's message-carrier. If he wants to reverse that reputation, I give way at once while he tells the House how much he deplores the message that he was given and how much he hopes for Mr. Todd's release. Mr. Smith did not give a reason for Mr. Todd's detention but many people in the country believe that they know what it is: Mr. Todd's impending departure to this country to put the case of some of his African colleagues.

The detention of Mr. Chinamano is now causing similar fears in Rhodesia relating to a similar allegation. I discovered from a professional colleague this afternoon that, about two hours before he was arrested, Mr. Chinamano had agreed to do a broadcast for the British Broadcasting Corporation putting the African point of view. Those people who conclude that there was a relationship between Mr. Todd's arrest and his departure for England to put his case also conclude now that similar considerations affect the arrest of Mr. Chinamano.

It seems detestable that while the Smith régime pretends to allow normal political activity, two of the spokesmen for the African majority, who are likely not only to advance the cause of the Africans but to advance it well and persuasively, are detained very shortly after arrangements are made for that cause to be advanced and certainly before the speeches or broadcasts can be made.

I hope that we hear from the Attorney-General that he will find out whether that description of the situation from the people on the spot is the message which Mr. Smith would want to convey to this House. If he will convey that information, we will be grateful: and if he would comment on it, we would be even more grateful and slightly surprised.

I turn to two other matters about which this House has to be concerned and about which something must be said by the Attorney-General when he replies to the debate. The first concerns violence. The Foreign Secretary is rightly swift to condemn violence, and to condemn violence in Rhodesia. All of us support him in that. But since Christmas the Foreign Secretary has been very selective in those condemnations. It is violent to fire on and to kill unarmed African demonstrators. It is violent to suppress normal political freedoms. It is certainly violent to detain without trial those who would speak on behalf of freedom. I hope that the debate will not be concluded without a word of condemnation from the Government for that sort of violence.

I hope, too, that the debate will not be concluded without the Attorney-General at least assaying to answer some of the questions which were put to the Government last Wednesday, on Monday and again by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) this afternoon and to which there has not been the semblance of an answer.

We want to know what possible justification there is for the detention of Miss Todd, Mr. Todd and Mr. Chinamano. We want to know about the prospects of public meetings in tribal trust areas. We want to know about broadcasting facilities for every point of view in Rhodesia. We want to know whether there is the prospect of the Pearce Commission carrying on its work in the way that this House was promised and in the way that Mr. Smith undertook. We are not, as the Foreign Secretary suggested, trying to go over the heads of the Commission. We want it to work in the appropriate atmosphere and to provide an accurate answer. Our fear is that that is not happening and that the Government are not pressing that it should happen.

We understand very well the difficulties of extracting this kind of information from Mr. Smith. But we understood last Wednesday, when my right hon. Friend and the Leader of the Opposition were most patient in the face of the Foreign Secretary's explanations, that Mr. Mansfield had been sent to Rhodesia to obtain exactly those answers. We thought that Monday's statement was to provide the answers which Mr. Mansfield had helped to supply. It did not. And today's debate has supplied none of the answers to the crucial questions. If, as I read, Mr. Mansfield returns this evening, perhaps with some of the information about his person, we will expect a statement tomorrow from the Foreign Secretary giving us the answers to these questions.

In the meantime I want to reiterate the Opposition's view. We are anxious that the Pearce Commission should continue its work. We want it to continue in an atmosphere, to quote the Foreign Secretary, of normal political activity. We do not see that situation in Rhodesia today. Perhaps more important, we do not see the Foreign Secretary struggling to achieve it. Because of that we will return to the subject time after time and tonight, to demonstrate our deep concern, we will divide the House.

Unlike the speeches by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), it was my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who reminded the House of the gravity of the matter which we are debating this afternoon, and that was echoed in a distinguished speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann).

I say straight away to the House that, with limited personal knowledge of Africa and even more limited personal knowledge of Rhodesia, I can never approach a debate about Rhodesia or Africa save with a real sense of anxiety, particularly when dealing with Rhodesia, at the responsibilities which are borne by the House. I share that feeling which was expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack).

I will not repeat my personal views on what I heard and saw in Rhodesia. I saw little but heard a lot—that is, a lot compared with other hon. Members. I still cannot get from my mind the hundred or so people who spoke about the need for a new initiative, the need for a new spirit and the need for some hope. I am not ashamed to say that I cannot get that from my mind.

I know that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite do not accept these proposals. They demonstrated that in the Division on 1st December. Nevertheless, I and my right hon. and hon. Friends believe that the proposals are a step forward. But what we think at this stage does not matter. What matters is the opinion of the people of Rhodesia who at this time are being consulted by the Commission.

I think that there was a certain inconsistency in what the hon. Member for Sparkbrook said in his winding-up speech for the Opposition, because his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East said that the Africans were responding to the present opportunity. He spoke of them responding in the towns, the villages and the most remote areas. They cannot at the same time complain about lack of political activity. Political activity is being demonstrated by those who are responding to the opportunity by coming to those meetings and taking part in those activities. [Interruption.] I am quoting the right hon. Gentleman's own words. He spoke about them responding to this particular opportunity.

Of course I applaud the African response, but to claim that when the Africans respond and they are put into gaol, tear-gassed, shot and wounded is normal political activity is a travesty of the facts.

That is not what I said, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it. He was complaining that there was no normal political activity, yet in the same breath he was congratulating the Africans on taking this opportunity. The opportunity is given for them to make their views known to the Commission. The Commission has been sent by the Government to test the reaction of the people of Rhodesia as a whole.

The only sanction which remains, as the right hon. Gentleman knows only too well, would be the removal of the Commission. If the conditions were not right, the removal of the Commission would lead inevitably to no settlement, and we believe that with no settlement there would be an inevitable move to a state of apartheid. In the absence of a report by the Commission asking that it be withdrawn, or in the absence of withdrawal by the Commission itself, that would be utterly irresponsible.

It appears that the Commission is receiving reactions, and it is right that it should. It was always accepted by the previous Administration, as it has been by the present one, that the appropriate method of testing would be by a Commission. This is now the crucially important stage about which the hon. Member for Sparkbrook spoke. It is a British Commission appointed by the United Kingdom to report back to Her Majesty's Government. It must be independent. It must make an assessment of the true attitude, not the superficial, not the outward appearance, not the attitude of a few, but the true attitude and reaction of the people of Rhodesia as a whole.

Of necessity, any agreement made in consequence of these proposals in 1971, or the proposals nearly successfully negotiated by the previous Administration, inevitably involves complex matters. These proposals involve the making of a constitution. They involve changes in the law. They involve providing for checks and balances. All these matters call for a Commission which, to do its task, must have patience and determination; and it must do its task thoroughly.

The Commission, appointed by the British Government, has terms of reference which require it to ascertain directly from all sections of the population of Rhodesia whether the proposals are acceptable, and then to report to the British Government. The Commission must satisfy itself on whether the settlement is acceptable. It cannot do that—the settlement cannot be acceptable—if the people of Rhodesia have not had the terms explained to them. Moreover, according to its terms of reference, the Commission must be satisfied that normal political activities have been permitted, provided that they are conducted in a peaceful and democratic manner. That is a task which has been imposed upon the Commission in its terms of reference, and the judgment on the issue as to whether it is satisfied that normal political activities have been permitted has been placed fairly and squarely upon the Commission itself. It is up to the Commission, by its terms of reference, to make this judgment.

The Commission is now in Rhodesia. It is in the best position to judge. The head of the Commission, Lord Pearce, has said that he does not think that the resulting situation as regards political activity is so serious that he and his colleagues should withdraw.

I repeat that, with the Commission having those duties imposed upon it and having to make that judgment, it certainly would not be right for the British Government to interfere, as some right hon. and hon. Members have suggested. It is an independent Commission. It will not do anything which it does not require and it will do what it does require. Any other conduct would reflect upon the independence of the Commission itself.

The Commission has not asked the British Government to take up any matters with Mr. Smith. If it does, the Government will. If it is prevented in its duty, if it is prevented from carrying out its task, the Commission will report to the Government. But it has not done so so far.

If the Government were so keen to have an independent Commission, why are many members of it Government servants?

They are not Government servants. The hon. Gentle man ought to know that the Commission is wholly independent. They are not Government servants. They are honourable men sent out there to do a task. They have said that they will give, as they are required to give, an honest answer, as it has been said, to the questions which they have been asked to determine.

If the matter of the conditions for normal political campaigning is to be left entirely to the Pearce Commission—if the Foreign Secretary was washing his hands of the matter—why was Mr. Mansfield sent out to report back to the Foreign Secretary?

The right hon. Gentleman sounds naive and ingenuous but I know very well that he is not. Of course, my right hon. Friend sent out Mr. Mansfield. There are many matters which he wishes to know and to have reported directly hack to him. But the question whether the Commission can carry out its duties is a matter solely for the Commission on which to make up its mind and come to a judgment.

I remind the right hon. Member for Leeds, East of what was said on 20th January, because he sometimes seemed so to telescope what he said the Commission had said as, perhaps, to change a little of the sense, though without any intention, I am sure. This is what Lord Pearce said on 20th January:

"To say that there has been no political activity in any of the tribal trust lands would seem untenable in the light of what our Commissioners have told us so far"

He went on to say:

"The real question will be the degree to which freedom of political expression is permitted. If people are detained simply to silence them"—

Hear, hear.

Yes—

"then even in existing conditions it is not allowing normal political activity."

Lord Pearce added:

"We are loth to make a premature judgment on allegations and counter-allegations which are in our present state of knowledge hard to evaluate, premature and possibly erroneous."

The head of the Commission himself well knows and appreciates the importance of normal political activity, and he well knows the balance there has to be between normal political activity and other activity which might amount to intimidation.

On 23rd January Lord Pearce said that a lot of good, constructive work had been done. He spoke of the need for a calm and peaceful atmosphere. About the matter of the detention of Mr. Garfield Todd and Miss Todd, he said:

"I am not prepared at this moment to give any evaluation of the situation because we have not finished our considerations. We have already stated that we regard this as a matter of great importance to keep the balance, a fair balance, between expressions of political thought and the maintenance of peace and order…but it is a matter that we have very much in mind."

By today, 26th January, in the opinion of the Commission the atmosphere has much improved.

The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) asked me about the movement to parity. As I said in the debate on 1st December, this is what the United Kingdom will require to be enacted by the Rhodesian Parliament before the United Kingdom Parliament would ever be asked to legis

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

The title of this Measure has in brackets the word "Amendment". Perhaps we might better have used the words "miscellaneous provisions", because the Bill deals with a number of important matters relating to town planing which we have collected together in one Measure.

It may be for the convenience of the House if I endeavour to deal with the provisions of the Bill in four parts—first, the examination in public of structure plans; second, the structure plan areas; third, office development control; and, fourth, demolition in conservation areas. The Bill conveniently divides into these subjects, although that is not the order in which they appear in the Measure. Perhaps I have chosen them to some extent in order of importance.

I will start with Clause 3, which deals with the new procedure for the examination of structure plans. I shall probably shock those to whom all planning is anathema—those who I might call members of the lillies of the field school—when I say that town planning is now on a three-tier system with a mezzanine floor.

At the top is the regional strategy, prepared in the regions by an expert team provided by my Department and local authorities, sponsored by the Regional Economic Planning Council and standing conference of local planning authorities in each region. That is at the top of the planning pyramid.

One next comes to the structure plans, which will be prepared by the local planning authorities; under local government reform these will be prepared by county planning authorities. These are the plans which were introduced under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1968.

It is perhaps wrong to call them plans in this context in that they consist of a statement of strategy, rather than a design on a map, setting out the policy and prin ciples on which a whole planning area is to be planned, but not drawing lines on a map or getting into those sort of details.

One next comes down to the basic grass roots planning of an area; that is the drawing of lines on an Ordnance Survey map to show in detail how it will affect the citizen in the street or the plot of land.

I said that there was in this three-tier system of planning a mezzanine floor. Here we find the industrial development control and office development permit systems. I do not think we should leave these out in thinking of planning. More and more they will come into the planning scheme rather than be remote from it. Indeed, in this Bill we deal with the O.D.P. system.

The Town and Country Planning Act, 1968, introduced a new development plan system. That sought to remedy the problems which had become apparent in the system originally introduced in 1947. I do not say that they were problems inherent in the 1947 system, but that is the way it worked out, and I am shocked to have to tell the House that I have found development plans in my Department which we have been conscientiously studying—there is nothing wrong in this under the present law—for 10 years or more. and we are still studying them.

This is happening because they are development plans which were detailed as "land use plans" and the responsibility of the Minister under the 1947 legislation had become involved in a mass of detail. Consequently, long delays ensued while the plans awaited the Minister's approval.

The new 1968 system, if I may call it that as a form of verbal shorthand, replaces the old development plan by two separate plans. The first is the structure plan, setting out broad strategic policies and proposals—it is eventually submitted to the Secretary of State—and the second stage is the local plan, which sets out in detail the way in which the structure plan proposals will be implemented at the local level. The local plan will not come before the Secretary of State unless he considers it needs his approval.

These new structure plans are not, as were the old plans, limited to land use. The planning authority must now cover transportation and take account of the economic implications of its proposals, and particularly of their relationship to regional policy. In the new system there is to be, for the first time in the history of development plans, a statutory process of public participation for both the structure and local plans so that people may have adequate opportunities to know about the choice of strategies and the proposals of their local planning authority and make their influence felt at this formative stage.

Thus, the new development plan system under the 1968 Act is different in three respects from its predecessors. First, it is a two-tier system of structure and local plans. Second, it is what I would call "whole planning"—not just land use but economic and regional planning. Third, we have public participation.

If my tone of voice is complimentary to this system, I admit at once that it was introduced by the Labour Government. I had pleasure in being a Member of the Committee which examined the Measure which introduced the system and I hope that I gave it all the support it deserved, because it is a system which I think we can make work.

However, those far-reaching changes were not accompanied by changes in the provisions for public local inquiries into objections. That is what we missed in dealing with the system. The Act just provided for an inquiriy into structure and local plans on the sort of litigation basis on which inquiries are held at present. I go as far as saying that that omission to devise an appropriate kind of inquiry for a structure plan could be fatal to the whole system we set up under the 1968 Act. The delay, the blight, the failure to probe and decide the real issues, the loss of sight of the wood for the trees, would frustrate planning and bring chaos to both development and conservation, which we want to achieve under the new planning system.

In the Bill we are not proposing to alter the well-established arrangements for public local inquiries into local plans. These are the ones in which we deal with the detail of the individual's property and his interests. It is clearly right that there should continue to be not only the right to object but for objections which are not withdrawn to be heard at a normal type of inquiry as we know it; no matter how minor the objections may be, from a financial or area point of view, they should be thoroughly considered. But the House will appreciate that if an inquiry in that traditional form had to be held on the basis of detailed objections to the new structure plan, there would be an unnecessary and unacceptable overlap, and consequently delay. Above all, we should have frustrated what has all along been seen as the prime object of the structure plan—the need for a plan which would enable the local planning authority to present, and the Secretary of State to consider matters of policy and general proposals, and which would secure the implementation of regional plans such as that which the Secretary of State has already approved for the South-East.

What the Government are therefore seeking to evolve from this new form of plan is a more relevant means of publicly examining the key issues which are raised by that plan. There will be a wide range of material from which to identify those issues—from the statement which the planning authority has to make on the outcome of the public participation which it has carried out, to the Secretary of State's own examination of the plan and the objections to it received. From all those we shall be able to identify the major issues raised by that plan.

As for the examination itself, which will be held in public, we need to provide a panel with a suitably independent chairman to discuss matters with the planning authority and with other participants on the inquiry, to probe aspects which have been seriously contested or give rise to objections, to assess worthwhile alternatives and finally to make a report to the Secretary of State. That report would he published, providing him with a basis for a decision on the plan far more relevant to the structural issues than could ever be the case if the examination had been concerned with detailed objections.

The Bill does not itself make any detailed provisions relating to the public examination. The new procedure will be evolved in consultation with those concerned, particularly with the Council on Tribunals, with which I have already had discussions, and we shall find the best procedure to put into regulations eventually. Some criticism of these ideas has naturally been put forward. The criticism has been focused mainly on what is thought of as the loss of the objector's right to be heard. In this connection I emphasise again that there will already have been ample opportunity for public participation.

It is a prerequisite of the procedure under this Bill that the public participation shall have been very thorough in depth even if perhaps restricted in time. There is no restriction to the right to object to the structure plan, and all objectors will still have their written objections considered. That remains an entrenched right for the individual. The statutory duty on the Secretary of State to consider their objections remains. The duty which we now impose on the Secretary of State, a mandatory duty, is to decide what are the main issues of this structure plan and see that they are thoroughly considered at the examination in public. That means a choice of not only the issues but of the participants as well. This will be difficult and we shall endeavour to provide a procedure at which the Secretary of State's choice, both of issues and of participants, can be questioned and discussed. If we can devise a procedure for discussion of the agenda first without causing too much delay or making it a cumbersome procedure, we shall have achieved the aim of this part of the Bill.

Again, those points in particular will be the subject of further discussions with all the interested organisations—the local authority associations, the professional bodies, and the Council on Tribunals. Provision has alrady been made in the Bill for ensuring that examinations are subject to the general oversight of the Council.

I hope that the House will forgive me for spending a little time on this matter. I can move fairly rapidly over the rest of the Bill. Going back from Clause 3 to Clauses 1 and 2, these deal merely with the mechanics of structure planning. As we left the 1968 Act, we had directed each local planning authority to prepare a structure plan. Some of them have wished to prepare the plan in conjunction with their neighbours and, by law, if they did so they could go on with their surveys over a wider area—South Hampshire, for example—but when they came to present that structure plan to the Secretary of State they had to take a pair of scissors and cut it up, which is just nonsense. So in the Bill we are providing that the local planning authorities can join together to make a structure plan over any area which is convenient. That is not mandatory. It is purely legalising a voluntary arrangement between local planning authorities. The Bill also provides that, if they change their minds at any time during that process, they can come out of the joint process and prepare their own plan, and whatever has been done in the joint process can be used in preparing any structure plan they choose to do on their own.

The other point on structure plans relates to London, and Clause 4 and Schedule I are important provisions for streamlining the planning system of Greater London. Existing legislation under the 1968 Act provides for the Greater London Council to prepare a structure plan, and each of the London boroughs to prepare structure plans—some 33 plans. Looking at the inquiry which is now proceeding into the Greater London development plan, the mind boggles at the time it might take not only to complete that inquiry but then possibly to have 33 more of these inquiries throughout the London boroughs.

In the Bill we are seeking to say that once we have got the Greater London structure plan, the London boroughs can go straight to the stage of preparing their local plans. This is not demoting them in any way; rather, it is promoting them, because they can prepare those local plans for the whole of the area if they choose, or for part of it, and they do not have to bring a local plan to the Secretary of State for approval. So they can get on with the job right away once they can fit their local plans into the Greater London Development plan. Again, these provisions will also enable the London boroughs to prepare such joint local plans as they consider appropriate.

I come now to the third part of the Bill, relating to office development control. Clauses 5 and 6 relate to the extension of the present powers in respect of office control beyond August of this year. The area of control has been successively reduced since 1969. The control itself dates back to 1965, and at present it is applied only to the South-East planning region and for developments over 10,000 square feet. When control was first introduced, it was seen by its authors as a temporary measure to control what was believed to be excessive office employment growth in London. Its life span was seven years. This means that, unless provision is made for continuance of its powers, it will lapse on 5th August of this year. Some hon. Members will doubtless say, "Good riddance", but there is still a purpose in it. The Government have carefully considered what they should do about office control. Few controls are without their enemies and the very powerful voices which have been raised for the abolition of these types of control have been raised on the grounds—to some extent, justified—that they have led only to a shortage of office accommodation in central London, with the result that they have contributed to a quite unprecedented rise in rents.

I have said that there is some justification of that criticism of the controls. The Government are not keen on interfering with the normal operations of commercial and professional development and would like to remove this additional irksome step in the planning process and leave it, perhaps, entirely to the planning process in due course. We have concluded that an intelligent use can be made of the control for a limited period to further the objectives of the Strategic Plan for the South-East.

Hon. Members will remember that in October of last year my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the Government's decision to accept the main recommendations of the Strategic Plan for the South-East. We think that we can mould this control into a positive form. We propose in future to use the O.D.P. system positively in London so that we can meet on good planning lines the demand for office accommodation in London. There should be no restriction on the provision of modern office space in London to replace obsolete or outworn premises or to satisfy the requirements of businesses which can function properly only from London.

More than that, there needs to be a supply of new and modernised space available for developing concerns and to take advantage of new stimuli such as the entry into Europe, because we are seeing the demand even now at this early stage, in the City of London particularly—it may be a prestige demand, but it is there—from Europe.

In the near future a balanced policy of office development for London and for the region as a whole can be best brought about by the operation, principally by the local planning authorities themselves, of the new system of development planning of which I have spoken earlier.

Does my hon. Friend appreciate that there is something of the chicken and the egg analogy in this? He knows from his experience that developers who want to develop in a city generally go in the first place to the local authority to get general planning agreement. Many town halls are now telling such intending developers, "Until you get an office development permit we cannot talk to you". Can he cut those lines?

I was coming to that. There must be more co-operation between the O.D.P. system and planning, eventually to lead, I hope, to the abolition of the system and the building of it into the planning system entirely, but I do not think that the planning system is quite ready for it yet. When we get the structure plans and the local plans I am sure that we can bring the O.D.P. system into the planning system. In the meantime, we see a value in the more direct powers of control that we have under the O.D.P. system. Therefore, we propose in Clause 5(1) that the existing power should be extended for a further five years, but because we are determined not to keep the control a moment longer than is necessary we have included provisions to bring it to an end by Order in Council before 1977. I say again that in its administration we will ensure that it is an aid and not a hindrance to commercial development.

I come finally on what I call "part 4" to demolition in conservation areas. Section 1 of the Civic Amenities Act, 1967, requires local planning authorities to determine which parts of their area or areas

"are areas of special architectural or historic interest the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance"

and to designate such areas as conservation areas.

More than 1,500 of those areas have already been designated in England. They will normally include some buildings which are of special architectural or historic interest and which can be statutorily listed as such, with all the protection which listing as of architectural or historic value gives them. They will also include buildings which, although they can contribute to the character of the conservation area, are not such as could be listed. For example, a fine row of Victorian villas built around the middle of the last century gives a character to that conservation area, yet one would not dream of listing that row of villas as of great architectural or historic value. Anyone who knocks down the row of villas destroys the whole character of the conservation area; yet at present that can be done.

The Bill seeks to put restrictions on that, treating the demolition of a building of that sort in the same way as something which requires listed building consent would be treated. In future, if the House accepts the provisions of the Bill, conservation areas as they are designated will include certain areas—it may be a block; it may be a terrace—which the local planning authority thinks are of such a character that they should be protected from demolition and the planning authority will issue directions to that effect. Those directions will not be effective until confirmed by the Secretary of State, except in cases of emergency, when they will become effective immediately but will lapse unless confirmed by the Secretary of State within six months.

Once a direction becomes effective in respect of a building it will not be possible lawfully to demolish it without the consent of the local planning authority or the Secretary of State, and the normal rights of appeal will apply.

I should with some temerity mention that the provisions apply also to Scotland in a separate Clause—Clause 8—and in Schedule 3. It is necessary to do it in that way because of slight variations in the legislation in Scotland and because of reference to Acts not yet consolidated.

I have dealt, perhaps sketchily, with the four parts of the Bill. I said at the beginning that we have collected these miscellaneous items together in the Bill. They are urgent. There are no doubt many other matters in planning which it is desirable should be dealt with and which we might have included in the Bill, but they might have been controversial. We think that these four points are so important and so urgent to the proper administration of both development planning and planning control that we have collected them together in the Bill, and I hope that the House will accept them and give the Bill a Second Reading.

The whole House will want me to congratulate the Minister on a very clear exposition, which those who do not normally earn their living in planning or are not specialists in planning will have understood as well as the rest of us. If I may add a personal congratulation I thought it was a tour de force, especially as the hon. Gentleman was engaged in Committee the whole of yesterday on one of the most complicated Bills in the history of Parliament.

So was the right hon. Gentleman.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not think me a little churlish if I start with one complaint. On 18th October, on Second Reading of the Town and Country Planning Bill [Lords], which was a consolidation Measure, I told the Solicitor-General, who was in charge of the Second Reading:

"I should be grateful if we could be told how the Government propose to deal with any amending legislation and whether they have any in mind at the moment."

He said in reply:

"The right hon. Member asked how we would proceed with any further amendment of this legislation, when and if we were to wish to do so. I am not in a position to say on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Environment what legislation may or may not be in prospect—save only to say that there must never have been a time in the last 25 years when there have not been legislative proposals about town and country planning in prospect somewhere, because a constant stream of suggestions are made."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th October, 1971; Vol. 823, c. 506–8.]

So far so good, but let us look at the dates again. On 18th October we had the Second Reading of that Bill and on 3rd November, which was within three weeks, the Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Bill. We wonder why it was necessary to hasten the consolidation Measure ahead of this Amendment Bill. Was it really necessary? The Government having decided to consolidate planning law—and most of those who practise this welcome it and regard it as very desirable—to come along with a new series of amendments almost immediately is, as I think Sir Desmond Heap pointed out in the Journal of Planning Law, rather like the situation when one shuts one door and another closes. I hope that we can do something to see that that does not recur. I believe it to be totally unnecessary. But I hope that the Minister will not take that personally, except perhaps as a guide to the future.

There are really four new provisions in the Bill, and perhaps another minor one. The minor one is contained in Clauses 1 and 2, the provision for general surveys, reports and structure plans and, if necessary, their withdrawal. I only mention it because my noble Friend Lord Greenwood, who was the architect of the 1968 Act, questioned in another place whether it was necessary. He felt that there could have been something like an avoidance-of-doubt Clause in the Bill. It may not have been necessary. His argument was that authorities had been perfectly able to combine in the past. But whether or not it was necessary, it is probably desirable to state it explicitly and I do not see that it can do much harm.

I turn to the question of the structure plan and the local plan. One must never draw an analogy too far, but the provision is almost like a White Paper as regards the structure plan and committee procedure as regards the local plan. I fully appreciate that changes had to be made, because the Minister was involved in far too much detail. Public inquiries tended to drag on and on. We have the awful warning of the Greater London Development Plan as a monument to how long they can go on. Perhaps I may differ with my noble Friend my father in saying that it may well be that development plans in the old sense were causing considerable time-lags. The Minister referred to matters still being considered 10 years afterwards. I could probably find examples of their being considered 20 years after. The provision is an evolution and we must understand it.

In general, the new proposals have been very much welcomed, particularly among my hon. Friends, on the basis that the Minister can select the key areas for examination. Not everyone is quite so convinced that time will be saved. There are some arguments; the National Federation of Building Trades Employers has some reservations, expressed in a note which it has circulated. Its reservations appear to be slightly mutually contradictory though that does not necessarily disqualify them. I understand that its argument is that the right to deny locus standi to all and sundry in structure plan inquiries may lengthen the local plan inquiries. We can see the force of that. It also says that structure plan inquiries are

"likely to be carefully rehearsed arguments between counsel appearing for powerful interested parties"

and that that would seem to lengthen the discussions about the structure plan.

One thing is certain: that we do not know. We shall just have to see how the provision works out, but for that reason it will need to be watched very carefully. I hope that the Minister will keep it constantly under review, because the aim is one that we are all seeking to achieve. However, we may not have the best possible answer. I am not being critical of the Minister's solution. I think that it probably is right, but we tend as the years go by to approach all matters concerned with the speeding-up of planning with a certain amount of caution. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman is aware that it will have to be watched very carefully.

There is no doubt that Clause 4, dealing with London, will help enormously in the saving of time. On previous form, the grand show in London, the G.L.D.P., looked like beating "The Mousetrap" as the longest-running show in London. The removal of the horrifying prospect of a further 33 structure plans is something which all of us can only view with considerable relief.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned office development control. I do not know what all the fuss is about. The hon. Gentleman's proposal is neither so laissez-faire as some of my hon. Friends may think nor so wildly revolutionary as some of the hon. Gentleman's hon.

Friends may think. It is a wait-and-see policy—I nearly said a standstill policy. Clearly, something must be done this year, and the Minister has said "We shall give ourselves the right to go on for another five years if we want, but we could give it up after five days if we wanted to". So he is not committed to anything at this point.

I was impressed by the hon. Gentleman's arguments about the part the O.D.P. can play in the immediate future in the good planning and development of London. I was not as impressed with his arguments about Europe as perhaps he was, but there are other reasons why I should not have been quite so impressed with them. By the same token, since a large number of American enterprises have also taken up office accommodation in London, we are liable to join the North American Free Trade Area as well.

The final point of the hon. Gentleman's four points concerned buildings in the conservation areas. Here something is being achieved of great value. To say that it is long overdue is to say that neither administration was fully seized, at the moment when it considered conservation generally, with what could happen. I am very glad that what is basically a very necessary assimilation with the control of purely listed buildings has been entered into, but two points need to be considered.

First, as far as I can see there is nothing to prevent an owner from allowing his property to fall into decay, listed or not:

"Thou shalt not kill; but need'st not strive Officiously to keep alive."

It is possible—I do not say that it is generally done—to assist the effect of nature so that a building becomes so difficult of reconstruction that it literally falls to pieces.

The right hon. Gentleman is making an interesting point. What he says is particularly true of some areas of the South-West, which have many thatched cottages that look very nice but are very expensive to maintain. One of the methods to see that they are rebuilt is to allow them to get into a terrible state of disrepair.

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me. It is a matter to which the Minister's mind should be directed and to which there might be relatively easy answers.

Whereas what the right hon. Gentleman says is true, looking simply at the corpus of town planning law, there are other statutory provisions that may be relevant in this context. If people allow their premises to get into disrepair, under other statutory codes they may be liable to pains and penalties.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is correct with regard to a number of cases but not, alas, every case, as he will appreciate.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again. This seems to be developing into a Committee debate. Does not he agree that the real trouble is that the preservation legislation is very largely negative and that positive inducements—probably tax inducements—are the answer to make it worthwhile for people to preserve and enhance the properties we want to see preserved? At present we are far too negative.

I think that in part the hon. Gentleman's suggestion is the answer, but there are other methods to deal with the problem as well. It is a question that we need to examine fairly closely. Fortunately, there is now an ambience of preservation and conservation in the country. There is perhaps a sudden realisation that we have a considerable heritage to preserve and conserve, and that the more we can do about it now the better it will be for our descendants.

Having had a certain amount of agreement from Conservative hon. Members, may I go on to another point on which they may not be quite as unanimous? Why should not demolition of unlisted buildings also be subject to control outside the conservation areas? The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) said there are a number of pains and penalties in relation to that but we agree that they do not cover every property, whether in a conservation area or not It is always an easy answer to say, not that the Minister would necessarily say it, "This is not the time or the place. We can deal with that in some other Bill at some other time", if indeed the hon. Gentleman has any sympathy with the point. I hope that he has. I take heart from the fact that he himself called the Bill almost a miscellaneous provisions Bill, and indeed it is. It consists of a number of different provisions not allied to one another, not linked with one another. Therefore, it would be quite possible to do it.

Although, hopefully, the general effect of the earlier Clauses will be to speed up planning inquiries and cut down the period of blight, which is what we are all after, the effect of the Bill itself is complex and somewhat unpredictable. The Town and Country Planning Association is very concerned about the administrative and functional problems that will be created by the simultaneous passage of this Bill and the Local Government Bill. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop), who is the Chairman of the Town and Country Planning Association will have something to say on this matter, should be catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. For myself, I wonder whether the Government have given proper consideration to what may happen should the Local Government Bill become law and the number of planning authorities thereby increase from 140 to about 420.

On a number of occasions I have asked the Minister whether he is confident that sufficient qualified staff are available to deal with local plans. I wish I could be as confident as he has sometimes appeared to be. What I regard as a terrible difficulty will be aggravated, not lessened, by the Bill. It is no good setting up totally new procedures if the qualified staff to deal with the local plans are simply not there. At the risk of otiose repetition on my part, I should like once more to be reassured that the Minister is aware of the problem and feels that it is not as grievous as I have said.

In general, we on this side of the House are sympathetic with the aims of the Bill. Naturally, we do not propose to divide against it. I have raised a number of points, and hon. Members on both sides will raise other points. For that reason the Committee stage will probably be a long and searching one. If at the end of that a really good Bill emerges, it can only do good in the general history of our planning law.

When I first looked at the Bill, ranking the provisions for the joint survey with the general provisions of structure plans, I concluded that, like all Gaul, it was divided into three parts. I respectfully associate myself with the compliment paid by the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) to my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development on the lucidity and precision with which he moved the Second Reading of the Bill. With a characteristically conscientious refinement of sub-division, my hon. Friend made it four parts. The right hon. Gentleman, yielding to the natural and irresistible urge of Oppositions to go one better, extended it to five parts. I will not enter into any further mathematical calculations, but will confine my observations to that part which my hon. Friend classified as the most important.

I do not propose to comment on the provisions relating to the office development permits, nor yet on conservation areas. This is not because they are not important—obviously they are. Indeed, the provision to extend beyond the initial seven years of the Control of Offices Act the office development permit system, although not controversial in this House, may to some extent be controversial outside it. The provision of Clause 7 extending some protection against the demolition of unlisted buildings in conservation areas should, I hope, be non-controversial everywhere. It will at any rate be sure of a cordial welcome from those concerned with the visual aesthetics of environment.

I want to deal with the provisions making changes in the planning procedures. This matter goes to the heart of town and country planning. The central provision is Clause 3, which substitutes new procedures in the structure plans for those contained in Section 9 of the Act of 1971, provisions which are better known to most of us in their pre-consolidated form as Section 4 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1968. The 1968 Act provisions contained in the case of structure plans a new device in town planning at the time, the traditional procedure of the right of objection and public inquiry of a quasi-judicial nature, long familiar under the 1962 Act and indeed the 1947 Act before that.

Clause 3 retains a duty to consider the relevant objections and to hold a form of public examination into material matters, but gives the Secretary of State a wider discretion. This is the fundamental change which transforms the procedure from its traditionally forensic character to a deliberative character, transforms it from the quasi-lis, to use the jargon, to the seminar.

The question which those interested in town planning have to ask is: is this change an improvement: is it worth trying? We start from the position that there are no planning procedures as yet universally established and necessarily accepted as optimum procedures. Most modern societies have their problems of land use and planning, but their methods of dealing with them differ. In the United States these problems are resolved by a mixture of public relations exercises and judicial decision. In this country we seek to resolve them by a mixture of quasi-judicial consideration and executive action. If we have not as yet arrived at a perfect solution, that is not unexpected, reflecting as it does the difficulties of the matter which are inherent in the nature of town planning, because all town planning is in essence an attempted reconciliation of conflicting considerations.

If must be over 20 years since in cross-examination of Lord Holford—Professor Holford as he then was—I put to him the definition of town planning as being an effort to achieve the highest common factor of what is both economically practicable and aesthetically and socially desirable. He was good enough to say that it was an admirable definition, but of course it masks in a sense the real difficulty, which is what is meant by "socially desirable". I venture to suggest that it means not only reaching the right results but reaching them by the right methods, that is to say, methods acceptable in a democratic society and in a reasonable time. This introduces further conflict, the conflict between a full opportunity for participation and representation on the one hand and the necessity for speed on the other. That, like most of the more difficult conflicts in life, is a conflict not of a bad thing against a good thing but of two things each good in themselves.

Public participation is a matter of the first importance and one which has been widely canvassed. It is the subject of anxious debate, not only in this country. In July I had the privilege of addressing, together with Judge Kaufman of the Federal Court of Appeal, those sections of the American Bar Association then visiting this country on the question of public participation in these matters. A little later, my hon. Friend, the right hon. Gentleman and I met at a stimulating weekend conference of the London School of Economics on these same matters at Oxford. It is a very good sign that there is this broad-based and wide-ranging interest in the subject of public participation in planning, and I am sure it will continue.

I come to the other possibly conflicting consideration and that is the time factor, which also is very important. If reasonable expedition in planning processes is not achieved, there is the clear danger that, for all the expenditure of time and energy in giving everybody their say, the right result will not in the end be achieved. What will be achieved is a result which might have looked right in earlier circumstances but has been overtaken by events.

Everyone concerned with town and country planning knows how great is the danger that plans, be they development plans, structure plans or regional strategies, could be out-dated in most respects by the time they reach the end of their long Odyssey and secure formal approval. This danger is as old as the 1947 Act. Development plans under that Act were delayed, not only by democratic and bureaucratic processes, but by the sheer slog of chronicling the existing and permitted land use. When those plans finally staggered or stumbled to approval it was found that the 1961 census had invalidated most of the underlying population estimates on which they were based. The statistics are somewhat alarming—seven years, I believe, for the original development plans to be prepared and submitted, and another eight years for the completion of the approvals. That is looking up the train in last year's Bradshaw with a vengeance.

Such delays inevitably derogate from the purpose and standing of planning, and make it understandably unpopular with the ordinary property-owning citizen who is not concerned with the philosophy of planning but is uneasily and sometimes painfully aware that planning delays mean protracted blight and financial loss.

Here we see what appears to be an irony but is in fact a logical outcome of the 1968 Act, which introduced welcome improvements into planning procedures but at the same time increased the possibility of delay. The basic concept of separating the formulation of strategic planning from its detailed application was a sensible one but, in so far as it necessarily involved two plans—the strategic and the local—instead of one development plan, it meant that more time was required in the planning processes, in that it duplicated the opportunity for objection and inquiry.

The main innovation and the great advance of the 1968 Act was its conscious effort to extend public participation by providing the right to participate in decision-making rather than participation only at the stage of comments on plans already put forward which, if not technically res judicata may pardonably be thought in practice difficult to upset and reverse. Along with this valuable new right of participation, the 1968 Act kept the old form of objection and inquiry. In other words, it poured new wine into old bottles.

The philosophy behind the changes which we are asked to approve today is to maintain public participation but to create a pattern more meaningful and less time-consuming. In that it is surely to be commended. It may not in all respects turn out to be the right answer. Certainly, it is unlikely to be the final solution, but, after nearly 40 years in the world of planning, I do not expect finality, I only hope for advance.

There is an augury of success in that the solutions have been fashioned to meet the situation and the problems as experience has defined them. Those who have some expertise or distinctive contribution can make their contribution in the preparation of the structure plan. For such people and such purposes the seminar type of examination proposed in Clause 3(b) may well be the most suitable, more so than the traditional procedure by quasi-lis. For individual citizens the desire for public participation is mainly for specific, local and individual rather than general, regional and social. They are less interested in the formulation of structure plans and regional strategies than in local plans and probably they are most interested in the rights of individuals affected by specified planning applications.

Indeed, the most popular form of participation which the Government could give would probably be to grant a right of representation or participation at the application stage instead of only, as now, on an inquiry into a refusal of planning permission. In current practice if a permission is granted there is no right of representation for the aggrieved adjacent resident or owner or other interested person. From my experience in constituency representation that is the subject on which most people would like some greater right of participation in the planning processes.

The proposals mark an advance, not a revolutionary one but radical in their own way. Success is never certain in the evolution of planning procedures as experience shows, but I feel that we can view the prospects of the success of these new provisions at any rate with sober confidence, made the more probable because the matter is in the hands of my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development whose extensive knowledge, long experience and indefatigable industry in planning matters have been known to me and most of us over the years and which I am happy to salute today.

We have recently had a number of large and complicated Bils and it is a pleasant change to get a small, complicated Bill. I am grateful to the Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silk in) and the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) for their clear exposition of a subject upon which I confess to having a limited knowledge. Four years ago the right hon. and learned Gentleman followed me when I made my maiden speech and made some kind remarks. I can only say that if ever I make the kind of speech that he makes I will be more than happy.

In the period before the 1947 Town Planning Act a great many of us were enthusiastic about new concept of town planning. Now some of us are worried that town planning legislation has multiplied and is getting too complicated. Nowadays we have two sets of objections and two sets of inquiries where formerly there was one. I am not sure whether people are not becoming a little scared of town planning and whether our legislation is not making public participation less likely rather than more likely. If our attendance tonight is anything to go by then it has made it less likely.

The public tend to participate later, often when it is too late, and the public participation we have seen, such as sitting down in the middle of a motorway, should make us pause to consider whether, even at the early stages of dealing with structure plans we could not get more participation than we do. I know that it is difficult. I have tried in extremely small areas which might have become clearance areas to get people to form community councils to talk to the planning officer about the redevelopment of the area. I realise that it is an extremely difficult thing to do, and to do it at structure plan stage is even more difficult.

Manchester has done a great deal through exhibitions, getting people interested and asking for their comments. Much more needs to be done. One example of how this has worked concerned some cottages in a heavily industrialised area which have now been listed as historic buildings. They are only 200 years old, and in some of our conservation areas this would be a mere nothing. These are the only cottages we have that are 200 years old. It was as a result of exhibitions and public participation that the cottages were listed and saved from demolition.

One of the problems about participation, especially with redevelopment, is that people living in the area at the time the redevelopment is planned will not be the people who will live in the new development. Many planning officers are taking participation much more seriously than before. Public participation starts with enthusiastic officers backed by enthusiastic councillors, and we do not always get that combination. There are some who regard this as something of a closed shop.

There was provision in the 1962 Act for the co-option of members of the public to planning committees but little seems to have been done. The Skeffington Committee frowned on having representatives of local organisations on planning committees but thought that, where a local area was being discussed, even at the formative stage of the structure plan, people from that area, or with interests in the area, might well be co-opted on to planning committees for a temporary period.

Can Parliament help with this participation? There is no doubt that if publicity is to be brought to bear on a planning situation Parliament is much more capable of providing that publicity than the county councils. Too often the county council headquarters, 30 or 40 miles away, is more remote than Parliament. If the matter is discussed in Parliament, even after 10 o'clock at night, it would help to bring publicity to the issue.

Clause 1 mentions joint structure plans, but in the new metropolitan areas there may well be need for joint local plans. At present it often happens that a local authority provides a park near to the edge of its boundary and the park is used more by people on the other side of the boundary than by those within the boundary. There may be a possibility of joint local plans. We are repeatedly concerned about the need to conserve beautiful developments of the past. I have my doubt whether we are creating conservation areas for the future.

I am grateful for the opportunity of taking part in the debate because as an ordinary constituency Member I find that planning problems crop up more frequently than any other problems which come to me. I also find that this is an area in which I can have least effect. Out of the dozens of cases I have been concerned with I have won only about twice. There are real problems here. Another reason why I am grateful for this opportunity to speak is because the industry which I seek to represent and which I love very much, agriculture, is so much affected by town and country planning.

The bulk of the land taken for other users comes from agriculture. It is a sobering thought that every week 1,100 acres of good farm land are taken away for other purposes such as roads, hospitals, schools and the building of all the other things which the community needs. While this is necessary, it is very important to see and to plan that we do not use good agricultural land where we could use poorer land. To think of 1,100 acres a week disappearing! After all, we do not make land. Perhaps we may in the future, with the Wash and other barrages. The Dutch are more on the ball on this than we are. However, it is important that the agriculture industry should be consulted all along the way because planning affects us probably more than it affects any other industry.

I welcome the joint survey and joint structure plan provisions. This proposal is right and proper and practical. We in the South-West are particularly concerned about this, because planning authorities should work together to consider not just the area of one planning authority alone but the needs of a much wider area, and they should form large joint structure plans.

The reason I say this is that unless the planning authorities in the South-West get together and think in terms of the South-West, we in that part of the country will be in considerable difficulty, particularly since we are to have a new motorway in our area, with all the planning which will have to be done for meeting the needs of tourists. We shall have to think of such mundane things as toilets on the motorway and other roads, and of all the facilities which will have to be provided for the tourists as they pour into the South-West. After all, it is a day trip now—or it will be—from Birmingham to Dartmoor, Exmoor, Bodmin and so on: down and back in a day. All this will require very careful planning. I do not think that just one small planning authority can think in the terms of what is needed and of what the Bill seeks to do through joint structure plans. I welcome that provision very much.

We on this side of the House have a standing joke amongst ourselves, saying that my hon. Friend the Minister is doing a very good job. I think he is doing a very good job, but I think he must turn his attention and that of his Department to the needs of agriculture, particularly to future planning for such major planning decisions as those for milk factories, because a milk factory affects a very large area. We have had a case just recently when he turned down an application. This is not just a matter for the local planning authority, for a decision such as this affects a very much larger area. I believe that through this Bill mistakes—I go even so far as to say "mistakes"—made in the past can be rectified.

Another important matter is the need for explanations. A planning officer once said to me "Planning is a matter of opinion" and he said that his opinion was so-and-so. It is difficult for people who are making planning applications to understand that, or to accept it for that matter; but they do. It could be made much easier for them if there were fuller and better explanation of a decision. The public, certainly my constituents, have a right to it.

Not only should better explanations of decisions be made but more warning should be given of decisions and of planning. The advertising of them should be explored so as to give people an understanding of what is going on. It is ridiculous to say, "Go to see the plans in your town hall". People just do not do that, but they do read the local papers and they listen to the radio. Far more effort ought to be made to tell people what is going on. After all, they have a right to know about things which will affect their lives and businesses.

My hon Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) made a very good point in discussion when he said that it is important to put up notices of what is going on. If a great sewage farm, a milk factory or a caravan park is planned and decided upon, a large notice on the site of the proposed development should be put up showing what is to take place.

Is my hon. Friend aware that he has a great deal of support on this important point? Even a small notice would be of immense help, even in comparatively elementary planning changes such as a proposal to change a front room into a hairdressing saloon. There should be notices to draw to the attention of the passer-by the change that is to take place.

I am sure that is right. This is a miscellaneous Bill, and perhaps the Minister would consider having a Clause to deal with this important point about notification by notice boards or something of that sort. That would be of benefit to the planning authorities and to all concerned, because if proposals are hidden, and then people suddenly discover what is to be done, there can be very serious trouble.

I do not intend to speak long but I want to deal with a brief from the National Farmers' Union. As usual, it is a very good brief. The N.F.U. mentions about this Bill one or two things which it is right I should bring to the attention of the House. It says that the Bill

"substitute some vague examination in public and gives the Secretary of State power to determine which issues shall be examined at the examination in public and to decide who shall be allowed to make representations at it."

That seems to me rather dangerous, that the Minister shall have power to say who shall make representations. I would think that in Committee that ought to be looked at very carefully.

The N.F.U. also says:

"Unless very much firmer assurances are given by the Government than, in the Union's view, have been previously given this clause constitutes a considerable erosion of the rights of the individual which could have serious consequences for the farming community."

It further states:

"The N.F.U. believes that the public inquiry system is still the best safeguard for public participation. If, however, the Government is convinced that the procedure can be streamlined without eroding the rights of the individual it is hoped that it will be able to give a firm assurance to this effect and elaborate on what the nebulous examination in public will mean in practice."

What does that proposal really mean? Will it mean that things will be speeded up? That is another important point.

The N.F.U. also says:

"In particular the Union would strongly urge that the Government should make it clear beyond doubt that there will be adequate opportunity for meaningful objection at the structure plan examination stage wherever agriculture is a relevant factor."

I ask the Minister to take this on board very seriously because, as I have said, agriculture is probably affected by these decisions more than any other industry. Therefore, it is important that agriculture should understand what is at stake and have some say in it.

In this Bill—this is probably out of order, which is why I left it to the last—I have seen no mention of something which I at least feel very strongly about—that local parish councils should have a bigger say in planning, and particularly that they should be notified. I cannot understand why this is such a major obstacle or why the previous Government refused it.

I can cut this short. In answer to a Written Question only a couple of days ago, I said that we were arranging for all parish councils to have notice of applications.

That is marvellous. It confirms what I said in my opening remarks, that the Minister is doing a very good job. I need say no more.

I cannot recall having spoken before in support of any Government Measure, but I support this Bill. I will address myself entirely to Clause 7, dealing with the power of local authorities to control the demolition of unlisted buildings in conservation areas where they consider that they will preserve the character of the areas. This arises from a situation in my constituency which has been regarded as a test case. In citing it, I can illustrate vividly how necessary this legislation is.

I pursued the matter over a long period and I was promised legislation by the Secretary of State to cover the situation. I am happy to see that this is one of those rare promises which the Government have kept.

The case involves a group of streets in Canonbury known as the Alwynes. Probably the representations which I and other people have made on this issue have influenced the Minister in framing this legislation. The Times and the Sunday Times on Saturday and Sunday both devoted special articles to this case. The architectural correspondent of the Sunday Times suggested that there would be no housing gain in this scheme, and that it would involve a distinct disruption of the neighbourhood.

The architectural correspondent's first point was the obvious one that they are in a conservation area and that their present unlisted status is a loophole which the Bill is designed to correct. He went on to say:

… well-known architects should surely be prepared to obey a self-denying ordinance, especially in their back yards."

He was referring to Sir Basil Spence, who is the architect for this scheme and who lives nearby. He continued:

"I would like to hear just once of an architect publicly refusing a commission because of possible environmental damage. In isolation, it is a perfectly good scheme; the point is that such isolation has long gone from inner London, It must be considered as part of an environmental balance sheet of profit-and-loss—and the time can't be far off when this becomes a statutory requirement for any planning application."

That article highlights the issue of whose profit and loss is under discussion.

It is probably a very clever move to hire such an eminent architect as Sir Basil to design this scheme, but it has certainly not over-awed the residents in the area. They do not think very much of Sir Basil or his plans or of Lord Compton and the Northampton Estate, who are the owners. My postbag has bulged with protests about this scheme. They were pushing at an open door in my case. I have had more letters on this subject than on any other local issue and probably as many as on any national issue in which I have been involved.

Property speculation is involved here, whatever aura of respectability may be given to it in this case. There will be some pretty rich pickings for the speculators if the scheme is allowed to go through. It would be interesting to have a complete breakdown of the estimated costs and sale prices of the long leases proposed for the houses which will be built. I should like an examination of this. Also, since they own the area and will not have to buy the land, I wonder whether this saving will be reflected in the prices or whether purchasers will have to pay the competitive market rate.

Whatever the answer to those questions, it seems clear that many of the local residents will be priced right out of that area of Islington. There cannot be any housing gain to the borough—rather the reverse, since the new properties are bound to go largely to newcomers, upper-class immigrants, who can afford the inflated prices at which these houses will inevitably be offered; they will be far from the reach of the many thousands of Islington people who are desperately in need of homes.

To return to the conservation aspect, the residents believe that this conservation area should remain intact and whole. So did the G.L.C. Historic Buildings Board. So did the former Islington Council, but it found that it lacked the power to preserve them, and this has been the experience of the present Islington Council. There is no doubt that the present council would like the Minister to call in the Alwynes case for a proper public inquiry. I hope he will do so because there is some doubt that this Bill will be in time to rescue the situation. I hope it will.

I have already referred to my postbag. Every letter I have had has opposed the scheme. I will not read all the letters, but I will mention one or two of the adjectives used by my constituents. They have described this scheme as disastrous, disreputable, destructive, harsh, monotonous, appalling, ruinous, greedy, outrageous on æsthetic and social grounds, and sheer money-making vandalism. Perhaps I should quote a sentence or two:

"Too much in London has disappeared under the bulldozer. Please do all in your power to prevent any more vandalism.'"

The word "vandalism" has run like a common thread through so many of the letters I have received on the subject. Another letter said:

"Can we not tight this, not only for the sake of the Alwynes but for the sake of London?"

The Secretary of State originally decided against the Islington Council preservation order. This was a decision taken in June, 1970, and I appreciate the reasons for it. I am not sure whether at that time the Minister had come to grips with environment matters. Perhaps he has done so since. I have been fighting on this issue ever since, as the Minister will know. I am not a conservationist at all costs. It depends what one is conserving, and even Conservatives will agree to that. There are many areas of Islington where the bulldozer is long overdue and where the vandalism has been the existence of slums which would have been better razed many years ago—and would have been if the landlords had not got in the way.

However, there is no social gain in this case. Quite the contrary. Once the decision is taken, it is irreversible. I hope that the Minister will act directly to save the Alwynes. If he cannot do so directly and immediately, I hope the Bill will become law rapidly. It may just be in the nick of time so that the local authority can use the powers which the Minister has described.

As an architect, I am tempted to comment on some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. John D. Grant), particularly in relation to Sir Basil Spence; but, because of the time element, I shall not do so and I hope that my profession will forgive me.

I welcome this Bill not only as a town planning consultant but also because some small part of it bears great similarity to a Clause in a Private Member's Bill I had the privilege to introduce last Session. This was the Urban and Rural Environment Bill. It passed its Committee stage unamended, but it got no further because of the lack of parliamentary time. Whether it would have passed the Committee stage unamended if hon. Members had not realised it would not reach the Statute Book I do not know, but mention of it gives me the opportunity to pay a small tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) for the great help he gave me on that Bill and his criticisms on that and other matters.

I should like particularly to comment on Clauses 7, and 8 relating to Scotland. This applies to the power of local planning authorities to direct that a building in a conservation area should be the subject of permission before demolition and this very much resembles Clause 3 of my Private Member's Bill.

I wish to take up one point made by the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) who pointed out how, despite legislation, so many buildings of historic and architectural interest are being demolished. The Civic Amenities Act gave the power to local authorities to enter premises with a view to effecting repairs, but that power was rarely implemented simply because the money to do so would have fallen on the rates. Clause 5 of my own modest Bill would have removed this obstacle had it reached the Statute Book.

In Britain, there are no fewer than 1,742 conservation areas, some of them small, others of them comprising the whole of the medieval parts of towns like York and Chester. The total number of buildings represented in those areas, is only a fraction of the total in Britain. Much as I welcome Clauses 7 and 8, I question whether this Bill will be sufficient to deal with the problem that we face.

If I may pose a rhetorical question, how many local planning authorities will see that most of the buildings which should be preserved in their conservation areas will be made subject to the need to have permission before demolition? For some years, our local planning authorities have had the power to put preservation orders on trees. Trees are needed most in our towns and cities, yet, since tree preservation orders first came into being many years ago, in Birmingham only 29 are subject to orders, in Liverpool 45, in Manchester 2, and in Leeds 10.

Does not my hon. Friend think that the Clauses would be better if they were put the other way, so that all buildings in conservation areas automatically needed permission before they were demolished giving local planning authorities the power to make exemptions? Buildings are still coming down. The Americans have a much better sense of proportion, though obviously they are more wealthy. They are prepared to pay a million pounds to have a bridge taken down stone by stone, transported across the Atlantic and across thousands of miles of their continent, and re-assembled stone by stone in the Arizona desert. We shall live to rue the day that we allowed so many of our old buildings to be demolished, and I ask the Government to consider amending Clauses 7 and 8 to remedy the situation.

Perhaps I might suggest in passing that Clause 10 should also be amended. It relates to when Clauses 7 and 8 should take effect. I believe that they should take effect immediately that the Bill goes on to the Statute Book, instead of having to wait for a month. There is a desperate need for immediate action to be taken.

I wish to raise two further points. The first of them has been touched on already by one or two hon. Members, and it concerns the need for publicity to be given to planning applications. My hon. Friend said recently in reply to a Written Question that he accepted that parish councils that wished to have notice of planning applications relating to land within their parishes should be entitled to it. He went on to say that legislation would be needed to make it a statutory requirement, and that it was not appropriate for any current Bill. We are now considering a Miscellaneous Provisions Bill, and I suggest that this might be an opportunity for a short Clause to be inserted for the purpose. For want of better advice, my hon. Friend might adopt Clause 9 of my Urban and Rural Environment Bill, since that would do just this.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) that it is important for more notice to be given to members of the public of planning applications in order to remove some of the bitterness which is often felt by people who believe that they have no say about what is to happen in their immediate environment. Again, I commend to my hon. Friend Clause 8 of my Private Member's Bill.

Finally, I should like to touch on a matter of critical importance, particularly in the West Midlands. Recently there have been examples in the West Midlands of harmful substances being put on waste tips. I know that the hon. Members for Rugby (Mr. William Price) and Bromsgrove (Mr. Terry Davis) have had instances of this happening in their constituencies within the last week. As a town and country planning consultant, I was quite horrified to learn—I hope that I have the situation right—that at present it is legal to dump prussic acid, better known as cyanide, on rubbish clumps without any need for permission. That is a horrifying state of affairs if it is true. Again, the Bill provides an opportunity to remedy that situation.

I welcome the Bill. I believe that it is a step in the right direction, and I congratulate the Government on introducing it. I hope that my hon. Friend will pay serious attention to the points which I have raised. If he is able to include them at the appropriate time, in Committee or on Report, I believe that, instead of being a step in the right direction, it could be a great stride forward which would have support from both sides of the House.

I, too join, in welcoming the Bill. I thought the comment by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) about the importance of trying to encourage much wider public interest and understanding in the whole planning sphere was very interesting. He is absolutely right in saying that that is not present at the moment.

It is only when we come to the local plans—the local action plans as they are to be called—where individuals feel themselves directly and personally involved that we are likely to get a wide measure of public participation in the sense of acute anxiety, pressure, and so on. But I do not give up hope that we may succeed in interesting a steadily wide range of people in the longer term strategic and structure plans with which the bill is concerned. I am encouraged in that view partly because of the efforts which are being made today to include this subject in school programmes. It is now understood that planning is not a matter purely for the highly-qualified specialist; it is a matter of direct and real concern for all who are concerned about living standards.

There could be no more important decisions for us to make in common than the kind of priorities we choose for the way that we order our lives and organise the environment in which we live. This is essentially what these strategic and structure plans are about. Therefore, a great deal of our judgment on what success or failure the Bill is likely to achieve is on the question whether it is likely to help forward in any way, even in a modest way, the wider involvement of people in the whole problem.

I repeat, I have some encouraging feelings about this matter, because large numbers of schools are beginning to take up issues and work out projects based not only upon purely local plans, but upon some of these wider longer-term schemes. I am glad that the association with which I am involved has been helping, with a great deal of interest, to develop some of these projects in schools.

I congratulate the Minister on what he has done to try to encourage wide discussion of his proposals in a range of circles where there is obvious interest in the matter. Some of the consultative papers which his Department has issued have been well worth while and have prompted a lot of useful suggestions and recommendations. Plainly, this is of value.

I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) that one cannot wholly divorce this Bill from the kind of structure which we are now working to set up which will have to implement a great deal of it. Many of us must inevitably have sincere anxieties on that score. I shall give an example to illustrate the point, though I shall not debate it now, since there are plenty of opportunities to do that, morning, afternoon, and night, on Tuesdays and Thursdays in that continuing performance—I can hardly call it entertainment—which is a feature of our lives here in the House now.

One of the problems to be considered in this connection is that the new metropolitan authorities which will be responsible for preparing structure plans as distinct from local action plans will, in my view and the view of others concerned, cover only a relatively limited area, and there will have to be continuous consultation with outside authorities, consultation which it may be difficult to maintain in a full and effective way. This is but another example of the problem which I have seen all along, that is, the need for a wider authority than is proposed in the Local Government Bill for these major long-term strategic and structure plans.

I come now to some of the details. Those of us who have had some experience of these matters welcome the attempt to put greater flexibility into the method of holding planning inquiries in the future. If we accept that representations should be made and discussions take place about the value of different alternative proposals for the long-term development of an area, how do we ensure that the various points of view can be expressed freely and effectively? I do not believe that it can be done if we rely upon a purely legal framework for this type of inquiry. I should much rather see—I think that this is in the Minister's mind—something more like an informal conference rather than the old type of legalistic inquiry.

The Town and Country Planning Association has had some experience of this problem. The Greater London Plan as presented, for example, offered an opportunity—I am not complaining about what was done—for this kind of representation. We did not want to make objections as such in the narrow purely legalistic sense, but we wanted to challenge certain basic principles of that plan and open up ideas about other ways in which objectives could be achieved.

We had the help and goodwill of many people who willingly gave of their time to put forward fresh ideas which we believe to be of importance for future discussion and the development of something that will be of value to all the citizens of London. But, inevitably, at that state at any rate, the proceeding was largely on a legalistic basis, with cross examination, no doubt very efficiently and effectively carried on, but not likely to encourage the more informal presentation of fresh ideas that we want.

I hope that we shall get precisely that in the future. I hope that we shall get this more relaxed and somewhat more informal but nevertheless organised, presentation of alternative views. I do not see how one can do it other than by the Minister having the power to select a limited number of issues which can be discussed in that way. I can see the difficulty, I realise the criticism that may arise, but I do not see how else it can be done.

I hope that if a number of issues are to be selected and if, as one hon. Member said, there is to be selection of those who are to appear, the issues presented will be put forward in the form of possible alternatives so that the matter does not appear to be finalised, or in any way near a final position. I hope that there will be the opportunity of some argument and discussion across the table as it were of broad alternatives which may be put before those who attend.

If that is done, we may be surprised to find that rather more people are willing to come in and take part in that kind of inquiry, or conference as I would rather call it, than perhaps is the case now. I hope that that will prove to be so. I believe that even if that is not the case initially, it will prove to be later on as people get accustomed to the new type of inquiry or conference. I hope that the Minister will have the opportunity, at the end of this short debate, of saying something more in amplification of what he said about this procedure, but I think that I am interpreting correctly the broad lines of what it is hoped to achieve.

If I am correct, I believe that instead of this whole area of presentation of broad plans being regarded by elected councillors and by everybody else as a restricted area for the professional planner, it will be seen to be an area of great importance for the general public as well, and one in which the general public and organisations representing various points of view have every right of expression; just as much, if not more right of expression than when it comes to the much more detailed local plans to which we are accustomed now.

I welcome the Bill. I share with my right hon. Friend the view that this is by no means an unimportant Measure, and one that will require some examination in detail. There are a number of matters that we shall wish to raise in Committee. I welcome it as a step forward in participation in a real sense in our future planning processes. I am sure that such a step forward was in the mind of our late colleague, Arthur Skeffington, whose report prompted a good deal of the further consideration that this matter has received.

I appeal to the Minister to consider a major omission from the Bill. I refer to the need to provide additional safeguards for individual owner-occupiers when planning applications are being considered.

The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) spoke of the more relaxed approach that we are having to planning consultation and the consideration of new schemes. I am afraid that at present in the minds of many people exactly the reverse is happening. More people are feeling helpless and remote when planning applications are being discussed, not only at county level but even in smaller units. The pace is going so fast that they feel that whatever they say or do they will not be able to make any real impression.

One reason for the public having this feeling is the small amount of publicity that is given in advance of when and where applications will apply and be considered. My hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) hit the nail on the head when he spoke of the need for additional publicity when announcing applications for planning.

This publicity must occur not just through local newspapers, which can be easily missed. My local newspapers handle these matters well, but there are invariably a large number of details printed on each occasion and they can easily be missed by people whose areas will be affected.

Perhaps my hon. Friend will go a stage further and think in terms of making it compulsory for the local planning authority to inform established residents' organisations and similar bodies of forthcoming applications, and also inform residents who might be directly affected if the planning applications are granted.

An important residents' and property-owners' association in my constituency has written to me saying:

"The Association has on many occasions objected to applications for outline planning permission and has often been very dissatisfied with the decisions reached by the Local Planning Authority. We consider it wrong that the applicant should have the right to appeal to the Secretary of State against a refusal of permission by the Planning Authority, whereas those objecting to the granting of permission have no such right."

I appreciate the difficulties which local planning committees face. I served on one in the London area for a number of years. But the fact remains that one can get areas of friction between bodies of local residents and their local planning authorities because they feel that they have not had a real opportunity of their case being heard by people who look at it from an entirely independent point of view.

Some of the new planning authorities which will come into operation in 1973 will be even more remote from the people they are affecting than the present ones, particularly when we have, in terms of major roads, planning applications concerned with areas 220 ft. on each side of those roads. There will be many small individual applications, and it is bound to be feared that those who will discuss these matters will lose touch with the people they are affecting. My hon. Friend the Minister may try to argue that local planning authorities can revoke outline planning permission. But in practice they are very reluctant to do so because it can be extremely costly. Therefore, they tend to stick to the original decision. But if it was done on the basis that the outline planning grant was only outline planning grant, and that there could be no question of compensation if for some reason that was withdrawn at a later date, we could get over that problem.

No planning authority is infallible in its wisdom. Not even this House would claim that. We have to remember that for many individuals the one major asset they ever acquire is the house in which they live. At times that can be placed at risk.

Up to the last 30 seconds I have been following my hon. Friend's argument not only with interest but with acquiescence. Indeed, his first point rather echoed a point I made earlier. On his suggestion about revocation of outline planning permission, without compensation, would he not agree that this would create a good deal of difficulty and possibly injustice? It has been clear law ever since the case of Hamilton and the West Sussex County Council that only the reserve matters can be varied without compensation when an outline permission is granted. If it were to be revoked without compensation it would, would it not, impose a good deal of injustice on those developers who, on the faith of the outline permission, had expended time and money? Perhaps my hon. Friend would care to illustrate that particular facet of his very interesting argument.

I appreciate my right hon. and learned Friend's point. I think that the reason he has taken that view is that I have not been able to explain to the House in any great detail what was on my mind. It was only that if the objectors were to have the same right as the applicants to appeal against the decision of the local planning authority, during that period of time in which that appeal may be registered, say, 28 days, and the time it is heard, it would be fair enough that no compensation should be paid. This would then become a standing risk that all applying for outline planning permission would have to face. But at present it is one-sided, because the applicant can appeal against the local planning authority's decision, but the objectors can not. Furthermore, many applicants are powerful bodies, powerful companies with large resources. They can afford, quite rightly, to employ able and distinguished consultants, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Chapman), and can present a foreful and effective case which often will not give the same chance to the individual objector who may be the owner-occupier whose one and only asset is seriously threatened.

This is a chance for the Government to add to the Bill on the lines I have suggested, to show their concern for ordinary citizens. To quote a phrase anything but original: justice must not only be done but it must be seen to be done.

During the debate it has been of considerable interest to note the number of hon. Members who have come in and out of the Chamber who are members of the Standing Committee on the Local Government Bill and who therefore share a positive interest in what we are discussing. Some of us are tempted tonight to remove ourselves from a detailed examination purely because of the number of hours we are spending currently examining line by line the Government's proposals in that Bill.

This Bill enables us to speak more generally about its objectives, the first of which is to tackle the problem of structure planning, the second of which deals with inquiries and objections related thereto, the third of which is the extension of time for office building and the fourth of which is the very important matter of the control of demolition in conservation areas.

I greatly doubt whether the proposed scheme will succeed in solving our great social problem. When I was a member of a municipal planning authority I tried hard to reconcile the interests of the authority with those of the general public which was affected by the authority's intentions. Since coming to Parliament I have found that parliamentary intentions are often confounded in practice when expressed in an Act. What authorities do, perhaps unwittingly, is often different from what the House intended, and that causes greater confusion amongst the public.

For this reason, and because the Local Government Bill is now in Standing Committee, this Bill may have been introduced at the wrong time. To introduce this Bill at a time when the Standing Committee is considering a considerable number of Amendments to the Local Government Bill is to put the cart before the horse.

In one respect the Bill takes a step backwards, not forwards. Under previous legislation one of the Minister's obligations when structure plans were submitted to him was to require that a consideration be made of objections to structure plans and to afford a hearing to the objectors. This is to be substituted by Clause 3(7):

"On considering a structure plan the Secretary of State may consult with, or consider the views of, any local planning authority or other person, but shall not be under any obligation to do so."

The machinery for public inquiry will to some extent protect objectors, but beyond that stage what will be the effect of the Minister's new rôle in that he is not obliged to receive objections?

It has rightly been said that people generally are interested in how something specific affects them, how a plan in a local area affects them. The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) dealt with that with special care. He has considerable knowledge and many years' experience—I think he mentioned 40—and his judgment on these matters is always respected in the House. However, he added that a corollary was that the same personal interest was not involved in regional planning or structural plans at a regional level. I think that on reflection he will agree that that is not totally correct. It is a relative matter. There is no means to measure the extent of the interest. But I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that during our consideration of the Local Government Bill many of us have been surprised at the amount of interest in structural planning on both a regional and a national basis.

One of the great features of this country is the totality of our national character as distinct from a definition of the State. Over many centuries the people have evolved into all manner of groups concerned with liberty, freedom, conservation, building, architecture, communications and the like. Through that grand design which I have described as the national character, immense, positive criticism of structural plans is made in a way which, quite different from the local expression, is nevertheless powerful.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind reference to my speech and to me. What I intended to say was that individual citizens were less interested in the structure planning than in its more detailed manifestations. I wholly agree with the hon. Gentleman, of course, that groups, associations, amenity societies and other interests which are citizens in the aggregate are, fortunately, very interested in structure planning. But I think that their interests and participation may be better served in the examination form now suggested that the old forensic form of inquiry. I do not think there is anything between the hon. Gentleman and myself—at least, I hope not.

I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right. Our difference is merely one of emphasis. We are talking in relative terms of the way in which individuals view one aspect of planning as against another. I draw attention to the relative difference to try to deal with the point I want to bring before the House. With a different form of examining structural proposals and, in addition to the individual interest on the parochial or local scene, the more powerful and often more expressive interest through the organisations created by individuals in so many varied fields, we are bound to suggest that perhaps the Bill falls short of achieving the machinery that is desirable if structural proposals are to be examined at the right point in such a way that objections and people's concern can be felt effectively.

In other words, those of us who have worked in Parliament, especially on Standing Committees of various kinds, those of us with legal, planning or local government experience, feel that one of our great dilemmas is how best to solve the conflict of the planning process and the social interest expressed by people who are not directly involved in the planning proposals. We are often concerned in local government in joint schemes with other local authorities, or with projects in the larger areas of water boards. For example, we are anxious to provide amenities in the Lake District and the like. We often find that the decision has been made at a point of no return and that the objection part of the process becomes ineffective.

There is a need for a comprehensive study, since the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, was a consolidating Act and these amendments have come up only a short time later. There is genuine concern in the Department about the need to initiate a study to discover how the conflicting interests in planning can be reconciled and objections made more effective.

I turn from the generality of that larger problem of structural planning to planning proposals at local authority level. It has been said that when a local planning proposal is made it would be nice if a notice could be put up to say that this or that is being done. In Parliament and local government there are some of the best people in the country, who are dedicated to pursuing the interests of the country, but in Parliament and local government there has always been a confounding element in how best to convey to the general public what they want to do and how and when to do it. To put up notices is not sufficient.

I hope the Minister will take into account our debates on the Local Government Bill, in which we discussed the need to build up neighbourhood councils and to bring the neighbourhood into our local authority structure. The local authority would then be able to examine the interests of the neighbourhood and, if it had a statutory right to know of the planning proposals of the higher local authority, it would be able to bring to the attention of the people the likely consequences of those proposals.

My hon. Friend has made a valuable point, on which my mind has been exercised for some time. Does he agree that the real answer is not only the establishment of neighbourhood communities, community councils, but also the provision of proper technical assistance to them, so that they may fully understand what otherwise begins to look like an ancient and forgotten script?

I agree with my right hon. Friend. No machinery should be set up unless consideration has been given to the type of technical know-how that is required to make it effective.

Another matter on which local government can be criticised is the propensity of local planning authorities with plenary powers to have discussions which are unrecorded in the council minutes. Councils have nothing to lose by making known their discussions on matters affecting the general public. Many local authorities adopt the philosophy of protectionism and think it is better not to let the people know too much. Since Parliament is a barometer of public feeling, I hope it will be felt that problems which have been voiced in Parliament can be discussed in debate outside. The vast majority of councillors and local government officials would have everything to gain from widening opportunities for discussion.

As has been said, there is little controversy on the Bill. It goes in the right direction although it might have been better timed. The direction is not always the most important thing; what matters is how far one can get.

I start by asking my hon. Friend to amplify his intervention during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) on the subject of parish councils. Is he proposing to make this a statutory requirement, or will it be advice to the councils concerned?

I give a qualified welcome to the Bill as a whole and will concentrate my brief remarks on Clauses 3 and 5 as they affect the South-East region. I am sure that Clause 3 is a step in the right direction, but I am doubtful whether it goes far enough. There are three parts to structure plans—preparation, participation, and the inquiry. The Bill shortens only the inquiry part, and I question whether the Government will be able to hold the line on this when it comes to major representations.

I have taken part in a major participation effort on the third London airport, and I can see that sort of operation coming again. I have been a member of a planning committee for the last nine years, and I am also a member of the London Regional Planning Conference. The Minister will know the representations that have been made to him by the Conference, and he will know of the Press statement issued just before Christmas which says that completion of a full cycle of plans for the region may well be 20 or more years away. This is much too gloomy. The general consensus, in my region at any rate, is that it will take something from seven to ten years on present estimates, that is five to seven years for the structure plan and two to three years for the local plan. In the meantime, planning in the regions is at a halt. The development plans are grossly out of date but still broadly adhered to. An authority tries to tread delicately between the out-of-date development plan on the one hand and the broad-brush strategy of "Strategic Plan for the South-East", which was approved by the Minister last autumn. on the other.

The strategic plan is not a statutory plan and I commend the remarks in another place of Lord Nugent that perhaps the way out of this may be not to have the structure plan as a statutory requirement but simply as a guidance plan enabling an authority to get on quickly with the formation of the local plans which really affect people and with which they are much more concerned. We are dealing with a conflict between participation and efficiency, and in this instance I come down firmly on the side of efficiency.

I was disappointed to hear the Minister's reply to a question at Question Time today about the proposals for the division of the planning function in the Local Government Bill. There just is not the skilled staff to do this if they are divided among a large number of authorities. I may be out of order in mentioning this, but I hope that it will be reconsidered. If the length of time and preparation of the plans affects planning itself and gives it an additionally bad name the effect on the release of land is even worse.

The Minister must be aware that there is a lack of urgency in local authorities today which is easy to understand because on the one side they have the threat of local government reform and on the other side they have the excuse of the out-of-date development plans. The remedy lies firmly in the hands of the Government. They must require speedy implementation of broad-brush structure plans without the statutory requirement. They must make it clear that they are prepared, unless there are strong reasons to the contrary, to allow appeals on the housing front on land which is on the fringe of old development plans.

Turning to Clause 5, I am glad that control of office development is being retained. I was somewhat surprised to read the speech of Lord Silkin in which he said that he did not think this was necessary and that the whole thing could go back to the planning process alone. I put a question to the Minister for Transport Industries, but I do not think that he understood the point I was trying to make. The G.L.C. proposes, over the next decade, to increase the number of office jobs in London by 75,000. I do not say this will happen. It is being talked about.

The figure of 75,000 is almost exactly the total labour force envisaged for the new city of Milton Keynes when finally completed. It would be a tragedy if this wonderful opportunity London has—alone among capital cities—of being able to do something about its environment because of its falling population were to be lost. It is the high cost of office accommodation in central London that persuades firms to move. If the Minister accedes to the proposal of the G.L.C. he will at one and the same time destroy this chance of improving the environment of our capital city for good and all and he will exacerbate our housing difficulties, certainly in the inner London boroughs. He will also further overload commuting facilities to the outer metropolitan areas. Moreover, he will do grave injustice—and I admit that this is a constituency point—to the development of new towns like Milton Keynes, and, even more important, areas of high unemployment beyond the Metropolitan region.

It is fair to say that both in the time of the Prince Regent and more recently, after the war and the destruction in the blitz, marvellous chances were missed for improving the environment of London. I hope that my hon. Friend will not miss the third chance.

With your leave, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I would answer points which have been raised in the debate. Let me say first how pleased I am that the Bill has received support, on the whole, from both sides of the House.

The right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) started with a complaint with which I have great sympathy. He said that we have just passed a consolidation Bill, the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, and then we bring in an amendment. Of course, the simple answer is that there is always a law which one might have included in a consolidation Bill if one had waited; there is never a right time to do consolidation. I think that perhaps on this occasion we could have looked ahead a little bit, and I accept the criticism.

I find that I am thought of as being something of an expert on consolidation Bills, having toiled at them at late hours of the night. I recollect one occasion, Mr. Speaker, when, having made an impassioned speech on a consolidation Bill, and having been called to order six times by your predecessor and then sat down—there were only the Minister and myself in the House apart from the occupant of the Chair—I found that somehow I raised the temperature in the House so much that someone in the Gallery rose to his feet, yelled abusive language, jumped over the rail and landed with a thud on the floor by the Bar of the House. If I can raise that sort of heat in a speech on a consolidation Bill such as that one was. I hesitate to think what I could do with such an interesting Bill as we have before us tonight.

The right hon. Member for Deptford asked whether I would keep that procedure suggested in the Bill for structure plans constantly under review. Well, of course; and the working out of the procedure is not a matter which I shall feel has been decided once and for all when we start these inquiries. This will be an experiment, there is no doubt about it; and we shall try to work it the best way we can.

On the question of O.D.P.s, the right hon. Gentleman said that he did not think I had committed myself to anything. I must say that I thought I had committed myself quite a lot in saying what we intended to do with O.D.P.s in future. We intend to administer them from a positive angle, to assist the carrying out of the South-East Strategic Plan—that is to say, pinpointing growth areas as decided by that plan and deliberately using O.D.P.s for that purpose. So far as central London is concerned, we recognise that there must be adequate provision of modern office space in London to replace obsolete, outworn premises and that, more than that, we need a supply of new and modernised space available for developing concerns. I hope that we shall see in future a positive attitude to the use of this control. I think the control is still necessary, until the whole matter can be incorporated in the planning system, and we shall in the meantime use it positively.

The right hon. Gentleman, in dealing with conservation areas, referred to houses which might be allowed to fall into decay.

There is a procedure whereby the local authority can serve a repair notice on the owner of a listed building, and if those repairs are not carried out it gives rise to powers of compulsory purchase, so the local authority can take over the property and put it into repair. If a local authority takes that action, it may be doing so for a national purpose, for the public in general, and not necessarily for a local purpose. We have in mind assistance under those circumstances. I cannot go further than that at the moment except to say that it is under consideration, but I recognise the national importance, not merely the local importance, of saving historic buildings and places of architectural value.

On the question of the repair notice, is it not a fact that the procedural rights of an owner would allow him to counter that notice to the point at which a year or more could pass before the local authority could make the notice effective?

It depends on how expeditiously the local authority deals with the matter. There is the owner's right to protect himself on these occasions, because they lead towards compulsory purchase and we must give him the right to defend himself.