Mr Ivor Richard: There are two answers. First, I am not at present inclined to trade with Rhodesia. It is a country which has torn up—
Mr Ivor Richard: The hon. and gallant Gentleman says "Ah!" in his profound way; if only he would listen for a minute through his lowing. I am not inclined to trade with Rhodesia. It is a country which has deliberately torn up constitutional arangements entered into with the United Kingdom Government and has turned its back on constitutional development in favour of unconstitutional development. My second...
Mr Ivor Richard: No, all hon. Gentlemen opposite are familiar faces in these debates and I have no doubt that they have an opportunity to make speeches of depth, significance and interest. If they will forgive me, I shall not give way again, because I fear that I have been on my feet too long already. The second limb of the economic argument is to question the economic effect of sanctions on Rhodesia. It is...
Mr Ivor Richard: The flaw in the hon. Gentleman's argument is that £640 million of that investment is in South Africa and not in Rhodesia. That investment has remained in South Africa despite the fact that, if the hon. Gentleman is right, we have in the last eight years pursued policies in southern Africa grossly inimical to the interests of the South African Government. The investment is already there and...
Mr Ivor Richard: How do we hold the ring better by withdrawing from the situation?
Mr Ivor Richard: I put it simply, in that case. It has nothing to do with legal entanglement at all. It is a straight and simple question. The hon. Gentleman has said three or four times that it would be better if we were holding the ring. How can we be in a better position to hold the ring in Rhodesia if we withdraw from it almost entirely and wash our hands of what happens?
Mr Ivor Richard: How?
Mr Ivor Richard: I wonder whether that is so. If the City of London is so scared, why is it that investment is increasing so rapidly in those very countries?
Mr Ivor Richard: I hope that the House will allow me to say a few words in winding up the debate, although I am conscious that I opened it for the Opposition. In my defence, I should point out that one of the reasons I wish to speak again is that we thought it perhaps best to have only one speaker from the Opposition Front Bench, as, thereby speeches from the Labour benches may be somewhat shortened, as they...
Mr Ivor Richard: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the real reason for concern is the fact that, with the placing of the American forces on stage 3 alert, the clear possibility of their being used in a nuclear conflict came that much nearer? Is it not also clear that it was done without consultation with the British Government? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that Mr. Brandt has received...
Mr Ivor Richard: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one of the things that we on this side of the House object to so much about this deal is that the Government did not have the courage and guts to come to the House of Commons and tell us about it openly? It was done through the back door via the United States of America. If, as the Government have told us repeatedly in the last few weeks, it is possible to...
Mr Ivor Richard: With respect, the Foreign Secretary must not be so complacent—[Laughter.] I am serious about this. What he should realise and apparently does not
Mr Ivor Richard: Is it not time the Foreign Secretary realised that a considerable body of opinion in this country—not confined to one party or one view—is seriously considering the continuation of the membership of Portugal and Greece of the NATO Alliance? Does the Foreign Secretary think that he is being helpful in giving the bland answer he gave?
Mr Ivor Richard: Will the right hon. Gentleman go a little further and say that the fact that Mr. Smith and Bishop Muzorewa are at least talking to one another, even if only tentatively, is certainly in part due to the fact that sanctions have been continuing and have not been lifted, as some of the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends wish.
Mr Ivor Richard: The Under-Secretary is fulfilling the undertaking given in Committee to consider the points we made and to look at the arguments. Speaking for the Opposition I can say that it seems that on the whole the assurances he gave then have been fulfilled. By and large the provisions of Amendment No. 7 cover the majority of the difficulties that we felt were arising under the old Clause 3.
Mr Ivor Richard: I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's confirmation, because it is important that people affected by the general provisions of the Bill should realise that they do not have to wait until 1st September 1973 before they can make their application and that they are not confined to the short period between 1st September and 10th October. Secondly, is the Under-Secretary satisfied that sufficient...
Mr Ivor Richard: Where will the forms be? At which Government office will they be deposited so that people can get them and fill them in?
Mr Ivor Richard: The hon. Gentleman is making the point that if these amendments were accepted we should be extending the immunity, which in Section 7 of the Immigration Act 1971 is confined to Commonwealth citizens, to cover aliens, and that that is a principle which the Government cannot recommend. Let me put the converse to the hon. Gentleman. The difficulty arises because people who have immunity under...
Mr Ivor Richard: The Minister has indeed given a frank exposition of the Govern- ment's view, but the fact that it was frank does not make it any more satisfactory. We are grateful at least to know what is the Government's position, but the hon. Gentleman has not answered the powerful points that were made from this side of the House. May I suggest a way out to the Minister? I hope that he will consider it...
Mr Ivor Richard: I am grateful to the Minister for saying that, but merely saying that the Secretary of State would exercise his discretion firmly but sympathetically is asking a lot of the Pakistani overstayer, who would have to exercise a considerable act of faith in the way in which the Government will behave. That is not reasonable. What the Minister should do, if he is saying. "Rely on the Goverment's...
