IN BRITAIN TODAY Maxwell, “deprived of living,” issues writ

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32660, 16 July 1971, Page 17

IN BRITAIN TODAY Maxwell, “deprived of living,” issues writ

(N.Z.P.A.-Reuter copyright. Cable news digest)

LONDON. Mr Robert Maxwell, the former Czechoslovak refugee who rose to become a member of Parliament and a millionaire publisher in Britain, is suing a Government de-i partment whose inspectors said in effect, that! he was unfit to run a public company.

Mr Maxwell, who built up: the Pergamon Press publishing empire, was described ini an official Department of. Trade and Industry report as “not a person who can be relied on to exercise proper stewardship of a publicly-1 quoted company.” The report accused Mr! Maxwell of using information given to him in confidence to damage the position of a company he was about; to take over.

The inspectors, Mr R. O.i Stable, Q.C., and Sir Ronald Leach, an accountant, had been appointed under the Companies Act through the Department of Trade and Industry to investigate the affairs of some of the companies which once formed part of Mr Maxwell’s multi-million-pound empire. In 1969 he lost control of Pergamon to Mr Saul Steinberg of the American Leasco Group, but he is now back on the board. DRIVE ACKNOWLEDGED

The report of the two inspectors acknowledged Mr I Maxwell’s drive, imagination and energy, but expressed the view that he was “not a person who can be relied upon: to exercise proper stewardship of a publicly-quoted! company,” and it added:! "Unfortunately, an apparent! fixation as to his own abilities causes him to ignore the view of others if these! are not compatible.” The report alleged that Mr Maxwell had an unusually acute appreciation of financial and accounting matters, and was not afraid to enter into agreements of farreaching effect without legal advice. “The evidence we have re-' ceived convinces us that no major decision on financial, or business policy was made in I.L.S.C. or Pergamon with-: out his approval, and they! were usually his decisions,”! the inspectors said. “We are also convinced that Mr Maxwell regarded his stewardship duties as fulfilled by showing the

maximum profits which any

transactions could be devised to show.

“In reporting to shareholders and investors, he had' a reckless and unjustified optimism which enabled him 1 on some occasions to dis-

regard unpalatable facts, on others, to state what he must

have known was untrue.” ■ He was also accused of; using information given to; him confidentially to damage the position of a company he: was about to try to acquire.! Mr Maxwell was given a! copy of the report about a month ago. WRIT SUBMISSIONS Within two hours of the report’s being made public Mr Maxwell, who until the last election was a Socialist member of Parliament, called a news conference at which he announced that his lawyers had issued a writ against the Department of Trade and Industry, calling for a declaration that the inspectors’ report was null and void because the inquiry on which it was based was not conducted fairly or with .reasonable care, accuracy or limnartiality. The writ has been accepted

by the Government department ! At his news conference, Mr Maxwell accused the inspectors of going beyond their legal powers under the Companies Act, which, he said, called upon them only jto investigate and report, ;and to leave action or conclusions to others. “By making the conclu-i :sions they have virtually, deprived me of earning my jliving,” Mr Maxwell said.!

,;“They accuse me of being . an optimist. To that I plead i; guilty. Reckless?—not true. ■ Telling untruths?—Not true.” He described the way the . investigation was carried out as “Star Chamber procedure,” and said that the, i report “read like a smear jand witch hunt.”

Immigration bill concern

Britain’s controversial Immigration Bill, which passed through the House of Commons only after 50 hours of debate and more than 100 amendments, now faces a barrage of fresh amendment attempts in the House of Lords. The Liberal Party, which has only a handful of peers, has suggested 55 amendments, and others are expected from Labour and independent peers. The Government managed a majority of 148 votes to

40 when the Bill obtained a 1 second reading in the Lords last month, but observers at Westminster are suggesting that the Tories are “more ;than a little worried” about some of the amendments. ODD ALLIANCE ! Already, that odd alliance iof Mr Enoch Powell and , Liberal and Labour M.P.s has had the “grandfather” patrial clause eliminated from the measure; and the fear in Whitehall is that equallyunexpected alliances in the Lords may conspire next week to eliminate other features of the bill.

The Liberal attack will be led by Lord Wade, who has described the measure as “the Immigration (Objectionable and Dangerous Precedents) Bill.”

He has the support of other Liberals, the Archbishop of Canterbury, several bishops, some Labour peers, and several Independents, including Lord Hunt, the leader of the first successful Everest expedition. Among the amendments proposed by the Liberals is one that would restore to immigrants their present automatic right of settlement in Britain. As now drafted, the measure provides that settlement rights may be withheld if. for various reasons, the immigrant is not found suitable to settle.

WORK RULES The Liberals want to omit the powers which the bill would give the Government to impose stringent conditions on the work of an immigrant: and they want also to omit the bill’s demand that most workers coming to settle will have to register with the police. If this is not accepted, the Liberals will move that registration should be done with employment offices, not with the police. This has already been rejected by the Government as being costly and ineffective. The amendments also propose more - clearly - defined grounds on which a would-be immigrant who is refused entry to Britain can lodge an appeal. i Lord Wade has said that I I he concedes that the Govern-! : ment intends the bill to'

become law, and that the Liberal Party cannot prevent this happening: what the party’s members of the House of Lords can do, however, is to try to amend “the more objectionable features of the legislation."

No ground for Aust, chagrin

A few hours before the I Prime Minister (Mr Heath) said much the same thing to .200 British, Commonwealth and foreign correspondents at his first televised press conference this week, the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary (Sir Alec DouglasHome) had told Parliament that there were no grounds for Australia’s being upset over the Common Market negotiations. “There were full consultations with all Commonwealth countries,” the Foreign Secretary said. “No specific undertakings were given to Australia, but the Australian Government was told that the British Government would do its best to secure fair transitional arrangements for all Commonwealth , countries.

“The agreement that the Community’s Common External Tariff should be applied over a transitional period from 1973-77 will apply to Australian primary produce.

“In addition, the Government has secured from the Community the explicit recognition that rapid action will be taken should there be a danger of serious disruption of trade during that period.” •NO PROMISE GIVEN’

Sir Alec Douglas-Home was questioned by a Conservative member as to how the “misunderstanding” seemed to have arisen. He replied: “There was no intention whatever to mislead, and no grounds for being misled, because no promise, was given. ‘•We have tried to get the longest possible transitional arrangement, and we have succeeded in getting one for five years.” When another Conservative member said that many M.P.s were deeply disturbed at the attitude the Australian Government had taken, Sir Alec Douglas-Home said: “I will try to rectify any misgivings there may be.” GENERAL REACTION In answer to another question, he said that no Commonwealth Government had expressed opposition to Britain’s possible entry into the Common Market. Very few had commented on the detailed arrangements, and none had suggested that the arrangements constituted grounds on which Britain should not join. Asked if he had received any unofficial expression of opposition from any significant political group within the Commonwealth, Sir Alec Douglas-Home replied that he could not comment on unofficial communications. A Conservative member, Mr William Molloy then suggested that many people regarded the Brussels and Luxemburg negotiations as a battle which Britain had lost, and the White Paper as an approach suing for peace; and that a special conference of Commonwealth countries be called to discuss the many things about which they were “gravely apprehensive.” Sir Alec Douglas-Home isaid that Mr Molloy was putting his opinions into the ; mouths of others.

Answering further ques-

tions, he said that the value of Australian exports which would be affected by an enlargement of the Common Market, on the basis of, 1969-70 figures, was, at most, 7i per cent of her total export earnings. P.M.’S REGRET At his televised press conference later in the day, Mr Heath said: “Australia did not want a permanent arrangement of association when Britain joined the Common Market. She realises that she is a country in her own right —and a very powerful country, and becoming a very wealthy country in her own right as well.” I'r Heath regretted that Australia's Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Douglas Anthony) had been critical of Britain’s negotiations. “Australia has been in the closest consultation all through the meetings,” Mr Heath said, “and we have achieved in certain spheres benefits for Australia, such as for her industrial goods and the mining of minerals. “After all, Australia looks to us for investment.”

Division among Socialists

Mr Roy Jenkins, who was Chancellor of the Exchequer in the last Labour Government, has contributed an article in favour of Britain joining the Common Market to the monthly journal of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, whose executive has already voted against British entry. This is another example of the division that has developed over the E.E.C. issue between the trade unions and leaders of the Labour Party. Mr Jenkins, says that every single Socialist Party and democratic trade union in the Six wants Britain in the Market. Believing that it will help both them and Britain.

“The British Labour Party is one of the most important members of the Socialist International, but it is not very convincing to proclaim our belief in international socialism and, at the same time, ignore the views of the great majority of the Socialist International,” Mr Jenkins writes.

"It is now or never This opportunity, if missed, cannot be recreated by a Labour Government in a few years time.” Powell sees problem ahead Commonwealth immigration is adding half a million to the coloured population of Britain every 128 years, according to a Conservative Member of Parliament, Mr Enoch Powell. In the foreseeable future, a fifth, a quarter and higher proportions of cities and large towns would consist of new Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants, Mr Powell told the Huddersfield and Open Valley Junior Chamber of Commerce.

“The fact of high proportions of immigrants in some Cities has to be envisaged now,” he said. “It is already present* not as a future possibility, but as a future certainty, unless some new and major factor is introduced. “With every year—with every month—that passes, without that new and major factor being sought and brought into operation, the Government and the people as a whole are taking a deci-

'jsion that this is the future • that they accept for Britain. ' “If, when that future comes, their children rise up and curse them, this at least they cannot say: ‘We knew • not what we did.’ “What must be the nature . of the new and major factor i to which I refer, does not , admit of doubt. It is that the , tion be replaced by a net '■ net Commonwealth immigra-l ! —or, if a slightly less accu- . rate and more misunderstandable term be chosen, re- J patriation.” Mr Powell said that in 1970 the coloured population of Britain rose by 91,000 and : the remainder by only 79,000; and that if Scotland, with its small coloured population, were excluded, the disparity would be greater still. He added that 1970 was not an exceptional year—the population increase for 1969 was: coloured, 103,000, the rest, 98,000; and for 1968, coloured, 114,000, the rest, 118,000.

Revenue from Crown lands

The income from Crown lands made over to the Exchequer in the 19 complete financial years since the accession of the Queen in 1952, has totalled £45.39m. Telling the House of Lords this, Lord Aberdare added that this exceeded the amounts issued to the Queen under the provisions of the Civil List Act, 1952, by £38,491,397. In addition, Schedule "A” tax amounting to £7.332m was paid to the Inland Revenue by the Crown Estate Commission in that period. Lord Orr-Ewing, to whom Lord Aberdare was replying, asked: “Is it not quite clear that, apart from the great and invaluable services that the Queen and members of the Royal Family give to the nation, the taxpayers have received something like £3Bm more in revenue than the total granted to the Queen?”

Channel study About 40 ships a day using the congested English Channel between Britain and France ignore marked safety routes, according to a new shipping census. The study of the world’s busiest sea lane was taken by the 1500-ton British fishing vessel Miranda for the Government. The census will also help to form a safety programme when the Inter-governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation meets in September.

The 40 ships cited as offenders in the census represent 5 per cent of the 800 vessels using the Channel every day; they are said to have ignored the recommendation of British naval authorities to keep to the right in the Channel. In January, the 22-mile-wide Dover Strait claimed the Panamanian tanker Texaco Caribbean, of 13,604 tons; and in March, the Greek-owned Niki, of 371 tons, and the West German freighter Brandenburg, of 2695 tons, were also sunk. Despite warnings placed around the triple-wreck area, four other vessels almost sank there, including a West German submarine and the Russian freighter Batlisky 3 of 1865 tons.