Arab Trade Boycott

HC Deb 07 February 1983 vol 36 cc728-40 10.50 pm

Dr. M. S. Miller (East Kilbride)

I am grateful to the Minister of State for being here this evening, and I apologise for detaining him from some function that might have been of greater interest than listening to or speaking to the many hon. Members here this evening. The right hon. Gentleman and I have crossed swords many times. To use a religious analogy, it reminds me of the story of the Presbyterian minister and the Catholic priest who were talking on a train. The Presbyterian minister said, "Of course, there should be no differences between us, because we are both doing God's work." The Catholic priest replied, "Yes, that is true. You are doing God's work in your way and I am doing it in his way."

The Arab trade boycott of Israel has been described—I am sure that the Minister has heard what I shall say many times—as an economic menace, as a mere or a major nuisance, and even as a paper tiger. It was originally envisaged by the member states of the Arab League as an expression of their determination not to trade with the people who settled in Palestine many years ago, and their determination not to trade with the state of Israel, as it later became. However, the boycott grew wings, crossed frontiers and oceans and invaded almost every part of the world. Its purpose was, and still is, to engineer as far as possible a worldwide economic blockade of the state of Israel.

The origins of the boycott go back a long way and came about before the state of Israel was formed in 1948. Therefore, the blockade was not a response to war or to the occupation of territory. Its aim is to damage trade between Israel and the rest of the world, and thereby to damage Israel.

The boycott takes many forms. There is a primary boycott, in that the Arab League countries refuse to trade with Israel or to buy Israeli goods through third countries. They have done that since 1948, and I can understand it. They may do what they wish. Nothing in civilised behaviour determines that one country should do as another country demands. If Arab League countries do not wish to trade with Israel, they are perfectly at liberty not to do so.

However, a secondary boycott involves the blacklisting of firms outside the Middle East, for example in Britain, if such firms are held to be in violation of the boycott regulations. An analogy of the secondary boycott would be for the United States of America, which has banned trade with Cuba, to say that we in the United Kingdom could not enjoy nice Cuban cigars, such as I received this evening at a function. There is also a tertiary or voluntary boycott. Some countries outside the Middle East have, because of exaggerated fears of the boycott, refused to buy from companies that are on the Arab blacklist, even if they do not trade with Israel.

There is a fourth boycott—a self-inflicted one—which is directed against persons and institutions, the news media and other organisations. Not many years ago, a junior Minister at the Foreign Office wrote an excellent article entitled Britain's trade, and the Arab blacklist in which he said that many people were unaware of the pusillanimity of the British Government in helping industry to meet the challenge of the boycott. He referred to the different boycotts—primary, secondary and tertiary. He mentioned the authentication of signatures by the Foreign Office and detailed many aspects of the boycott that affect Britain.

Britain has a proud tradition of freedom of trade overseas and, although officially disapproving of all trade boycotts which are not internationally sanctioned or imposed from Westminster itself, the underlying attitude of British Governments in this respect has been one of tacit and weak-kneed compliance, which has taken various forms.

The Department of Trade has issued directives in which disapproval of the Arab trade boycott is expressed, not vehemently, but in veiled terms. British firms are told to use their "own commercial judgment". Such advice is superfluous, since all companies use their own commercial judgment in their dealings not only with companies in Britain but with those overseas. The Arab boycott has political as well as economic connotations. The Department's phraseology suggests that it is not prepared to help firms coming under boycott pressure.

In addition, the Foreign Office is guilty of sins both of commission and omission. It expedites boycott documents by witnessing the signatures of notaries public—signatures that are required periodically by Iraq and some other Arab states. These notary public signatures accompany the so-called Arab "negative certificates of origin", which state that the goods to be exported to the Arab country in question are not wholly or in part of Israeli manufacture. I have here a copy of a certificate. Negative certificates are not acceptable to any reputable chamber of commerce, but the Foreign Office "defence" is that its own signatory will not actually have seen the contents of the negative certificate.

That brings me to a interesting point which I came across when looking at some papers some time ago. An hon. Member who was worried about this negative certificate tabled two questions to the Foreign Secretary asking for information about Government policy and requesting him to forbid officials of his Department from certifying or signing documents of a negative or discriminatory nature. He received a reply which he described as the gobbledegook of the Foreign Office.

The junior Minister who answered the questions confirmed that his officials were prepared in accordance with international practice to legalise documents required for presentation in foreign countries. He added that the Foreign Office legalisation certificate appended to such a document authenticates only the signature of the Notary public or other public offical, his seal and the signatory's capacity to countersign such a document.

The writer then said that the Minister stressed that the legalisation does not relate to the contents of the document itself. The practice of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in this respect is not discriminatory". The right hon. Gentleman knows that the hon. Member to whom I am referring is the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), who is now the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The hon. Gentleman commented: What a splendid lawyer's reply! What a lot of baloney! The position is no different now. Other arguments apart, a notary's signature is the accepted final seal on a document and it does not need to be witnessed by anyone.

The Foreign Office fails to use its diplomatic good offices to assist British firms which have fallen foul of the Arab boycotters and which would wish to continue trading with Israel. A European country which has shown a more responsible attitude is the Federal German Republic. Its Government have helped firms coming under boycott pressure. A special example is the Volkswagen company, which was threatened with Arab blacklisting.

The British Government have avoided all forms of direct action against the operation of the Arab boycott on British soil and have therefore tacitly renounced a part of British sovereignty. Legislation that would have been perhaps similar to that of the American Administration has been rejected out of hand. It is well known that four years ago a Select Committee of the House of Lords recommended measures to curb Arab boycotting activity in Britain and that next to nothing has been done to implement the recommendations. Indeed, Her Majesty's Government have countenanced the circulation of boycott documents in Britain of the Arab-British chamber of commerce. This has been going on for over two years and is a direct violation of the chamber's undertaking, which was given shortly after its formation in 1977. It undertook that there would be no question of boycott declarations appearing on its certificates of origin. The same chamber now circulates negative certificates. It has circularised British firms informing them of probable blacklisting if they buy Israeli Government bonds.

Why should the British Government be so lily-livered about the Arab boycott? There are several explanations. First, there is the idea of Arab oil power. The suggestion that Arab oil does not matter because Britain is more than self-sufficient is said to be misplaced. Arab oil continues to be vital to Britain's European trade partners and Britain, too, would be hurt if the Arab oil weapon were used against Western Europe. British Governments take a cautious view of the prospect of Arab oil power declining, for if and when the world economic recession ends the demand for oil will escalate. That is one viewpoint. That is one of the arguments that is advanced by the Foreign Office.

The second argument is based on Arab petrodollars. There are massive Arab investments and bank balances in Britain. The pound sterling has been weak for some time and it has never been weaker than today. The withdrawal of a substantial part of Arab funds could have a shattering effect on the British economy. Another argument hangs on Arab markets. They are of tremendous importance to British exporters. As a result, a new and powerful lobby has emerged. It is led by interests involved in armaments, construction, engineering and electrical companies. Firms in these sectors conform readily with Arab boycott regulations. This gives the Arabs great confidence in making ever more outrageous demands.

There are military-strategic considerations. It seems that the Western Alliance and the Foreign Office take Israel for granted as part of Western defence or Western interests and therefore there is no need to do anything to bolster that state of affairs because it is there to be had if necessary.

Britain is not the worst offender in selling arms, but it has joined other European nations in pouring arms into a highly combustible area. The arms market is highly competitive, so the desire not to offend Arab Governments is heightened.

There is the mentality of what is known as the British establishment, which is well known. Hugo Young, in an excellent article in the Sunday Times two weeks ago, talked about the Franks report as being the Establishment talking to the Establishment. We all know what this is, and there is a lingering feeling that Britain has a special role to play in the Arab world because of supposedly worthwhile relations in the past.

This feeling is strongest on the Foreign Office, and has an undeniable effect on foreign policy. Its corollary is not to offend the Arabs. This led to the relatively recent visit to Riyadh of the former Foreign Secretary to assuage Saudi anger over the film "Death of a Princess", which was shown on British television. It leads, too, to the readiness of the Foreign Office to play ball with the Arabs over the boycott.

I can remember a case in 1968, concerning a close friend of my youth—we were in the same boy scout group. He was a little older than I and was in the Army when I was still in medical school. He left the Army, went into the consular service and then to the diplomatic service. He became Sir Horace Phillips. Sir Horace was appointed by the British Government as the ambassador to Saudi Arabia. He was accepted until the Saudis found out that he was a Jew. There was nothing to be done about it, and his credentials were withdrawn. Sir Horace had spent his whole life in the Islamic world and could speak perfect Arabic in a number of dialects, but the British Government had to accept this humiliating outcome.

These factors have contributed to the British singular, and even exceptional, weakness in the face of the boycott. In no other European country is there a more widespread secondary boycott—the Arab blacklisting of British firms which continue trading with Israel and which receive no protection from Whitehall. However, there is also a tertiary boycott—a boycott of British firms which trade with other British firms already blacklisted. This is a very intricate ball game. In no other European country is there a more widespread voluntary boycott, entailing spontaneous application to the Arab boycott offices for forms to fill in and negative certificates of origin to be completed. There is a veritable deluge of these, because the British Government do nothing to discourage the practice.

Only occasionally do cases of this kind come to light, because neither the Arab authorities nor the British firms concerned wish to advertise their actions. A number of recent cases have come to light of the actions of British firms. For example, the Berger paint company broke off relations with a Tel Aviv firm, Autotrade, causing the latter substantial losses. Berger refuses to admit that this was due to Arab pressure, which its manager euphemistically managed to translate into "extraneous reasons."

Teleconsult, a subsidiary of the Government-controlled British Telecommunications has given assurances that it will do no business with Israel. BT's policy is almost certainly influenced by negotiations between the Ministry of Defence and Saudi Arabia for a £200 million contract for a communications network in that country.

Another British firm, Transcall, broke off relations with the Israeli firm of Teletron for what it called "obvious reasons," but it obstinately refuses to disclose them. Perhaps a more strikingly disgraceful case is that of a British supplier of bandages to a Jerusalem hospital, whose general manager was reported as saying that as far as I am concerned, Israel does not exist. Then there is the bank—the case is still under discussion—whose cheques carry on the reverse side the rubber stamped statement: Negotiable in all countries of the world except Israel. Surely that is as blatant an example of discrimination as one could imagine.

A leading construction company indulges in what is, almost certainly, a "voluntary" boycott by filling out negative certificates of origin for equipment sent to Oman.

There is a host of less important examples that I could cite in which British firms have given way to Arab pressure. British Airways publishes a "Middle East Pocket Brief", whose map simply omits Israel altogether. In addition, the DHL courier service claims to be "world wide" in its brochures, but refuses to do business with Israel, allegedly because of specific Arab pressure.

Bartholomew's, perhaps the world's leading cartographers, sells maps of the Middle East in Arab countries that show Israel as Palestine. That is more than a pin-prick, for a cartographer should be totally committed to producing truthful and accurate maps, and the Arab boycott offices can only take encouragement from the firm's genuflection to Arab foibles. There are Arab countries that have lost practically all interest in the boycott. I refer to such countries as Lebanon, Sudan, Tunisia, Morocco and most of the small Gulf states. There have also been successes in resistance to the boycott. Barclays Bank and Lonrho have refused to bow to boycott pressure. After some negotiation, Grand Metropolitan repudiated the action of a subsidiary that had bowed to Arab pressure.

A leading property company, MEPC, was exposed over its dismissal of a Jewish employee during negotiations for large-scale business with Kuwait. An industrial tribunal found that his dismissal had been unfair and the consequence of unlawful discrimination for racial reasons. It is not only a question of refusing to trade with Israel. Very nasty and dangerous symptoms of anti-semitism are creeping in. Arab countries have refused to do business with companies with Jewish directors on their boards. Sometimes, firms have firmly but courteously refused to give way to boycott pressure and have continued to do business with both Israel and Arab countries.

The main object of countering the boycott is to enable business with Israel to carry on and prosper. That is all happening now. Excluding the probably temporarily depressed trade in diamonds, British exports in 1982 were about 50 per cent. higher than in the previous two years. Israeli exports to Britain in the same period rose by about 16 per cent., giving Israel a favourable trade balance of just about £50 million. However, British investment in Israel still lags and that may be the most serious consequence of the boycott, although it must be added that Britain's actual share in an expanding Israeli market has been halved since 1975. British Government offices, however, would point out ruefully that that is also happening in some of its other foreign markets.

The Foreign Office views world situations from the standpoint of how they appear to be. Foreign Office analyses are superficial, their conclusions concerned with British interests as it sees them, to the exclusion of almost every other consideration. I do not quarrel with the view that British interests are of the utmost importance, even paramount, but the pundits of the Foreign Office have a blinkered view of what constitutes British interests, and a long history in the Middle East of equating Arab interests with those of the United Kingdom. It takes a short-term view and a totally inadequate appraisal of the longer term. Fairness, justice, moral obligations and dignity play little part in its deliberations.

Let us consider how the situation changes. The oil blackmail weapon, which I mentioned a moment ago, no longer exists. There is a glut of oil. In spite of what the Foreign Office may say, experts are of the opinion that the oil glut will continue for a considerable time. Some say that not only will it continue for a considerable time but that the possibility of blackmail by oil is gone for ever. That is due to more than the recession. First, the world has gone in for conservation. For the first time, the Americans are serious about the development of small cars. They are running smaller cars, now that they produce them. Secondly, other sources of energy have been substituted for oil, such as coal and nuclear power. France, for example, now produces 40 per cent. of its electrical energy from nuclear sources, and by 1990—only eight years from now—it will be producing 72 per cent. I was told only three months ago by the director of the nuclear energy agency of the OECD that no OECD country is now building an oil-fired power station. So things change, and what the Foreign Office believes is in British interests today or tomorrow, may not be in British interests next week.

Only a handful of countries have passed legislation to discourage the totally unethical operations of the boycott on their soil. Arab boycott offices have sought to interfere with the normal trade with Israel of foreign firms, have wasted their time and money, and have flagrantly violated the principles of free and fair trading and the rules of organisations such as the European Community and GATT. Only the United States of America—and, to some extent, Canada—has legislated to make it mandatory for American firms to report all boycott-related transactions, fining those firms that fail to do so. Even Governments of the most democratic industrialised countries have done no more than express a pious disapproval of blatant Arab interference in their economic affairs. For Israel that is disappointing. Her trade partners should stand united in resisting economic blackmail.

I admit that there are faint hints of a change in governmental attitude. Last May the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury promised to look into the matter of the Foreign Office expediting negative certificates of origin. In August the present Minister of State stated that Government policy vis-a-vis the boycott was under review. However, I am afraid that when the Prime Minister is not concerned, the wheels of government in Britain grind exceeding slow. The Prime Minister has been absorbed in other matters, such as the British contributions to the Common Market, the East-West confrontation on nuclear arms, and the Falkland Islands conflict. When she does not put her foot down, it seems that the Foreign Office proceeds along its leisurely way.

It is not enough for the Government to express disapproval of the boycott. They should officially and actively discourage compliance with it. Government Departments, offices and institutions should be instructed not to comply with the boycott. This should also apply to nationalised industries and companies in which there is a majority public interest.

The Foreign Office should cease authenticating signatures on discriminatory certificates of origin. I do not accept that this would be an unacceptable risk to our exports. There should be a legal obligation on British firms to notify the Department of Trade of any boycott requests or demands that they receive and whether these have been complied with. Such reports of compliance should be open to public inspection. Compliance with the secondary boycott should be made illegal. This would enable British business men to give a prompt and effective response to boycott pressure.

If the Minister does not accept these points, I should tell him that they are exactly the points that his hon. Friend the Member for Pentlands made five or six years ago in an article in The Times. The actions that the hon. Gentleman recommended should be taken. They could not be expressed better today. Hon. Members may have seen on television the German film "The Oppermanns".

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hurd)

It is a very good programme.

Dr. Miller

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman agrees. The scene of the boycott of the Jewish firm of Oppermanns was horrendous. Hundreds of brown-shirted thugs, with their Nazi armbands, carried placards of hate and shrieked commands to the crowds in the street not to buy from Jews. The stamp on the shaved head of the woman who defied the order read, "I am a traitor to Germany because I bought from Jews." That was only slightly less obscene than the stamp on the forehead of the patient in bed which read, "I am a traitor to Germany because I was operated on by a Jew."

This is the viciousness of the boycott. I implore the Minister to stop it now before it reaches the stage that it reached in another country.

11.22 pm

Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) on his initiative and on his presentation of a well-known case. One reason why I venture to take part in the debate is that I have been campaigning for years, together with hon. Members on both sides of the House, to try to induce successive Governments to change their attitude towards the boycott and to cease authenticating boycott documents. Secondly, I relished the thought that the Minister and I might find ourselves on the same side on a Middle East issue, to the shock and horror, and perhaps dismay, of the right hon. Gentleman.

It is also an enormous pleasure to be able to speak on the Middle East while the howling hyenas, my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) and the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), lie in their beds in their lairs, presumably, and while there is no one else trying to shout me down on an issue where too often too many are too vocal and too stupid. They have perhaps chosen a good issue on which to be silent, because there is so little for them to say. They may fear hard work or late hours, but it is the fear, I believe, of presenting a case that is basically intenable that has kept them from the House tonight.

I know that the Minister will treat seriously the complaints that have been made so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, and which I shall seek to put in other forms, not only for their own sake but because they reflect a sensitivity to discrimination of a peculiarly evil kind which is extremely bad for the United Kingdom's trade and traders and contrary to the spirit, activity, trends and traditions of Britain's commercial interests. That is the matter which should be of primary concern to the Minister.

It has always been the proud symbol of Britain that British firms should trade without hindrance with any country with which we have friendly relations. As far as I know, there has never been any other case where any United Kingdom Government have played any part in any discrimination in trade against a fellow democracy with which we have full diplomatic relations. This is a sole, unpleasant and shameful anomaly in an otherwise proud tradition and I trust that the Minister will not try to make light of the part that the Government—alas, in common with their predecessors—are playing in this process by lending their weight and apparent approval through the authentication of boycott documents.

The first essential for the Minister to understand is that a discriminatory trade practice against a friendly democracy is impossible to sustain or to justify and that no Government of this land should have any part of it. Secondly, he should recognise that the authentication of boycott documents may, in strict dogmatic fact, be a mere authentication of signatures, but in reality it is taking a step in boycott procedures which is an encouragement to those who would sustain that evil practice and a discouragement to those who seek to oppose it.

My hon. Friend has referred to the three levels of boycott—primary, secondary and tertiary. I share his views, but I would take the step one ricochet further. It is not so long ago since the Mancroft affair when the noble Lord was excluded from the board of an insurance company which saw fit to try to get rid of him because it wished to have a "Judenfrei" board in order to do business with Arab countries. It was the public outcry against that company which caused it to change its methods and procedures.

It is only months since the case to which my hon. Friend referred of the property company which saw fit to dismiss its company secretary because he was Jewish and it wished to do business with Arab lands which objected to Jews on its board.

The Minister should see that it is a short step between saying that we will not trade with those who trade with Israel to saying that we will not trade with those who have Zionists on their board, and that, in the parlance of the extreme Left and of the extreme Right, means Jews on their boards. Indeed, as most Jewish people are Zionists, there is an element of truth in that too. But in Britain, it is a proud and great tradition that we do not discriminate against people in our commercial life because of their religion. It is the law of this land that it is not permissible to discriminate on grounds of race—and that means race, nationality, colour, or ethnic or national origin. It should surely be against the law of the land to permit discrimination against companies because they refuse to discriminate in their trade with the Jewish state.

Of course it is up to any country to decide with whom it will do business. It is up to any company, any firm, any commercial concern, to make its own decision. But when it attempts to impose a boycott decision on others, it creates a discriminatory practice which I am sure the Minister will condemn.

When another country says to a company or a firm in this land, "We shall not trade with you if you trade with our enemies," that is a form of discrimination. When the Government say, "We will authenticate documents which show that you are complying with our boycott list," the Government are partaking in the boycott. It may not be direct participation, but that is very close. Indirect participation in an evil practice leaves the stain of complicity upon those who take part in it.

The sensitivity which my hon. Friend and I share reminds me of the celebrated remark of Henry Kissinger which the right hon. Gentleman may have heard, when, as Secretary of State, he said, "I may be paranoid, but that does not mean that I haven't got enemies." There is no true paranoia amongst those who fear the boycott as an insidious beginning to an evil end. Even if there were, it is the growth of enmities that has produced the boycott.

The right hon. Gentleman's colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry encourage trade with Israel. It surely is a curious anomaly that his Department should play a part in any effort by anyone to discourage that trade. It is, alas, a part they do play.

We should praise those firms that have stood up to the boycott. There is no loss of trade for any of them that have spoken firmly and have determined that they are not prepared to give way to what my late and revered father used to call "blackmoil"—which in the days of oil plenty can simply be called "blackmail".

All praise to those businesses which have declared that they are not in any circumstances going to have anybody tell them with whom they may and may not do business. It is for each person, company, country and firm to decide whether it will do business and with whom, but not for them to discriminate or to cause discrimination in the practices of others.

There was a feeling among Governments of the United Kingdom that it would be wrong to take the lead in anti-boycott legislation or to take steps such as the hoped-for refusal to authenticate boycott documents which would show that the denunciations of the boycott were no mere bleating in the dark.

There is no longer that excuse. As my hon. Friend so rightly pointed out, we would certainly not be the first country to take that step. I ask the Minister to state in his reply whether he knows which other countries have passed such legislation. Is he aware of such countries? If he does know, he will appreciate that it is not just transatlantic lands that have decided that they will not permit this kind of discrimination against their firms, but also some European countries. My guess is that he does not know, but we shall no doubt soon hear. If he does know, the House is entitled to inquire whether he has read the report of the Select Committee in the other place headed by Lord Byers, whether he has considered the recommendations it made; and whether he is prepared now to commit the Government to compliance with such recommendations. If not, why not?

I know that if he follows the lead of those who have sat in his seat previously, the right hon. Gentleman will denounce the Arab trade boycott against the only democracy in the Middle East. I hope that he will not merely denounce the boycott but renounce authentication of boycott procedues. I hope that he will build a small bridge with a country, with which there are many differences of opinion but which is a trading partner. I hope that he will do so by dissociating the Government actively from any part whatever in a procedure that successive Governments have denounced as contrary to the interests of the United Kingdom.

11.31 pm

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hurd)

I congratulate both hon. Members, but in particular the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) on the way in which he has used this opportunity. It is not an entirely novel subject, but it can always be treated in a new way. That is what he did this evening.

The hon. Gentleman used the opportunity to range fairly widely over a number of matters, such as Sir Horace Phillips 15 years ago, but he will forgive me if I do not follow him down all those byways. He gave a number of reasons, some of them pretty fanciful, for the stance that successive Governments have taken and then proceeded to knock them down.

I want to confine myself briefly to restating what our policy is and to outlining the reasons for it. As the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) fairly said, Government Departments encourage trade with Israel, as with other countries, and we are glad that our exports to Israel last year amounted to £220 million. That is a sizeable figure. The Department of Trade actively supports the British Overseas Trade Group, particularly the advisory group, which spends much energy promoting trade with Israel.

As has often been stated, we dislike the Arab boycott and wish that it did not exist. But the real question that British Governments have had to face is whether we should take powers through this House to prevent British firms from following their own judgment—whether we should restrain them. We have come to the same conclusion as previous Governments, including the Government supported by the two hon. Members. We do not think it right to legislate to constrain the commercial judgment of firms.

It is perfectly true, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, that, having looked at the matter, other countries have come to a different conclusion, but, as the hon. Member for East Kilbride said, such countries are relatively few.

Mr. Greville Janner

Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to say which countries have legislated against the boycott?

Mr. Hurd

I should like to deal with that when I discuss authentication, because that is the issue on which both hon. Members have pursued us with the greatest zeal. At present I am discussing whether it would be right for this country to take powers to prohibit British firms from following their own judgment. I do not believe that there would be a general feeling, either among firms or in this House, that it would be right for us to legislate and to take those powers.

I have read the report of the Select Committee in another place, but I believe that the authentication issue has been raised out of its proper proportion. The impression is sometimes given that it is some special procedure whereby the Foreign Office goes out of its way to provide this facility for British firms wishing to comply with the boycott and thus that we are somehow lily livered and comply with a policy to which in theory we object. As the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West knows, the nationality and treaty department of the Foreign Office authenticates signatures on a large number of documents going abroad. That is done as a public service and it is an authentication of the signature, not of the document. It is no use the hon. Member for East Kilbride suggesting that that is pedantic gobbledegook. It is a statement of fact. That is what the authentication is.

Nevertheless, as there has been, not misrepresentation, but widespread misunderstanding of that point, we have taken action to remove any uncertainty. Just in case anyone really believed that the authentication of a signature in some way gave encouragement to the boycott, we have introduced a document to make the point clear, to remove any possible misunderstanding and, we hoped, to prevent hon. Members from continuing to sing this ancient tune. Every certificate now states that authentication of the signature does not imply that the contents of the document are correct or that they have the approval of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office". It is well-known procedure applying to all kinds of legal documents that that which is being authenticated is the signature at the bottom and not the contents of the document. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman knows all this thoroughly from A to Z, and it is unfair of him to continue to mispresent the practice as he has.

Dr. M. S. Miller

The Minister is surely not so naive as to believe that no one would regard the authentication as some kind of imprimatur. It must be within his knowledge that that is exactly what some people want. If it is of no value, why does the Foreign Office do it? Why does it not tell the firms that ask for authentication that it is of no value, that the notary public who has signed the document requires no witness of signature, and that they should tell the companies that are pushing them that the British Government will have no part in it?

Mr. Hurd

The hon. Gentleman persists in taking the point wrongly. What may be of value is the authentication of the signature—certifying that the person who purported to sign the document was indeed that person and no one else and that he held a particular position. That is the nature of the authentication. It has no further significance. Moreover, in case there should be any doubt, a statement is now attached to every such document stating that the authentication has no further significance than that, so that really is a false point.

Neither the hon. Gentleman nor his hon. and learned Friend mentioned the very practical point that the great majority of the signatures are not authenticated by the Foreign Office nationality and treaty department at all. I cannot give an exact figure, but we believe that only about 10 per cent. are authenticated in that way. The great majority are authenticated not by us but by the Arab-British chamber of commerce, to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

It would be wrong to suppose, as did the hon. Gentleman, that we would alter significantly the effectiveness of the boycott by refusing to authenticate the signatures in the Foreign Office. That is an important practical fact. The effectiveness of the boycott and the changes proposed need further study than that evident in the speeches tonight.

What would be the practical effect on the boycott if we complied with the hon. Gentleman's wishes and if the 10 per cent. of signatures that are authenticated were taken to other places? That is a legitimate matter, and one which we are now considering. For some months we have been reviewing the practice. The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West likes to present the policy as something that the Foreign Office dreamt up and administers, despite the more practical views of others. That is not the position. If we are to review the policy, we must take into account the opinions not only of Departments in Whitehall, not only of the House, but of a large number of people and groups who have legitimate interests, which vary according to their position. The review has been announced to the House. I cannot announce its conclusion today. It is a genuine review and the House will be informed of our conclusions.

Mr. Greville Janner

The Minister promised that, when he dealt with authentication, he would talk about other countries where the practice has been banned. As part of his consideration, has he discussed these matters with those countries with which we are trading partners?

Mr. Hurd

I agree that I undertook to give the hon. Gentleman some information on that point. The United States has anti-boycott legislation. France, the Netherlands, Italy and Luxembourg carry out authentication through the Arab chambers of commerce, without the involvement of Government. The procedure followed in Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, Belgium and Ireland is similar to our own, although in the first two cases there are certain restrictions on negative certificates of origin. The position in Greece is unclear, but we do not think that the Government there, would take a strict line against the boycott's operation. There is a wide range of practice within our partners in the Ten, and nothing approaching a common view.

Dr. M. S. Miller

The Minister is dealing with a country that not only has friendly relations with Israel but is a democratic country to which we should be pushing exports. It has a surplus balance with Britain and could take a lot more. Does not he think that he should be examining the position with the view of trying to increase exports to that country?

Mr. Hurd

As I said earlier, that is one of the purposes of our trade policy and one of the factors that must be taken into account. I do not deny that. However, it is not the only factor. It is a serious effort by the different Government Departments and the different Ministers to reconsider the matter. It was suggested by Lord Carrington after his visit to Israel. We are taking the matter seriously. It is not easy. I do not believe that Opposition Members haw, thought through what would be the effect on trade if we stopped the practice of which they complain. They might do a little research into that. It is one of the matters that worries us. We are examining the matter seriously and will report to the House.

The final point, into which I would not have gone if the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West had not ended with a pereration, is that the boycott comes about as a result of a long-standing dispute between Israel and some of her neighbours and other Arab countries. The dispute has gone on for so long that it has bred a deep sense of insecurity and injustice on both sides. The hon. and learned Gentleman gave us an eloquent explanation of the sense of unjustice that is felt, not only by Israelis but by some hon. Members, about the boycott. We all know, because we hear it from the gentlemen of England now abed to whom he referred. We also know that there is a deep sense of insecurity and injustice because of certain actions by the Government of Israel which they regard as an affront and intolerable. We are discussing a ripple of that dispute.

The boycott will not be ended by any action or inaction by this Government. If we really want to get rid of the boycott and the feelings that give rise to it, the two hon. Members who have spoken should join us in our efforts to help settle the dispute once and for all, as that is the only way.