HL Deb 12 March 1969 vol 300 cc466-81

2.54 p.m.

THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH rose to call attention to progress in European technological co-operation and to the areas in which further joint projects Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am grateful to the House for allowing this Motion to go forward this afternoon. I had been hoping we might have had a debate on Marine Science and Technology and the Sea Bed, but as I think the Government's Report has not yet come out we certainly would not have had time to study it by this afternoon. I regret that there has been a long delay in its publication. The Prime Minister promised in another place that it would be ready by last summer's Recess, but now it comes as a kind of Easter egg a year later. I hope that it is a good egg—it is long overdue—and not infertile. A lot of us who visited the Oceanology Exhibition at Brighton at the end of last month would have been glad to have had then a more precise idea of what had been going on in the various marine establishments and in industry. However, now that the Report is about to be published, I hope that we shall be able to have a debate on it after Easter, and I am glad that my noble friend Lord Jellicoe has agreed to take over this Motion.

Since I put down the Motion for discussion to-day, noble Lords will no doubt have seen that an important book has been published, entitled European Advanced Technology—A Programme for Integration by Mr. Christopher Layton. It certainly makes very interesting reading in conjunction with M. ServanSchreiber's The American Challenge. Although it is filled with a wealth of most useful information and is necessary reading for anyone studying the subject, I should however say that, while I agree with a great deal of the book, it has perhaps a certain doctrinaire aspect about it which does not enable me to go the whole way with the author. But I do not want to over-emphasise this point, for I think it is in many ways an admirable and most useful work and I am glad that it has come out so conveniently—and, to me, unexpectedly—in time for our debate.

During the past months, partly in preparation for this afternoon, I have paid visits to Brussels and Germany, to France and Scandinavia. My inquiries have been directed mainly to the subject which we are to discuss to-day. What I have to say first concerns the standing of this country on the Continent, as a result of our Government's attitude to certain European technological projects. I am sorry to have to say what I have to say now, but I am getting it over early. I refer particularly to the Government's doubts about the Concorde, to their withdrawal from the ELDO "B" project and to their decision not to contribute to the CERN giant accelerator. How glad we must all he that the Concorde has now flown successfully, and I know we should all like to congratulate the firms concerned, whose long labours have made this possible, and to wish them good fortune. But if certain members of our own Government had had their way, it might never have flown.

I can only say that as a result of their attitude to these three projects the Government's name on the Continent is not exactly sweet-smelling. Officials with whom I have talked and discussed these matters in France, and in Germany, too, have said that the word of an Englishman can no longer be trusted. The Government's earlier doubts about the Concorde put the project in jeopardy in 1964–65 and made the French very unhappy. But our attitude over ELDO and, perhaps to a lesser extent, over the 300 GeV accelerator have made not only the French in Europe suspicious of our word, but also some of our other partners, too. They cannot understand how, at a time when the British Government were advocating closer co-operation, we should decide partly to withdraw from existing co-operative projects. It is very much a case of the Government not practising what they preach, and I am not surprised that many Europeans are sceptical about our Prime Minister's fine words concern ing a European technological community. They thought that our reasons for withdrawing must be political. Whatever my personal views were—and I told them that of course I could not support our Government in their attitude—I assured my European friends that I understood that the Government's policy in these cases was based purely on economic and financial grounds. But this did not seem to convince them; and what the French, some Germans and some others, too, have said to me privately behind the British Government's back is not reassuring.

When, therefore, I discussed with officials in these countries the possibility of going in for other joint projects, perhaps less costly than the Concorde or ELDO or the giant accelerator, I was asked whether I considered, as a member of the Opposition in Britain, that they would be justified in joining with a British Government whose record in international relations had been so unreliable. We know what the attitude of our EFTA partners was over the import surcharge, and some of our other partners in the two European projects I have mentioned wonder whether, on the basis of the present Government's broken agreements, they would be wise to go in for further joint projects with us in the future. They might agree that ELDO was not the perfect organisation, but if it did not exist they feel that we should none the less have to create something of the kind. Only multi-national co-operation of some sort would justify the very high research and development costs of such projects.

In other spheres—in particular, oceanography, but in many others, too, like electric cars, air and water pollution, and noise abatement: all subjects of very great concern, especially in the more developed countries in the world to-day—I asked whether we might join them. But in view of our Government's past record some European friends hesitated to give an unqualified, "Yes". Indeed, I came away from some of my talks with the impression that even with these more modest, less costly research projects Britain would not make important progress in integrating her efforts with the Continent while the present British Government were in power.

However, having said this, more in sorrow than in anger, and having got it off my chest, I should say that most of the Europeans I met would then add that, despite their present doubts, Britain was in principle a country with which they would wish to co-operate, because they thought we had much to contribute. And in all fairness I admit that certain joint projects with the French look as though they may be successful. I think in particular of the Jaguar strike trainer and the Martel missile, with its television eye. We hope that the Concorde will prove a success, too, as well as the range of helicopters which we are also developing with the French and where they have much to contribute themselves.

What the possibilities are for a multi-role combat aircraft I am not certain. I read in yesterday's Daily Express something to the effect that, with President de Gaulle's backing. M. Dassault, whose company developed the Mirage G fighter, had made a package offer to the Germans on an advanced version of his plane if they dropped the M.R.C.A.; and there is a further reference to this in an article by Mr. Chapman Pincher in the Express to-day. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would comment on these reports. I shall also he interested in anything he can tell us about the state of play in regard to the European air-bus and, of course, the Anglo-German swing-wing plane.

LORD CHALFONT

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl, but I did not get quite clear what he was asking, and I should like to get it clear so that I can answer it. I missed my Daily Express this morning—a most unusual thing—and I wonder whether the noble Earl could tell me what this story is and to what particular project it refers.

THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH

My Lords, as I saw it in the Daily Express—I have it here, but I know what they said both yesterday and to-clay—they said yesterday that, with President de Gaulle's backing, M. Dassault, whose company developed the Mirage G fighter, had made a package offer to the Germans of an advanced version of his plane if they dropped out of the multi-role combat aircraft. Then, again, in a very prominent feature article today, also in the Express, it was said that the R.A.F. would probably now he ordering, or might well be ordering, the Mirage G. and that we should not be going ahead with the M.R.C.A. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could tell us something about this.

I am glad, too, that after an initially lukewarm reception the Government seem now to have become enthusiastic supporters of the proposed European Molecular Biology Organisation, EMBO, which I hope will follow the form of CERN. It seems generally accepted that molecular biology as it relates to the secret of life and the way in which inherited characteristics are transmitted—a subject still of considerable interest to a number of your Lordships—promises to be the growth basic science which will take the place held by high energy physics after the Second World War; and I agree with a recent editorial in the New Scientist that this European "centre of excellence" promises incalculable returns—certainly greater than those expected from the CERN accelerator.

But co-operative efforts on the Continent are now proceeding apace in other fields, too—and, I might say, without us. Less glamorous and expensive, perhaps, but none the less important, the Maréchal Committee of the Six, now presided over by M. Aigrain, is at the moment creating seven sub-groups: one in computers; the second in telecommunications; a third in transport; a fourth in pollution, of air and water and by noise; a fifth in oceanography; a sixth in metallurgy and a seventh in meteorology. I understand that this Committee have now agreed that one national centre in each of these fields should be the pilot institute which would co-ordinate and guide the work of all others working in the same fields in the other five countries. There is no question. therefore, of forming new establishments, only of co-ordinating the work of existing ones; and from what I heard recently in Paris, progress is encouraging.

Despite the attitude of some of our Continental friends that Britain may not be a very reliable partner in joint projects of this kind, it is, I hope, still the intention of the Six to let us and the Swedes and a few other countries outside the Six co-operate and play our part in this work. I certainly hope so, for it is in my view a matter of urgency if we are to keep pace with the peed of American developments. Far greater, continuous and consecutive attention to what is being done on the Continent is, I believe, an urgent need. Some organisation—and I hope that we may belong to it—must, I think, work out European priorities and make some assessment of the pay-off in each case.

My noble friend Lord Newton, in the debate in your Lordships' House on the Motion moved by Lord Byers, stressed the dangers of air pollution. I should like to support very strongly what he said. I believe we are reaching a serious and alarming point in the pollution of the earth's atmosphere, and that research in this matter should have a high cooperative priority. Many other countries think so, too. And in regard to water pollution, I was greatly disturbed by the recent Observer report on the incidence of DDT on the fauna in the Baltic. There are a number of other fields in which I consider that increased co-operative research and also development would seem desirable. I have already mentioned electric cars. The French are certainly working on this, as are also the Swedes, who have done useful work on batteries. Then, too, I still wonder whether vertical take-off and landing aircraft should not be developed on a bilateral or multi-national basis, for the research and development costs on this are still very high. I recognise that we in this country have a tremendous achievement to our credit in the VTOL Harrier aircraft, which I hope other NATO countries will be ordering.

In computer applications and programming machines we know, of course, that we in this country have created an important monopoly in International Computers Limited, and I gather that the Germans, too—Siemens and Telefunken—are thinking of merging into a national monopoly there. How far it may be possible for us to get together on computers is a matter of considerable interest. Even if we are ahead of the Germans in some aspects of computer electronics, I still think we should go in with European partners who have a reputation for reliability and decision-making, as well as for reasons of increasing our markets. We should thus both benefit.

I also believe that there are possibilities for joint research in desalting water, in boilers, blowers and membranes. We know that we lead in flash distillation plant, but the Americans are catching up, and I think there is a good case for our having European partners in this field. Flash distillation is not the only method of desalting water, as we know. There are various other methods, using membranes, and also the freezing method. The Atomic Energy Authority is conducting research in these methods, but I still think it would be in our long-term advantage to have European partners, when it comes to the export of plant to Europe and the developing countries overseas. There may also be a good case for applying the same principles in low-temperature research, in semi-conductors, in hydraulics and in solid state physics, as well as in technological agriculture and ecology. Many of these projects might be on an inter-company basis, with or without Government support.

But there are also areas where Government assistance would indubitably be necessary; for example, in economic nuclear-powered container ships, in oceanology, in cosmology and in solar heat applications. In regard to nuclear container ships, I was fortunate last October to be invited by Dr. Stoltenberg, the German Minister for Science, to go on the maiden cruise from Kiel of the "Otto Hahn", which is the German nuclear-powered ore carrier. Although this ship represents, I think, a considerable progress over the United States ship "Savannah", and although our wealthy German friends may feel that they can build this kind of ship, and perhaps a second one, on their own (with, of course, some assistance so far from Euratom), I found that some German industrialists felt that this was an area in which the ship-builders and shipping companies in more than one European country should get together in the future; for there seems little doubt that in ten years or so nuclear container ships carrying meat, say, from Australia and New Zealand to Europe, will certainly prove successful. But research and development costs will continue to be high and I think that we should share them.

Above all, my Lords, I believe that in any joint organisation or consortium it is essential to have a single person in overall charge and that this is particularly true in international collaborative projects. Had my noble friend Lord Caldecote not been obliged to be in America this afternoon, he would, I know, have stressed this point. Too often it is assumed that a committee, properly balanced between the different countries involved, is an adequate substitute for a proper management set-up. But such committees may have disastrous results. It is often said that a camel is a horse designed by a committee. It may be a useful beast of burden but it will not win a Derby. I know that my noble friend believes that research activities are an excellent field for technological co-operation; but the principle of single overall control must be applied and Governments must have confidence in management in order to make long-term commitments.

My Lords, co-operative development may be more difficult. ELDO has no doubt suffered because it had no clear commercial objective. We might have hoped that communications satellites would provide this objective, but it has not worked out quite like that. While on the subject of space, may I ask the noble Lord the position in regard to the merging of ESRO and ELDO into one single European Space Authority? We have been advocating this for years now from these Benches in both Houses. I see from an Answer given by the Minister of State in another place on March 5 that the Government have had a series of conversations with the President of ELDO about this matter. I hope that the noble Lord can amplify what Mr. Mallalieu told my honourable friends last week. I wonder whether we should not propose the formation of some kind of European oceanological organisation. This would not, of course, be in the least exclusive, in the sense that it would not preclude full co-operation with other countries in the world. Indeed, if we could bring our own bits and pieces in Europe together I think it would facilitate co-operation with other countries, with or without oceanic seaboards.

The principal troubles in co-operative development are the delays and inefficiencies caused by excessive nationalism. This type of co-operation can be effective only if the Governments concerned believe that co-operation will give the best results for their country. But if, as happens too often now, co-operation is supported in principle simply as a device to strengthen their own country's position in a field, that co-operation is unlikely to be effective in strengthening the European technological base. The fact is that in the absence of determination to overcome the inevitable difficulties of co-operation, commercial success will be virtually impossible to achieve and we shall have to continue with the better, though not ideal, alternative of each country doing the best it can in a fully competitive atmosphere. Here, may I say, for the hearing of possible European partners in the variety of fields that I have been mentioning, that whether in inter-company or intergovernmental efforts there has to be a common will to achieve a useful result. There is no point in lecturing the British on the grounds that they do not "think European" while, at the same time, manœuvring on a nationalistic basis to obtain an advantage over us.

The fact is, my Lords, that if European technological co-operation is to advance very far we must all be honest with ourselves about what our best contributions are likely to be and where the other partner or partners are likely to be better. I say this in no idealistic mood but simply because only in this way are we likely to be able to achieve the lead times and sales techniques equalling those of the United States. It is this that will ensure Western Europe, as a group of neighbours in a small world, a prosperous position in the world markets of the 'seventies and the decades of our children.

Above all, I hope that in certain specific areas inter-company co-operation can be developed perhaps on the model of Internuclear, in which firms in this country, T.N.P.G., and firms in Germany, Belgium and Italy have now joined to build—probably on the Belgian-German frontier—a high-temperature gas reactor based on the E.N.E.A. Dragon at Win-frith. Efficient as I believe our own advanced gas-cooled reactors and the steam-generating heavy water reactor are, the fact remains that we have not been conspicuously succesful in selling these types abroad; and this sometimes makes me wonder whether in the case of the fast breeder reactor, too, we should not also have European partners. We know that, although our potential partners are not as far ahead as we are in this field, the Germans and the French one also spending very considerable sums on fast breeder development and there must surely be advantages in our combining our efforts, perhaps by agreeing to let our own fast breeder prototype at Dounreay become a European reactor. I feel that our prospects of selling new types of reactor in other European countries would be very much more promising if we did so. We have heard a lot of talk of Europeanising Capenhurst. I should be interested to hear the Government's views on Europeanising Dounreay, too.

In connection with nuclear consortia, I hope the noble Lord will be able to tell the position regarding the AngloGerman-Dutch gas centrifuge project. The Times reports that agreement was reached yesterday to build three centrifuge plants in Britain and the Netherlands; although the previous day it was reported elsewhere that these negotiations were running into troubles. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could tell us what is the latest situation, particularly in relation to the ratification of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

My Lords, while in no way disparaging co-operation with North America, and indeed the U.S.S.R., on some of these subjects—on the contrary, in some cases, such as pollution, I think this is highly desirable—I feel that there is a strong case for closer ties with Continental European countries in certain research and development projects. That is why I set down this Motion this afternoon, and I hope that the Government will agree that, even if we cannot achieve the kind of overall political solution which the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, has advocated, and may well advocate again to-day, some further down-to-earth co-operative possibilities are worth pursuing actively. Individual countries of Western Europe are so accustomed to thinking in terms of their own possible achievements in isolation that they seem to fail to realise the probable requirements of Western Europe as a whole within the next decade. The Americans do not make this mistake.

In other words, if Europe, with Britain, is to remain among the foremost areas in the world it must appreciate the potential size of its market. Firms like Shell, I.C.I. and Unilever are already thinking in this way; but there are very few of them. A factor which should be emphasised here is the probable growth of European populations. We get so accustomed to marvelling at the expansion of the giant populations of China, India, Brazil, and so on, that we forget the size of the natural increase in Western Europe and what this means unless standards of living are to be allowed to deteriorate, something which is politically inconceivable. Three great blocs have emerged in the world: in North America, the Soviet Union and China. In view of the way in which these great Powers are separately integrating their research and development effort, surely all those neighbouring countries in Europe, geographically so close to one another, should coordinate their activities, too. I am not advocating the setting up of a Fourth Force in the world, but the creating of circumstances in which it will be easier for Western Europe as a whole, and certain friendly countries overseas, in the Commonwealth and Japan, to co-operate in these fields with other zones. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.

3.21 p.m.

LORD GLADWYN

My Lords, first of all I should like to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, most sincerely on his initiative in raising this great subject to-day and thus permitting the intervention of the many acknowledged experts on the subject that we observe in our list of speakers. Having said that, my Lords, I should hastily add that I think I am literally the only one with no expert or detailed knowledge of any of the great problems involved in what is known as advanced technology, or even any detailed or expert knowledge of the multifarious organisations concerned. I must even confess to having certain doubts about the general direction in which we are now all being led by the scientists.

My Lords, shall we really be better off or happier when we are hurled about the world at supersonic speeds; when everybody can see and hear what is happening at any moment of time in any corner of the globe; when all our factories are automated; when, thanks to computers, we no longer have to read or write; when there is no more countryside; when our roads will be impassable; when we can all live to be about 200 by buying other people's organs; when babies are produced in test tubes; when romantic love between the sexes is regarded as a sort of infantile disorder and when we can spend days or months in hopeless and encapsulated boredom on our way to the uninhabitable planets or even to the dreadful, desolate moon? I must say, my Lords, that I doubt it.

But still, if that is to be our fate we cannot do much to prevent it. It is something which is, apparently, inherent in our modern type of society. We might, I suppose, in so far as we British are concerned, desperately try to avoid it by breaking up all the machines and becoming a nation of Luddites. But that might be even worse. The thought of the British in the year 2100 or so becoming something like the Navajo Indians, practising their curious old customs in native reserves and gazed at from their helicopters by rich tourists from overseas, is hardly encouraging. Yet, my Lords, exaggeration apart, this is something that could begin to happen by the end of this century if we do not look out.

There is, after all, no lack of evidence to this effect in the papers which the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, has so kindly circulated and which, with all my ignorance, I have clone my best to absorb. According to the authoritative Report of what is called the Business and Industry Advisory Committee of O.E.C.D., unless a successful effort is made shortly to co-ordinate and streamline European production in the sphere of advanced technology generally the Western European countries will, over the next ten years, lose orders of something like £10,000 million, and quite possibly more. It is thus indeed difficult to avoid the conclusion so dramaticaly brought out, as we all know, in M. jean-Jacques Servan-Schreiber's recent book, that by about 1976—and that is not very far away—they will be completely at the mercy of the United States of America. Unless indeed the various national industries in Europe combine, the Western European countries simply will not have the means—this is what M. Servan-Schreiber brings out—with which to finance the essential research and development, if they are to compete with the industries of the super Powers (and Russia may be in that category by that time) which will by then be able to produce the latest models that the Europeans will be forced to buy. Even if these are produced in Europe under licence the situation, as I understand it, will be little better since the real know-how and the capable management will, naturally, remain on the other side of the ocean. Under any showing therefore Europe would be hound to be in the second rank, if that, and the disparity would be bound to get worse as time goes on.

Even now the Japanese, so I read, are on their way to entering what is called the "post-industrial" phase. The danger, therefore, is that the Europeans, provided that they really cannot unite, will not only not reach this phase, but may even one day replace the so-called underdeveloped countries as the hewers of wood and drawers of water. But it is not only to avoid this fate or even, as it were, to "keep up with the Joneses" that I should like to join what I hope will be the great chorus to-day urging the Governments concerned, or as many of them as will, to come forward with real plans for ending what is an absurd and indeed, as I think, a suicidal state of affairs. For it must surely now be evident that the creation of some kind of political entity in Western Europe is the surest, and perhaps the only way, to achieve a real détente and end the dangerous confrontation of two super Powers on the Elbe.

In the Soviet-American dialogue which may well now be impending, the possible creation of such a body as this would seem to be the only feasible means, of achieving not so much the reunification of Germany (what exactly is "Germany" after all?) as tolerable relations between the Western Germans, successfully embodied in some greater whole, and their Eastern brothers who would still be, as it were, in special relationship with the Soviet Union. By such means as these the two super Powers might come to some kind of enduring relationship which they might in any case be induced to achieve owing to their common distrust of China. If, on the other hand, Western Europe remains weak and divided, it is not clear how the Americans could ever contemplate taking the risk of any withdrawal of their armed forces. I am sorry for the apparent digression, my Lords, but I thought it very material to the case a am putting forward.

We might even reflect also on another point, that there are perhaps certain enduring civilised traditions in our old Continent which, if we came together, could with advantage be maintained for the purpose of, as it were, mitigating the full rigours of the technological revolution to which I referred at the beginning of my speech.

So, my Lords, what is needed to achieve greater unity in the, after all, highly important, perhaps even vitally important, technological sphere? The answer in general terms is obvious. We have only to read our papers. Thus Mr. Robert Maxwell in his, as I think, wholly admirable report to the Council of Europe last September, after recalling the chief weaknesses of the present system, which we all know about—too many organisations achieving too little; no possibility of adjusting the total output according to objectives or priorities; no machinery to bring the private sector into play—put forward the possible solution of what he calls a "high level European Council" dealing with all existing organisations and then came up to his final conclusion, which I venture to quote. What he says is this: In the last analysis, only a surrender of some sovereignty can possibly get over this inherently great difficulty of Europe, which leads to endless delays and passing up of real technological opportunities. The better the organisational structure, the more smoothly the Council functions and the readier States will be to give up their sovereignty to it and without some such surrender it is impossible to carry out any work. Without some such surrender of sovereignty—which I express as not requiring unanimity in the Council—progress is impossible. Well, my Lords, if you work that out, you will see that if unanimity is not required, what Mr. Maxwell is suggesting in fact is weighted voting. It is that, therefore, that he regards as absolutely essential if any progress is to be made.

It seems to me that nobody who has read this report with attention, nor anybody who has read the recent work of Mr. Christopher Layton—who we all hope will soon be a Liberal Member of Parliament—can come to any other conclusion than that Europe cannot make efficient use of its resources unless it develops Community-style institutions. Nobody, in other words, can possibly doubt that what is absolutely necessary, and necessary now, is some form of weighted majority voting in at any rate some technological spheres and in certain existing organisations. It is also evident that even in advance of such a decision on weighted majority voting in certain spheres, real progress could be made by the general adoption of the device (for it is a device) of an Independent Commission, not necessarily with any powers of its own but composed of persons owing no allegiance to any one Government. That is the point.

In his second presentation at Strasbourg last January, Mr. Maxwell said: The only way to make real progress in European space matters will probably be, to begin with, by the setting up by the Ministers of a European Space Commission consisting of experts, nominated by the Ministers themselves, preferably by some form of qualified vote, who would not receive any instructions, but, on the contrary, would be under an obligation to consider all problems referred to them by the Ministers from the point of view of Europe as a whole. Eventually the Ministers themselves will have to adopt a qualified majority voting system in any case, but the first step in this direction would be the promotion of a European Commission on the lines I have suggested. Some may criticise Mr. Maxwell, but nobody has ever accused him of being a starry-eyed visionary, and, indeed, he expressly disclaimed any such qualification in his speech. But if he supports this idea of a Commission, I cannot see why Governments should apparently think that it is an impracticable proposal. Yet your Lordships will see, if you consult the Record of our debate on March 4 on the situation arising from the "Soames Affair", that when I asked the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, whether he thought that he could make substantial progress towards integration in fields outside the Community Treaties of Rome and Paris without the introduction of techniques such as weighted majority voting, he replied: Yes, I believe that progress can be made and I believe that it is already being made. It is made in the steps which we have taken in the W.E.U. It seems to me, and I hope that it will seem to your Lordships, that in adopting this attitude the Government are not only flying in the face of all really expert opinion; worse still, they seem—and I say only "seem"—to be deliberately throwing away the real chance which they still have of breaking with our sad, nationalist or Gaullist past and taking the lead with proposals which, if put forward by them, might at long last result in the formation of a genuine European Community. Such proposals might of course be put forward in the W.E.U., though, as we all know, no decision can be taken by that body without unanimous consent. Or they might conceivably be floated in diplomatic circles. But the obvious place, surely, to try them out would now seem to be in the so-called Monnet Committee, the "Action Committee for a United States of Europe".

In the communiqué which was published this morning, the second section reads as follows: Following the same method, the Committee intends to draw up proposals concerning political integration, including defence, which is indispensable for the completion of European unity. It will submit these proposals to the Governments. Our representatives on that Committee include Mr. Walter Padley, Mr. George Brown and Mr. Michael Stewart, the Foreign Secretary himself. So now I imagine that the Government, if they will, have an opportunity of putting forward really constructive and far-reaching proposals in this forum and then seeing that they are adopted by everybody, except, presumably, the Gaullists. The great thing is that the Government should not take the line which I am afraid they have taken until now, that "We will agree with anything that all the others agree to but will actively come out with some ideas of their own.

Once again, therefore, I urge them to reconsider their present rather negative policy. Once again I suggest that they, and also the official opposition in which, alas!, the Gaullist infection appears to be rapidly spreading, should associate themselves with what I firmly believe are the forces of the future. This great issue, as we all know, cuts clean across normal Party allegiances. So let all those who believe in a European Community rather than in a Europe of States now stand up and be counted. If they do, we might have some chance of progressing with European technology generally. But for so long as they do not, however good the intentions of Governments may be, little or no progress will be made.