Lords Sitting of 25 October 1973

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Derby.

SEISMIC SURVEY OF BRITISH WATERS
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to encourage further intensive seismic surveying of the North Sea, of waters North of the United Kingdom, of waters to the West of the United Kingdom out to Rockall, and of the Celtic Sea and the Western Approaches.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, there are no plans at the present time to stimulate seismic exploration as the level of activity is considered adequate. As I explained in reply to my noble friend's Question on Tuesday, surveys have been carried out initially over the entire area referred to by my noble friend.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, which is less encouraging than his replies very often are, may I ask him whether or not he would agree that the broad grid survey to which he referred the other day covering the whole area is largely pre-1968 and therefore, for technical reasons, largely out of date? Would he not agree that it is important that the unlicensed areas that have been offered for licence should be further surveyed if incentives can he found to attract companies to invest in that operation?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, so far as the North Sea area is concerned, I think it is probably true to say that most of the initial broad grid surveys were carried out before 1970. But that does not apply to all the areas. For example,
740
the South-West approaches were being surveyed by the Institute of Geological Sciences this year. So far as the more detailed surveys are concerned, when areas are designated for licensing, then of course intensive survey begins upon them with a view to making application for licences. There are at the present time 43 non-exclusive exploration licences issued.
Tim EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, does my noble friend consider that those 43 are really sufficient for the job in hand? Would he not ask his right honourable friend to consider the possibility of encouraging further seismic work by allowing companies to count that as a credit to their advantage when they apply for another licence in the next round, by offsetting it against their present work programmes, on production licence blocks or in some other similar way?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I will certainly ask my right honourable friend to consider my noble friend's suggestion, but at the moment all I can say is that the system seems to be working fairly well.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, are 43 exploration licences really sufficient for the job?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, one holder of an exploration licence may be exploring in many areas. The licence is for three years and, as I say, it enables a holder to explore in any area except those places covered by production licences.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, does the recent withdrawal of the oil rig from the Bristol Channel area mean that the Government consider that there is no oil or gas in that vicinity?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I should need notice of that question; but I do know that exploration is still going on there, and there has been some issue of licences in the Celtic field.
Loan DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: My Lords, is there any truth in the rumours I have heard, that after the research has been done the work is going forward much more slowly than was anticipated would be the case in the North Sea?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is referring to the construction of rigs and to related work. There have been difficulties encountered, as is almost inevitable from the nature of this type of construction, but the work is going ahead.

ULTRASONIC ANTI-RIOT DEVICES
3.10 p.m.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what research they have conducted on riot-control devices using ultrasonic techniques; whether any devices using such techniques have been tested on military personnel; and what assessment will be made of possible long-term neurological effects of such weapons before they are operationally deployed or used.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have not sponsored any research into, nor do they possess, any anti-riot devices using ultrasonic techniques. Consequently, there has been no occasion to early out tests on military or other personnel. The noble Lord's Question about the assessment of possible neurological effects is therefore hypothetical, but I can assure him that all devices proposed for use in anti-riot operations are carefully considered from the point of view of the hazards they may present.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that something might be said for the use of ultrasonic techniques as a method of riot control, provided one could be satisfied that long-term neurological effects were not present? Bearing in mind the serious casualties that have been caused by the use of rubber bullets in Northern Ireland, does the noble Lord not think it would be a good idea if the Government did sponsor such a programme?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, there is such a device being developed, I believe, called the Allen International
742
"photic driver" equipment which my Department have looked at. But they have not yet tested it or been into it very carefully, although it may in the end turn out to be more promising than at first it appears.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, if the Department have looked at such a device, why did they try to pretend to the New Scientist that they had not?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am afraid I do not know the answer to that. All I can tell the noble Lard is that I know he follows these things with a great deal of care, and my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Defence announced in another place that we had looked at this.

IMMIGRATION: INQUIRY BUREAU STAFFING
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many staff were employed in the Telephone Inquiry Bureau of the Immigration and Nationality Department at Croydon on January 16, 1973, and as at the latest convenient date; what is the full establishment of the Bureau; and what steps have been taken to recruit additional staff so that all the incoming lines are manned.
THE MINISTER or STATE, HOME OFFICE (VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS): My Lords, on January 16, 1973, 15 staff were employed in the Telephone Inquiry Bureau of the Immigration and Nationality Department at Croydon. The current number is about the same, although there is some variation from day to day. An increase of ten staff will be needed to man all the 25 lines which are available. Every effort has been made to recruit and train adequate staff, and these efforts will continue; but experienced staff are needed for the Bureau. I much regret the inconvenience which is caused by shortage of staff.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that on January 16, 1973, the date mentioned in the Question, the Under-Secretary of State wrote to a

743
correspondent saying that he hoped shortly to have the number of staff required to man all the incoming lines, up to the figure of 25, which the noble Viscount mentioned? Is the noble Viscount aware that this shortage causes the utmost inconvenience, not only for individual inquirers but for the many organisations, such as the Citizens' Advice Bureaux, who several times have been in correspondence with the Home Office on this matter, and that it is necessary to wait two months even for a reply?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Yes, my Lords, I am very well aware that under-staffing in Croydon does cause a large number of difficulties to a lame number of people. It is interesting to note that the correspondence at the moment is running at the rate of 20,000 items a week, which represents a million letters a year. This shows something of the pressure that the staff are under. I can say this: I was talking to my right honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary this morning about this matter. He is personally involved and is very much concerned about it. We are by no means complacent but, certainly on the telephone side, we cannot just employ anybody. These must be experienced and skilled people: otherwise they may do more harm than good. We are trying very hard to obtain people to do these jobs.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, would the noble Viscount agree, perhaps with the benefit of hindsight, and in view of the fact that there is a large amount of alternative office employment in and around Croydon, that Croydon was the wrong place to put the Telephone Inquiry Bureau and that perhaps he ought to reconsider the location of the office?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE or CULROSS: My Lords. I know that there is a great deal of competition in Croydon, but I believe that the suggested alternative is Plymouth. I do not think that it would be any easier for people to inquire there than it is in Croydon.

BOOKS AND VALUE ADDED TAX
3.16 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is intended to impose VAT on books.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, the Government have no plans to impose value added tax on books, magazines or newspapers which are currently zero rated.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply. Arising out of it, may I ask the Government, bearing in mind that books have always been free of purchase tax in this country, even during the darkest days of the war, to do their utmost to persuade other E.E.C. countries to harmonise with us, so that eventually books may be zero rated throughout the Community?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I will. I would suggest to the noble Lord that if his colleagues would be prepared to send people to Europe, they might also carry on the good work.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he will resist the temptation to tease the Opposition on these occasions, which he is entitled to do, and face the very serious point which was raised by my noble friend? And would the noble Earl also ask the Government to follow his example?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, the Government take the question very seriously, and I have given a very serious and straightforward answer.
LORD MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the librarians of the country, both public and private, will be delighted at the statement he has made this afternoon? It is about a hundred years ago that we repealed the tax on knowledge, and to reinstate a new tax on knowledge would be a most pernicious thing.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said.

BUSINESS
3.19 p.m.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask Her Majesty's Government a Question

745
of which my noble friend Lord Kennet has given Private Notice—namely, To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking towards a peace settlement in the Middle East, and if they will make a further Statement.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie will answer this Question by making a Statement at a convenient moment after 3.30.
As your Lordships will see from the Order Paper, Prorogation is expected to take place this evening some time after 10 p.m. The exact time depends on business in another place, but I would ask as many noble Lords who can do so to return to the House about 10 o'clock in order that we may have a good attendance in the Chamber when the Royal Commission takes place. For the convenience of noble Lords, the Guest Room and the Bishops' Bar will be open during the evening.

GOVERNMENT TRADING FUNDS BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL
3.20 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD POLWARTH): My Lords, I beg leave to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That consideration of Commons Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments and Commons Amendments to words restored to the Bill in Schedule 1 be taken before Commons Reasons and Amendments relating to the remainder of the Bill.—(Lord Polwarth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments, Commons Amendments to words restored to the Bill and Amendments to the words restored to the Bill be now considered. In moving this Motion, I would remind your Lordships that in accordance with the Motion to which your Lordships have just agreed we shall be considering the Amendment relation to Schedule 1 before the remainder of the Bill. This follows the order in which the Lords Amendments were taken in the other place. With the leave of the House, I propose that it would be convenient to discuss together the items on the printed list as follows, as they hang together: Nos. I to 3, then Nos. 4 to 6, No. 7, No. 7A together with 11A—and I understand these are manuscript Amendments—Nos. 8 to 16, Nos. 17 and 18 and Nos. 19 and 20.
Moved, That the Commons Reasons be now considered.—(Lord Polwarth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS, COMMONS AMENDMENTS TO WORDS RESTORED TO TILE BILL AND AMENDMENTS TO THE WORDS RESTORED TO THE BILL BY THE EARL OF SELKIRK.
[References are to Bill (145) as first printed for the Lords. Commons Reasons and Amendments are printed in italics. The Amendments and Reasons are numbered consecutively for the convenience of the House.]

LORDS AMENDMENTS
In the Schedules
Schedule 1, page 147, line 1, at end insert—
[No. 1]
"Greater Glasgow
The county of the city of Glasgow.
In the county of Dunbarton—the burghs of Bearsden, Clydebank. Milngavie; the district of Old Kilpatrick (except the elctoral divisions of Bowling, Dunbarton).
In the county of Lanark—the burgh of Rutherglen; in the Eighth district the electoral divisions of Bankhead,

747
Cambuslang Central, Cambuslang North, Hallside, Rutherglen, and those parts of Cambusland South and Carmunnock electoral divisions lying outwith the designated area of East Kilbride New Town; in the Ninth district, the electoral divisions of Baillieston, Garrowhill, Mount Vernon and Carmyle, Springboig.
In the county of Renfrew—the First district.
Lanarkshire
In the county of Dunbarton— the burghs of Cumbernauld, Kirkintilloch; the district of Kirkintilloch and Cumbernauld.
The county of Lanark (except the burgh of Rutherglen; in the Eighth district, the electoral divisions of Bankhead, Cambuslang Central, Cambuslang North, Hallside, Rutherglen, and those parts of Cambuslang South and Carmunnock electoral divisions lying outwith the designated area of East Kilbride New Town; in the Ninth district, the electoral divisions of Baillieston, Garrowhill, Mount Vernon and Carmyle, Springboig).
In the county of Stirling—the burgh of Kilsyth; the Western No. 3 district: the electoral divisions of Kilsyth East, Kilsyth West.
Argyll and Clyde
The county of Argyll (except the district of Ardnamur-chan; the electoral divisions of Ballachulish, Kinloch-leven).
The county of Bute (except the burgh of Millport; the districts of Arran, Cumbrae).
In the county of Dunbarton— the burghs of Dumbarton. Cove and Kilcreggan, Helensburgh; the districts of Helensburgh, Vale of Leven; the electoral divisions, of Bowling, Dunbarton.
The county of Renfrew (except the First district).
Ayrshire and Arran
The county of Ayr. In the county of Bute—the burgh of Millport; the districts of Arran, Cumbrae."
[No. 2]
Page 147, leave out lines 2 to 12.
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
[No. 3]
Because a single regional authority is required to determine local government policies for the development of the West of Scotland, and to take action to implement them.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason No. 3; namely, because a single regional authority is required to determine local government policies for the development of the West of Scotland and to take action to implement them. When your Lordships passed these Amendments not so long ago the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, moved them (and he has explained to me very courteously why he is unable to be with us in his place to-day) and explained that he did so with the prime object of enabling the other place to have a final rethink on the principle of a single Strathclyde Region. He undertook that so far as he was concerned he would be happy to accept as final whatever view the other place took regarding this fundamental question in the Bill. In the other place this matter was considered with great thoroughness last Monday night, and their conclusion, reached by a majority of nearly two to one, was that the concept of a single regional authority proposed by the Government should be adhered to. In the circumstances I do not think I should detain your Lordships any longer; we have been over all this ground at great length before. I would therefore recommend your Lordships not to insist on the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Polwarth.)
LORD HOY: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, has said, my noble friend is away on other Parliamentary business and cannot be here, but I know that he would not wish to go back on a statement he made when the matter was being debated in your Lordships' House last week. So we would concur with the Motion.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
Schedule 1, page 151, line 43, at end insert—
[No. 4]
"Greater Glasgow
City of Glasgow
The county of the city of Glasgow.
In the county of Lanark—in the Ninth district, the electoral divisions of Baillieston,

749
Garrowhill, Mount Vernon and Carmyle, Springboig.
Rutherglen
In the county of Lanark—the burgh of Rutherglen; in the Eighth district, the electoral divisions of Bankhead, Cambuslang Central, Cambuslang North, Hallside, Rutherglen, and those parts of Cambuslang South and Carmunnock electoral divisions lying out-with the designated area of East Kilbride New Town.
Eastwood
In the county of Renfrew—the First district.
Kilpatricks
In the county of Dunbarton— the burghs of Bearsden, Clydebank, Milngavie; the district of Old Kilpatrick (except the electoral divisions of Bowling, Dunbarton).
Lanarkshire Strathkelvin
In the county of Dunbarton— the burghs of Cumbernauld. Kirkintilloch; the district of Kirkintilloch and Cumbernauld.
In the county of Lanark—in the Ninth district, the electoral divisions of Chryston, Stepps; the burgh of Bishopbriggs.
In the county of Stirling—the burgh of Kilsyth; the Western No. 3 district; the electoral division of Kilsyth West; the polling district of Kilsyth East (Banton).
Monklands
In the county of Lanark—the burghs of Airdrie, Coatbridge; the Ninth district (except the electoral divisions of Baillieston, Chryston, Garrowhill, Mount Vernon and Carmyle, Springboig, Stepps); in the Seventh district, the electoral division of Shottskirk.
Motherwell
In the county of Lanark—the burgh of Motherwell and Wishaw: the Sixth district, (except the electoral divisions of Bothwell and Uddington South. Uddington North), the Seventh district (except the electoral division of Shottskirk).
Hamilton
In the county of Lanark—the burgh of Hamilton; the; Fourth district (except the electoral division of Avon-dale); in the Sixth district, the electoral divisions of Bothwell and Uddington South, Uddington North; in the Eighth district, the electoral divisions of Blantyre, Stonefield, and that part of High Blantyre electoral division lying outwith the designated area of East Kilbride New Town.
750
East Kilbride
In the county of Lanark—the burgh of East Kilbride; in the Fourth district, the electoral division of Avondale; in the Eighth district, those parts of High Blantyre, Cambuslang South, and Carmunnock electoral divisions lying within the designated area of East Kilbride New Town.
Lanark
In the county of Lanark—the burghs of Biggar, Lanark; the First, Second, Third districts.
Argyll and Clyde Dumbarton
In the county of Dunbarton— the burghs of Dumbarton, Cove and Kilcreggan, Helens burgh; the districts of Helensburgh, Vale of Leven; the electoral divisions of Bowling, Dunbarton.
Renfrew
In the county of Renfrew—the burghs of Barrhead, John stone, Paisley, Renfrew; the Second, Third, Fourth districts.
Inverclyde
In the county of Renfrew—the burghs of Gourock, Greenock, Port Glasgow the Fifth district.
Argyll
In the county of Argyll—the burghs of Campbeltown, Dunoon, Inveraray, Lochgilp head, Oban, Tobermory; the districts of Cowal, Islay, Jura and Colonsay, Kintyre, Mid Argyll, Mull, North Lorn (except the electoral divisions of Ballachulish. Kinlochleven), South Lorn, Tiree and Coll.
In the county of Bute—the burgh of Rothesay; the district of Bute.
Ayrshire and Arran Cunningham
In the county of Ayr—the burghs of Ardrossan, Irvine, Kilwinning, Largs, Saltcoats, Stevenston; the districts of Irvine, Kilbirnie, West Kilbride; those parts of the designated area of Irvine New Town within the Ayr and Kilmarnock districts.
In the county of Bute—the burgh of Millport; the districts of Arran, Cumbrae.
Kilmarnock and Loudoun
In the county of Ayr—the . burghs of Darvel, Galston, Kilmarnock, Newmilns and Greenholm, Stewarlon; the district of Kilmarnock (except that part of the designated area of Irvine New Town within this district).

751
Kyle and Carrick.
In the county of Ayr—the burghs of Ayr, Girvan, Maybole, Prestwick, Troon; the districts of Ayr (except that part of the designated area of Irvine New Town within this district), Girvan, Maybole; that part of the parish of Ayr within the district of Dalmellington; the polling district of Coylton.
Cumnock and Doon Valley.
In the county of Ayr—the burgh of Cumnock and Holmhead; the districts of Cumnock, Dalmellington (except that part of the parish of Ayr within this district of Coylton)."
[No. 5]
Page 151, line 44, leave out from beginning to end of line 16 on page 154.
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
[No. 6]
Because the definition of districts presupposes a structure of four regions in place of the Strathclyde region and does not satisfactorily reflect community patterns on the periphery of Glasgow.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 6; namely, because the definition of districts presupposes a structure of four regions in place of the Strathclyde Region and does not satisfactorily reflect community patterns on the periphery of Glasgow. Your Lordships will recall that when we sent the Bill back to the Commons we had formed additional districts on the periphery of Glasgow entitled Kilpatricks, Rutherglen and Eastwood; and that we had added Bishopbriggs to the Strathkelvin district. The other place has not disagreed with the principle of what we have done, in reducing the size of the Glasgow district; but it has proposed a different way of arranging the peripheral areas, a way which accords with what we should have proposed in this place but for the procedural problems following our earlier decision.
May I just set out the differences proposed in the other place? First of all, there is Kilpatricks. In the form we sent to the other place this district comprises Clydebank, Bearsden and Milngavie. There was an Amendment here in the names of my noble friends Lord Selkirk and Lord Balerno to form one district for Clydebank and a separate one for Bears-den and Milngavie. As it turned out,
752
that Amendment was not moved, but that is precisely what the other place has in fact proposed. They accept that the area should not form part of Glasgow but they do not think there is enough cohesion between Clydebank on the one hand and Bearsden and Milngavie on the other to warrant a single district. The two districts they propose would have populations of 59,000 and 36,000 respectively, the latter perhaps on the low side but by no means the lowest in the area. This is the solution which is favoured by the Government and I commend it to your Lordships. When we come to Strathkelvin, what was proposed previously by us was to add Bishopbriggs to the Strathkelvin district. The view taken by the other place is that this would result in an unwieldy district with three distinct centres within it. They have suggested dividing it into two with Bishopbriggs and Kirkintilloch forming one district with a population of about 77,000, and Cumbernauld another with a population of about 50,000. This was at one time to have been moved by the same noble Lords here, but for the same reasons I have already mentioned it was not moved. Again I commend it to your Lordships. Then there was Eastwood. The other place has accepted without change our proposal for a separate Eastwood district.
Finally there is Rutherglen. This is the one point on which there is substantial difference between the two Houses and on which I understand my noble friend Lord Selkirk has put down a manuscript Amendment. Again for procedural reasons, Rutherglen was never fully discussed in this place. At the Committee stage there was an Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Selkirk but it related to Cambuslang but not Rutherglen. The matter was discussed but it was not pressed. At Report stage it was not discussed for these procedural reasons. The view taken in the other place is that, while some of the considerations applying in other peripheral areas were present in Rutherglen and Cambuslang, they were not nearly so strong, while the links with Glasgow were greater. The centre of Rutherglen is almost a stone's throw from the city centre; the distance from the town hall of Rutherglen to the City Chambers in Glasgow, I understand, is 2½ miles. Its built-up area is continuous

753
with Glasgow along a large amount of its boundary. If I could put it another way, the other areas which we decided to detach are, as it were, peninsulas united to Glasgow by an isthmus of built-up area.
With Rutherglen the position is totally different; it represents a salient into virtually the heart of the city. To remove Rutherglen along with Cambuslang would be to take a large bite out of the apple of Glasgow as a whole. There are particularly close links in the number of population travelling to work between the two centres and in many other ways, and for these reasons the other place concluded, on the Government's advice, that Rutherglen should be treated differently. I know that some of your Lordships may not find this argument easy to accept, but I submit that we are now dealing with a very narrow area of possible disagreement, and I hope that your Lordships will decide not to press this matter further.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Polwarth.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for retaining the name "Hamilton" in the district concerned. I will reserve my remarks with regard to Rutherglen for an Amendment which comes in a minute.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT TO WORDS RESTORED TO THE BILL
[No. 7]
The Commons proposed the following Amendment to the words so restored to the Bill:
Page 152, column 3, leave out lines 16 to 20.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7 to the words restored to the Bill. This Amendment hangs with the others which I have just moved.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment to the words restored to the Bill.— (Lord Polwarth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
3.32 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRKhad given Notice of two Amendments, Nos. 7A and 11A, to the words so restored to the Bill:
[No. 7A]
Page 152, line 21, column 3, leave out from ("Lanark") to ("in") in line 29.
[No. 11 A]
As an Amendment to Commons Amendment numbered 11 to the words restored to the Bill, at end insert—

("Rutherglen

In the county of Lanark—the burgh of Rutherglen; in the Eighth district, the electoral divisions of Bankhead, Cambuslang Central, Cambuslang North, Hallside, Rutherglen, and those parts of Cambuslang South and Carmunnock electoral divisions lying out-with the designated area of East Kilbride New Town.")

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I know that the House does not like Amendments on Commons Amendments to the Lords and I apologise for rising, but there is a duty on Parliament to seek to remedy grievances, and that is what I am trying to do to-day. I particularly apologise for this being a Manuscript Amendment. I in fact put it in yesterday but, owing to certain procedural difficulty, there appeared to be some doubt as to the part of this somewhat complicated document where these words should be placed.
The Government have now put their plan before us, and the plan is this: that there is a district called Glasgow; around that district there are, as the noble Lord has said, certain peripheral districts. Of all those districts around Glasgow, there really is no question that the one which is best fitted to fulfil the role of a district is Rutherglen and Cambuslang. This was not questioned by Members from Glasgow in discussions which took place earlier this week. They admitted that. And there is no question of the depth of feeling, which indeed the Minister referred to in the other place when he was talking. It is, in the words of the House of Commons, a community pattern as distinct as any in that part of Scotland. It has, moreover, a larger population than Eastwood, Clydebank, Milngavie, Bearsden or Bishopbriggs and Strathkelvin. It has a higher rateable value; it has a more balanced economy, and, I think I can say, a stronger economy even than Clydebank. It is its own community centre and something like the

755
equivalent numerically of 45 per cent. of the inhabitants are employed in that area. I agree with the noble Lord that there is a great deal of coming and going between Rutherglen and Glasgow. They go both ways. They come from as far as East Kilbride. Bothwell and the whole area. There is no doubt that this takes place. But the boundaries are distinct: the Clyde, the designated area, and Glasgow on one side.
The really important point is that in a communication which some of them had with Glasgow they said that Rutherglen was no use to them; they did not particularly want Rutherglen, and the same views were expressed by the Glasgow Herald, which throughout has supported what I would describe quite generally as the Glasgow point of view. This presents a very strong case. I do not want to emphasise the fact unduly that Rutherglen is in fact the oldest burgh in Scotland; that it has been responsible for the government of that area, not ten times as long as the Scottish Office have been in Scotland but twenty times as long as the Scottish Office have been there at all. For 300 years it has had a form of democratic constitution. It has had university education for slightly shorter than that period. More recently it has been a pioneer in health service, particularly in the provision of geriatric hospitals. I would add, too, that its housing position is such that they believe that no substandard houses will exist within two or three years. All this is quite a considerable achievement.
I feel it sad that the Wheatley Commission never visited Rutherglen, and so far as the people in Rutherglen are concerned they are not aware that the Secretary of State has ever been there. He has not received a delegation either individually or collectively from the people of Rutherglen. I can only repeat that I think this is very sad, and I would add that in the communication I have had with the Scottish Office their geographic description was inaccurate. I wonder, therefore, whether this matter has really received the close attention which it should receive.
It may be old-fashioned nowadays to refer to the Wheatley Commission, but this area of some 60,000 souls falls well within the limits set by Wheatley for a
756
district, and it is quite distinct as such, The Wheatley Report continues, on page 195, to say, when referring to the enlargement of city boundaries:
"only so far as those parts would be better served and more effectively administered."
No attempt has been made to indicate that that in fact would be the case here. We know that the Rutherglen housing is better than Glasgow's, and we know that if you are a councillor of the whole area you would inevitably give priority to Glasgow's housing because it is a bigger problem. It is a worse problem. I do not want to blame Glasgow for this. They have an enormous task and anyone who has been to Glasgow realises with what resolution, with what determination, and on what a large scale their redevelopment schemes are taking place. But the fact is that they would inevitably place the housing problems of Rutherglen subordinate to those which exist in Glasgow. That is one of the reasons why I consider that this district would be very much better served if it were on its own.
The Minister in the other place has said that it is doubtful what we should do with Rutherglen. He has expressed uncertainty as to what should be there and he has used two arguments, one of which was referred to earlier to-day by the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth. He said that it was too near Glasgow. Obviously, boundaries are near each other. But the fact is that there are just about six miles as the crow flies between the centre of this district and the centre of Glasgow. If one takes the lines from George Square to the centre of Cambuslang, which is about the centre of the district, it is just about six miles. I ask the Government: is that too little? Do they think that is too small a distance between districts? If they do, perhaps they might look at Motherwell and Monkswell and see how far they are apart. Or Hamilton and Motherwell—that is nothing like six miles—or, again, Hamilton and East Kilbride. Are all these districts to be amalgamated because they are too close together? This district is just as distinctively a district from Glasgow as any of these other districts are from each other.
A second point raised in another place was that there are 300 buses which go through Rutherglen into Glasgow. This

757
is no doubt perfectly true, but the whole of northern industrial Lanarkshire goes through Rutherglen in order to get to Glasgow, and many of the buses are quite full before they get there. In any case, this is irrelevant, because transport has nothing to do with districts; it is entirely a regional matter. It is for the regions to look at this matter. The whole of the tasks of the districts are local. They may be described broadly as housing, local planning, environmental services and perhaps consumer protection services. They are all matters that can he conducted on quite a small scale and do not need a very large environment.
I think that Rutherglen has been unfairly treated and I really am disturbed that this should be. As some of your Lordships may have seen, they have a Charter which says that they will be in charge of this area for ever. Of course, "for ever" is a term nobody should use. But it was used in the most solemn form that existed at that time. I do not think it has been wholly (shall I say?) out of place for the Scottish Office to draw attention to the fact that this Act was necessary, for the well-being of Scotland, to.abrogate that and possibly even to thank them for what they have done, because the most important words to come out of the Wheatley Report are: "Is local government worth while?" This is the most important pattern that should be the judge of whether this Bill is good or not. Does it or does it not make the local government of Scotland worth while? I contend that the removal of this self-running district, which has been there for some 800 years, makes local government, certainly in that area, very much less worth while.
Your Lordships may ask why I should be interested in this. I have known the area off and on for fifty years. It had a rough time in the latter part of the 19th century with grime and squalor, and I have seen it evolve and improve. To-day it is really getting its nose above water and I can foresee the time when that graceful way of living, which no doubt took place in Rutherglen in earlier times, will he restored. I believe they will have a much better chance of achieving that if they are working alone. I believe that the present arrangement is reducing
758
the sense of civic responsibility which has been very fully exercised there. I ask again—is this making local government more worth while? It is because I do not think it is that I beg to move this Motion.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, the Question is, That this House doth disagree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 to the words restored to the Bill, but proposes manuscript Amendments Nos. 7A and 11A in lieu thereof. The manuscript Amendments read as follows:
Amendment No. 7A: Page 152, line 21, column 3, leave out from ("Lanark") to ("in") in line 29.
Amendment No. 11A. As an Amendment to Commons Amendment No. 11 to the words restored to the Bill. At end insert—("Rutherglen…in the county of Lanark—the burgh of Rutherglen; in the Eighth district, the electoral divisions of Bankhead, Cambuslang Central, Cambuslang North, Hallside, Rutherglen, and those parts of Cambuslang South and Carmunnock electoral divisions lying outwith the designated areas of East Kilbride New Town.").

THE MIDDLE EAST: ARAB/ISRAELI CONFLICT
3.43 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to repeat a Statement being made in the other place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on the Middle East. The Statement is as follows:
"I warned the House on the 22nd of October that we should not become too euphoric about the prospects for peace in the Middle East and that there were many difficulties ahead. The fragile cease-fire although reinforced by a second Security Council resolution has repeatedly broken down, mainly in the Suez area. My most recent information is that no fighting is in progress at present. The Security Council met again last night following a broadcast appeal by President Sadat

759
for Soviet and United States intervention. But this proposal was not pressed in the Council.
"There are already a few United Nations observers in the battlefield area, What we believe is needed now is the immediate despatch of substantial numbers of additional United Nations Truce Supervisors to the sensitive area, in whatever numbers the United Nations Commander considers necessary. I understand that the Secretary-General has the necessary personnel on call. They could be sent to the battlefield within hours. We have been pressing for this from the start.
"A draft resolution tabled by the non-aligned group in the Security Council provides for this and we shall support it.
"It also provides for the establishment of a United Nations Emergency Force. I have always said that some such action would be needed and that we would participate if required to do so. That pledge stands. We favour immediate planning by the Secretary-General as also envisaged in the nonaligned draft. Before coming to any final decisions we must be quite clear on what the mandate of such a force would be—what precisely it would be expected to do, and where it could be deployed. There is a great difference between truce supervision which is done by groups of unarmed observers and the guaranteeing of demilitarised zones. The latter is the kind of task which we have envisaged for a United Nations force. We shall be in the closest consultation with the Secretary-General and members of the Security Council about the task, size, and composition of such a United Nations force.
"At the same time as all this is going on, it is imperative that the negotiations envisaged in the Security Council resolution of October 22 should start immediately. These negotiations should be used not only to make progress towards a settlement of the main Arab/Israel dispute but also to deal with the immediate situations of greatest danger to the ceasefire and thus to the whole prospect of peace.
760
"Honourable Members will have been concerned to see reports that the Soviet Union may be considering moving their own troops into the Middle East area and that American forces have been put on an increased state of alert. The American Secretary of State, Dr. Kissinger, will be giving a Press conference a little later this afternoon and honourable Members will understand that I should not anticipate what he will be saying then.
"As regards Russian intentions, we have no confirmation of these reports, but I have instructed our Ambassador in Moscow to seek clarification at a high level. This latest news of an increased state of tension can however only underline what I have just said about the urgent need for the negotiating process to start between the parties."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the whole House will be grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating that Statement and I think will wish to support the line the Government are taking in it, especially as regards supporting the neutral's resolution in the Security Council. Can the Government tell us whether, as well as being prepared to contribute our share of men to any force which we may be called upon to contribute, we are in a position to give financial and logistic support behind that, if it is going to be useful?
I think the House will mostly agree with the implication in the Statement that the Government believe that the proposed joint United States-Soviet force is not a good idea, if only because China will quite certainly veto such a thing in the Security Council and then, whatever else it might be, it would not be a United Nations force.
On the question of the American strategic alert, we appreciate what the Statement says about not anticipating Secretary Kissinger's remarks later today, but are the Government in a position to tell us whether they have received any advance communication about it from the Americans?

761
Lastly, although it is difficult to think about such a thing in the dust and the heat of this day, are the Government still bearing in mind the paramount necessity of bringing out of this disaster a permanent embargo on arms imports of all sorts and from any quarter into the Middle East, to prevent the outbreak of a fifth Middle East war?
3.49 p.m.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Baroness one question, but before doing so I should like sincerely to apologise to her, and indeed to the House, for having, as I see she said, "fled the House" yesterday just before the end of her second Statement on the activities of the Council of Ministers in Strasbourg. That was for personal reasons which I can explain to her, if necessary, and I apologise most sincerely to the House, and indeed to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, who I see referred to it later.
To come to my question, as I understand it, the Security Council, in making its recent proposals (two, I think) for a cease-fire was acting under Chapter VI of the Charter, enabling pacific settlement of dispute and presumably under Article 37, which says:
"If the Security Council deems that the continuance of the dispute is in fact likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, it shall decide whether to take action under Article 36 or to recommend such terms of settlement as it may consider appropriate."
I assume this is what it has been doing, recommending appropriate terms of settlement, and suggesting there should be a cease-fire and, subsequently, negotiations based on the application of Resolution 242 of 1967. On the other hand, if they are now proceeding to recommend, or indeed to try to organise, what is called, I think, a peace enforcement task (I cannot remember the precise phrase) the next stage is the establishment of a United Nations emergency force, with which the noble Baroness agreed. This would be quite different from the truce observance organisation which would not be armed; I imagine that an emergency force would be armed, as it is in Cyprus at the moment. If that is so, could that be done under Article 37 which is concerned with the specific settlement of disputes, or would
762
it have to be done under Chapter VII which starts off by saying,
"The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace …aggression…",
and so on, and thereafter, if that is ignored, proceed to other measures. Is it therefore possible that the emergency powers could be organised or recommended under Chapter VI, or must they come under Chapter VII?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, first of all I would thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for saying that he supported the Government in the general tenor of this Statement. He asked whether we shall be prepared, quite apart from giving a contribution to the United Nations emergency force, to provide also financial and logistic support. This will be one of the matters which will have to be decided because, as is made quite clear in the Statement, we shall have to consult the Secretary-General and our fellow members in the Security Council about the task, size and composition of the force, and therefore, of course, what it would need in the way of financial resources or logistic support.
The noble Lord then asked about the Soviet-American forces. Naturally we would rather there was a United Nations umbrella over the search for a peaceful settlement and a ceasefire in the Middle East. So far as the alert is concerned, we were informed of what was taking place so far as our American ally is concerned. With regard to the permanent embargo, I think it is too soon to consider anything of that nature. What is really necessary is that we should keep the present very fragile ceasefire and then go on immediately to the first stages of negotiation.
My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, for his handsome apology both to myself and to the House as a whole. We just had to tease him a little when he said something and then did indeed flee from us. The noble Lord asked about Chapter VI of the Charter. It is of course quite true that the first two resolutions have been under Chapter VI of the Charter, the pacific settlement of disputes but the non-aligned security resolution, the draft resolution which is to be voted upon later tonight I understand, calls for the setting up immediately of, among many other things, a United

763
Nations emergency force under its authority, and requests the Secretary-General to report within 24 hours on the steps taken to this effect. I understand that it is perfectly possible to have a resolution of this nature which does not say specifically that this matter comes under a Chapter VII resolution, but depends on the consensus voting of the members of the Security Council.
LORD MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, we admire what the Government, the Security Council and especially the two Great Powers, America and the Soviet Union, have been doing to achieve peace in the Middle East, and hope that no misunderstanding between the two Great Powers can jeopardise this very precious move of the Security Council. But may I ask the noble Baroness whether she is aware that under the Third Geneva Convention both combatants are obliged to give detailed information on the prisoners of war they have taken? Israel has so far scrupulously observed the Convention, but Egypt has not. Those of us who are friends of both Egypt and Israel would hope that Egypt would obey the Geneva Convention as one step towards bringing peace to these two nations.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I am sure it will be the sense of the House that there should he an exchange of prisoners of war at the earliest possible moment. As I understand it, Israel insists on an exchange of prisoners of war, but she has not made this a pre-condition of any negotiations for settlement. I understand that there are still a number of qualified pilots held captive in Egypt from the 1967 war.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I think the whole House will appreciate the grave implications of the Statement the noble Baroness has made, which seems to indicate that the tension now is not so much between the Arab countries and Israel as in possible differences between the Soviet Union and the United States of America, the Soviet Union being prepared to send forces, the United States of America not prepared to send forces. In view of the fact that last night in the Security Council the nations which are not concerned with either of the two great power blocs made the proposal that there should be a United Nations
764
peace-keeping force of unaligned nations, may I ask the noble Baroness whether Her Majesty's Government will give the strongest support to that proposal, first as a means of preventing the outbreak of any renewed war and, secondly, as a means of moving towards peace?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, naturally every noble Lord must be concerned about the possible grave implications of what is without doubt an increased state of tension in the Middle East. On the other hand, we have to remember it was the Soviet Union and the United States who together drafted the first resolution which was in fact passed unanimously by the Security Council, except that China did not take part. The draft resolution which is to be voted on tonight does not in fact say that any emergency force should be composed only of those who are non-aligned. It is put forward and drafted by those who are non-aligned and who themselves ask for a United Nations emergency force and an increase in the number of United Nations truce observers. Of course, as my right honourable friend has said, it is very important that discussions should start immediately on what is meant by a "United Nations emergency force" but we shall support it by our vote.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, may I first thank the noble Baroness for having made reference to Clause 2 of the original arrangement for a cease-fire—it was accepted by both sides—which requires tile parties to come together? And in that respect may I urge her to do all she possibly can to see that that be done as speedily as possible, because it is the view of many of us that that is the quickest, indeed the only, way of settling the differences between the parties concerned. Following up the question put by my noble friend Lord Maybray-King, may I also ask the noble Baroness whether she is aware that the breaches of the Geneva Convention have been very great? For example, the Red Cross has not been allowed to visit the prisoners or the wounded. Israel has done everything that the Convention requires. Is the noble Baroness also aware that very few names have been given by Egypt, and none by Syria of the prisoners taken by them, and that one important anxiety of people, whether in Israel or anywhere

765
else, is obviously about their families and friends in respect of those who have been killed or wounded or who are kept in captivity? I wonder whether the noble Baroness would be good enough to press that issue as quickly as she can, particularly on humanitarian grounds, apart from any others?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR or BELHELVIE: My Lords, on the first point, of course, before the main parties to the dispute can come together, it is absolutely essential to keep the present ceasefire in being. We are trying by every means to see that this is ensured. That is why we support this Resolution, which calls for an immediate increase in the number of truce observers; that is before we get down to the question of the emergency force. On the question of prisoners of war, we shall certainly do all that is in our power. We very much hope, on humanitarian grounds, that an exchange of prisoners can be arranged at the earliest possible moment.
LORD B00THBY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether her attention has been drawn to a news flash which has appeared on the tape, that the United States of America have been brought to a state of full atomic alert, not only there but in Europe, by order of the President? I should like to ask the noble Baroness whether Her Majesty's Government were consulted about this before hand and whether she has any comment to make? If she says that she would prefer to wait for Dr. Kissinger, I shall more than understand. But it is a matter of some slight importance, because it could mean that within 24 hours we shall all be dead.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I need hardly say that we have heard reports of this matter, and it of course gives cause for very great concern. But the noble Lord has given me the answer that I shall give to him, namely, that I suggest to the House that we should wait for Dr. Kissinger.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, with regard to this matter of a proposed British contribution to a United Nations peacekeeping force, does the noble Baroness understand that everybody recognises and appreciates the good intentions of Her
766
Majesty's Government, but has she taken note of the speech, delivered, I think, yesterday, by the Israeli Foreign Minister, in which he condemned the British Government's recent refusal to provide spare parts and other equipment to the Israeli Government? In those circumstances, is she satisfied that if a United Nations peace-keeping force is created the Israeli Government will accept a British contribution?
BARONESS TWEEDS MUIR BELHELVIE: My Lords, certainly we read with great care Mr. Eban's speech on British policy; but my right honourable friend and the Government do not accept the criticism contained in it. We feel that often things are said in the heat of the moment which will perhaps be modified when the situation is calmer. We have in fact been doing a great deal in our efforts to obtain peace, and we intend to go on doing so. The fact that we stopped supplying arms to both sides has put us in an independent position which I think may be of some use in the days to come. I am sorry—what was the second question'?
LORD SHINWELL: Of course, rejecting the noble Baroness's suggestion about the action of Her Majesty's Government, I wanted to know whether, in the circumstances, the Israeli Government will accept a British contribution to a United Nations peace-keeping force.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I am so sorry; I was concentrating on Mr. Eban's speech. I said in the debate we had last week that it is very important, when we come to the question, for example, of guaranteeing demilitarised zones, that it should be done by a Resolution of the Security Council, which would be mandatory. That would mean that members of the force would be sent there on the authority of the Security Council, unlike the United Nations force which was sent there through a General Assembly Resolution which was merely a recommendation. Therefore, that force could not be removed by the request of the parties concerned, but only by the authority of the Security Council.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, can the noble Baroness inform the House whether there has been any comment or observation from the participants in the

767
Middle East war as to the reception of a United Nations peace-keeping force?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR BELHELVIE: My Lords, I think what matters at the moment is whether there is going to be a truce that can be kept. I think everybody's attention is set on that.
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: My Lords, my noble friend referred to the early exchange of prisoners. While that is desirable, it is hardly likely to happen in the next few days. Has her attention been drawn to the Press statement that there are about 25,000 Egyptian prisoners in the Suez area? Could not this country play a part, with other nations, in getting supplies to these prisoners, either by means of an air lift, or by actually providing the food?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF, BELHELVIE: My Lords, I will certainly take into account the suggestion of my noble friend.
4.7 p.m.
LORD CARADON: My Lords, would the noble Baroness not agree that, while we are all, naturally, mainly preoccupied with the military situation, the maintenance of the cease-fire and the other very serious news which has recently been brought to our attention, is it not necessary, perhaps more than anything else, to proceed without delay to work out the methods of progress towards a lasting peace? I ask the noble Baroness whether she agrees—and T think the end of her speech indicates that she does—how all-important it is to establish the form of the peace conference which is to take place under the appropriate auspices, as the Resolution of the Security Council said. Is not that the most important thing of all? I think she would agree that once the processes of working out a lasting settlement are put in motion—and it must take a long time—that will be the greatest contribution to the maintenance of peace, both in the area and internationally, on a wider basis. Therefore, I hope that despite the preoccupation we have at this time with the immediate dangers, she would agree that we should proceed immediately to work out and put into effect the full proposals for a
768
peace conference directed to the establishment of a lasting peace.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, that is why we voted for the new Resolution 338 in the Security Council: it calls for the immediate implementation of Resolution 242 in full while negotiations are going on; in other words, it should run concurrently with the negotiations and not be delayed until negotiations are completed, We feel that there is more chance of success this time because this Resolution was put forward by the super-Powers and not reluctantly acquiesced in, as was the case in 1967.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, would the noble Baroness please see to it that what is contained in Clause 2 of the proposals shall be put into effect at once? Does she not realise that interpretations which were not correct. or not accepted by one side or the other, were to a very considerable extent the cause of the war breaking out again? One particular statement, the Harrogate speech, I am sorry to say, helped very considerably towards the war breaking out. Does she not think, as has often been said in this House, that the important thing is to bring the two parties together, as is proposed and is accepted in the Resolution?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I certainly think that it is most important to get the two parties together. Whether they will meet together on their own at first remains to be seen; they might have to be helped on the way. I am sorry the noble Lord disagreed with some of the Harrogate speech. If I may quote two things from it, my right honourable friend said:
"One must accept the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area could live in security."
That was the background to Resolution 242.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, is not the implication from that that our Government was suggesting that the Israelis should go back to boundaries which could not possibly be protected? Where would they have been if that suggestion had been accepted and the Arabs had broken out in the way they did to attack Israel?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR or BELHELVIE: My Lords, the famous resolution in fact said:
"the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict".
The noble Lord will know as well as anybody else in the House that there is a certain ambiguity in that resolution, but the fact remains that it is the only resolution to which both Arab and Israeli subscribed, and that is its importance.
LORD BOURNE: My Lords, is the noble Baroness able to say which of the non-aligned countries of the Security Council are putting the resolution to the Security Council to-night, and whether they are the same countries as would take part or provide contingents in the United Nations emergency force?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I regret to say that I cannot do that without notice. I have only the terms of the resolution and not the signatories to it, but I will write to the noble Lord.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, is the noble Baroness still able to confirm the statement of ten minutes ago that in the Suez area no fighting is in progress at present? Can she say what is the justification for any Russian intervention?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHIELVIE: My Lords, as the Statement said, last night in a broadcast President Sadat in fact asked for both Soviet the United States intervention, although this was not pressed in the Council. As I say, we have no confirmed reports of exactly what is happening, and I think we should wait until we get them confirmed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL
4.12 p.m.
Consideration of Commons Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments and Commons Amendments to words restored to the Bill resumed.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, the noble Earl invariably addresses your Lordships' House with great knowledge and understanding and one is reluctant to contend with him, but I am bound to say he is difficult to follow. I do not know
770
whether he has ever lived in Glasgow, as I have over a long period of time, and I am well aware of the situation in Rutherglen. I find it difficult to reconcile his objection to the inclusion of Rutherglen in the Strathclyde area when it has now been decided.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I am not objecting to its being in the Strathclyde area. What I am saying is that Rutherglen should be a district in the Strathclyde area in the same way as Clydebank. That is all I am asking for. And with the very limited powers of a district.
LORD SHINWELL: What the noble Earl is asking is that Rutherglen should be separated from Glasgow in this connection, and I am bound to say I find it difficult to reconcile his suggestion with the decision that has already been reached this afternoon, despite some difference of opinion between your Lordships' House and another place, that places like Milngavie, Bearsden, Duntocher or Old Kilpatrick should be included in the Strathclyde area. In those particular instances they are several miles more remote from Glasgow than is Rutherglen. Old Kilpatrick I think is about 10 miles from the centre of Glasgow, whereas Rutherglen is just on the doorstep. A tram ride between Rutherglen and the centre of Glasgow costs hardly anything. I am well aware that Rutherglen fancies itself. It is a Royal burgh and has a charter. The mere fact that it has a charter which goes back some 300 years is no reason why it should not accept some modernisation. This is all that is required. The Rutherglen people feel that they can administer their own affairs; in fact they have administered their own affairs very successfully over the years, but largely because of their association with the city and the Corporation of Glasgow. For example. I do not know whether the noble Earl is aware that much of the housing and industrial development in Rutherglen is attributable to the general development associated with Glasgow itself.
I do not want to occupy the time of the House in this matter, but I think we ought to agree with what the Government has suggested in your Lordships' House. Rutherglen will just have to provide some of its very able people associated with local government in bygone years in the

771
administration of the more extended area, and I think on the whole that would be satisfactory, if not to the local councillors of Rutherglen then to the people of Rutherglen.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I think we must all admire the spirited case which the noble Earl made in support of maintaining independence for Rutherglen and Cambuslang, and particularly for the oldest of Scottish burghs, "Ruglen", as it is so called and pronounced, as the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, knows well. I think however, with great respect, that the noble Earl, trained as he was in perhaps the finest school of advocacy there is, the Scottish Bar, treated us to a rather special piece of pleading on behalf of this one territory. I find it difficult to better the words of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, who has just spoken with what even the noble Earl must admit is even longer experience of Glasgow than his own. Of course there are many things one can say on the geographical front, if one takes particular aspects. One can take the centre of the district as the noble Earl took it; one can take the picture as the map shows it. I think a look at the map will convince anyone that we are taking a great bite out of the centre of the proposed Glasgow district if we are to remove these burghs.
On transport, I do not disagree with the noble Earl. Of course transport is a matter for the region, but that was not the point of argument; it was that the extent and number and closeness of the transport services between this area and the centre of Glasgow clearly indicated the close community of interest and intermingled pattern of life between the inhabitants of the two. The greatest part of the noble Earl's case was on the depth of feeling, on the tradition that Rutherglen is an ancient burgh, our most ancient one; that it has managed its affairs well, which none of us contests; that it is flourishing—and that none of us contests either. But, equally, that argument could be applied to a great many other burghs throughout Scotland, many of them having accepted readily that they must lose their identity as local government entities in order to go in alongside other authorities to form a sensible and viable district.
772
I suggest to your Lordships that the noble Earl's arguments are not arguments for the one case before us. They are arguments for a totally different pattern of principles regarding the form of local government in Scotland, and to put that forward at this stage is tantamount to saying that we should be following different principles from those which we agreed when we gave a Second Reading to this Bill. Therefore, my Lords, while having the greatest respect for the sincerity of the appeal made to your Lordships by the noble Earl, I must ask your Lordships, particularly having regard to the views expressed in another place, both in the Scottish Standing Committee at an earlier stage and earlier this week, not to accept this Amendment.
4.20 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, whose absence we all profoundly regret, that it is not a question of separating Rutherglen from Glasgow; it is a question of joining Rutherglen to Glasgow, where it has never been before and for advantages which have never yet been expounded. It is not a question of modernisation because modernisation is going ahead just as much in Rutherglen as in Glasgow.
I must challenge the noble Lord to say whether in the whole of Scotland there is one burgh of 60,000 people which is not a district? Is there one Royal Burgh which is not? I say this off the cuff, and I have not the answer; but I should be extremely surprised' if I were to find one. There has never been any question that this was a perfectly viable burgh. I will wait for the answer to this question, but I am not going to press this Amendment to-day as I have not received any support; and I shall be content, if it is the wish of the House, to allow it to be negatived. Perhaps the noble Lord would like to tell me if there is one burgh which he thinks is remotely comparable, in rateable value, population, or in designated area, to Rutherglen. I give him the opportunity to answer if he wishes to take it.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I think that we could enter into a long

773
battle of statistics. The burgh of Rutherglen (the noble Earl mentioned the Royal Burgh of Rutherglen) has a population not of 60,000 but 25,000, which is roughly the same as Renfrew. When we are dealing in the context of the Glasgow district, with its vast concentration of population, I would submit that the figure of population for a part of what is a really contiguous area is not relevant to the argument.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, the simple answer to the question is that I am right and he is not. Renfrew is part of the district of Paisley, which is exactly what I want Rutherglen to be. There is no comparable proposition anywhere in Scotland that has not been given district status. The Scottish Office have made a grave mistake, and they have been very unfair to Rutherglen, but I will not press the Amendment to a Division.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 8–16.]
The Commons proposed the following Amendments to the words so restored to the Bill:
Page 152, line 21, column 3, leave out ("burghs") and insert ("burgh").
Page 152, line 22, column 3, leave out ("Bishopbriggs.").
Page 152, column 3, leave out lines 33 to 35.
The Commons proposed the following Amendments to the words so restored to the Bill:
Page 152, column 3, leave out ("Bishopbriggs.")

("Clydebank

In the county of Dunbarton—the burgh of Clydebank; the district of Old Kilpatrick (except the electoral divisions of Bowling, Dunbarton, and that part of the electoral division of Hardgate lying within the parish of New Kilpatrick).

Bearsden and Milngavie

In the county of Dunbarton— the burghs of Bearsden, Milngavie; that part of the electoral division of Hardgate lying within the parish of New Kilpatrick.

Bishopbriggs and Kirkintilloch

In the county of Dunbarton—the burgh of Kirkintilloch; those parts of the electoral divisions of Twechar and Waterside lying outwith the designated area of Cumbernauld New Town.

In the county of Lanark—the burgh of Bishopbriggs; the electoral divisions of Chryston, Stepps.

In the county of Stirling—the Western No. 3 district.

Cumbernauld

In the county of Dunbarton—burgh of Cumbernauld; the electoral division of Croy and Dullatur and those parts of the electoral divisions of Twechar and Waterside lying within the designated area of Cumbernauld New Town.

In the county of Stirling—the burgh of Kilsyth; the electoral division of Kilsyth West; the polling district of Kilsyth East (Banton).")

Page 153, line 10, column 2, leave out ("Cadzow") and insert ("Hamilton").
Page 153, line 10, column 3, leave out lines 29 and 30.
Page 153, line 30, columns 2 and 3, at end insert—

("Eastwood

In the county of Renfrew—the First district.")

Page 154, line 13, column 3, at end insert ("that part of the parish of Ayr within the district of Dalmellington; the polling district of Coylton").
Page 154, line 16, column 3, at end insert ("(except that part of the parish of Ayr within tins district; the polling district of Coylton)").
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 8 to 16 to the words restored to the Bill.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Polwarth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[No. 17]
Clause 56, page 32, leave out lines 6 to 23 and insert—
("(11) In accordance with such directions as the Secretary of State may give, the regional councils of Greater Glasgow, Lanarkshire, Argyll and Clyde and Ayrshire and Arran, shall combine or have joint consultations in

775
regard to the discharge of any of their functions.")
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment but proposed the following Amendment to the words so restored to the Bill:
[No. 18]
Page 32, line 11, leave out ("1971") and insert ("1973").
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 17, and agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. IS to the words restored to the Bill. This is a matter of updating a date in the Bill.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 17, and that this House doth agree with the Commons in their said Amendment No. 18.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[No. 19]
Clause 147, page 88, line 23, at end insert—
("That part of the former County of Kin cardine which lies within both the Grampian Region and the region of the East of Scotland Water Board. Tayside.")
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
[No. 20]
Because the Amendment would conflict with the principle that wherever practicable the same authority should be responsible for all major infrastructure services in any particular area.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist in their Amendment No. 19 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason given. This relates to an Amendment to which your Lordships had agreed that part of Kincardine within the area of the Grampian region and the East of Scotland Water Board be treated as an added area to Tayside for the purposes of water supply. It was accepted by my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn on the understanding that it was solely to give the other place an opportunity to reconsider their previous view. They have, however, decided that they adhere to their previous view.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Polwarth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LEGAL ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE (SCOTLAND) (FINANCIAL CONDITIONS) (No. 2) REGULATIONS 1973
4.26 p.m.
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH rose to move. That the Legal Advice and Assistance (Scotland) (Financial Conditions) (No. 2) Regulations 1973, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not think I need detain your Lordships long. These regulations follow those concerning England and Wales moved by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor yesterday and agreed to by your Lordships. They bring the financial limits in respect of legal aid and legal advice and assistance in line with those agreed by your Lordships in respect of England. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Legal Advice and Assistance (Scotland) (Financial Conditions) (No. 2) Regulations 1973, be approved.—(Lord Polwarth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LEGAL AID (SCOTLAND) (FINANCIAL CONDITIONS) REGULATIONS 1973
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I beg to move that the second set of Regulations be approved.
Moved, That the Legal Aid (Scotland) (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1973, be approved.—(Lord Polwarth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' CONFERENCE
4.27 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY LORD BROCKWAY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government: What conclusions were reached at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference at Ottawa? The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to begin by expressing some appreciation to the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, for her cooperation in enabling this matter to be discussed this afternoon. It was extraordinarily sympathetic on her part. She has had a week of Questions and Statements and interrogations nearly every day. Many of us in all parts of the House appreciate not merely the courtesy with which she answers, but the quite

777
extraordinary knowledge and efficiency with which she covers so vast an area. I regret that, after the burdens of this week, I have imposed upon her the duty of taking responsibility for answering this Question this afternoon.
However, I make no apology whatsoever for raising this Question. The Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference met in Ottawa during the Recess. It represented the Heads of State of 32 countries in the Commonwealth. It meets only every two years, and the importance of its discussions, not merely in relations between Commonwealth countries and this country but in their contribution to the affairs of the world, can hardly be exaggerated. I put down a Question on this matter on the first day the House met after the Recess. I withdrew it because it was indicated to me that a Statement on the Commonwealth would be made on the succeeding day, and also that the noble Lord, Lord Alport, had put down an Unstarred Question for debate. Therefore, while I apologise to the noble Baroness, I make no apology at all for raising this issue before the House rises. It is one of tremendous importance, and I think it would have been a little undignified if the House had ended this Session without some discussion of the conclusions reached at the Conference.
My Lords, I want to express some disappointment at the attention paid by the public media to the Conference in Ottawa. The reports in the Press, even in our so-called "high-brow" newspapers, gave no impression at all of what was discussed there. I make this criticism not only of the attitude of our Press towards the Ottawa Commonwealth Conference but also of their attitude to the succeeding Conference of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in this country. Representatives of all the 32 Commonwealth countries came to London, and important speeches were made by Foreign Ministers and others representing the Commonwealth; yet there was hardly any reflection of that in our newspapers at all. This indicates what I regard as a very distressing development in the approach of the public media, and even of Parliament, to Commonwealth affairs.
I acknowledge at once that I have had the greatest difficulty in discovering
778
what happened at the Commonwealth Conference. I have had to go to Canadian papers, I have had to have talks with the delegates to the Conference as they passed through London; I have had to rely on specialist journals—I pay a particular tribute to The Third World, published by the Fabian Society—in order to discover what happened. It is only by that kind of wide and detailed research that one has been able to know what occurred at the Commonwealth Conference at all. There was a valuable communiqué at the end of it, but, as is the case with all communiqués at such conferences, it did not indicate the issues or the controversies that were raised.
So far as the British Press was concerned, one would have imagined that the main effect of the Conference was to rehabilitate the image of the Prime Minister of this country. Nearly all the newspapers emphasised the fact that while Mr. Edward Heath, at the Singapore Conference two years ago, had come into strong confrontation with the other Commonwealth nations, on this occasion he had displayed more understanding and more tolerance. From all I have heard from the delegates who were there, I believe that to be true; and they welcomed it. But there is also the fact that there was much more tolerance on the part of the representatives of the Commonwealth countries themselves. I think that those of us who now have some knowledge of what happened at the Conference will agree that there was a real desire to reach a consensus of opinion.
My Lords, while that is true, the most extraordinary fact about the Commonwealth Conference was that there was an astonishing unity of purpose between nearly all the attending Commonwealth countries from outside the United Kingdom, including the old Dominions, and the Asian, the African and the Caribbean countries, but that while there was this unity on the one side, on many of the issues the British Prime Minister was in an isolated minority. He was against the views and the consensus of opinion of the Commonwealth countries.
This unity shown by the Commonwealth countries was largely due to the fact that we have had changes in the Governments of Australia and New

779
Zealand. They have now become Labour Governments, and for the first time they have identified Australia and New Zealand with the Commonwealth Governments in the Third World; and in addition, on many of these issues one has seen support from the Liberal regime in Canada. We are therefore now facing a new fact in the Commonwealth. It is the British Government who are isolated and in a minority against the views of the Commonwealth Governments as a whole. In thinking about the Commonwealth we should remember that, out of its 32 Governments, 28 are in the Third World.
I could take many issues to indicate this difference of opinion between Her Majesty's Government and the almost unanimous opinion of the other Commonwealth Governments, but I am going to take only four as an illustration. The first is the relationship between the Commonthwealth nations and the European Community. I am aware that discussions are now proceeding between the E.E.C. and the Commonwealth Governments. These discussions are mostly taking place regarding whether there should be preferences for the developing countries. as there have been with Britain in the past. My Lords, in a world of equality there could be equality in reciprocal trading arrangements, but in a world of inequality there can be an advance towards equality only when advantages are given to the less-developed countries. Britain, like all the old Colonial Empires. has an extraordinary responsibility in this matter.
Over the years, from the middle of the last century, under occupation we used the colonial territories primarily to obtain our foodstuffs and raw materials. The consequence is that those territories are left with unbalanced economies. I hope very much that in the discussions which are now taking place the British Government, despite their obligations in having joined the European Community, will support the claims of the Commonwealth countries. In the proceedings at Ottawa the unanimity of opinion on this issue was simply amazing; the old Dominions, Asia, Africa and the Caribbeans were all absolutely united. Her Majesty's Government will fail utterly to represent the interests of the Commonwealth countries unless at the E.E.C. they press very strongly their claims. The problem
780
applies particularly to sugar; the sugar-producing countries may be ruined under the present agricultural policy of the European Community. But it applies not only to them. One hope was raised- and I trust that the noble Baroness will give this some attention—when the Indian Foreign Minister, Mr. Swaran Singh, suggested that the Commonwealth countries should establish preferences between themselves. It will be a distressing turn of historical events if the rest o the Commonwealth were to make t; tiding agreements between themselves which excluded Britain. I hope that that situation will not arise.
My Lords, the second issue et the Commonwealth Conference to which I want to draw attention was the domination of the economies of the Common. wealth countries by the great multinational corporations. The multi-national corporations are now dominating the world; their revenues are greater than the revenues of individual Governments; they are becoming more powerful than Governments themselves; they are determining the lives of millions of people throughout the world. The vast economic power of these great international corporations exists in America, in this country, in Europe and in Japan. They are now becoming the real Governments of the whole of the world.
At the Commonwealth Conference, Mr. Gough Whitlam, the new Labour Prime Minister of Australia, argued that control of these corporations is essential to the preservation of the independence of the Commonwealth nations. He reported how in Australia 60 per cent. of the mining is controlled by these corporations; in Canada of how 60 per cent. of the oil is under their control. In the Caribbeans, in Africa and in Asia, not only the mining and the oil but even the retail trade is under their control. Our Prime Minister at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference dismissed the speech of. Mr. Whitlam as "economic nationalism". Does he suggest that resistance by Governments to external economic domination by a world-wide consortium is to be condemned as reactionary nationalism, while the domination of those Continents by the boards of a few hundred millionaire directors is healthy internationalism? The British Government should begin to

781
appreciate that Commonwealth Governments both within and outside the Third World are determined to resist this domination. They are themselves acquiring 51 per cent. of their industries so that they may resist. Very many of their countries are making their object the creation of Socialist societies which may be able to oppose this new exploitation by capitalist imperialism. But there is not only that. They are now seeking regional and international links to combat the influence of the financiers of Wall Street, of Zurich and of our own City of London who use these new corporations as their instruments of control. The Commonwealth countries are determined that their economies shall be controlled in the interests of their own peoples.
My Lords, the third issue which was raised at the Commonwealth Conference and to which I want to refer was the need to control nuclear testing. This was raised by Mr. Norman Kirk, tile Labour Prime Minister of New Zealand, whereupon our Prime Minister actually uttered the warning that France should not be condemned because of her tests in the Pacific lest France he prejudiced against the Commonwealth countries in 'their negotiations with the E.E.C. I regard it as appalling that commercial bargaining should be urged as a factor when this great human issue is at stake. Again, our Prime Minister was in a minority; the majority were determined to be heard.
My Lords, lastly I turn to the issue of Rhodesia. When this was raised in the Commonwealth Conference, there was absolute unanimity between the old Dominions, the African countries, the Asian countries and the Caribbean countries—extending even to Canada—as to how the problem should be faced. They proposed two items. The first was that a constitutional conference representative of all Rhodesian peoples should be held to determine the future of the country, and that independence should be recognised only when majority rule had been established. The second proposal was that a Commonwealth force should be sent to Rhodesia after a constitutional agreement had been reached in order to guarantee that it be implemented. The extraordinary thing during these discussions was not merely the unity of opinion but also the strength of the feeling: and
782
there are some indications in the communiqué that the British Prime Minister recognised this. He accepted the statement:
"The British Prime Minister welcomed the constructive suggestions made and undertook to take them into account as the situation developed."
My Lords, a vague phrase it may be, but the Commonwealth countries intend to see that it shall mean something. They demonstrated that they were in a deadly serious mood and not likely to accept quietly the ignoring of their views.
There was a feeling after the Singapore. Conference, two years ago, that little was done to implement the decision to appoint a committee to examine defence needs in the Indian Ocean and the suggestion that the Indian Ocean should be neutralised. Nothing was done. But something did happen at the Singapore Conference. The effect of the protest there made meant that Her Majesty's Government modified their intentions regarding the supply of arms to South Africa. I am now hoping that the Government will take notice of Commonwealth views, not only about Rhodesia but also about the other issues to which I have referred. My Lords, this was a British Commonwealth. It became a Commonwealth without British designation. If Britain does not seek to co-operate with the other members in their economic emergence, and in their political determination for human rights and peace, the Commonwealth could become a Commonwealth without Britain.
At the Singapore Conference a magnificent declaration of the purposes of the Commonwealth was adopted. It declared for personal rights; for the freedom of peoples; for racial equality; for the end of colonialism: for support for the United Nations, and peace. I recognise that many of the other Commonwealth countries have not kept those pledges. It is one of the deepest disappointments of my life that personal liberties have been denied in new African countries. But I say to Her Majesty's Government that in their opposition to the proposals made at the Ottawa Conference to which I have referred, they themselves are denying the principles of the declaration of the Commonwealth. I am hoping that this will change. I am

783
hoping that after the next Election we may have in this country a Government like the Governments of Australia and New Zealand—indeed like the Government of Canada—which will become identified with the rest of the Commonwealth in standing for the principles of justice, equality and peace.
4.55 p.m.
LORD GRIDLEY: My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. One becomes accustomed to the very great interest which he always displays in these matters concerning the Commonwealth. One knows the sincerity with which he speaks and the industrious manner in which he devotes himself to the problems which in his opinion face the Commonwealth. The noble Lord has conveyed to me an impression that he is disappointed with what took place at the last Conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers. I cannot follow him all the way in his assumption. But he may have carried out a far greater investigation into these matters than has been possible in my case. I had a feeling that a great deal was achieved at the Commonwealth Conference, not perhaps in a spectacular way but in other ways which were probably far less spectacular. The noble Lord. Lord Brockway, has seen fit to criticise certain attitudes of our Prime Minister and I find myself in some difficulty because this is the first time that I have heard any criticism of the Prime Minister in that regard.
With reference to the economic difficulties and problems to which the noble Lord drew attention, and which he considers threaten the Commonwealth, I have always understood that these countries were now free and independent nations with full powers to set any course which they cared to in respect of economic development in their countries, and I find it difficult to follow the noble Lord's arguments in that regard.
I am in entire agreement with what he said about the Press and the media. If I were asked what came out of the last Commonwealth Conference, my first reaction would be to ask whether it is not too early to look at the Commonwealth from that angle. But the fact that
784
these conferences go on gives me an enormous sense of satisfaction. These emergent nations meet together to discuss their problems; nations which extend and have extended, and will extend, over a quarter of the globe; a vast area of people which could be and in my opinion will be a tremendous influence for good. They meet as equals, and I feel that it is inconceivable and unthinkable—in spite of the war which occurred between India and Pakistan—that in any general sense any one member of the Commonwealth would go to war with another member of the Commonwealth. I believe this to be a tremendous achievement and I believe that implicitly.
Then, my Lords, there is the informality of these conferences. Representatives of the various countries take the chair in turn; there is no domination by one country of another. In view of the events to-day, has not Russia something to learn from this? I bring that point up only in view of the gravity of the reports which we have received of the events occurring at the present time. I believe that in our own way we of the Commonwealth show an example of how different peoples and races should conduct their affairs and how the world should settle down. I believe that our example will be followed, and that all this will come to be accepted by nations in due course, because I cannot conceive that there is any other way in which people in the modern world can conduct their affairs with one another.
My Lords, in view of what I have said, what a comfort for the world, what an inspiration to everybody, that this association should exist. As the noble Lord, Lord Brockway said, we shall have to make every effort and exhibit every act of statesmanship we can to see that the Commonwealth goes on and succeeds. If the Press and media ignore the Commonwealth in that sense, I think they do a disservice to our past. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has championed the underdeveloped world and I think he has been completely right to do so. He has always stood up for people who were suffering, for people's aspirations and for the minorities, who were perhaps to some extent controlled, if I may put it that way, by those with greater power.

785
When the history of the Commonwealth comes to be written, I hope that credit will be given to those people who served the Commonwealth in the post-1945 years, who propagated the ideals which came out from your Lordships' House of self-government and self-determination, and who worked constructively for that issue over a long period of time. I think the fruits of that are about to be seen in the present era.
My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, and also a privilege to speak on these matters in your Lordships' House. Noble Lords who will follow me all have an intimate connection with the Commonwealth. The noble Lord, Lord Garner, and his office inspired many people, of whom I was one when I served overseas. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has, I know, made various visits to different parts of the Commonwealth—and knows Malaya and the Far East very well. Finally, there is my noble friend the Minister of State, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie. I sometimes think it is forgotten that her husband is the son of John Buchan, who was once Governor-General of Canada. The way she conducts hereself in this House in answering questions on the difficulties with which the Foreign and Commonwealth Relations Office is faced at present fills us with admiration. My noble friend acquits herself with great ability and charm.
5.3 p.m.
LORD GARNER: My Lords, I intervene on this last item of the Session with a certain lightness of spirit, induced perhaps in my case by what I would regard as the extremely happy atmosphere that was engendered at the Conference in Ottawa. Atmosphere at these conferences, as I know very well, can vary extremely. I attended most of the Prime Ministers' meetings for a period of some 20 to 25 years. Some are extremely constructive and one is left in an exultant mood. Some of them alas! have been depressing, and one felt at the end that friction had been caused and perhaps more harm than good had been done. In my view, from all the accounts that I have received, this was certainly not the case in Ottawa. I do not know what went on
786
behind closed doors, but all the accounts that I have received from my friends point to a friendly and constructive Conference. I think that was so because, as I detected, there was definitely at Ottawa the will to succeed; and this may well have been induced by the rather unhappy experience of the previous conference at Singapore, as the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, pointed out. At Ottawa, I think everyone had learned the lesson from Singapore and was anxious to avoid a confrontation, and perhaps that applied not less to the British delegation itself.
My Lords, up to that point I would largely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. But I am afraid, from the accounts I have received, that 1 must distinctly part company with him when he draws a picture of Britain, and particularly the British Prime Minister, as being in a position of total isolation from the rest of the Commonwealth. That has not been borne out by anything that I have heard. Indeed, I was surprised that the noble Lord referred to Rhodesia, and then went on to quote the conclusion, and used the words:
"The British Prime Minister welcomed the constructive suggestions made, and undertook to take them into account as the situation developed."
I am bound to say that I know nothing whatever of what went on behind those closed doors, but it does not seem to me that there was total opposition and total isolation between Britain and the rest of the Members of the Commonwealth. I admire the noble Lord greatly, and I know his heart is always in the right place, but from my information I think the picture he has given this evening is not a true one; nor do I think it is a helpful one from the point of view of the Commonwealth.
My Lords, as a former—I do not quite know how to describe myself, but perhaps as a member in the "prompt box" at various of these Conferences, I should like to say a word in praise of the Commonwealth officials who were given a special remit before this Conference took place. There was a conference of officials in Ottawa in October of last year. We all know that the problem was, how to organise a meeting of no less than 32 or 33 members so that the discussion would be friendly and constructive and not hostile; so that the important things were kept confidential and no public abuse was

787
hurled about; that there existed an informal, easy atmosphere, and not a fixed atmosphere, with country after country taking up rigid positions which had been fixed well in advance. That was the problem, and a variety of recommendations were made. I clearly deduced from the communiqué that those concerned must have done their work extremely well, because the communiqué reports:
"The meeting was positive in tone and constructive in its approach. Having agreed to new procedures"—
and these are the procedures that were no doubt recommended by this earlier body—
"designed to ensure informality and free discussion, the leaders put aside set-piece speeches and addressed themselves directly both to each other and to the pressing questions before the Meeting. When unanimous agreement was not possible, mutual understanding of conflicting viewpoints was achieved. It was agreed in this regard the Meeting established a most useful precedent for future Commonwealth consultations. The Commonwealth had been greatly strengthened by the event and Heads of Government were heartened by this."
That seems to be a very encouraging result.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, complained that there had been no publicity. Here I would largely agree with him. I have a slight disagreement with him in reference to the attention paid by our Press to the British Prime Minister. From reading the Press at the time, I thought that what they were really interested in was not whether Mr. Heath was going to be able to get to Ottawa or not, but whether he was going to be able to get to Cowes or not. I think that question occupied quite undue space in British newspapers. On the other hand, I have the feeling very often that the less publicity, the better. The sad fact—and I agree it is a sad fact—is that the media are not interested when things go well, but are more interested when things go wrong. If there had been this total isolation by Britain, and this was creating a very tense atmosphere in Ottawa, then the newspapers would have been full of it. The fact that there was so little publicity, in some ways could be regarded as a good thing. I would also recognise, of course, that the Conference—which I maintain was most successful—was successful without achieving any great dramatic decisions
788
or hitting the headlines with some quite new developments.
That brings me back to something we were discussing before the Recess, a point about the arrangements for the holding of the Conference. On that occasion m) noble friend (if I may so call him) Lord Shepherd mildly upbraided me for not hitching my wagon to a star. No doubt there is something in that point but, on the other hand, I like to feel that at least my feet are firmly on the ground. It is the fact that in the Commonwealth —and it seemed to me that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, hinted at this in his own remarks—there are inevitably great differences between attitudes, and so on, and one needs to tread with skill and tact. Certainly to my mind, previous Conferences have shown that if you try to process things to the extent of getting total agreement all along the field the great danger is that you may merely emphasise the differences and end up with a less constructive result than might be hoped for.
It seems to me that a meeting of Heads of the Commonwealth is really at its best when dealing with the broad issues, on which each Prime Minister, or Head of Government, can make his own unique contribution from, among other things, his own experience, without necessarily expecting to convert all the other members round the table to his own particular point of view. It struck me that in some way, though the analogy is not complete, a Prime Ministers' meeting nowadays is not altogether unlike the proceedings in your Lordships' House, because I believe that this House sometimes plays its most valuable role not when it is recording a vote or a decision, but when focusing attention on a major issue. I was, again, fascinated to read in the Communiqué that—
"Heads of government welcomed the opportunity to exchange views on comparative techniques of government. They had a lively and useful discussion which included consideration of such subjects as the determination of national priorities; the problem of ensuring effective implementation of Government decisions; fostering communication between Government and people; the redress of economic disparities; and the problem of correcting economic imbalances as between urban and rural areas."
I am bound to say that all those are extraordinarily fit subjects for one of our Wednesday debates when, by custom, a

789
Motion is normally withdrawn. The real value of the Commonwealth to-day—and I think this was demonstrated in Ottawa—lies not in seeking to achieve complete and utter agreement (which very often may only mean writing something down to the lowest common denominator) but in the ability to share experience and to spread the areas of understanding and tolerance, so that all may go away with a clearer view of the attitudes of others.
Finally, my Lords, I would just draw attention to what has been happening while we were in Recess. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, referred to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association gathering; but during our Recess and within a relatively short period there was the Heads of Government meeting in Ottawa, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association meeting here, the Association of Commonwealth Universities Meeting in Edinburgh and the meeting of Finance Ministers in Tanzania. I am bound to conclude, for those who are doubtful or who despair of the future of the Commonwealth, that a body which can stage in such a short period such first-class and, in each case, highly successful meetings obviously still has considerable vitality and very considerable value. May I end by saying how much we look forward to anything that the Minister is able to add by way of enlightenment as to what went on at the Conference.
5.16 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, need make no apology for having raised once again the question of the Commonwealth and, in particular, the Prime Ministers' Conference in Ottawa. I intend to be brief, for two reasons. First, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, hopes to catch a train for Somerset in the early part of this evening and, secondly, my noble friend Lord Brockway has dealt with the four main parts of the Conference; and those are the parts to which I would otherwise have spoken. I am in broad agreement with my noble friend on those parts, though I would perhaps put some different emphasis on them. However, I always know that my noble friend speaks with burning passion in his fight for the Colonial territories and the Commonwealth, whereas I have perhaps been too
790
long on either of these Front Benches to be able to generate the same fire.
The noble Lord, Lord Garner, referred to the life and strength of the Commonwealth, and he mentioned in particular three conferences. I am very surprised that he overlooked the Commonwealth Conference of Speakers, which took place in Lusaka, Zambia, in September. I believe this was the first time this particular conference has been held in black Africa. My impression of the Ottawa Conference was that it was a success. I think much of this success was due to the great sensitivity of the Chairman, Mr. Trudeau. I agree with my noble friend Lord Brockway that little information was available in our national Press and on the media. It is also true that there was even less information relating to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference, to which the noble Lord, Lord Garner, referred. I thought the Conference was particularly stimulating and important, because here one was participating with, as it were, the life-blood of the Commonwealth—the ordinary Members of Parliament of some 32 Common-wealth countries. The noble Baroness will not forget the criticism—because I know she entirely agreed with the speech by the lady from West Samoa in her criticism of the Prime Minister and a Canadian senator who was speaking at a dinner—that both of them have not understood the joys and satisfactions of being a husband; to which was added a strong recommendation that all Prime Ministers, in fact all Ministers, required an outrigger. That, to me, was one of the Conference highlights because it showed very much the mood of the Commonwealth.
I feel that the Conference was important because it was the first Con. ference following British entry into the E.E.C. If there was any sense of dissatisfaction, I think it was that none of the Prime Ministers present was in a position to understand how our entry will in the end affect the other, or what new relations will be open to them within the new E.E.C. I have no doubt that the Government recognise that the decision of the E.E.C. in relation to sugar will be the point at which the Commonwealth or, for that matter, the developing countries, will decide whether the E.E.C. intends to be an outward looking

791
organisation or, as some fear, an inward and selfish society of rich nations. I read with great care the speech made in another place yesterday by Mr. Joseph Godber, the Minister of Agriculture. So far as it went, it was satisfactory. The only question—an important question—that was not answered was on the point that while it may be within our understanding that if Britain were permitted to import some 1¼million tons of sugar this would be carrying out our obligation, if the E.E.C. countries were then to become a much bigger exporter of sugar, to a figure commensurate with the amount of cane sugar imported here, it would have a disastrous consequence on the price of sugar throughout the world. Clearly this would place a very severe economic burden on the developing countries and those particularly dependent upon sugar. No doubt the noble Baroness has been primed that this subject would be raised. I do not know whether she could go further as to what the Government themselves have in mind here.
The other matter which is to some extent satisfying, but I am not entirely sure about, is our continued ability to refine cane sugar in this country. In one of the debates on the Common Market I posed the question that an undertaking given by the Government in regard to cane sugar would have no reality whatsoever unless we had the ability to refine it in this country. One did not get an answer then, and one becomes perturbed at the attitude of the Council of Ministers, and the French Government in particular, on the differentiation that is to be permitted for cane sugar refining as opposed to beet sugar, because at the end this is the real answer to whether we are going to have a continuing refining capacity to honour the obligation to the cane shipping islands of the Commonwealth.
I agree with my noble friend regarding multi-national companies. I do not believe that dependent territories have the solution: certainly nationalising by 51 per cent. or 95 per cent. is completely immaterial. This is borne out by such events in the copper mines of Zambia, where as a consequence of nationalisation the revenue has fallen disastrously because the multi-national companies merely altered the books and the profits
792
are made somewhere else. This is a matter which needs to be considered by the big countries who themselves are directly affected in this problem. I do not think there is enough appreciation of the strength and power of the multinational companies. I suspect that we know little about how multi-national companies operate; but this is clearly something to which careful attention will have to be given in the coming years.
I have always had a criticism of large organisations and countries who have gone in ostensibly to provide aid but in practice are seeking raw materials. I should like to sec a greater understanding by the E.E.C. countries, and to see them assisting and encouraging companies which are now extracting raw material for final consumption in their own territories to process increasing quantities of that material in the country from which the raw material is being extracted. I am thinking particularly of countries who have oil. There is no point in shipping crude oil to Britain or Europe, to be processed not only into petrol and benzene but into the various by-products for the plastics industry, when much of that could be done ill the country from which the oil is being extracted. From my understanding, it would have very little effect on shipping rates and the cost of freight. This process would be more helpful to the developing countries who have raw materials than much of the aid that is given.
I thought the speech of Mr. Manley, the Prime Minister of Jamaica, was very significant. I have never heard it put in these terms before. He said of the 1969 Lester Pearson aim of the 1 per cent. of gross national product for aid that to-day this would represent some 50 tons of sugar for a tractor, whereas some ten years ago the amount would have been only 10 tons. I think he said that 1 per cent. meant in the United States about 12 dollars per head per annum as compared with 180 dollars per head per annum at that time. That is a good illustration of what has been said in the House on many occasions—the developing gap between the rich nations and the poorer nations. I agree with my noble friend Lord Brockway that the Government could have taken a far greater lead regarding the nuclear testing by France

793
in the Pacific. I find it extraordinary that they could not understand the feelings of Australia, New Zealand and our other friends in the Pacific at the recent nuclear explosions close to their own countries.
There was much else at the Conference; but the point that came out to me was best illustrated in a phrase in a monthly magazine called the Commonwealth, issued by the Royal Commonwealth Society, when it referred to the "third Commonwealth". First of all there was the Commonwealth, the tightly knit white club of many years ago. Then we went through the second Commonwealth, which was largely a confrontation between the old members and the new, each sizing the other up as to what its intentions were. Now there is a third Commonwealth in which the atmosphere is very relaxed; members meeting as equals. I agree with my noble friend Lord Brockway that that is a Commonwealth that could continue, and I believe would continue, even if the oldest member of it felt it had to leave. I do not believe that will happen. I believe that the Commonwealth is strong enough to withstand all the strains and stresses which divide nations. This was an illustration of how mature the Commonwealth has become in the past 12 months—certainly since 1967.
My noble friend criticised the Prime Minister. It is not for me to defend him, and it is not often that I can do so, but on a previous occasion I begged the noble Baroness to convey to the Prime Minister my plea that despite the attraction of Cowes he would remain at Ottawa and would see the Conference through. My Lords, having been rather critical on that occasion, I think I can, or should, be quite open and say how pleased I was that the Prime Minister remained to the last day but one—and for that I think even the Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth forgave him. I believe that the Conference in Ottawa is one that augurs well. I am glad that from all the signs we are not likely to have another Prime Ministers' Conference in London for quite a few years, because it now seems to be the accepted fact that it should move from one country to another. I see it guessed that it may be going to Kingston for the next occasion, in which case I have no doubt that it will be successful if for only one thing: as in
794
Canada because of the sensitivity and vision of Mr. Trudeau, such matters will be matched by the new Prime Minister of Jamaica, Mr. Michael Manley.
5.31 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I should like to thank first of all the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, for his generous and friendly remarks in the opening part of his speech. I very much appreciate them. I am delighted that he has given us this chance this afternoon to debate this very important Commonwealth Conference. I realise that he put down a Parliamentary Question on the first day we resumed after the Recess, and I understand that the reason there was no Statement, as he expected, was that the Prime Minister himself had a Question on the subject and answered it that day.
Of course, the Ottawa Conference was a very important Commonwealth occasion, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that it was a very successful one. Among the reasons for the success were the excellent arrangements made by our Canadian hosts, and the very able chairmanship of Mr. Trudeau himself. I should also like to recall the presence in Ottawa during the first four days of the Conference of Her Majesty the Queen as Head of the Commonwealth and as Queen of Canada.
In his Question, the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, asks "what conclusions were reached" at the Heads of Government Meeting? But, of course, Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conferences are not held to take decisions. As an association of independent countries it has never worked in that way at Summit Meetings, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Garner, knows well with his many experiences of these conferences over the years. A Communiqué is issued but it is in no sense a record of agreements made; it is really an account of the matters that are discussed, and where a view is expressed it is really a consensus.
With 32 independent Governments represented at the Conference, each with their own problems, I venture to suggest that intimate meetings of this kind between Heads of Government must be the envy of the rest of the world. There. fore we have to say to ourselves: did

795
the Conference help improve international co-operation? I believe that it did. I think it did so in a number of interesting ways: first because of the frankness and intimacy of the exchanges and the personal contacts. I would support the noble Lord, Lord Garner, in his tribute to all those behind the scenes who helped to create the conditions which made this one of the most informal Heads of Government Meetings ever held. It is much easier for Heads of Government, Ministers and other members of the delegations to do business with each other, as they continue to do between conferences, when they know each other's minds and can therefore meet as personal friends.
Here I must come to the position of our own Prime Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, sought to criticise him. I would say how glad I am that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, supported the Prime Minister in all he tried to do at this Conference. I can say that the Prime Minister certainly appreciated very much the opportunities there were for these informal contacts and I think he made, if I may say so, a great many friends in the process. I would agree with Lord Gridley that the Prime Minister was in no way in isolation. I also thank my noble friend Lord Gridley for his encouraging remarks to myself, which I very much appreciate, too.
What the Prime Minister sought to do when the Heads of Governments considered the major developments which have taken place since the last Conference two and a half years ago was this. The Prime Minister in fact opened this particular discussion which was one of the main events, and he drew attention to three major events which have occurred since the last Meeting: the new relationship between the United States and the two leading Communist States; the new opportunities created by the enlargement of the European Community, and the partial breakdown of the world trade and monetary system. He offered the conclusion that there is now a greater and more direct responsibility on the medium and smaller Powers, too, to prevent local wars and to bring about this economic co-operation
796
which we are all seeking to achieve. The Prime Minister went on to suggest that the Commonwealth Association was already there to be used as a means for contact and discussion before the technical and necessary consultations take place throughout the rest of the year.
In speaking of the Commonwealth I should much like to support the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Gridley about the very constructive work which has been done over a long period of time in preparing our territories for self-determination. This work is still going on. After all, this year the Bahamas entered the Commonwealth, and next year we hope to welcome Grenada. There has been a lot of careful work done in the preparation for Independence.
As the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said, this was the first meeting of the Heads of Government to be held since Britain's entry into the European Community, and there was I understand a very good discussion; the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, in particular drew attention to this. There have of course been developments since Ottawa. The Protocol 22 negotiations began with the mini sterial meeting in Brussels on October 17 and 18; and I would agree that one of the most remarkable achievements of those who are considering association has been the unity which they have shown, whether they happen to be English or French speaking nations.
I had the chance, luckily, to go to the Commonwealth Finance Ministers' meeting in Dar-es-Salaam with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I should like to read what the Communiqué said on this question of association, because those who have spoken said that they hoped that Her Majesty's Government would do what they could to ensure that the negotiations on behalf of the Commonwealth members were successful. The Communiqué read like this:
"Ministers noted with appreciation the assurances given by Britain that as a member of both the Commonwealth and the Community she would do all that she could to ensure that the arrangements which may be established between the Community and these countries (the associables) will adequately safeguard the interests of the latter."
In the Community's preparations for that meeting we have sought to ensure in particular that close attention is given to the views of the developing countries

797
on the whole question of non-reciprocity in trade in their relationship with the European Community.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, referred to sugar, which was not in fact considered at the Ottawa Conference, but which is certainly of major concern both to the Caribbean countries and to certain Asian countries, apart from their participation in the Protocol 22 negotiations. As I said yesterday in the Statement on the Council of Ministers' meetings in the European Community, we know very well the importance of sugar to a number of developing Common. wealth countries, and we are as firmly committed as ever to the assurances given to the sugar producers during the Lancaster House meetings of June, 1970, and also the assurances given in March of this year.
As I explained yesterday, the Commission have put forward a proposal which would fully honour these assurances with the suggestion that 1-4 million tons of cane sugar should be imported into the Community. It is our aim that the Community should take early decisions on this matter—this is what we are working for—because we want it to play a part in the re-negotiation of the International Sugar Agreement and we want ii to join the Agreement as a net importer. This will mean, of course, some limitation of the Community's production of sugar beet. This is why there has been a good deal of very vocal opposition to the proposals throughout the Community, and even in this country; but I think it will be a test of the Community's concern for the problems of the developing countries. I do not want to go into detail at this hour to-day of all the matters which my right honourable friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food dealt with yesterday, hut I should just like to reassure the House that we think that in the end we shall in fact be able to get this 1·4 million tons imported into the Community.
The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, spoke about the multi-national corporations with considerable distaste, and I would only say to him that where we have experience of these companies—and, incidentally, I think they prefer to be called "international enterprises"—
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAV1ES OF HASTOE: I am not surprised, my Lords.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR on BELHELVIE:—we find, my Lords, that in this country, as they do overseas, they give more employment, they introduce new methods of technology and they bring growth and stability. Of course one would expect them to conform to all the laws of whichever country they happen to operate in and to accept the responsibilities which come, I believe, with very great international corporations. I believe they have a responsibility, both in the conditions which they grant to those who work with them and indeed the way in which they operate in the countries concerned.
The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, spoke about the question of nuclear tests.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES HASTOE: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me to intervene before she leaves that point. She used words like "one would expect" and "they have a responsibility" May ask her whether she really feels that her expectations are realised and whether the responsibilities are undertaken?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, as in all life, some are good and some are bad. think one can find examples of excellent personal relationships within a company and between that company and the country in which it operates. One can equally find the opposite; but the more opportunities are given, particularly in debates such as this, to make it clear that companies of that size have a responsibility the better. I think that gradually creates a climate which is understood and we hope followed, if not altogether at the same time, at any rate it is understood that this is what is expected of them. I would only say to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, that I think his sweeping condemnation of great international companies is entirely unjustified: some are good, some are bad.
The noble Lord also raised the question of nuclear tests in the atmosphere. At Ottawa, as we have often done before, we said we hoped that all those nations which have not yet acceded to the partial test ban treaty would do so—and this

799
of course is very well known, not only to France but also to China. That is why the meeting—wisely, in my view—decided not to go beyond a general declaration which reaffirmed the principles of the Treaty, and they appealed to all Powers to help reach a new agreement which will achieve the end of all nuclear weapon tests.
The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, spoke about Rhodesia. There I think he recognised that there had been a much more welcome tone in the communiqué, a much greater understanding within the Commonwealth, of the problems which concern Rhodesia. Certainly, as I understand it, the tone of the discussion was not critical: it was really very constructive; and a number of suggestions were made which the Prime Minister undertook to take into account as the situation develops. In particular, we were very pleased that everyone at Ottawa recognised the need to seek a settlement in Rhodesia by peaceful means; and we were of course glad of the unanimous recognition in the Conference cornmuniqué that we, in this country, are working on the right lines. As the communiqué records, everyone at Ottawa was agreed in their opposition to apartheid and to minority rule in Southern Africa, while recognising all the same that there are some very difficult problems involved. I think it was a good thing that the conference was able to discuss quite frankly the real issue which confronts Southern Africa, which is the choice between peaceful evolution and consent or change by violent means.
The noble Lord, Lord Garner, spoke of the four Commonwealth meetings during the Recess, and the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, mentioned that there was one more, so that makes five during the Recess. From what I saw of the conference of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in London, I thought it had a very happy atmosphere indeed. I certainly have very happy memories of the C.P.A. conference I attended in Malawi last year. And, when I had the chance to go with my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to Dar-es-Salaam, to the meeting of the Commonwealth Finance Ministers on the 19th and 20th September, what struck me most was the way we could all sit round a table
800
together without, I may say, the Press being present—and as to whether that is a good thing or a bad thing I make no comment. We felt free, not only to make speeches but indeed to debate together, to discuss together, to intervene, to have laughter and teasing and checking of points. It was a very good atmosphere and a really friendly meeting. There were difficult questions; of course the Chancellor of the Exchequer took all the difficult ones concerned with international monetary affairs and I took the two subjects of relations with Europe and of overseas aid.
Therefore I think I can say that from my experience of Commonwealth meetings—because I went also to the one held in London last year—and in the C.P.A., and from what I have learned of the atmosphere at Ottawa, it is quite remarkable that a Commonwealth of 32 independent nations is prepared to listen to, and to understand, their colleagues' point of view. I believe our differences are often much more these of approach rather than of anything really fundamental, and where at Ottawa there was a real difference in attitude it was stated quite clearly; but whenever it was possible to reach a compromise, it was reached.
Therefore in conclusion I would say that Commonwealth Summit Meetings surely provide a most valuable chance for the leaders of a quarter of the world's population to exchange ideas. This must of itself bring a greater understanding of each other's thinking, and without doubt that influences the policies which Governments subsequently adopt. This is how the Commonwealth works.
5.49 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I should like to say one thing. In the first place, I will not reprove her for taking the liberty which ladies often do, of slightly twisting what the opposite sex may have said. That is not the point I wish to raise. What I had intended to do was to echo what my noble friend Lord Brockway said in paying a tribute to the noble Baroness for her work over the last two weeks. She has carried an extraordinarily heavy burden and we have been not only delighted with the way she has done it but also deeply conscious of the way in which she has

801
approached not only the subject matter but all the detail which is behind it. She had rendered very great assistance to your Lordships' House. I think I ought to echo what my noble friend said. I am happy to do so from this Front Bench, just at the moment before the noble Earl moves that this House do adjourn during pleasure. I look forward to it.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHFLVIE: My Lords, as I was not apparently firmly sitting in my seat while the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, intervened. I should like to thank him very much. It is a great encouragement. I feel there is a great responsibility when addressing this House, because whenever a subject is raised there is nearly always someone who is an expert on it.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until approximately 10 p.m.
Moved, That the House do adjourn during pleasure until approximately 10 p.m.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.