HL Deb 08 May 1974 vol 351 cc597-623

7.56 p.m.

LORD BROCKWAY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what conclusions were reached at the special session of the General Assembly of the United Nations to consider relations between producing and consuming countries in the spheres of raw materials and foodstuffs; and what part the British delegation took in the discussions. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I originally intended to put down this Question for oral Answer, but suggestions have been made from the Opposition Benches that when issues are complicated and demand more consideration than can be given in the exchanges of Questions and Answers, one should put such Questions down for unstarred debate. I may just add that I have been in communication both with the Chief Whip and with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as to the best date on which to raise this issue, and to-night was suggested. I want to express to the Minister my regret that this debate has arisen at a time when participation may be less than on another occasion, but he is aware that I have done my best to meet both the wishes of the Chief Whip and of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on this matter.

This special assembly of the United Nations has bean both unique and historic. During the 28 years of the United Nations, on only six occasions have there been special assemblies; and on all previous occasions the discussions have been on specific issues affecting peace. This is the first occasion when economic and social issues have been discussed and when, in the words of Dr. Kurt Waldheim, the Secretary General, matters which go beyond current issues have been under discussion. The second exceptional fact about this gathering of the special assembly has been the interest of the delegations. Too often at the assemblies of the United Nations a prepared speech is delivered, copies of which have been distributed, and attention is very meagre. On this occasion—and I quote from the Observer correspondent on April 14— The conference has presented the remarkable spectacle of delegates actually listening to one another. My regret tonight is that we are discussing this very important occasion at such a late hour.

One has had to read a mass of documents which have been issued in connection with this assembly. Its importance has been recognised by the fact that there have been 67 representatives of Cabinet rank who have participated in the discussions, and delegates from nearly 120 nations have taken part in them. I have found it difficult with this mass of documents to clarify and concentrate in the way of short comment. But I have decided to take the opening speech by Dr. Kurt Waldheim, the Secretary-General, as the agenda for what I should say, and he pointed out that six subjects were involved: poverty, population, food, energy, military expenditure and the monetary system.

The outcome of these discussions which took place for nearly a month and concluded only last weekend, was two documents: the first was a Declaration on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order; and the second was a Programme of Action to Establish this New International Economic Order. Those two documents dealt with all the points which Dr. Waldheim had mentioned, except military expenditure. I welcome the fact that he referred to it. His words were: During the three weeks of this assembly session some 14 billion dollars will be spent on armaments. This enormous expenditure by itself represents yet another vast pressure on our natural resources. The imperative need for substantial disarmament becomes more urgent as each day passes. The assembly took the view that military disarmament was a subject which could be better dealt with outside its own scope. But there was some indication of the relationship of military expenditure in the speech which the Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union, Mr. Gromyko, had delivered, proposing a 10 per cent. reduction of all armaments, and that this amount should be devoted to meeting the poverty of the developing countries. Perhaps I should make clear that that speech was made at a previous session of the assembly and not during these three weeks.

I want to confess at once that I am disappointed with the Declaration on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order. I feel that a great opportunity has been missed. There have been two memorable documents issued in connection with the United Nations. One is the Charter itself and the other is the Declaration of Human Rights. I was hoping that on this occasion a declaration of similar almost immortality would have been made. Perhaps the failure in this respect was inevitable. It seems to me doubtful whether a new international economic order can be established while there are different orders in the nations which are associated with the United Nations—feudal nations, capitalist nations, socialist nations, communist nations. How is it possible from such a complexity to establish a new economic international order? All that can be done is to achieve a consensus, a highest common denominator, but inevitably a compromise.

The second document, the Programme of Action, makes a long list of practical proposals which are to be submitted to the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations for ultimate implementation. I wish to make a comment upon one or two of them. The first is in relation to the problems of energy and of oil. The climax of a long continuing economic crisis in the world has been oil, and this has been due to the fact that the Arab nations of the Middle East have first nationalised their oil supplies; and then, having nationalised them, have entered into a consortium which will collectively control production and determine prices in the world. By this action the Arab Governments have turned upside down the economic relationships in the world. Previously, world economic relationships were determined by the manufacturing industries within the industrialised countries which were purchasing raw materials from the developing countries. Now the producers of the raw materials have got together in the sphere of oil and are determining the supplies and the prices of oil in the industrialised nations.

I am not sure whether we have yet realised the significance of how the tables have been turned in international relations. It will not end with oil. The producing nations provide 70 per cent. of the raw materials which the industrial nations need, such as copper, uranium and industrial diamonds—one could go on and on in raw materials—foodstuffs, cocoa, coffee, rice, tea, sugar. If the example of the producing nations in the Middle East is followed, if those industries in the developing nations are increasingly nationalised as they will be, and if a consortium is made between their producers, then the balance in the world between the developing nations and the developed nations will have been turned upside down. My Lords, this situation demands that there should be consultation and agreement between the producing countries and the industrialised countries of the world. This is suggested in the programme of action which has been adopted by the United Nations Assembly. The machinery by which it shall be applied has been left to the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations, and about that I shall have a word to say before I conclude.

My Lords, the second issue which has been considered is poverty in the developing nations. It has been expressed by Dr. Waldheim in these words— The single most devastating indictment of our current world civilisation is the continued existence of stark, pervasive mass poverty among two-thirds of the world population. It permeates every phase of life in developing countries—in malnutrition of children, in outbreak of diseases, in widespread unemployment, in low literacy rates in overcrowded cities. In the speech which Mr. David Ennals made on behalf of the Government, he pointed out that the gulf between the rich and poorer nations is growing. These are his words— The gap between rich nations and poorer nations, far from shrinking, has grown progressively wider. That is a situation which my Government, dedicated to a more equal distribution of wealth at home, cannot accept in the world. I think we will all welcome that declaration.

My Lords, related to this problem of poverty in the developing nations is aid and investment. The term "aid" implies generosity, help without self-seeking. In fact, the aid which is given to developing countries is almost all entirely self-seeking. Almost the only exception to that is the technical assistance which is given and in which many noble volunteers are employed. When I say that it is self-seeking, I mean that it is in the first instance, because aid is often given by the developed countries for political and military reasons. It is to gain the support of those countries for ideological aims; it is for military strategic advantage in the world balance. Even when aid is not given for political and military purposes, in most cases it is given on condition that the finance provided shall be returned by orders of goods in the country which has given that aid. But, most amazing of all, when aid to developing countries is estimated it includes private investments, and private investments which are very often at rates of 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 and up to 80 per cent. in repayment.

We have the extraordinary situation that every year the developed countries receive from the developing countries, in the case of South America, four times as much as is provided; in the case of Africa, three times as much as is provided; and in the case of Asia twice as much as is provided. Again, my Lords, the decision of the special assembly of the United Nations was that there was a need to increase the provision of aid through the United Nations itself (which would not give bilateral advantage) and to re-establish the special United Nations Fund—again, a reference to the Economic and Social Council to implement this decision. My Lords, if aid is not to be used in the national interests of the Government which is providing it, then, in my view, all of it should be distributed through the United Nations.

On the issue of investment, I want to make one further proposal which is that there should be an international charter, an international code, which controls investment to the developing countries. The I.L.O. lays down conditions for wages and employment in many spheres in the developing countries. I want to see an international code for investment which would have the same authority. It should say that the investment should be on the basis of loans repayable within a period. It should lay down minimum living wages. It should lay down conditions for training the population of South America, South Africa and Asia in the higher spheres. It should insist upon trade unions within the industries to which investment is given, and the training of personnel for ultimate management so that those industries might become entirely indigenous.

I turn to a third issue which has been raised, which is food and population. Again, Dr. Waldheim said, In the three weeks of this conference, world population has grown by four million. He added that, never in recent decades have world resources been so frighteningly low. My Lords, this problem of food supplies and growing population has not yet been dealt with in the big way that is demanded. Family planning, yes, but how slow in territories where it is against all traditions. Fertilisers, yes. One appreciates the proposals of the Special Assembly for a fertiliser fund. New techniques, the "Green Revolution" which in India and the world has so much increased production, yes. Nevertheless, the Indian case has shown that the millions of small peasants have not benefited, only the great landlords.

I am delighted to see—because I thought that I should be urging this as a lonely voice—that in this programme of action attention is drawn to the deserts and the oceans as new suppliers of food to meet the growing population. It has now been demonstrated, first in Israel, then in the Sahara, by Miss Wendy Campbell-Purdie and by Esso, that the desert can be converted into fertile land within two years by water treatment. We have just had the extraordinary example of the Red Desert in Australia, which was for years arid land and where water surprisingly came, which is now fertile. I still do not understand how in that fertility flowers and animals have flourished which had not been there for generations. Under all the deserts of the world there is water, lakes and rivers. If they were regarded as important as oil, they would have been brought to the surface long ago. The Romans had their wells. Bring that water to the surface and food production in the world could be enormously increased. The same is true of the oceans. The day will come when they will be farmed as land is farmed and, if the increase of world population is to be met, it must be by the growth of food from these great areas of possibilities which are now almost unexplored. Again, this issue has been referred to the Economic and Social Council.

There is a proposal about which I am not going to speak because I have such little knowledge of it and I am entirely perplexed by it. This is the international monetary system. There is a proposal in this programme of action that steps should be taken to regulate the effects of inflation, to stabilise exchange rates, to create greater liquidity through additional S.D.R's. I am not competent to comment upon these proposals except to say that I hope the day will come when value will be measured by the work which is put into production rather than by the present law of supply and demand.

In conclusion, I just want to say two things. If the economic needs of the world are to be met, we must develop at the United Nations an economic arm which is just as important as the political arm. At the moment, that function is being fulfilled by the Economic and Social Council. I want to see the Economic and Social Council develop so that it shall fulfil the new enormous tasks which have been laid down in this programme of action. Clearly, some of the great tasks to which I have referred can be approached only if there is a body which is much bigger, much more important and which has much more world support than is at present given to the Economic and Social Council.

A new international order—a new international economic order—which has been the purpose of this conference can, it seems to me, only be established by one of two alternative methods. The first would be an expansion of the present multi-national companies. Those multinational companies are now taking possession of the world, and particularly of the Third World—South America, Africa, Asia. Yes, it would be possible to have an international economic order dominated by a comparatively few multi-national companies having their bases in America, Western Europe and Japan, co-operating, perhaps with some difficulty, with the Communist countries. That could be an international economic order.

What is the alternative? The alternative must be an international order where the economy is under the control of peoples and under social ownership. The alternative is an international Socialist order. That alone is the opposite of multinational control of the earth. It is the only possible way in which democracy can be preserved in the world and in which justice can be secured for all peoples.

8.28 p.m.

LORD WIGG

My Lords, I was uncertain whether to speak at this point, or to wait until the Minister had replied to see what he had to offer. However, looking at the Rules of Order, I see that it is not possible for a noble Lord, even with the leave of the House, to speak a second time and, as it is likely that I shall be critical of the Government, I think it would be wiser and fairer if I spoke at this point.

Perhaps I should start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, for initiating this debate. I feel that I may say that old opponents are sometimes allies of many years' standing. I do not think that the noble Lord was quite right when he talked about how this Extraordinary Session of the General Assembly came to be called. It was not pulled out of the clouds. It came about as a result of the rapidly worsening international situation, and as a result of increased tensions. Its origin is not to be found to-day or yesterday; it is to be found in the meeting of the non-aligned countries in Algeria in September. It is my view that the most important thing that has happened in this decade was that conference. I am astonished at what happened in Algeria in those September days when, I think, 75 countries met, 25 countries sent observers and three countries—Austria, Finland and Sweden—attended as guests.

It is a fact upon which we might all reflect that this debate to-night attracts so little attention. I do not believe that any words which we utter will be found in any place except Hansard. It may well be that a future Gibbon who looks into the decline of Great Britain as a world Power will find, as he peruses the records in perhaps 100 or 200 years' time, something to think about concerning the non-aligned conference in Algeria and what happened there; and the fact that it was the direct result of that conference that the President of Algeria took the initiative of calling this extraordinary assembly, the impact of which on Britain and the Foreign Office was nil.

I am no admirer of the Foreign Office. From the early years of my life, it has long had a distinguished record of always being wrong. From the entente cordiale, all through the 'twenties, its handling of Hitler, its handling of situations one after the other irrespective of the Government, adds up to the assured and undoubted fact that it will be wrong. It will fail because of the class nature of its structure; it will fail to keep abreast of the needs of the time.

The meeting in Algeria was a decisive turning point in international relations. The non-aligned countries were able to give expression to the aspirations of their people in the form of concrete decisions, specific decisions which had been thought out, with a progress of action which has no counterpart in the thinking of our own country, or in the foolery that goes on in Europe under the name of the E.E.C. I fail to understand how any intelligent man, particularly those men—of whom there are many in this House—who have had some military training, can fail to note that the struggle for power in the world has moved away from Europe. It has gone South and East, to Asia, Africa and now to South America.

We are an oasis, a backwater and we, poor benighted Britain without two brass farthings to rub together, spend £3,000 million to £4,000 million on Defence on a collection of clapped-out aircraft, out-of-date ships and an Army with a service structure which makes it unable to do anything more than the unpopular job which it is doing effectively in Northern Ireland. Over and beyond that, the only return that the electorate of this country gets for its vast expenditure is the Trooping of the Colour, the Royal Tournament at Olympia and the Tattoo at Edinburgh Castle. It seems to me that £3,500 million for noble Lords who enjoy all those three spectacles is a price that is a little high.

The non-aligned countries now see through this and it was—or was it?—quite fortuitous that what happened in regard to oil came at the moment it did, because, of course, oil pointed the way. Oil pointed the way for the non-aligned countries controlling, as they do, vast amounts of raw materials. If you can do this with oil, you can do it with other commodities as well. The only reason I have intervened in the debate is to emphasise that the British people as a whole must recognise that the days are gone forever when the developing countries will allow the prices for their raw materials to be fixed by the developed countries who, in their turn, in order to make sure that they get an absolutely good bargain will then fix the prices of the commodities which they supply. Then it will not only be that the heavens are black with the chickens coming home to roost; after they have roosted it will be our turn next.

I listened to part of the debate which preceded this one. It should have started, of course, with the words, "Once upon a time" and should have ended, "They all lived happily ever after," as if the oil of the North Sea will provide a solution for all time for this densely populated island. The quicker you use oil, the more you use it, the sooner it will be gone. That is the lesson. The last Administration—and one cannot exempt them from any stupidity—thought that if they speeded up oil exploitation, regardless of the cost, they would buy themselves out of their economic difficulties. Nothing could be further from the truth.

When I went to Algeria as chairman of the British Algerian Society, over the Christmas holiday, I met members of the Algerian Government and found Minister after Minister only 30 years of age. Their Permanent Secretary, too, is 30 years of age. They are not the off-product of Eton, or some second-rate public school, or a public relations man, or a half-commissioned man on the Stock Exchange they are the product of Harvard Business School, the Massachussetts Institute of Technology, the Polytechnic, the occasional Ph.D. or graduate of the Imperial College of Science—all young men wedded to the principle of independence, men who are determined, having won their freedom from the French, that they will see their country's resources developed in the interests of Algeria. The day has long since gone when Britain, France, Germany or the United States could go into a developing country and take over a basic resource, be it mineral, oil or any other commodity, and then develop that commodity in the interests of the country with developed resources. It will never happen again. The nonaligned countries have learned the hard way, but learned they have. They do not want our aid; and the idea that you now have a branch of the Foreign Office dealing with it (and I have the greatest respect for Mrs. Hart) is just a load of nonsense.

I have recently been round to the Foreign Office. I had gone to Minister after Minister to try to interest them in developing schemes to take young men from these countries and find them places in British universities. British technical colleges, but I got no help at all, though there was plenty of good will. At the Foreign Office—"No money." At the British Council—"Not our job; our job is to project Britain abroad." A little bit of Spinoza, a little bit of the romantic revival, a bit of Shakespeare, yes, but any concept of really helping these countries to do the things that they want, and incidentally to help ourselves, is as foreign to their thinking as if I was asking them to do a shimmy on top of the North Pole. The thought never enters their head. The idea that the Foreign Office should think in such purposive terms of providing the facilities for these young people to find the completion of their education in technical terms here in Britain never enters their head.

When I go to the British Council, that is an experience which has to be gone through to be believed! They have no money. For the most part, the British Council has been peopled at the top level with dead-beats from the Foreign Office who were appointed there because there was no longer a job for them in the Foreign Office, or the Foreign Office wanted to make quite sure that the British Council was not peopled by anyone who would come knocking at their door with requests. When I talk to them about the needs of some of these countries they say, "For goodness sake! If you do this for A, B may want it, C may want it, D may want it!" That, I should have thought, was a cause for congratulation, not a cause for crying into your handkerchief. Again, it never seems to enter their head. It is almost as if the Foreign Office carries on a symposium, as it were, or a teach-in, on some remote planet. It never occurs to them, so far as I can see, that if you take the young men from developing countries and enable them to complete their technical education in this country, you are making friends for life.

Indeed, if one stops to ask the cost, yes, we will spend £70 million on a through-deck cruiser. That is worth about as much as a sardine tin, and it will go to £100 million; and if anyone on this side of the House suggests it should be cancelled, that is a terrible thought. But to spend a few thousand pounds on a scheme of this kind, a pilot scheme, no. They never stop to ask themselves what Britain got out of Rhodes House by taking in Dean Acheson. We made a friend for life. Other countries are on to this. There are no difficulties with the French. The French understand very well that the penetration of the French language and French culture is an essential part of the wellbeing, the economic wellbeing, of France. But they, of course, think in terms of langue du roi; and for such an institution as the Foreign Office to even think about the long-term interests of Britain—it does not matter who the Foreign Secretary is; they are all the same—is almost regarded as blasphemy. It never enters their head that it is a major British interest that these things should be done.

That is not all. I am told that at the present time it is almost impossible for a British consortium to be organised to bid for the larger orders. I know one part of the world where there is an order worth upwards of £150 million for the erection of a car-assembly plant and a trucking plant. No British firm is even in the running; and when I write to the Minister concerned he writes and assures me that he knows of no instance in, which British firms have lost orders through their failure to organise consortia. I do not know in what kind of world he lives. I could give him a string of them. But, of course, Britain has never really recovered from the operation in Saudi Arabia with Airwork.

I am taking what happened in Algeria as a tremendous opportunity for Britain because—and I am sure this will be thought a terrible thing for me to say, with my particular background—I believe that Britain's place is not in the E.E.C. We have thrown away a Commonwealth. There is no place for us in Europe, not in the terms on which our European partners want us. Our place is among the non-aligned countries; and I say this to my colleagues in the Labour Party. The present Foreign Secretary is apt to forget it, but in a radio political broadcast he did not go along with Mr. Frank Allaun and demand a cut in Defence of £1,000 million; he demanded a cut of only £500 million. If you are going to cut it by £500 million, you may as well get rid of the lot. What we should be doing is thinking along the lines recommended by Field Marshal Viscount Montgomery more than a decade ago. We should be saying to the Rhine Army. "Come home, because you fulfil no military purpose; all you do is add to the bill".

As to our ability at the present time to do any more than provide a gendarmerie in Northern Ireland, that is all we need. We need only a gendarmerie in Northern Ireland, because in my view one of the things that has happened about nuclear weapons is that it has made conflict in the terms that we understand it historically, in the terms of the First or the Second World War, no longer a starter. The conflict in the world that will persist (because human nature has not changed just because many of its material wants are satisfied; the struggle will go on between evil men and those who want to preserve the rule of law) will be a conflict that takes the form of the kind of messy business in Northern Ireland, or the seizure of power by a crowd of military bandits in Chile. This is the kind of thing that is going to happen, and it is going to happen on a worldwide scale, and what you want here are not atomic weapons. It is enough to make a cat laugh, if one analyses the conflicts which have happened since the end of the last war. There is not one of them in which the weapons which were required were anything more than a mortar. The mortar and automatic weapons were all that were wanted to fill the bill.

I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, that if we can relieve mankind of the burden of weapons, and if in fact, following the example of the non-aligned countries (of which, I again assert, we should be one), the great Powers then follow our example, well and good. If they do not, let them wallow in their colossal expenditure on nuclear weapons and the means to counteract them, because, of course, at the end of the day (and here it is so simple, it seems to me; or, at least, it has always seemed simple to me, and perhaps one ought to be suspicious when complex problems present themselves in terms of black and white which one can explain) if the worst ever happens and a nuclear conflict comes to the world, then nothing is more certain than that ten minutes after it starts this Island will be a glowing cinder for the next thousand years.

So what are the precautions that we should take? If it comes, it comes. These four nuclear Polaris submarines with their A-3 weapons could do nothing more than posthumously attack some part of a Russian city. On the other hand, we all have a direct interest—all countries have a direct interest—in seeing that such a thing does not happen. And it will not happen so long as there is a balance between the strategic air arm of the United States on the one hand and the air arm of the Russians. Neither of them now has a first-strike capability. This is what Algeria and other nonaligned countries have taught us, if we are willing to learn the lesson: arms and the preparations for war are instruments that belong to the museum.

The field which now has to be explored is that of economic progress and stability, not through domination or exploitation but through partnership—not through somebody giving and somebody taking, but by helping the under-developed countries to develop their own resources in their own interests. The co-operation needed is not between a giant up here and a dwarf down there, but it must extend over the whole area of non-aligned countries—because they, too, have listened to the old story which we heard at our mother's knee, the story of the miller with seven sons who quarrelled among themselves. As he was on his deathbed he called them round him; he took seven sticks and broke them separately. He then put the seven sticks together and could not break them. The non-aligned countries have learned that lesson, that they control a vast amount of the worlds major resources, resources without which the developed countries of the West cannot exist. Their economies grind to a halt without them.

What happened over oil? I said earlier on that in my judgment it was quite fortuitous that oil came where it did; but the non-aligned countries had long been aware that too little was paid for their oil. I shall keep the House for just a moment or two longer to remind them of the circumstances. I was the Parliamentary Private Secretary to my noble friend Lord Shinwell when he was Minister of Fuel and Power. In 1945 one of his first tasks was to examine the possibility of securing the agreement of the Americans to ratify the Beaverbrook/Ickes Agreement—because up to that time the price of oil was determined f.o.b. New Orleans, and the Arab burning his farthing dip in the Arabian Desert had to pay for his oil, although he was surrounded by it, the price that it cost to put it on a ship in New Orleans. The Americans had the stranglehold.

I would recommend noble Lords to read some of the utterances made by Mr. Morrison to Mr. George McGee. Mr. Morrison was then Foreign Secretary, and Mr. McGee succeeded in getting us out of Persia. The Americans were frightened about the possibility that Europe would develop her economy on the basis of Middle East oil—the Middle East being a lower cost producer as against American oil. There is the trap for us. This was not touched on in the previous debate. Go too hurriedly into our oil, over-capitalise it, and you will be a high cost producer, while the Arabs will still be low cost producers. There is another warning. I repeat: if anyone wants to take the trouble to read it, there is an English translation from the original French speech made at a non-aligned conference and there is an English translation of President Boumedienne's speech at the extraordinary Assembly in New York. Certainly to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and also to noble Lords I would commend a study of both documents—not to be cast on one side after being read, but to be read and re-read, because it is a warning of the shape of things to come.

I am one of those who is torn between extreme pessimism and extreme optimism. My faith, which I have given before and which I make no apology for giving again, is that I believe the pages of history show us that our fellow countrymen have never failed. Their leaders have failed them, but they themselves have never failed when they have been told the truth. They are not being told the truth now. During the last Election I laboured with every ounce of strength I had to get that Administration defeated, because I believed them to be the worst that have ever disfigured English political life since the Administration of Lord North. Not only were they not telling people the truth, but they did not recognise it. I believe that the job of the present Administration—not that I think that they are a team of all the talents or that all truth will come from them; of course, they will make mistakes, and I have been too near the throne in my time to know that men are not infallible—is to read, mark, inwardly digest and then go to their fellow country-men, regardless of the short-term advantage or disadvantage. They must tell their fellow countrymen the truth that faces them. Tell them that, and they will not fail.

8.57 p.m.

LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS

My Lords, may I begin by saying how grateful I am, and how grateful we must all be, to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, for his timely Question on the sixth Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly which has led to this quite remarkable "mini-debate". Like my two noble friends. I should have welcomed a much larger attendance and more varied participation, but I feel bound to say that so far the speeches we have heard have been of an extremely high standard.

We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, what we always expect from him; the distillation of great experience and great achievement in the service of developing nations and all deserving causes attached to them, together with a presentation which I admire and envy. From the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, we have heard what some of us have heard before—the controlled passion of deep conviction. I most certainly would echo, in particular, the last few sentences of his impressive speech: that it is indeed the business of Government to speak frankly and honestly to those they govern. I very much hope that the present Administration will place that in the forefront of their programme, for the means determine the end. Good ends cannot be achieved except by the most honest and conscientious methods.

Turning to the Question which gave rise to this debate, may I, before I try to answer the questions which the noble Lord, Lord Brockway asked, make a quick reference to aid to which both noble Lords who have spoken have referred. A very substantial proportion of the assistance this country extends is given already through multilateral international agencies, mainly through United Nations development programmes. Our aid, whether multilateral or bilateral, goes to projects chosen by the recipient Governments themselves. It could fairly be said that the United Kingdom, whatever the extent of the aid and technical assistance it gives, makes a real effort to provide the aid and assistance with no strings attached. The recipient countries choose the purposes and directions to which the aid and assistance are directed.

On the question of assisting developing countries to educate and train their young men and women, I do not have the figures with me, but I can assure my noble friend Lord Wigg that a large number of foreign students are here on scholarships under our aid programme. I am sure he would be interested in some of the figures I could give him. I agree with him that we should do more; but I do not agree with him when he says that the Foreign Office, and other Departments concerned, are immune to the importance of this matter. Does my noble friend wish to say something?

LORD WIGG

My Lords, I was staggered because the scholarships are given through the British Council and they are perhaps two, or three, or four. The noble Lord needs to realise that as a country develops it does not need two, three or four scholarships, but hundreds. I shall be glad to prove it if he wants to be given proof. I shall be glad to meet him with his officials if I can inculcate into his mind this need; and if we can jointly get something done I shall be his humble servant.

LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS

My Lords, I shall be delighted to meet my noble friend and discuss the figures with him. I think he will find that they greatly exceed three or four. I am not sure whether there are hundreds, but I am sure that there are scores of scholarships and I look forward to meeting with my noble friend.

My noble friend Lord Brockway was right in drawing attention to the importance of conditions governing private investment overseas. This has been discussed in the various fora already, and discussions are continuing. For example, the International Chamber of Commerce has put forward a code very much on the lines that my noble friend suggested. The "Group of Eminent Persons" is the title of another group set up by United Nations Economic and Social Council, and it is now studying the role of multi-national companies. Its report is due to appear during this month, and I do not think we should anticipate its conclusions. I think that my noble friend Lord Brockway, and other noble Lords, will find in the report—and I anticipate it to this extent—a good deal of encouragement for the ideas and views which we have heard expressed tonight.

Turning more prescriptively to the Question, may we look at the background of the special session of the United Nations for a moment? Your Lordships will be only too aware that the special session took place against the background of rising prices of oil and, as we have heard, other basic raw materials. These price movements have had a great impact on the world economy; they have affected every kind of country, both developed and developing. But we must recognise that those who have been hit the hardest by recent events are the developing countries which are not themselves significant producers of oil or any other raw material.

While the relations of the "haves" and "have-nots" may have been transformed by their realisations of the past few months, we must also remember that the relations of many of the "have-nots" with others of their kind have also been transformed. So we have emerging nations which, traditionally, had nothing to offer but which now suddenly have something to offer, and nations which may, sooner rather than later, have raw materials to offer which at the moment they do not realise they possess. There is a constant change of the economic position between the countries of the world. It is for this reason, as much as because of the immediate economic and financial crisis that faced certain countries of the world, that the President of Algeria, in his capacity as current Chairman of the Conference of Non-Aligned States—a point I was glad my noble friend Lord Wigg emphasised—took the initiative in calling for a special session of the General Assembly.

Your Lordships will be aware that a special session of the Assembly is due to be held next year to consider development and international co-operation. But President Boumedienne wished to ensure that the problems arising from the increase in oil and other raw material prices would be discussed urgently in the United Nations, and in a context which embraced the whole complex of problems facing the developing countries in particular, and their search for more rapid economic advance. He therefore asked that the special session should consider a single agenda item: the study of the problems of raw materials and development. This is, in fact, what the special session did. Her Majesty's Government welcome this initiative. We see in it an opportunity for the world through the United Nations to take stock of the situation and, in the recognition of interdependence, to seek by co-operation a way forward. In particular, we saw the special session as an opportunity for the international community to assist in accordance with the capacity of individual countries those among the developing countries which have been hardest hit by price increases.

As to the course of the debate which took place against that background and that initiative, it is clear that the many Ministers representing various Govern- ments who spoke in New York took a realistic and practical line. There was general recognition of a need to do something to help the hardest hit countries; and, equally, it seemed to be recognised that the problems now facing all of us could not be solved by any one group of countries acting in isolation. What was important was the concept of economic interdependence. The debate, as the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, reminded us, covered a very wide range: trade, aid, and monetary issues, involving discussion of the pressing dangers of inflation—indeed, the whole spectrum of issues which have been discussed in various organs of the United Nations over recent years.

In passing, I should perhaps mention that the question of food was not prominent in the discussions in New York, despite the fact, as Lord Brockway reminded us, that Dr. Waldheim had listed it as one of the most important matters facing the whole world to-day. But the fact that food was not discussed more fully in the special session was not because of any disregard for the importance of the subject, to which the noble Lord rightly drew attention, but rather because the Assembly was conscious of the fact that a World Food Conference is due to take place in Rome in November, when these particular matters can be fully discussed. I have absolutely no doubt that some of the suggestions and ideas which the noble Lord canvassed this evening will form an important part of the Conference which will be held in Rome in November, particularly the resources of the sea and of the desert. Study of the possibilities of hitherto disregarded areas and sectors of the world is suddenly becoming something of technological and scientific immediacy. Let us hope it will be as immediate next November.

Despite the background against which the session was held, other considerations pressed on the minds of the very representative gathering that came together in this session—as I mentioned, the question of monetary reform, the question of pricing, the question of assessment of needs, the question of the best way of organising assistance to meet those needs. Oil prices were not particularly prominent as a basis on which the discussion proceeded. A main focus of the general debate seems rather to have been on the plight of the hardest hit and the need to do something quickly to help them. The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, who led the United Kingdom delegation, underlined this view of the Assembly's purpose in stressing the importance of co-operation and of consensus. It seemed therefore as though the general debate was indeed providing a basis on which we could hope for a useful and effective practical outcome to the session. The debate proceeded in a way which gave hope to many of us who have waited for a very long time for these questions to be discussed at this level and in this spirit.

Unfortunately, the sense of interdependence and realism somewhat diminished when it came to the consideration of specific proposals for action, and detailed discussion in the Assembly evolved around a declaration on the establishment of a new international economic order and a programme of action for the implementation of those principles. Drafts of these documents were put forward by the Group of Seventy-Seven at an early stage in the proceedings and incorporated their ideas. There was much detailed negotiation of those texts, in which the United Kingdom delegation played a continuous, active and influential part, making every effort to seek compromise solutions where there were differences of view between developed and developing countries.

Sometimes within those two groups we and the other members of the European Community worked together with particular emphasis on the Emergency Programme. But I must note with regret that the developing countries which proposed these texts did not find it possible to take adequate account of the interests of developed countries, including the United Kingdom, in the documents. It is no longer exclusively the problem of developing countries; it is a problem for all countries, how to organise the raw materials of the world in such a way that access on reasonable terms is available to all countries. There is a certain danger that in emphasising the sovereign rights of developing countries, a concept with which we have had a natural affinity, we may be putting a premium upon something like economic nationalism which may prove to be at variance with the paramount need of the world to-day; namely, a workable, interdependent economic system.

As your Lordships will know, the Assembly eventually agreed, without a vote, to the declaration and a programme of action. However, on the face of it, the Assembly did reach what the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, described as a consensus; but, like him, I face the fact that consensus is not unanimity. During the detailed discussions of the text, our delegation had pointed to particular difficulties. We did not press for a vote on these measures but we continued to have serious practical reservations. I shall deal in a few moments with some of the most important of these. We cannot regard ourselves as committed to action upon all of the points contained in the Declaration. Nevertheless, we endorse the broad approach of the declaration and particularly its commitment to a new international, economic order based upon co-operative interdependence.

Her Majesty's Government remain willing to do everything that they can to work out generally accepted concrete measures which build upon this concept. The declaration of principles sets out broad principles of international economic relations, while the Programme of Action sets out concrete measures to implement them. I do not propose to describe them in greater detail than I have already attempted, but copies of the documents will be placed in the Library of your Lordships' House, together with copies of the speeches made at the Assembly by the Minister of State and by our Permanent Representative. We are also examining urgently the possibility of publishing shortly both of these documents and an account of the special session as a Government White Paper. That should enable this House, and possibly another place, to continue this discussion—possibly with a larger attendance—but I am quite sure with no better introduction to the subject than we have already had.

My Lords, I cannot pass over the fact that, in common with most other industrialised countries, we have a large number of reservations upon the declaration and the action programme, the most important of which our Permanent Representative expressly described to the Assembly. I have time this evening to mention only a few. In discussing the principle of national sovereignty over natural resources, a principle which we have always warmly endorsed, the sponsors of the text were not prepared to see any reference to a recourse to the provisions of international law in the settlement of disputes over such matters as compensation in the event of nationalisation. This omission is unacceptable to us. We believe it is essential that there should be an international provision for the settlement of differences between the nation-state and its neighbours, or individuals outside it, when the nation state avails itself of its proper powers in order to sequestrate property. I think this must be axiomatic, and I am hopeful that with further discussion this may be put right in the Declaration and the programme.

Then there were the proposals for the positive encouragement to countries—and especially developing countries producing raw materials—to set up cartels and one-sided pricing arrangements. I think on further study and reflection and the international exchange of ideas there may be second thoughts about this proposal. It is understandably a tempting technique—a protectionist technique which appeals to certain groups at certain times, but we have strong reservations about the introduction of the cartel system and one-sided price fixing into international economics.

LORD WIGG

My Lords, would the noble Lord give way? On the question of nationalisation, this is of fundamental importance, particularly in view of the importance that the Government themselves attach to nationalisation as a means of the control of our own destiny. I wonder whether the noble Lord would be good enough to say whether he accepts the view that nationalisation in developing countries is not a matter of ideological choice but is first and foremost a means of liberation, primarily freeing the country's natural resources from domination, placing them under national control so that the exploitation of development can be given a national character. If on behalf of the Government the noble Lord can confirm that as a principle, then I think he puts the question of compensation and sequestration in its proper perspective But as he put it, that is what I rather feared from reports I had of the views expressed by the Government spokesmen—that they were almost putting forward a view that they were objecting to nationalisation as a principle. I did not want to raise the heat at this time of night, but it would be a little odd if the spokesmen for a Labour Government in New York opposed nationalisation on principle because one was not getting enough in return and only using that as an excuse—whereas in this country in order to control our nation's economic development we regard nationalisation as a principle that must be applied if the economy is to be developed.

LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS

My Lords, it would not only be odd, it would be untrue, because nothing of the sort was said in New York or here. Indeed, I thought I had put the point very much as the noble Lord put it. It is not a question of being for or against State ownership, nationalisation, or whatever you call it. Our reservation was not on nationalisation at all, as I thought I had made clear; it was on the question of international provision to settle disputes between two countries, between the country and outside interests, when differences arose as a result of the movement to nationalisation. Indeed if we are going to give to the International Court, which at the moment is so advisory (although the value of an advisory court should not be minimised), if we are going to give to international institutions, especially legal international institutions, their proper role, real life and purpose, I think we must start with the nation-state and say, "Of course, you are free to do anything you like about your own natural resources", but when disputes arise—it may be between Britain and Iceland, or between some other two countries about some economic issue involving nationalisation or some other proposal—then nations, like men, must be prepared for the wrench of arbitration, the surrender of sovereignty which makes them judges in their own cause. That is what I think I said and, indeed, it accords entirely with what my noble friend has just said.

LORD BROCKWAY

My Lords, I do not wish to delay the Minister but the point he has raised is one of extraordinary interest. Let us suppose in this country a Government wish to nationalise any industry, that that industry was largely owned in America, and there was conflict between the Government and the owners of the industry about compensation. Is it really suggested that that conflict about the nationalisation of an industry in this country should be submitted to the International Court at the Hague?

LORD GCRONWY-ROBERTS

My Lords, I am sure we should work towards a position in which there was an international body that could resolve a conflict, for instance of compensation, when such a proposal was raised. I would think that that was an internationalist position to which both my noble friend and I would wish to work. We are in danger these days, in the name of social progress, especially when it relates to what are called developing countries, of sliding imperceptibly back into the dangers of national sovereignty of a kind which may erode even the little international authority that the world has so painfully gathered together. I should very much like to discuss this further with my noble friend. I agree it is of extreme importance as well as of interest.

We think that any measures likely to hinder the expansion of world trade would not be in the long-term interests of developing nations. Cartels and one-sided price fixing operations must in the long run militate against the expansion of world trade. With reference to shipping, we cannot accept the proposal for the implemenation of a code of conduct for Liner Conferences which we voted against only last month in Geneva. There was also an unrealistic proposal on freight rates, made in the face of ever-rising costs, involving us and countries like us in unacceptable subsidisation. Other major reservations concerned proposals to establish an automatic link between raw material prices and those of manufactures, a claim to economic compensation for past colonial rule, proposed terms for the transfer of technology to developing countries, and compensatory financing schemes to subsidise developing countries' exports. The debates and discussion on all these points will undoubtedly continue, and must continue, because some of these proposals, though well meant, must be very carefully examined before this country, or indeed, many other countries, including some of the most generous of donors, can accede to them.

My Lords, I should like to say a little more about the special programme for aiding those hardest-hit which is included as one part of the action programme. As I have said the United Kingdom attached special importance to securing some firm prospect of help for the hardest hit, and we are glad that the measures finally adopted by the Assembly included such a provision. The grievous sufferings of some developing countries are, in our view, the most urgent of the problems facing us, and we welcome the moves towards emergency relief. In addition to a range of special measures, the Assembly called for the establishment of a special fund to provide emergency relief and development assistance. It is hoped that this fund will commence its operation at the latest by January 1, 1975.

The Assembly also established an ad hoc committee, on which the United Kingdom hopes to serve, to make recommendations about the operations of this fund, how it is to assist the hardest hit and how most precisely to assess the need for assistance. Until this committee has made its recommendations it is, of course, premature to make any specific offer of aid. But the E.E.C. has already announced its willingness in principle to contribute substantially to emergency aid for the hardest hit countries on the basis that other members of the international community would also contribute. In our view, this is not the occasion for assistance by traditional donors alone. All those in a position to do so should help. One would hope that the highly respectable principle of, "To those with the greatest need, from those with the greatest capacity", will indeed inspire this special fund, and I hope we shall soon have precise details about it.

As to the follow-up in the future, I know that noble Lords will want to know what comes out in practice from all this discussion and all these drafting sessions and declarations. The Assembly decided that various alternative procedures and timetables for this follow-up work should be remitted for examination by the Economic and Social Council. That Council is now in session and may be expected to have completed its work by about the middle of the month. The intention is, however, that a good deal of preliminary work will have been done in time for the General Assembly which meets for its regular session in the autumn. There is not much time to distil out of the discussion of the drafted plan of action something which the regular session, which meets in the autumn, can put in hand practically so that its operation begins, as I have said, hopefully, on January 1, 1975.

In conclusion, may I say this? The special session, the sixth in the history of the United Nations, as the noble Lord said, did not achieve as much as he and I and my noble friend Lord Wigg and many others hoped it might. Indeed, the Assembly could not perhaps have been expected to resolve in three weeks all of the complex matters which it considered. But we regard the Declaration as an expression of the will of the international community to tackle these problems urgenily. I think your Lordships will agree that although the special session cannot be called a complete success, in that the keynote of interdependence and co-operation which marked the debate in plenary session did not always stand up to translation into practical proposals for economic collaboration, nevertheless progress has been made and the United Nations has once again showed its readiness to examine vigorously the problems which face the world. Her Majesty's Government, for their part, will continue to work constructively to reach agreed solutions to these problems through the United Nations, as elsewhere. I am proud to say that our delegation at this unique special session took an active and, as I have said, constructive and influential part. We have a number of quite serious reservations about the outcome of the session, but none, I think, which cannot be resolved by further discussion internationally between the nations of the world.