ADDRESS IN REPLY TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH

HL Deb 05 November 1974 vol 354 cc288-428

3.1 p.m.

Debate resumed on the Motion moved on Tuesday last by Lord Shinwell—namely, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:

"Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD ELWYN-JONES)

My Lords, to-day the House is to debate the foreign policy and defence aspects of the gracious Speech. I propose to deal mainly with four areas of foreign policy which we consider are fundamental to this country because of the profund impact which developments in them have on our overall efforts as a Government to maintain our prosperity and our security, the twin base of our survival. I refer to the maintenance of the rule of law in international affairs, to the present international economic situation, to our relations with the European Economic Community and to the problem of East-West relations and détente. My noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts will deal with certain other issues when he winds up this debate.

First, I should like to emphasise the leading role which this country has played in efforts to maintain and enhance the rule of law in international affairs. I need not stress the significance that must be attached to international law as a means of regulating relations between the nation States of the world, but there is a growing tendency to question the continued relevance in modern conditions of certain long-accepted principles of international law. We accept that there is a need in certain areas of activity to adapt existing rules of international law so as to make them more responsive to the current preoccupations of the international community and to technological development, but perhaps nowhere is this more evident at the present time than in the area of the Law of the Sea. We intend to continue working for a new Law of the Sea Convention which will develop existing rules of international law while at the same time preserving the necessary balance between the various interests which have to be reconciled.

We will also play our part in other activities within the framework of the United Nations and other international organisations designed to promote the codification and progressive development of international law and the harmonisation of national legal systems. In this context the record of the United Kingdom in ratifying the international codification conventions drawn up under the auspices of the United Nations is second to none. We have ratified all four of the existing Geneva Conventions on the Law of the Sea, as well as the Vienna Conventions on diplomatic relations, on consular relations and on the law of treaties.

This necessary task of developing international law so as to make it responsive to the needs of an enlarged international community must, however, be matched by parallel efforts to ensure that international law is effectively applied. This country has always given strong support to the work of the International Court of Justice. We have submitted more cases to the court for adjudication than any other State. Two years ago we took our fishery dispute with Iceland to the International Court and earlier this year the court pronounced judgment in our favour, so vindicating the legal stand which Her Majesty's Government took in this difficult matter. The International Court as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations is an essential instrument for maintaining the rule of law in international affairs. Far more use should be made of it and we must continue to work towards a situation in which it will become more and more natural for States to have recourse to a judicial settlement of their legal disputes.

It is impossible to survey the foreign policy field without reference to the international economic situation. Indeed the most serious of the international problems which we face at the moment are economic. The economic map of the world has been transformed over the past year. The ultimate effects of the quintupling of oil prices are still far from certain, but this change is already affecting profoundly the lives of every man, woman and child in this country, and indeed throughout the world.

Your Lordships are well aware of the recessed state of the world economy, of the risks of world slump—indeed, a world crash—unless international cooperation in averting it is of the highest order and pursued with a sense of great urgency, and of the acute and pressing problems raised by the re-cycling of the oil producers' financial surpluses. These challenges are made all the more complex by the high levels of inflation throughout the world. Her Majesty's Government have been playing, and will continue to play, an active part in tackling these problems.

First and foremost we must set our own house in order and strengthen our own economy. At the same time we are actively pursuing co-operative international solutions to these essentially international difficulties. We have frequently laid stress on the importance of not allowing international concern for inflation to divert us from the equally grave dangers of recession. These dangers are in many ways the more immediate and the more painful. I mean stagnation, bankruptcy and unemployment. We have also argued that countries in balance of payments surplus have a duty to sustain levels of domestic demand. The deficit countries, including ourselves, must seek to eliminate their underlying deficits, but all must live with their oil deficits for some time to come if world demand is to be sustained and all countries must help the less developed economies to continue to find and to expand overseas markets for their products.

On the question of re-cycling, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made imaginative new proposals for extended oil facilities within the International Monetary Fund. His ideas are being urgently studied by the IMF staff, but ultimately the problems arising from high oil prices can be solved only with the consent and co-operation of both producers and consumers, and this may take a long time to achieve. We are taking part with the European Community and the energy co-ordinating group, which includes the major industrial countries among its members, in working out plans for a co-ordination of energy policies.

I turn next to the EEC. It is now a little more than seven months since my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, by his speech on April 1 to the Council of Ministers, formally set in motion, as we had pledged to the electorate, the process of renegotiation. Since then there has been a general realisation within the Community that some of the goals and timetables set by the Committee itself were quite unrealistic. There have been changes of government in certain member countries which have produced a greater willingness to question some of the old ideas of the Community, to abandon rigid set positions and to approach discussion, even of fundamental principles, in a more constructive and open-minded way. Of course, we do not claim that this Government are responsible for all these changes of attitude, but we have no doubt at all that our firm approach to the Community has contributed in a substantial way to them. I cannot at this stage predict with confidence what the final outcome of our renegotiation will be. I think it is fair to say, however, that the conditions and the prospects for our discussions with the Community are far better now than the doubters predicted at the outset, and have, indeed, become progressively better since we set out on this process of renegotiation.

My Lords, I should like briefly to review the progress which we have made so far in the main areas in which we were dissatisfied with the terms of entry, or where the Community seemed set on a course which we believed to be against British interests. In his Statement of April 1, my right honourable friend referred to the doubts we had about the commitments in the Paris Summit Communiqué of October, 1972, to economic and monetary union, and to the transformation of the whole complex of the relations of member States into a European Union by 1980. I think it is clear that no one in the Community believes either that full economic and monetary union can be achieved by 1980, or that there should be any attempt to achieve parity at the expense of accepting massive unemployment.

So far as the wider concepts of European union are concerned, we have tried to find out exactly what those who subscribe to the idea mean by this concept, but we have failed to get a coherent answer. I think the questions we have asked have contributed to an awareness in the Community that this answer has not yet been examined with precision. I think it is also clear that member Governments do not expect the Community to move towards some sort of federation by 1980. It is accepted that the Community must proceed by mutual agreement, and also that it cannot go faster than the will of the peoples in the various member States will allow. That willingness is fundamental.

My Lords, secondly I should like to mention the problem of the Community budget. This is perhaps the most difficult area which we have faced in renegotiation. Under the Treaty of Accession, it was clear that we were likely to be contributing to the Community budget progressively more than our own gross national product could possibly warrant. At the request of my right honourable friend, the Council of Ministers asked for a report from the Commission on this subject, and it has now been communicated to member Governments. We are studying it carefully. It confirms our basic contention that the budget system is likely to result in the United Kingdom paying more than its fair share. There will be intensive and no doubt difficult discussion in the Council when we come to decide how this problem should be dealt with. It is our firm intention to achieve an arrangement which ensures that we are not required to contribute more to the Community budget than is equitable.

My Lords, I should like to mention relations between the United States and the Community. When we came to power in March, there had been a series of differences between the United States and the Community which had given rise to a good deal of acrimonious discussion and a certain amount of distrust on both sides. I am happy to say that the Government have been able to play an active part in improving the relations between the Nine and the United States, and consultation between them is now working well.

Noble Lords will be aware that the Common Agricultural Policy was one of the areas in which we saw considerable difficulties for Britain. We are seeking a number of changes and this at the outset looks likely to be one of the most difficult aspects of renegotiation. It may yet prove to be so. But partly as a result of initiatives from other member States which also found themselves in difficulties in the CAP not dissimilar to those which we saw ourselves, the Council of Ministers decided on October 2 to set in motion a comprehensive review of the CAP which should be ready for discussion in the Council in February next year. This will provide an important opportunity for us to achieve our renegotiation objectives and we shall do so vigorously. I think that there is now a general recognition that the CAP needs overhauling.

At the same time, it is right to recognise that there are some aspects of the CAP which have been beneficial to us. There are some areas where, at least for a time, we are getting cheaper food than we otherwise would have had as a result of our membership of the Community. Sugar is a current example. We shall have an opportunity to discuss this in detail in the debate which will take place in two days' time. Our regional policy has given rise to concern in relation to the implications of the Common Market. With regard to that, we are pursuing in Brussels the objectives we set for ourselves in renegotiation; namely, to ensure that within a co-ordinated EEC regime we would be free to pursue national regional policies appropriate to the circumstances of the United Kingdom.

My Lords, I should like to mention the problems of the trade of Commonwealth and developing countries, and aid to them. At the end of July, a meeting with the 45 developing countries from Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific, 22 of whom are members of the Commonwealth, resulted in considerable progress. Credit for this must go particularly to the efforts of my right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development. We shall work to ensure that these negotiations are brought to a successful conclusion before the end of this year. We are also making efforts to widen the access to EEC markets for other Asian and Commonwealth countries by means of improvement in the Community's generalised scheme of preferences.

My Lords, there is then the question of aid. The Community has broken away from the attitudes of the past and accepted the principle of aid to countries which are not associated with it. This acceptance in principle is now being translated into action. The Community has already made a beginning by offering 500 million dollars in emergency aid to countries which are most seriously affected by the rise in the price of oil, subject to satisfactory contributions from other industrialised countries and the oil producers. It has already agreed to release 150 million dollars of this. This aid will be of particular aid to India. As in the other fields I have mentioned, there is more work to do before our renegotiation aims are achieved. However, progress is being made.

My Lords, I now want to turn briefly to the role of Parliament in Community matters. It is extremely important that Parliament, including your Lordships' House, should have the opportunity to exercise a proper degree of control in Community matters. The Scrutiny Committee, set up following recommendations of the Maybray-King Committee under the able chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Diamond, examined a considerable list of EEC proposals and has produced recommendations for debates in this House. We shall be having the first such debate in two days' time, following a debate on the Special Report of the Committee on its activities to date.

From what I have said it will be clear that we have already achieved substantial results from our policy of renegotiation. We made it clear in our Manifesto for the recent Election that we should aim to complete renegotiation in time for the British people to be allowed to express an opinion through the ballot box within one year. We aim to complete renegotiation by the spring of 1975. It is still too early to predict exactly what the outcome will be, but I hope that whatever it is we shall all approach this matter not with ideas predetermined by rigid ideological considerations, but on a pragmatic assessment of the relative advantages and disadvantages, both in the medium and in the long term, to this country of membership of the Community.

I should like to mention briefly the Middle East. I am sure that I do not need to re-emphasise to your Lordships the importance which we and the rest of the industrialised world must place on developments in this area. We hope to see soon the opening of a new stage in the long drawn out effort to reach a lasting settlement between Israel and the Arab States, although the difficulties are formidable. My noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts will be dealing with this subject more fully in his speech, and I do not propose to say more at this stage.

Before I turn briefly to defence issues, I should like to say a few words on the subject of East/West détente for which there does not appear to be an exact English translation. There was a time when the entire foreign policies of the countries of both the Eastern and Western groups were subordinated to the overriding East/West confrontation. This situation is fast changing: against the background of strategic parity between the United States and the Soviet Union we have seen the inception of a genuine East/West dialogue designed to lower barriers in Europe and bring about a more civilised relationship. Moreover, we also face a range of urgent problems elsewhere, the most important of which is the wide divergences between the developed and the poor countries, of which nations in both these categories have come in the last few years to be ever increasingly aware. In the face of this gap we and the countries of Eastern Europe increasingly face similar problems and responsibilities. We can less and less afford the luxury of putting rigid ideologies, whether Communist or anti-Communist, before the economic realities which we see about us.

In these circumstances questions of East/West détente take on an added significance. We in Britain have to ask ourselves in what way we can best contribute to the process. It would be idle to pretend that we can ever hope to exercise the type of influence on the course of events which the super-Powers can bring to bear. But I am sure that there are a number of ways in which we can play a significant role.

The first way is in our bilateral contacts with countries of Eastern Europe. It is the policy of this Government to develop these contacts to the fullest extent which is consistent with our national security. We shall, through these contacts, seek gradually to eliminate the distrust and lack of confidence which have hitherto damaged relationships. Secondly, we can play a full role in the two major conferences which are now proceeding in Geneva and in Vienna. The conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe reassembled about six weeks ago in Geneva after the summer break. Our delegation returned to it following a careful review with our allies of the progress which had so far been made at the conference. Together with them we have put forward a number of proposals designed to quicken the pace, but I fear it would be a mistake to be too optimistic about the likely course of developments at this conference.

The talks in Vienna on Mutual and Balanced Force Reductions are dealing with the rather more specific problem of military force levels. There are certain differences of approach between the NATO countries and the Warsaw Pact Alliance which have so far made concrete progress slow. We as a Government shall do all we can to assist in resolving the differences. I want now to say a few words about defence, since our defence and foreign policies are in many respects inseparable. The Government's full adherence to and support for NATO is, and will remain, a pivotal part of our foreign policy: as the Secretary of State for Defence has already made clear, NATO is the linch-pin of our security and will remain the first charge on the resources made available for defence. We must therefore ensure that we continue to play our full part in NATO and make adequate provision to do so. The efforts towards détente which I have just mentioned depend very much on this. For we shall only secure worthwhile concessions from Eastern Europe by negotiating from strength. It is illusory to imagine that they will not exploit any weakness on our part. Furthermore, the United States make an enormous contribution to the strength of Europe, and we recognise that we cannot expect them to continue to do this unless we ourselves are prepared to play our proper part.

At the same time we must recognise that rising personnel costs and the ever-growing complexity of military technology make a given defence programme increasingly expensive to sustain. We must ensure that in the period of great economic difficulty that lies ahead our defence budget does not pre-empt too great a share of the limited resources available for more productive use, particularly exports and investments. We must also take care that we do not carry a disproportionate share of the common burden compared with our major European allies, who are also—and it must not be forgotten—our main trading competitors.

Noble Lords are aware of the Review of Defence Expenditure which this Government have been carrying out since they came to power. Our purpose is to retain a modern and effective defence system while bringing its costs, as a proportion of our national resources, more into line with that of our major European allies. To do this we must achieve substantial savings on defence expenditure of several hundred million pounds a year. We shall seek to achieve this without calling into question our own security or that of our allies. We have made good progress with this Review, and, as the Lord President of the Council said in another place on October 31, there will be a Statement on the Defence Review before the end of this month and the White Paper will be published early next year. The timetable will enable Parliament (including your Lordships' House) as well as our allies and partners to have a very full opportunity to express views before final decisions are taken.

My Lords, I have endeavoured to cover this afternoon some of the major issues facing the foreign policy of this country. But before I sit down, and in the light of exchanges which took place at Question Time, I should like to refer briefly to our relations with South Africa. The principles which we have adopted and which will shape our policy towards South Africa have been made abundantly clear. We reject the whole system of apartheid. It is our firm policy to give no help or co-operation to the South African Government which could be used for internal repression or for the enforcement of apartheid. We are determined to do all we can, within the international community, to help bring about an end to discrimination and injustice in South Africa.

The House is aware of our embargo on the sale of arms to South Africa in accordance with our national undertakings. We do, of course, continue to have dealings with South Africa; they are part of the economic facts of life. The House is aware that there has been no change in our position on commercial relations with South Africa outside the sphere of military supplies. As my noble friend Lord Winterbottom said earlier this afternoon, the House is aware that the Government are reviewing the naval arrangements arising from the Simons-town Agreement. We shall be looking carefully at the military advantages which might exist and shall have to weigh our security interests against wider British interests, including, of course, our relations with African countries. We shall inform the House when we have reached our conclusions.

Taking into account the way in which the world situation, and in particular the world economic situation, has developed in the last few years, the success of our foreign policy is probably more fundamentally and directly important to the wellbeing of our people than it has been for a long time. We are fully conscious of this, and as a Government we shall make it our business to make a success of that policy. We are confident that we shall do so.

3.30 p.m.

LORD CARRINGTON

My Lords, our debate so far has been overshadowed by the economic situation and our prospects in the future—and very properly so—but it is right that we should spend a day discussing foreign affairs and defence, for there are a number of issues which I know that many of your Lordships will want to raise this afternoon. We are all grateful to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for initiating this debate. As he said, foreign and defence affairs cannot be dissociated from economic affairs. No country can have a strong and independent foreign policy unless it stems from a powerful economic base. However good the speeches, however noble the sentiments, however splendid the tradition, however experienced and wise the statesman, they count for little unless there is economic and military power behind them, and we deceive ourselves if we think otherwise.

It is also a fact, and it is no good pretending otherwise, that in these last 30 years we have seen a diminution of British influence and power. That is partly, of course, because of the end of the Empire, partly because of the impossibility of a country of our size competing in military or industrial terms with the two, and now three, giants, but partly because of our lack of success in economic affairs and the relative weakening of our financial base. There can be no argument that if we wish to have a powerful voice in the affairs of Europe, and with Europe in the affairs of the world, we must put our economic house in order.

The policy of successive British Governments over these last 30 years has been, while accepting the diminution in the ability of Britain to stand alone, to counteract it by entering into a series of treaties and alliances and groupings which seek to ensure our safety and to maintain our influence. Broadly speaking, with the exception of the Common Market, this has been a bipartisan approach, and it could be that that is one of the reasons why, in recent years, our debates on foreign affairs have been both infrequent and perhaps rather dull. But we have been very lucky that we have had a policy with which most of the people in this country have agreed. Do not let us overlook the fact that even if there may be disagreements about some aspects of our foreign policy, there is still a very broad measure of agreement between the people of this country about what the foreign policy should be.

My noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir, who is to speak at the end of the debate, will speak about Europe. Therefore, I shall not say much, except to state what is perhaps the most important point, and which I believe is the linchpin on which our future foreign policy must depend. I believe, and believe unrepentantly, that it is vital that this country should continue its membership. To contemplate a situation in which the members of the EEC seek to solve the problems of a European economy, of a European monetary policy, of a European foreign policy, of a European defence policy, of European unity, without Britain sharing in those deliberations is for us to opt out of the future of the Western World. Should there be anybody who supposes that there is an alternative in the Commonwealth, let him go and visit Australia, New Zealand, Canada, or Africa, and observe what has happened in these last years.

What, then, is the position of the Government? I know that there are some Members who are, and always have been, opposed to our entry into Europe; some are, and always have been, in favour of it. But where do the Government stand? We are told that much depends on the terms which can be renegotiated, and we are grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving us such an encouraging account. If terms can be negotiated and obtained which are better than, the ones which would have been accepted by the Prime Minister in 1969, and were accepted by the Conservative Government, very good—I am all for it. But will the Government then advise the British people in the referendum which they are proposing to accept those terms and to remain in the Common Market, or will some of them advise the people of Britain to accept and others to refuse? Or will they not make any recommendation at all to the British people, in spite of the fact that they have successfully renegotiated satisfactory terms? What questions are to be put to the people? How can it be binding upon Members of Parliament? We must be told a good deal more in these next few weeks about what the Government propose, and I am afraid that we must all of us realise that our friends in Europe are getting pretty fed up with us, and that quite a number of them now do not really mind whether we stay or not, because we are being an uncertain nuisance.

What should be the purpose of British foreign policy? It should be to promote British interests, to ensure British security, to further the welfare of the British people, and since peace and prosperity among all nations are essential ingredients of our own security and welfare, we should work assiduously to ensure stability in the world and advancement in developing countries; and of course we should seek to promote justice. But I do not believe that it is the business of British foreign policy to moralise or to preach. Of course there are régimes and governments around the world of which we disapprove; of course we would wish it otherwise. We believe, rightly or wrongly, that we have found a system which, taking it all in all, is fair to the people who live in this country. But perhaps sometimes it is right for us to remember that to others our system does not necessarily seem to be the best, or perhaps as they look at some of the events in this country of the past few years they can question the direction in which we are going.

To give one example, there is the feeling which seems to be growing that one need obey only those laws of which one approves—Clay Cross and the Industrial Relations Act are two examples. It could be that in different countries at different stages of political development, different constitutions and different practices are inevitable. We do not publicly have to disapprove or approve. The way to influence people is by example and by contact, and not by disapproval shown by withdrawing diplomatic relations, or boycotting social functions, or banning trade. After all, what have we all been doing in these last three years or so in the European Security Conference? We have been seeking to increase the free movement of people between East and West, so that the exchange of ideas, the examples, as we see it, of our Parliamentary democracy, can have their firsthand effect. What is desirable between East and West is surely as desirable between other countries.

When politicians seek to preach at other countries they are almost invariably selective: they are almost always influenced by their own political beliefs. South Africa is not the only country that practices racial discrimination. There is one glaring example of racial discrimination in a black African country; Chile is not the only country in which the military have seized power. Would it not be as well perhaps sometimes to look at what is happening in, for example, Portugal? I was very glad to see the other day that the Foreign Secretary said: If we require a certificate of social democratic respectibility before we buy or sell, we shall find our market-place becoming rather small. Trade is not a badge of approval, not is security, and I shall come to that in a moment, but I absolutely agree with what the Foreign Secretary has said. If we decide that we are going to trade or to speak or to have contacts with only those régimes of which we approve, because they are parliamentary democracies like ourselves, we are going to find ourselves very short of partners and very short of dinner companions for what will be a very frugal dinner.

I must say that I think it is humbug to say that you will trade with South Africa—it is acceptable because it is in our interests to do so and does not mean approval—but that it is not acceptable to collaborate on defence in the interests of British and Western security. If the Government can stand up—and perhaps they can—and say that there is no need for any defence facilities at Simonstown now or in the future, that the route around the Cape by which so much of our shipping goes and will go regardless of whether or not the Suez Canal is opened, is no longer at risk or of importance; if they can say that in any situation which they can foresee collaboration between the Western Navies and the South African Navy is irrelevant, then there is a case for letting the Simonstown agreement lapse, but otherwise there is not. The suspicion must rest until it is dispelled by the Government that any abandonment of our agreement with South Africa is not much concerned with the defence interests of this country.

My Lords, the area of the world that is most vital and most unstable at this time is the Middle East—and here, again, I agree very much with what the Foreign Secretary said at the United Nations the other day. He said: There are problems and circumstances when it is much better to leave things alone, when time sorts out the difficulties, and problems which seem insoluble somehow or other seem to get solved. One example was Trieste. But I do not believe this to be true in the Middle East at the present time, nor could the outcome of the Arab Summit at Rabat last week be said to lead to that conclusion. We have seen over the last two or three years a very considerable shift in the balance of power in the Middle East. For the first time, the Arab countries have sunk their differences and they are cohesive and united. That, and the phenomenal increase in their wealth, has altered the balance in a way which must be as obvious to the Israelis as it is to the outside observer.

The consequences of this unity are there for all of us to see. I do not think that the price of oil would have risen so sharply if it had not been a weapon in the war against Israel. We have not yet begun to understand or to cope with the results which that will bring, but with the power and money which unity brings there has been a parallel development. Arab leaders, I think for the first time, are enabled by that new-found strength to find and accept a solution to the Middle East problem—a solution which I think might be acceptable.

The problems between Israel and Egypt are, I think, capable of solution, as indeed they are between Israel and Syria and Jordan, but I do not think that is enough. There can be no solution that will endure, unless we recognise that the problems of the Palestinians also have to be solved. Nobody can pretend that that will not be more difficult. It will be more difficult, but solved they have got to be and there is not much time. I am sure that Dr. Kissinger understands that, and let us hope that in his travels, aided, I hope, by the outspoken and open support of Her Majesty's Government, he will persuade the principals of the need for and the good sense of a settlement—but of a settlement which, if it is just to the Arabs, guarantees the independence of Israel.

The other area of disquiet is obviously that of defence, on which the noble and learned Lord touched. In electing the present Government, the British people have secured a Government which intend to reduce the defence budget by several hundreds of millions of pounds annually. We have not been told how this is to be done; we have not been told why it is to be done or whether it is safe to do it. We must now await the interim Statement in November and the final proposals. I understand, at some time next year. I hope it is not too late, therefore, to put before the Government one or two considerations which they might possibly take into account.

My Lords, the consequences of defence cuts fall into two categories—international and national—and if I am right one of the arguments that the Government used (and which indeed the noble and learned Lord used) to maintain their decision to cut defence expenditure is that we are spending on defence a greater proportion of our gross national product than do other countries. That is perfectly true, or at least it is true of most of the other countries of our own size, but of course we are not spending in total as much money as either the Germans or the French. Indeed, the defence percentage of our GNP has been declining, while that of Germany, for instance, has been rising. It is, broadly speaking, the failure of successive Governments to expand the economy which has made it appear that our effort is disproportionate to that of our friends. Under Treaty obligations it is necessary for the Government, before they decide on how far they will reduce their commitments, to consult their allies. I would ask the noble Lord—and I trust the noble Lord received my notice of this question—whether there will be real consultation or whether decisions will in effect have been taken? I would also ask whether we in this House and in the House of Commons will know of the proposals which are being discussed with our allies or whether we will not be told about them until after the discussions are over?

The Government must be aware of two factors: first, that the United States, which spends more of its GNP on defence (and in money terms goodness knows how much more), is becoming increasingly restive about the scale of European effort. There is a widespread feeling in the United States, a feeling which is very powerful in Congress, that a Europe which in 1949 was incapable of much military effort should in its prosperity of 1974 be able to contribute a good deal more to the common alliance than so far it has thought fit. That feeling is growing and we are approaching a position where no American Administration will find it possible to maintain current American involvement without the greatest difficulty. Should that happen the consequences to the Alliance could be very grave, because the American nuclear umbrella, which to an extent is made credible by the presence of large numbers of American troops in Europe, is the cement which binds the Alliance together. Until now the Americans have not only acknowledged that we have contributed our share but have relied upon us to help in persuading others to do more.

My Lords, no democratic Government at this time or most other times find it easy to spend money on weapons of defence. There are so many more appealing and vote-winning matters on which to spend money. Perhaps there is some feeling in this country of that kind, but it is a good deal stronger across the Channel. We have already seen the Danes and the Dutch reducing their Forces. No doubt there are other countries who, in economic difficulties, will justify on economic grounds to seek to reduce their contributions. I believe that a sizeable reduction at this time by Britain, a country which has always led the way in its military contribution to the Alliance, will accelerate the trends which we see in Europe and will make the position of the American Administration, in their public wish to maintain the level of their Forces, that much more difficult.

The words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor were all right; it is the Government's intentions that I am worried about. There is no need, in this House at any rate, to point out the comparative strengths of the NATO Alliance and the Warsaw Pact; they are well known. The conventional superiority of the Warsaw Pact is large and is increasing. The amount of money which the Communist bloc spends on defence is much greater than that of the West. The strategic nuclear superiority of the Americans is a good deal less than it was a few years ago.

My Lords, I do not for one moment say that this means that the Russians or the Warsaw Pact countries intend to go to war. But what I do say is that until there is some evidence of a decline in Soviet bloc expenditure on defence, until there is some real evidence of détente, it would be very unwise for the West unilaterally to disarm or to suppose that there could be no circumstances in which present Soviet foreign policy could change. A Western Europe in which NATO has disintegrated and which was virtually defenceless would be in no position to defend, itself against the political offensive, backed by overwhelming superiority of military power. The Government have a duty to see that this does not happen. They have a responsibility to make sure that by their actions they do not make the problems of NATO more difficult and so increase its weakness.

The second level on which defence cuts have an effect is national. Obviously they must have an effect upon the morale, the re-engagement and recruitment of men and women into the Services. But, if it is the Government's intention to save several hundred million pounds annually, then inevitably the reductions will be very severe. Let nobody suppose that they can stop at Singapore or Malta. In terms of what has to be saved, the money spent in those places is trivial. Nor should I have thought at this time it was a wise proposition to withdraw from Cyprus.

Money saving on the scale envisaged by the Government can be achieved only by the elimination of certain capabilities and by reductions in the research development and production of equipment. I do not know whether Mr. Chapman Pincher is right in his forecast of what the Government intend. All I know is that Mr. Chapman Pincher is seldom wrong. In the many years that I have spent in Defence Departments, he has had an uncanny and sometimes inconvenient facility for hitting the nail on the head. If Mr. Chapman Pincher is right, then the Government are contemplating cuts of a very drastic kind which would affect NATO and our capability to fulfil our commitments in Ireland.

Is it really possible that the Government are contemplating abolishing the Royal Marines, the Parachute Regiment, the Royal Air Force Regiment, the Amphibious Warfare Squadron and many ships of the Royal Navy? My Lords, I do not know. But these are questions which are giving rise to a very great deal of anxiety. I do not believe that uncertainty for another six months will help anybody. But, whether or not they are contemplating these cuts, undoubtedly they will have to reduce both the quantity and quality of new equipment for the Services and the research and development on new equipment. What will be the result of that? Our Services will be less well-equipped than they would otherwise be; in many cases they will be less well-equipped than those alongside whom they would be fighting and those against whom they would have to fight.

At a time of rising unemployment and uncertainty in industry, those firms on defence work will find their orders curtailed. Firms already in difficulties because of the Government's policy will be in even more difficulty. Unemployment will rise; exports will inevitably fall—the export of arms is very large—because it is an indisputable fact that no country will order equipment from another country unless that equipment is in service.

The British aircraft industry is to be nationalised. Dependent to a large extent on military orders for its survival, it will be in deeper trouble. The cost of individual items will rise. For example, if the Government cut the total orders for the MRCA, inevitably this will affect the price of the aircraft, collaboration with the Germans and employment in British aircraft factories. All these factors must be taken into account. All are important. But the overriding question is whether the Government can cut our defence by such a large figure without affecting our security.

I am not so naive as to suppose that the ordinary man in the street, at a time when international tension is not very high, when he is burdened by high taxation, rising unemployment, inflation and all the rest of it, is likely to be unduly concerned about cuts in defence expenditure. But he should be. Those of us who have lived through the consequences of the mistakes of our predecessors in the 'thirties, and have enjoyed peace in the post-war years because we were prepared to maintain our defences, have a duty and an obligation to point that out and to say with the utmost emphasis to the present Administration, that, if they allow the security of this country to be put at risk because as a Party they are not prepared to reduce expenditure in other fields, then they will be guilty of the gravest possible neglect of their national duty. This is how we who sit on the Opposition Benches will judge them. I hope they will not be found wanting.

3.57 p.m.

LORD GLADWYN

My Lords, I must begin by apologising for the fact that I may not be able to be here till the end of the debate. I have an official dinner at which I must, if possible, be present. But I should hope to get away from it in time to hear the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, wind up.

In our bones we all know that a great crisis is impending, which may even tear this nation apart. In the face of it, the social and economic programme of the Government may become, I fear, a little irrelevant as time goes on. So it is more important than ever, I suggest, to agree, if we can, on our role in the world, about which the Foreign Secretary had a good deal to say in his, in many ways, excellent speech in another place last Wednesday. Not so long ago, for instance, we had the three overlapping circles of Sir Winston Churchill. That was a conception. But what is our guiding philosophy now?

Well, my Lords, there is the old idea that with the disappearance of the "pomps of yesterday", Britain might still have a great role as a leader of the Commonwealth. I do not propose to add much more under that heading to what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said. It is obvious that the Commonwealth idea can no longer represent a coherent political basis for any valid foreign and defence policy for the United Kingdom. What the Commonwealth countries want, and what for the most part they now have, is a good association, not so much with us as with the European Community.

Then there is the school of thought which can best be described as "Gaullist anti-Market"; pride in our past achievements, complete national independence, a free hand in foreign policy to do anything you like, irrespective of what our allies may feel—a certain xenophobia perhaps, more especially Americano-phobia, if one can call it that; an effort to solve our social difficulties by a frank appeal to patriotism; great concentration on national armaments; the Constitution maintained, but Parliament playing a secondary role; no truck with regionalism, of course. There are certainly people who might find this policy attractive, even though, as we know, it was abandoned as counter-productive in the country where it was first tried out, originally with some success.

But there is a very different kind of nationalism, much favoured by many anti-Marketeers. This consists in believing that borrowing on account of North Sea oil will see us through our economic difficulties and that we can still, by ourselves, become a rather introspective, if you like, but anyhow quite independent. Welfare State on the model, it is so often suggested, of Sweden. Basically materialistic in outlook and increasingly egalitarian, we should concentrate chiefly on our standard of living, not influenced much by foreigners, and indeed rather provincial, content to let our Armed Forces run down somewhat and thus to become, as it were, a rather secondary member of the Western Alliance, but still, of course, basking under the protection of the American nuclear umbrella. To those of this school of thought, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, implied, moral issues are all important, and it is thought that by vigorously asserting them we can best maintain a leading position in the world. But some moral issues are more important than others. The policies of the South African Government, for instance, are believed to be much more outrageous than those of the Soviet Government or of General Amin.

My Lords, there is a tougher, even if often an unavowed, approach by others who, though not numerous, probably know what they are about. This is the achievement of a fully directed economy in which the role of Parliament will be virtually suppressed and the bureaucrats take over under a small élite or junta, whether of the Right or of the Left. In the latter case Britain would become largely disarmed and neutral, looking towards Moscow; and in the former something more like Greece before the last revolution. Naturally, neither the one régime nor the other could persist in the absence of a secret police.

Under the impact of the approaching great or "world" crisis, all these solutions may no doubt be favoured by some, and we may even add to all of them increasing separatist tendencies in Scotland and Wales and, I suppose, also in Northern Ireland. But it is evident to some of us, at any rate, that all of them would be dangerous, if not disastrous. No doubt, my Lords, there is no political philosophy that can be absolutely guaranteed both to preserve our ancient freedoms and to unite the nation, still less ensure a high standard of living in the troublous times which lie ahead of us. We are, admittedly—and nobody would dispute this—to a large extent at the mercy of events, and it is quite conceivable that there may be rather terrible internal convulsions before the one political idea or the other prevails. So is it possible to discover and agree upon some other and more civilised way out?

We Liberals, my Lords, join with the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, in suggesting that it is in the European idea that the Government, if they are prepared to stand up to the emotions of some of their supporters, will find, as it were, the red thread of Ariadne to lead us out of the maze—and even though your Lordships may think that I am once again exhibiting my King Charles's head, I should like to give your Lordships the reasons for so thinking.

If and when the storm really breaks, the instinct of all our free industrialised societies will be to run for cover, and this, of course, will only make the general situation worse. But the larger the area the less likely it will be to suffer intolerable damage. For instance, the United States will perhaps be able to weather the storm with a minimum of real sacrifices. But if the European Community breaks up (and it is quite useless to think that in those circumstances it could possibly be replaced by some kind of free trade area) and each small or medium State of Western Europe has to stand on its own, the advantages of a common policy in a large area will be absent and the prospects of semi-communist regimes in all the then isolated countries of the Community will be very real. I do not say there would be communism at once, but these tendencies could and probably would start in the weakest members of the Community, and would gradually spread out to the not so strong European economies.

Perceiving this danger, the Germans, whatever the present irritations of Herr Schmidt, not relishing being the only buttress of a free or mixed economic system in alliance with an America perhaps no longer willing to commit a very large force to the defence of Europe, will probably do everything they can to keep the Community together, even if it goes so far as to mean a pooling of all monetary reserves. All they will probably ask in return is that the other members should accept, with them, certain elementary disciplines and, in effect, agree to form a real entity and, at long last, in most spheres to speak with one voice.

Already, my Lords, there are signs that the Germans are in practice moving in this direction. The loan to Italy; the sugar deal, which they approved; the beginning of petro-dollar recycling are all instances in point. But even more significant, the French Government: seem to be moving in this direction, too. The French President, as we all know, has summoned a summit conference at the end of this month, and wants, apparently, to discuss institutions. Though of course the Government will say that they cannot discuss hypothetical procedures in the absence of any agreement on renegotiation, I suggest that the Government would pour cold water on this proposal at our peril. The French may be out on a limb on energy at the moment, but they are right in maintaining that the Europeans are in a different and a more dangerous situation than the Americans in respect of oil, and that the Europeans ought therefore to have a policy of their own which need not necessarily conflict with that of America. If the French have thoughts on how best we can arrive at common policies by improving our present deplorable procedures, we ought at least to take them into serious consideration.

Anyway, my Lords, it is no good saying that the Community exists only for the purpose of discussing common problems—inflation, unemployment or whatever, however pressing and important these may be. The Government should realise, as they undoubtedly will realise when they finally conclude that it is in our interests to stay in it, that the Community is not the same sort of animal as the OECD or the ILO or NATO, or even the United Nations, invaluable, of course, though all these organisations are. Its purpose is political. Its main object is to preserve our free and open societies and our mixed economies. It is either a potential democratic union or it is nothing.

Let me here quote just one sentence from the recent remarkable and, on the whole, encouraging statement of the President of France. After declaring, quite rightly, that on large issues France must still preserve her sovereignty, he proceeded to criticise the recent use made of the famous "Luxembourg Compromise", recognition of which, as your Lordships will know, M. Pompidou demanded and Mr. Heath accepted as a condition of our entry into the Community. M. Valéry Giscard d'Estaing then observed that an effort should be made to delimit spheres in respect of which, consequently, what he described as a more supple and rapid decision- making procedure should apply. I quote his words: In this event there would in some respects be a transfer of sovereignty, beginning with small matters and not with great ones. It seems that the President at least does not regard the Community as the equivalent of, for instance, the OECD, and this is borne out by his final word on the matter—and again I quote: An organisation with a confederal structure of the type France favours is clearly an organisation embodying a certain number of restrictions in the French the word is limitations— and we must get used to this idea". My Lords, if Her Majesty's Government want to make a success of their renegotiation—and it is obvious that our partners are now bending over backwards to help them to do this—they will have to get used to this idea too. And I add, while I am on this point—and I think that this is again something which the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said—that, if the Government want our partners to agree to any change in the terms of our membership, they will have to undertake to support the resulting agreement in Parliament and in the country.

It is not a question of committing ourselves to a federation in the old-fashioned sense. A few days ago, I was personally responsible for taking out all reference to a "Chamber of States" in a resolution of the European Parliament defining the bare essentials of the political union projected by the Ministers for 1980. This now stands as a decision-making centre (which they assume will eventually become some kind of Government), a directly-elected Parliament consisting of at least one chamber, a court and an economic and social council. Your Lordships will see that this formula does not exclude a second chamber of some kind if that were thought to be a good thing, but a Chamber of States would evidently be something like the United States Senate, in which case, by 1980, the United Kingdom would be no more than the equivalent of Massachusetts. I myself do not believe that this would be likely by that date, even if it were desirable. Not that it probably matters all that much at the present time, because evidently all stages towards a union will have necessarily to be approved by all the Parliaments including that of Westminster.

Be that as it may, the allegedly appalling disadvantages of market membership, with which the anti-Europeans made such passionate play in 1972, have simply disappeared. Half our trade—and soon the proportion will be higher—is with the European Community and the adverse trading balance with the Community, which is largely our own fault, is now, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said last week, in process of being rectified. No hardship has been inflicted on Commonwealth producers of sugar, cheese or butter, all of which they can now sell in the world market at much higher prices than we could pay, and we are not forced to pay higher prices for food produced by allegedly inefficient European peasants; on the contrary, if we were outside the Community we should now be paying much more for the greater part of our imported food. Also, though we can now ask—apparently with some support from the Commission, to say nothing, if the papers this morning are correct, of the Germans—for a reduction in our net contribution to the Community's budget over the year, it is arguable that up to now we have actually been taking more money out of the Community than we have put into it. Our present, admittedly severe, agricultural difficulties are only partially the result of our Market membership. They are just teething troubles which will eventually be put right.

Anyway, a few millions this way or that are chicken-feed compared with the thousands of millions of our overall trading deficit, taking oil into consideration; and they are certainly chicken-feed compared with the vast sums we should stand to lose if we left the Community. In other words—and this is the point I really want to make—the Government must soon take their noses out of the petty cash book and concentrate on the great political issues of the day. Nor should our people, for their part, allow themselves any longer to be fooled by the emotional nonsense talked by the anti-marketeers. Happily, according to the latest poll appearing in this morning's papers, nearly 60 per cent. of people now want in principle to stay in the Community. That is something.

My Lords, there is one other, perhaps all-important problem to which I should like to refer before I sit down: it is the rôle played in the defence of Europe by the States forming the Community. This is looming larger and larger on the horizon. I do not know if it will come up at the forthcoming summit in Paris, though it certainly should, but it is likely to be discussed next month in the European Parliament on the basis of a resolution which I have been endeavouring for rather a long time to push through the Political Committee. My personal contention is, and has been for a long time, that, given the growing disparity referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, between the forces of the West and East now deployed in Central Europe, and given the strong possibility that the withdrawal of at any rate some United States troops will take place soon, the Americans maintaining, and rightly so, that, if the disparity is not to become overwhelming, the Europeans must somehow fill the gap, a unified European defensive system must be established within the general framework of the Atlantic Alliance without further delay. I have also maintained that, if this system depended chiefly on standardised modern conventional weapons, it could be set up with fewer men and, in the long run, at lower cost, if only as a result of the fact that research and development would be pooled and contracts for arms production awarded on cost effectiveness rather than on nationality. Simply slashing our defence budget by some hundreds of millions without even attempting to advance in this direction, would merely represent an attempt to appease the Left-Wing of the Labour Party at the expense of our national security.

There is no blinking the fact, either that nuclear weapons would also be needed in any such scheme as a deterrent, though they would be on a very small scale compared with those of the super Powers. Of course they would never be used except (notionally) on a second strike. The whole point will be to erect a defensive system not easily penetrable by the Russians except by the use of nuclear weapons which even they would, in practice, and given the comeback, be unable profitably to employ on a first strike. That is the theory and, whatever its validity, few experts would now deny that in a few years' time we may be in a position of great danger, while the Russians will be in a position in which they might be severely tempted to bring political pressure to bear on us unless something of this kind is achieved. In a word, the famous détente is and must be a will 'o the wisp if the strategic balance is undermined, whereas lasting peace is still possible with the Soviet Union and the Eastern bloc if it is evident that the Community, like a hedgehog or, better, like a porcupine, cannot be assailed without unfortunate results.

My Lords, I have attempted in the short time available—I hope I have not exceeded my quota—to describe the main issues before us. I just do not believe that we can preserve our independence and way of life by isolationism or nationalism, or by a directed economy, or even by just jogging along in an unreformed NATO. I think we must look more and more, within a continuing North Atlantic Alliance, to our European moat. We must, of course, concert all our actions as Europeans with the Americans, so long as they stay in Europe, and be loyal Allies, even though we might not necessarily be involved with them physically in wars in other parts of the world outside the NATO area, to which in any event we might not be able to contribute very much. We must at the same time do our best to promote general disarmament. We, or rather the Community, must be in the forefront—as, happily, we are now—in an effort to recycle the petrodollars and aid the developing nations to the best of our ability. Certainly it is as a Community that we can best agree on some plan for somehow conveying more food to the starving millions of the world. In sum, if the coming great crisis forces the Community nations together in an effort to form a new society based on new values rather than driving them apart, as the Soviet Union confidently expects, then out of evil good may come. First, however, as I "said at the beginning, this country must at long last find its rôle, and my contention is that there is now only one way of finding it.

4.22 p.m.

THE LORD BISHOP OF COVENTRY

My Lords, quite frequently in the past I have found myself in considerable sympathy with and supporting the policy and programme of Her Majesty's Government; but to-day I find myself in total support of the three major points brought forward so brilliantly by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. First, there was his passionate plea that we should remain as ardent members of the European Community—and I underline the word "ardent" because for far too long we have been quibbling about trying to get better terms of entry and have furthermore created an atmosphere of uncertainty as to whether or not we are going to continue as members of this Community. It seems to me that from every possible point of view—culturally, economically and in matters of Defence—it is of vital importance that we should be accepted as an ardent and wholehearted member of the European Community.

The noble Lord then turned to that other important matter of our removal from the port of Simonstown. Again I found myself in considerable sympathy with him, not least when he used the strong word "hypocrisy"—because it seems to me that it is really very difficult to differentiate between our economic cooperation with a country that stands for apartheid (which I loathe with every part of my body) and on the other hand the removal of our Forces from a port in that country, perhaps because of its support of apartheid. You cannot differentiate between the two: it is either both or neither.

The noble Lord also dealt with the matter of cutting down our Armed Forces; and here, as one who for many years had the privilege of being Anglican Bishop of the three Armed Services, I have no hesitation in maintaining that we can speak with authority from strength, but we cannot speak in the affairs and destinies of men if we are so weak that nobody will listen to what we have to say.

I want to-day to speak on the fourth point raised by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack; that is the whole question of our aid to Asian and Commonwealth countries. I should like to speak about one matter in particular; namely, aid in the form of food. I realise that we shall be talking about I this matter to-morrow afternoon, but to-day I should like to approach this vastly important subject from an international aspect because it seems to me that a Government must be judged, among other things, by their attitude to and dealings with the developing countries. One of the matters on which we shall be judged is on whether we are prepared, in matters of international food, to support those countries who will be desperately in need of it in a matter of months. I wrote this speech before I read this morning the admirable report in The Times concerning the vastly important international conference in Rome. I am glad that that great newspaper gave it front page coverage. I wish to God other newspapers had followed suit, because this conference, which was proposed thirteen months ago by Dr. Kissinger in a speech at the United Nations, has an enormously important two-fold task. First, it must examine ways of improving the production and distribution of food in the medium and long term; and, secondly, there is the need to respond to the immediate challenge presented by a collapse of world food stocks, a collapse which may well lead to widespread famine in India and Bangladesh between May and July of next year.

Your Lordships may ask why I bring this matter into a debate on international affairs. I do so because I believe the crunch—an international collapse in affairs—may come not through a shortage of oil but through a shortage of food. This crisis is almost upon us and therefore we cannot think about foreign affairs without facing up to the implications of this potential tragedy. T would ask you to look for a moment at the present situation. The appalling fact is that world food stocks are now at their lowest level since the War. For the second time since the War—the first time being in 1972—the world harvest has fallen below the previous year's level. The 1974 harvest is 2 per cent. down on that of 1973, but meanwhile the world's population has increased by 70 million.

Still more disturbing is the fact that in the recent past, when harvests have been disappointing, the United States' grain reserves have been available to help out. For instance, in 1961 the United States had reserves equivalent to world grain consumption for three months. This year these reserves are down to twenty-six days—and that is about the minimum which the United States tries to maintain for its own needs. Already the United States Secretary for Agriculture has warned that the United States will not be able this time to supply concessionary food, and it is being proposed that an embargo be placed on the free export of American corn and wheat. In consequence—and this is surely a very worrying and almost frightening fact—once the product of the 1974 harvest is exhausted in or around March of next year there will be no reserves for the Third World to draw upon, and those countries which are hardest hit by the failure of the harvest (India and Bangladesh) will face famine. Indeed, this lack of reserves is not only perilous in the world, where there should be a large world reserve of grain, but it is also perilous in this country. Before the war the prudent British farmer always kept one year's reserve of hay on his farm. This is not so now. To-day we are tending to live from hand to mouth: one bad harvest, and we are all in trouble.

Let us look a little more closely, into this perilous situation. Broadly speaking, the rich countries have produced more than they themselves consume. The poor do not produce enough. In 1968 to 1970, four major grain producers—the United States. Australia, Canada and Argentina—cut their wheat acreage from 120 million to 81 million acres, with a consequent loss of about 90 million tons of wheat. Furthermore, as I have already indicated, the United States continued to cut acreage in 1972. The object of these cuts was partly to reduce grain surpluses and partly to force up prices, but it must be remembered that the United Stales of America held the grain reserves for the world. In 1971/72, the Soviet Union purchased 3.4 metric million tons from the United States, which represented one-third of the United States exports. In 1972/73, the USSR imported a total from the World Bank of 14.9 metric million tons, 10.5 metric million tons of which was from the USA. This removed the World Grain Bank. In other words, the USSR is no longer the Grain Bowl of Europe and we have lost the Grain Bank of the world. Meanwhile, the production of grain in the developing world in the 1960s had been boosted by what has been called the "Green Revolution"—the development of "miracle seeds" with a greatly increased yield and the extended use of fertilisers; but the "revolution" ran out of steam by the end of the 1960s. Bad harvests occurred and the result is that although, in absolute terms, food production increased in the 1960s in the poor countries at about the same rate as in the rich, the much more rapid increase in population in the poor parts of the world cancelled out most of the gain. Since then the position has greatly deteriorated.

As a result of the cut in food aid because of dwindling reserves in the United States, poor countries are forced to import more food and export less, thereby losing precious foreign exchange; while the rise in oil prices by the OPEC Group has dramatically increased the cost of fuel used in agriculture and oil-based fertilisers. It is as a result of all this that the United Nations has called for this important international action on the food shortage; hence the World Food Conference in Rome beginning to-day. A lot of people feel, and I think rightly, that when the crunch comes it will not be over fuel but over food. The situation is very serious and could be inflammatory. Increases in prices inevitably hit hardest on the poor, who spend between 70 and 80 per cent. of their income on food.

Where do we in this country come into this picture? The fact is—as I have already stated—that the rich countries still produce more food, as a group, than they can consume. Therefore they make a disproportionate demand on the world's food supplies in relation to their population. Although the rich countries account for only one-quarter of the world's population, they consume two-thirds of the world's meat. While it is important for this country and other wealthy countries to liberalise their aid and trade policies towards the developing world, one cannot avoid the challenge to our own patterns of life and consumption habits, which significantly affect patterns of consumption of the world's food resources.

The time has come, during the next four months, to persuade our own, other Western countries and the USSR to divert food stocks which we would have consumed in our own countries to the poor countries—particularly India and Bangladesh. In view of the scale of operation required, sea transport will need to be used and political decisions will need to be taken within the next two months if shipments are to arrive in India in March to April, 1975. Clearly, this is a matter which only the Government can undertake and carry through. But Government action—with its impact on our consumption habits—will need to be backed up by pressure of public opinion. It is desirable that we change our eating habits, making less demand on world grain resources. But this will take time. Nevertheless, in the meantime it is a fact not to be forgotten that our greatest crop in this country is grass, and it is that on which our dairy, beef and sheep all depend for nourishment. It is most unfortunate that at this time, as a result of successive Governments' policies, there is a crisis in the livestock sector which will considerably reduce the supply of red meat and milk products.

The crisis in the meat sector is a marketing one. Farmers cannot get rid of their cattle. Therefore, there is a complete breakdown of fatstock which is causing great hardship to many farmers—not least in my own diocese—and, incidentally, great suffering and indeed starvation for many animals. Some of the farmers, totally dispirited, are not replacing their stock. This means that meat will be rationed by price or, indeed, be unavailable. This in turn means that people unable to afford to buy meat will turn for food to imported vegetable protein and cereals, thus preventing these from being sent to the countries of the Third World. In short, instead of contributing considerably to the world grain larder we shall be consuming its products. Thus the amount of grain which could have been shipped from this country to needy countries will diminish. Therefore, the Government must intervene to ensure a balanced agriculture if it is to take steps to divert some of the arable crops, which would otherwise go to domestic consumption, to the needy countries in the Third World.

It will need political and moral leadership of a very high order, but when a challenge is presented the people of this country will respond. We saw this last year when people were asked to economise on fuel and electricity following the oil embargo—they did. Further back, in 1946, the "victor" nations accepted bread rationing following the appeal by Lord Boyd-Orr to the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations to share our limited stocks with Europeans—including our defeated enemies—many of whom would otherwise have starved. This challenge was also accepted. We are once again being presented with a challenge to Government and public opinion to acknowledge the simple fact that we are members, one of another. What I am saying has already been recognised by the European Common Market. With their eye on the developing nations, they have already issued an edict calling for economy in pigs and poultry, thus providing grain for developing countries.

To summarise, the facts of the world situation are so serious that we must do everything we can to secure adequate help for countries like India and Bangladesh. This is going to make heavy demands on the conscience and fair thinking of this country, but I believe that if the Government make the demand clear enough and present the facts sufficiently cogently, then the people of this country will respond. Provided this is backed up by a balanced agricultural policy, this need not necessarily affect the health of the nation.

In conclusion, my Lords, I would not have you think that we in my diocese are unaware of the very serious economic plight of millions in the developing countries. Indeed, for the past 12 months we have been concentrating on the City of Calcutta as a focus of all the problems in the developing countries. We are forming study groups and looking into the question of sharing resources so that the people of Calcutta and the people of Warwickshire may come to share together through a change in our style of life. We must learn to share one another's burdens and so fulfil the never-to-be-forgotten fact that "we are brothers, one of another".

4.38 p.m.

LORD RITCHIE-CALDER

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the right reverend Prelate for the speech he has just made, which I hope everyone will follow and read, particularly those in our delegation in Rome. My own address was going to be almost entirely with the same emphasis. The right reverend Prelate has made many of the points that I was going to make so much more forcibly than I could have done. Every day at this moment, apart from catastrophic conditions—or, in this case, the abnormal climatic conditions—that are produced in the world, there is arriving on this planet in the shape of new mouths to feed the equivalent of 20 divisions of Martians arriving without their field rations. That figure calls for serious concern about not merely what we are going to do about a collapsing situation, but about a continuing situation. That is what the World Food Conference is about. I am very glad that the Government are sending a powerful delegation led by two Ministers, my right honourable friends Mr. Fred Peart and Mrs. Judith Hart. I, over the years, can endorse their credentials as two people whose concern and compassion has always been actively involved in the problems and the situations to which the right reverend Prelate has referred.

I want to take up a point that he made and recall to your Lordships a situation 28 years ago. I do this without any sense of hesitation, because I think that everything that was happening then is existing now. Twenty-eight years ago John Boyd-Orr—our late revered colleague, Lord Boyd-Orr, of Brechin Mearns—called me to Washington as his special adviser at the Famine Conference which he had summoned. He had summoned it to deal, as exists now, with an imminent collapse. The lives of 70 million people were at risk because of the food shortages following the ravages of war. He was the first Director General of the Food and Agriculture Organisation, and had only just been appointed. He was told by everybody, all the sensible people, that what he was attempting was impossible. Yet 23 nations, the major producer and consumer countries, turned up in Washington. He confronted them with the world cake, with a large chunk missing, and asked them to distribute the rest. The delegates from countries which had shared the common purposes of war, and had been sensitised by its horrors and its hardships, responded. The conference established an International Emergency Food Council to cope with the immediate short-term chaos. This was staffed and financed by the FAO and was given emergency executive powers, which by its constitution the FAO did not have then, to distribute exportable food in accordance with people's needs and to fix prices to prevent rises due to shortages. Countries agreed to apply self-denying ordinances, to ration their demands on global food supplies. Britain, your Lordships may recall, had bread rationing, which it had not had in two world wars. The British housewife had the fuss and the bother of snipping bread units, to the vociferous indignation of the Housewives' League.

To me, the sad thing was that the British people were not helped to realise at that time that their sacrifices—perhaps we should call them nuisances rather than hardships—were saving the lives of millions of their fellow beings. Other countries took similar measures. The Danes killed off their breeding pigs to economise on feedingstuffs. And I still remember the consternation of Scotland when we had to cut down barley to the distilleries. Other countries increased their crop acreages. My Lords, there was no famine in 1946 or 1947, and for three years the International Emergency Food Council managed the world distribution of food according to needs. From what we have heard from the right reverend Prelate, your Lordships will realise that the situation is, by orders of magnitude, worse to-day. The population has multiplied. Consumption in the affluent countries has increased, not just in terms of increased population, but in what in present circumstances can only be called luxury foods, which require animal feedingstuffs that could directly provide human food and relieve the pressure on the world situation.

The bitter irony, as the right reverend Prelate has pointed out, is the frustration of the green revolution. The plant breeders have triumphantly produced strains of wheat and rice which can double the yields from existing acreages in Pakistan, India, South-East Asia and elsewhere; but the crops depend on lots of pumped irrigation water, fertilisers, pesticides, and farm implements. But the hungry have become the hostages of oil—oil for the pumps, oil-based fertilisers and oil-based pesticides, oil driven tractors. Even if they could get the supplies, they cannot afford them Moreover, the climatic changes which produced the drought and famine in the Sahel and the failure of the monsoons, and the floods and droughts elsewhere, are not, regrettably, a passing event. They will manifest themselves, predictably, certainly for years to come. We can flirt with, but we cannot effectively manage, the weather. But we shall have to take a global view of effects and manage the distribution of world food supplies to moderate the predictably disastrous consequences. I say "predictably": that is to say, we have no excuse for saying that nobody told us. We know.

My Lords, what we urgently need to deal with in the present and the immediate future is the revival of the International Emergency Food Council of 1947, which in fact did, as I have described, take charge of the then situation and indeed managed to reverse what could have been a disaster. But as we knew in 1947 at the World Famine Conference in Washington, this kind of first-aid is not enough. That conference called on Boyd-Orr, as Director General of FAO to produce a long-term food policy which would foresee and forestall such crises. When he took over as Director Genera he had rightly complained that his organisation had not been given the means or the muscle to meet the manifest needs of the world. He said: The world is crying out for bread and F.A.O. is going to give them pamphlets. To reinforce its function following this conference in Washington he proposed a World Food Board. It was a courageous concept which entitled him to the Nobel Peace Prize, which he got.

Because, I repeat, I regard it as totally relevant to the needs of to-day, and because if it had existed the nightmare situation in which the world finds itself would not have arisen, I should like to capsulate what was proposed because these things are so foolishly forgotten. Since FAO had no effective powers to implement a world food policy, he proposed that FAO, the Economic and Social Council and the World Bank do three main things. One was to assist, on request, every country, especially over-populated and under-developed countries, to increase food production as nearly as possible to self-sufficiency—I will come back to that in a minute. The second was to build up buffer stocks of food to equalise the good and bad harvest years. The third was, by this reserve and by other means, to stabilise the price of food at levels fair to the producer buying surpluses after a bumper harvest and selling after a bad harvest. Within the idea of the second point, which is what I call "Joseph's granaries", granaries located through the world, was what was regarded then as an heretical concept: that was, using food as capital investment. It was argued that in what we now call cost-benefit terms (I do not think that that term existed 27 years ago) the provision of proper nutrition, which would reinforce working capacity and reduce labour turnover, was as clearly an investment as the cost of steel or concrete in a dam.

I would remind your Lordships that this was not at all original. It had occurred to Seti of Egypt 3,500 years before, when he provided his temple builders with four pounds of bread, two bundles of vegetables and a roast of meat daily, and "a fresh linen garment once a month". FAO was to prepare an agricultural budget predicting the needs for various farm commodities and advise farmers to extend or restrict the acreages of crops to be sown, and so avoid possible shortages and gluts. However, it was also recognised that, like Joseph's seven fat years, there would be natural gluts, a specially good growing season and bumper harvests. These would, as in the price-support schemes practised by several countries, most conspicuously by the United States, be brought off the market for buffer stocks in terms of market stabilisation, famine relief, "investment food "and, in Boyd-Orr's concern for proper nutrition, for "social" feeding—to educate people away from food prejudices, for example, helping rice-eaters to become wheat-eaters—so making the food situation more flexible.

I should emphasise that Boyd-Orr wanted to encourage every kind of research and practice which would make countries and regions produce their own food and not be hostage to the policies of the major producer countries. He wanted, he said, to "take food out of politics and politics out of food" or, as the then Director General of UNRRA said, "take human lives off the ticker tapes". Those proposals were considered at the Copenhagen FAO Conference and generally endorsed to the extent that a preparatory commission was set up to study and structuralise the proposals. To Boyd-Orr's plea that Britain should be strongly and imaginatively represented on that Commission, Prime Minister Attlee replied that he would send his best and his brightest. He sent the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works. The Parliamentary Secretary eventually re- ported back to the House of Commons in a full debate in which many of your Lordships, then in another place (I noticed some of them were present here earlier on), took part. I hope that our Ministers leading our delegation in Rome have refreshed their memories and reinforced their consciences by reading Hansard of February 6, 1947, volume 432, columns 1986 to 2087, because that Parliamentary Secretary was Mr. Harold Wilson. He opened the debate by saying that the object was to ensure that the shortage of food for the ordinary people of the world would come to an end as full production increased "and not continue for 25 years as it did after the last war".

My Lords, it is 28, not 25, years later and the position is immeasurably worse. He talked of the paradox of hunger in the midst of plenty and quoted the epitaph of a Canadian farmer during the depression: Here lies the body of Farmer Pete Who starved through growing too much wheat". Later I was to quote that in India, and an Indian capped it with: Here lies the body of Achariya Who starved 'cos Pete's wheat wasn't here". I quoted both at the London School of Economics and a student added a third verse: Statistics prove one must be shamin' With too much food you can't have famine". My Lords, you could, you can, we have and we shall have if, somehow, the food supplies of the world cannot be better managed.

My Lords, the preparatory commission was a fiasco, with all due deference to our conspicuous representative upon it. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has, in his book War on World Poverty,) written: For various reasons Lord Boyd-Orr's original proposals were not accepted; the main reason was the sudden reversal of the United States' attitude to international agencies, which was in the same period responsible for the death of UNNRA. The United Kingdom"— wrote Mr. Wilson in War on World Poverty— though anxious to co-operate in international action to stabilise farm prices, to expand food production and to attack the problem of world hunger could not, on the eve of the 1947 dollar crisis, contemplate the subscription of hundreds of millions of dollars as her contribution to the International Buffer-Stock Fund". My Lords, "The saddest words of tongue or pen—It might have been". I said at the time that Boyd-Orr's proposals were "two jumps ahead of history". One jump was taken when the United States, through Public Law 480, used "food as investment". To make available the surpluses of food bought off the markets in the price-support scheme, the United States "sold" to needy countries at world prices, but that was just a bookkeeping process because dollars were not expected in return and the money earned for the food in the recipient countries became, in the currency of that country, available as counterpart funds for United States aid and for United States investment in that country. This was broadened into the World Food programme of the United Nations which similarly disposed of farm surpluses of other countries and treated them again as an investment.

Now, my Lords, I think that the second jump has occurred. History has overtaken Boyd-Orr's World Food Board. Here, conspicuously, is an idea whose time at last has come. If the oil crisis has forced the nations, including the powerful nations which spurned the idea of regulation, to consider producer-consumer boards—a World Oil Board, if you like—then they cannot recoil, as they did so blindly in 1947, from the idea of a regulatory mechanism for food. I do not see the World Food Board as another autonomous body. We are always inventing new bodies, giving them a new name and pretending that they are going to do something which we have ducked doing in some other way. I do not regard it like that at all, but I think that it should be the operational arm of a strengthened Food and Agriculture Organisation (and I emphasise "strengthened", because it has been very much debilitated in recent years) in conjunction, as we thought 28 years ago, with the Economic and Social Council and with the World Bank, with its now enlightened policy of "lifting up the bottom 40 per cent.".

In 1947 I was not too convinced because it was still a hard-hearted banking system, but today it has brought about a complete "un-Macnamara". I am always delighted to hear of Mr. Macnamara coming out because a converted sinner always beats the halleluja drum the loudest. However, we have now a real opportunity. I hope that it will emerge in the first instance, as the right reverend Prelate insisted, that we need, as an immediate first stage operation, the International Emergency Food Council to be brought back into existence, and we need to look at the next six months and the next year in terms of an immediate problem. We have to do this and we have to stabilise the whole world situation because we are inescapably all involved now, foodwise and in every other way, in the totality of the world.

My Lords, I shall leave you with John Boyd-Orr's answers to the economists and experts. As a great nutritional research scientist he said: All I have learned about calories, proteins, carbohydrates, trace-elements, vitamins and enzymes amounts to this—If people are hungry they need food. If they are ill-nourished they need good food".

5.0 p.m.

LORD BETHELL

My Lords, when three months ago the Turkish Army moved into the Island of Cyprus twice in the space of few days, it was not the first time that a country whose independence and integrity we have guaranteed had been invaded by foreign armies without any strong reaction from ourselves. It happened, as your Lordships may recall, in 1939 in Poland but it was, I think, the first time that a country, part of which is sovereign British territory, was treated in this way without any physical reaction by the United Kingdom. At first during those days of violence the results of the Turkish invasion seemed to be quite good. Greece was restored to democracy and the man of violence, Nikos Sampson, was removed from power in Cyprus. But in the weeks which have followed the horrors of what has been happening on that island have become only too plain, and they have left us after three months with a situation of such human tragedy and danger to the whole world that I should like to devote my whole speech to this problem today.

One of the difficulties in reporting accurately on a country which is occupied by an army in the full flood of victory is that it is difficult to acquire accurate information. The army concerned is seldom willing to let in observers and those who are let in are often treated by one side or the other as being biased. But I think there has been enough collected evidence over the past few weeks from the northern part of Cyprus to enable us to state beyond all reasonable doubt that horrible things have been taking place. The sources are not only Greek; we also have information from United Nations personnel and from the International Red Cross. I should like to declare an interest in that I am a member of the Committee of Friends of Cyprus (a Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Caradon), a group unaligned with Greek or Turk whose aim is to restore the independence and integrity of a unitary State of Cyprus.

During the past few weeks the populations have been effectively separated. Greek is no longer living anywhere near Turk and Turk no longer near Greek, at least so far as the North is concerned. The population of the northern 40 per cent. has been rigidly controlled and by far the greater part have moved South of the line or have been taken by the Turkish Army to Turkey. I am told that of the 200,000 Greeks who lived North of the line before the invasion only about 10 per cent. remain. The rest have either been taken to Turkey in the case of able-bodied men or they have fled for fear of what might happen to them, or they have been physically ejected across the line. There have been numerous reports in British newspapers, particularly in the Sun and the Daily Mail from eye-witnesses—British journalists—describing murders and lootings which have taken place as a result of the moving in of the 40,000 Turkish Forces.

There have been cases of rape which have been well documented, and perhaps the most horrible of the pieces of information which came into our possession reliably in recent days has been the fact that a family planning association from America has sent a woman to the North of Cyprus, as an act of charity, to abort the victims of rape in that area. Unfortunately, her services have been all too often required over the past weeks and she has done her best to help not only Greek women but also Turkish women. Her name is Miss Merrow Goldberg.

I do not want to dwell on horror stories and I am only too willing to admit that there probably were certain atrocities committed on the other side as well. I am certainly eager to put the other side of the case and to admit that this terrible situation would never have happened if it had not been for the activities of that man of violence, Nikos Sampson, and his bullyboys who seized power in the coup of July. The (invasion would almost certainly never have taken place if this man had not acted in the way he did. So it is foolish to say that the fault is entirely on the Turkish side and that the Greeks—mainly, of course, the Forces controlled by the former Government of Greece—are in no way to blame. Of course there were faults on both sides. But leaving that aside one has to face the present situation and consider whether these acts of violence which have been taking place have any purpose. Are they merely the excesses of a group of soldiers drunk with victory, indulging in the kind of practices which victorious armies traditionally indulge in, or is there some purpose in what is happening? I must say that it looks all too clear to me that there is some method in the madness.

If one looks at some of the other strange occurrences in the northern 40 per cent. of the island one will see that the Cypriot currency is moving slowly out of circulation and being replaced by the Turkish lira. The post is being sent to the North of Cyprus via Turkey; foreign companies, including British companies, are being invited to register with the Turkish authorities even though they are already registered with the Government of Cyprus. The churches are being turned into mosques; Greek property, after the inhabitants have fled, is being taken over; their effects are either being taken over as well or are being shipped to Turkey and Turks are moving into permanent occupation. Indeed in a Press Conference a few days ago the Turkish Cypriot leader Mr. Rauf Denktash justified the looting of Greek property in the North of the island by saying that it was understandable in view of the sufferings of the Turks in Cyprus during the past 11 years.

The result of all this is that it is almost impossible for a Greek to remain in the North. If he is not in physical danger himself—and it seems that the actual physical assaults are diminishing as a certain crude order is brought into being in those areas—he surely must remove himself from an area where it appears that he has very little future. So they are still moving, by the hundred, by the thousand, South of the line into refugee camps as the days become shorter and the evenings become colder, and we can only guess how long they will be in these refugee camps and when, if ever, they will be allowed to return to their homes.

Two days ago a Resolution was passed unanimously by the General Assembly calling for the speedy withdrawal of all foreign Forces from the Republic of Cyprus—all Greek Forces, all Turkish Forces—and for the urgent return of all refugees to their homes. But I wonder whether this will happen? Turkey has welcomed the Resolution, Greece has welcomed it and so has the United Kingdom, but will it in fact happen? How will it be interpreted? Will it be interpreted in the normal, logical way as it seems to us here, or in the way of providing what is becoming known as a bi-regional federal State, a term which I have heard not only from Turkish leaders recently, but also, I am concerned to say, from one or two people not too far away from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

My Lords, one of the questions I shall ask the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, to answer is whether this is in fact British policy. Are we going to lend our support to the idea of a bi-regional federal Slate? This is the demand of the Turkish side in toto. If we are going to do this, what will it mean? What are we going to support, and what are we not going to support? If we have a total separation of the communities, which I imagine is what many on the Turkish side would like to see; if we have) a geographical federation with a line, some sort of frontier, with a weak central Government, a partition or, indeed, an enosis (a movement of the North towards union with Turkey) what is going to happen? We know that the north of the island controls and has in it the bulk of the industry of Cyprus. Most of the tourists go to the North. It has perhaps as much as 80 per cent. of the citrus groves. It is the richer part of the island.

What will happen to the Greeks who used to live and profit from this rich area of their island (their island and the Turkish island as well) if they are not allowed to return to their homes? Will the South be able to support the half a million Cypriot Greeks by itself, or will they be eased out? This is another of the most worrying factors that has come to my attention recently. Cypriot Greeks are leaving the island because they feel they have no future. They cannot remit currency out of the island. Those from the North are deprived of their livelihoods, as also are many from the South. Many are deciding that they have no future there and that they might as well pull up sticks and move elsewhere, cither to Greece or the United States, countries where they have relatives and where they can try to start life anew. Businesses have been totally disrupted, and farms taken away. What are they to do?

My Lords, were this to happen I would suggest that it would not be a short, sharp, cruel solution to the problem. It would not be a quick slice of the knife dealing with the problem cruelly and effectively. I suggest to your Lordships that rather it would leave a running sore which would last for decades. The history of Greece and Turkey is a very unhappy one, of course, and this is just the latest chapter in it. Unless we can find a solution which will enable both sides to maintain their rights and go back to something like the status quo before July—I am not saying that it was ideal before; there were many bad things then about the situation—we shall have all the ingredients of a dispute on the lines of the Arab-Israeli dispute: the refugees, the hasty partition, the solution imposed from outside, the hundreds of thousands of displaced persons feeling that they have nothing to lose, their bitterness festering as the decades pass.

And so, my Lords, I am going to ask the Minister several questions of which I have given him notice. The first two are concerned with British interests on the island. Can the noble Lord give the House any information about what has happened to British-owned property in the North of the island? What is the situation with regard to the looting of such property? What can the noble Lord tell us about this? Are the owners of such property allowed to return to their homes, to visit their homes and to inspect them? What is the situation about the registration of such properties? Have owners of property been invited to reregister with another authority?

With regard to British rights, do our Armed Forces still have a right to circulate over the whole of Cyprus, which was guaranteed to us under the 1960 Agreement? Are we able to move our military vehicles to the places North of the island where we are entitled under the Treaty to go in pursuit of our legitimate military duties under that Treaty? If we are not allowed to do this, what representations have we made to the Turkish Government about this matter, and what answer have we received? I should also like the Minister to give me as much information as he can about what exactly our policy is towards Cyprus. We surely must have some policy. This is not merely a foreign country where we have no rights; this is a country which we have guaranteed, and part of which we own. What exactly is our policy? Do we in fact believe that the resolution of the General Assembly will be carried out? If we are worried about this, would we consider trying to urge the Security Council to ask for a time limit on the implementation of the resolution passed a few days ago? Do the Government see any merit in trying to obtain a time limit for the withdrawal of Greek and Turkish forces, and for the return of refugees to their homes?

My Lords, I also hope that the Minister will be able to state the firm opposition of the Government to any settlement—and I will not quibble over terminology; over terms used like "federation", "communal security", "bi-regionalisation"; these are terms which I am sure will come up when the matter comes to the negotiating table. Can the Minister give an assurance to this House that no solution will be seriously considered by this Government, who are one of the three guarantor Powers, which does not allow those who have been uprooted to return to their homes?

My Lords, I conclude by urging your Lordships, as members of the Parliament of a country which has guaranteed Cyprus integrity, to bring this horrible problem to the attention of other Governments. Particularly I would draw the attention of your Lordships to the forthcoming conference of NATO Parliamentarians in the next few days. There will be here many Parliamentarians from foreign countries, including several United States senators and congressmen. It would seem that, in the realities of to-day, it is the United States Administration and the United States Congress which has the weight, the force, to use real influence on events such as this. Unfortunately, this is yet another situation Where we have the responsibility to do certain things, but not the power. But even though we do not have the power, I ask the Government and your Lordships to do all possible to limit the horrors which have taken place and are continuing in Cyprus. I would ask the Government and your Lordships to try to bring that country back to independence.

LORD MILFORD

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down after so moving a speech, may I ask him whether the Cypriots themselves, and perhaps he, too, considers that the tragedy of Cyprus, and its future tragedy, is because of its strategic position in the Mediterranean? It is a pawn among the super-Powers, very near the Middle East and could be very valuable to NATO.

LORD BETHELL

My Lords, there are no NATO bases on the Island of Cyprus; there are British bases. In my most recent visit to Cyprus and in talks with leaders of the communities in Cyprus, I could not detect that there was any significant opposition to the presence of British bases in Cyprus.

5.22 p.m.

LORD GREENHILL OF HARROW

My Lords, I ask your Lordships' indulgence since this is the first time I have had the privilege of addressing the House. I want to speak briefly on four subjects only; namely, European renegotiation, European defence, the détente, and lastly on Rhodesia.

On renegotiation, I am very sorry indeed that the Government have set themselves a time limit. I believe there is more to be gained by taking things slowly and taking things realistically. I personally have always felt that many of the more extravagant claims and hopes expressed for the EEC will not be fulfilled in measurable time, if ever at all, but it is right that substantial changes should be attempted and a determined effort made to modify the terms to our advantage. But, in my opinion, it may take some time before a satisfactory position emerges, and we can afford to wait.

It may be impudent for me to say so, but not one of the leaders of the Governments of the Nine knows, in my opinion, precisely where he is going, because the full extent of the political and economic options open to him are not clear. My impression over recent years is that in spite of all the elaborate diplomatic machinery these leaders do not understand sufficiently each other's positions. The issues have never been properly jointly explored and never will be under the existing machinery.

Can, therefore, we speed things up? Is there any short cut to a better understanding? Here it is my contention that the common interests of the Western Europeans are sufficiently large to justify the leaders meeting monthly, confidentially in British Cabinet style. Only collective discussion at the top level over a period of months, or even years, will establish the understanding and confidence which will lead to the sort of Europe from which we can all benefit and which can be reconciled with strongly held national feelings. Summits à deux are no substitute; they breed suspicion and jealousy and seldom in practice get to the heart of controversial matters. I am, therefore, glad that a full scale summit is proposed for December. We must hope that the experience of it will encourage further and more frequent meetings.

It has been very sensibly suggested that the December summit should discuss matters of direct interest to the man in the street. Inflation and unemployment have been mentioned. But I hope that the Government intend very soon to look with the other Europeans at the problem of European defence—too long neglected and now complicated by our new vulnerability in the North Sea. The language of the Queen's Speech suggests that this is all in hand. I hope very much that it is, but I am bound to say that experience makes me sceptical. There is, I suggest, in France a growing readiness to think more constructively than before on these matters, and we should take advantage of this. In contrast—the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, drew attention to this—the patience of the Americans is certainly not limitless, nor will the American people, possibly under a new President and a new Party, necessarily continue to identify their interests so clearly with our own. We have been warned of this by Secretaries of State as diverse as Dean Rusk and Dr. Kissinger.

So far as détente is concerned, I have great confidence that the Foreign Secretary will negotiate effectively with the Russians, although I doubt whether he can count on so long a period of office as his opposite number. There is, of course, universal welcome for the idea of détente. But how far in fact is it real rather than apparent? Détente is in part an attitude of mind and there can be no denying that attitudes have improved on both sides. But if you take the trouble to make a close study of actual agreements reached, you will find a disappointing lack of content. Furthermore, the Russian military build-up remains without adequate and acceptable explanation. I hope that I am not out of order, as a Governor of the BBC, in drawing attention to the documentary on the Soviet Navy which is being shown on television to-night. For it would be very unwise of us to be led by emotion or hope to underestimate the patient determination with which the Soviet Union seeks its consistent objectives. It is still, in my view, prudent for us to be cautious.

Now with regard to Rhodesia. I know that the sanctions renewal is to be discussed soon, but this is a foreign policy problem for which Her Majesty's Government have the prime responsibility. It is a problem which affects our position worldwide, and it is one of the few matters on which we are in a position to take an initiative. It is clear, I think, from what has been said in public, that Her Majesty's Government intend to explore again the possibility of a settlement. This must be welcomed. Further delay will mean not only continued bloodshed but, possibly more importantly, will preclude the economic development of the country in a way to keep pace with the growth of the African population.

I have had some modest experience of this problem myself since the Prime Minister's efforts on HMS "Fearless", which no doubt the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will recall, and Sir Alec Douglas-Home's negotiations in Salisbury. Little more than a year ago I had confidential discussions in Salisbury with Bishop Muzorewa and Mr. Ian Smith. I have never felt that a settlement acceptable to the Rhodesian Africans was beyond reach, and over the last few months events have surely turned this possibility into more of a probability. The Rhodesian Government has got to face unpalatable and inescapable facts. It will not be easy for them to do so, and it is our duty and the duty of the countries of Southern Africa to help them to do so. The Africans in particular, with time so clearly on their side, should not press their advantage to unreasonable lengths. There are encouraging signs that in a comparable situation in the former Portuguese colonies, the African leaders understand this point very well.

I have two suggestions in connection with the negotiations to make to Her Majesty's Government. Neither is new, but I think they bear repetition. The first is that Her Majesty's Government should consider carefully whether there is not some advantage in making the negotiations—at least in the final stages—an all-Party affair. I can see that there may be an understandable reluctance to do so. Nevertheless, for the long-term peace I suggest it is worth very serious consideration. The second point is that there should be included in any British proposals certain financial provisions. These provisions would permit white Rhodesians who find the inevitable majority African rule intolerable, to withdraw in good time and in good order. Nobody can any longer seriously pretend that Rhodesia can be a country for further white settlement. Such financial provisions would make the necessary adjustment of the present populations less painful. In this matter I think our Commonwealth partners can help.

Lastly, my Lords, it is being frequently said that the position of this country in the world is enhanced by the widespread admiration for our institutions and the way in which we manage our affairs. This was certainly true. But I am bound to say that over the last year, and since I have ceased to hold an official appointment—and perhaps because I have ceased to hold an official appointment—I have heard a great deal less of this admiration from foreigners. I am sure, my Lords, that every one of us would like to see this reputation restored and maintained. I believe that in this House, in particular, we should work together with this purpose in view.

5.33 p.m.

LORD ARDWICK

My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, and to have the privilege of being the first to congratulate him upon a most notable maiden speech. It is almost a presumptuous courtesy to do so, such is the depth and the length of his experience of foreign affairs. This is not the first time that I have had the pleasure of participating in a debate with him. We were once together at that place where they have so many constructive discussions, at Wilton Park. In the future, I think we can say that no foreign affairs debates will be complete without the participation of the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow.

I am sure that the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not follow him in his later remarks, but later on in my speech I shall come to the point with which he opened; that is, the question of when Britain ballots about whether it should stay in or withdraw from the Common Market. To-day we are debating primarily, as I have realised, just one aspect of the gracious Speech, but I take it that one is still free to make a few general observations on the situation of this country, and to come around obliquely, as, it were, to the immediate subject that we are discussing this afternoon.

I should like for a moment or two to go back to the General Election, which I followed—for the last time in my life— as a professional observer rather than as a participant. It was a very odd Election, a very serious Election. Each Party, of course, expressed a strong wish to be given a majority, but I did not feel on this occasion, as I have felt on many other occasions, that any Party was desperately hungry for power. I kept asking myself why; what was the cause of this relative modesty. The only answer that I could come up with was that nobody at this time can believe that a patent solution exists at hand, if only the programme and the principles of his Party were applied to the problems that are before the country. Indeed, the Party opposite seemed to be proposing to abandon the single Party solution of government, and suggesting that some programme should be worked out that would have the consent of all the major Parties, and perhaps even their active support. My own Party proposed something like an alternative to this, that national unity might be achieved on the basis of our social contract.

This kind of very mature electioneering can make a considerable appeal to the electors, but it does little for the psychological needs of the zealous people who do the Party chores and keep our system going. They live by faith. They are the Old Believers. The old-time religion is good enough for them. And when their leaders cease to tell them that national salvation is to be found in their faith, and in their faith alone, then they have doubts about their leadership. It is conflicts of this kind which are now shaking all the political Parties. What do the Labour Government really intend to do? Even after the proposals in the gracious Speech there are people in the Party who are wondering whether it is drifting away from its Socialist principles. And v/hat alternative do the Conservative Opposition, and indeed the Liberal Opposition, intend to offer? Will they actually challenge Labour? I think the quicker the Parties get over their troubles the better it will be for all of us.

This might be a useful point at which to say how much I suspect the argument advanced not only—and most understandably—by the losers of the Election, but by some of my erudite friends who write political columns in the Press; the argument that since Labour did not win a majority of the votes in the Election, then they have no mandate to carry out their Socialist policies. It seems to me that unless the Liberal Party suffers some terrible setback, unless the national parties fade away—which I do not think they are going to do—then no Government will ever get more than about 40 per cent. of all the votes in the country. Are we to say, then, that we shall never have confident Party government again? Are we right on this occasion to interpret all non-Labour votes as those given by people who are implacable enemies of everything Socialist in the Labour programme? I do not believe it, any more than I believe that every Labour voter accepts every bit of our policy and repudiates every bit of the policy advanced by the Parties opposite. People are not like that any more to-day. There is a wide gap between the voter and the man who is an active member of the Party for which he votes. And what are we to make of the 25 per cent. of people who did not vote at all? What was the view of those of them who were well enough to go to the polls? I think one might well argue that they were acquiescent in the continuation of a Labour Government.

Surely the truth of the matter is that no Party in this country can ever win a big enough proportion of the vote to plunge ahead with its programme over the following five years regardless of manifest changes in the national situation, and manifest changes in the views of the people. A Government cannot live on the confidence expressed in them by the electorate on one day of one year. They have to win confidence every day of their life, and they must convince the public that they have their priorities right, and that the items in their Manifesto that they now propose to implement are as relevant at this moment as they appeared to be in the run-up to the Election. Indeed, it is no dishonour when the Government makes a U-turn, as the Party opposite did, provided that the turn is a brave one and is made towards reality, as it was on that occasion when the Conservative Party saw that developing unemployment was totally unacceptable in this day and age—a view which I hope they go on to hold even through these very difficult days.

I think part of the disillusion which is now felt by Party men at Westminster is the inability of the gracious Speech to explore all the policies which are relevant to the immediate situation. We found this difficulty this afternoon. In trying to debate foreign affairs we cannot totally divorce them from home affairs. The gracious Speech could give us in practical detail only one side of the triangle which this Government have to describe, the side which deals with legislation the Government propose to fulfil their side of the social contract. The hope is, of course, that these generous policies, these acts of social justice will evoke not merely an acceptance of moderation in wage demands, but acceptance of the pragmatic and possibly rather harsh policies which the Chancellor of the Exchequer may have to pursue if unemployment is to be kept to a minimum, if industry is to be kept in anything like full production, if inflation is to be systematically reduced, and if international confidence is to be preserved in the British economy.

Nobody should imagine that a breakdown in our system, in the world as it is to-day, will lead to a rich Socialist opportunity. We are not living on a self-sufficient economic island; we are not living on a self-sufficient financial island. We have a mixed economy, and the alternative to a thriving capitalist side of our mixed economy is not a thriving Socialism. Alas, it is not that! It is, rather, a crippled capitalism which would impoverish us all and put many of us out of work, and indeed might even threaten our democratic system. My right honourable friend the Chancellor in his Election statement, I recall, recognised the current needs for business of a restoration of liquidity and profitability.

Indeed, coming for a moment to this mixed economy, I find myself able—I seem to be almost unique in this—to welcome both the National Enterprise Board, which my right honourable friend Mr. Benn is to administer, and also the Investment Bank, which is said to be a gleam in the eye of my right honourable friend Mr. Lever. Some people see these schemes as being in conflict, but to me they look complementary. Those who believe that the reclamation of the business side of the economy can be achieved by the NEB alone do not, I think, understand the scope and the urgency of the problem. Mr. Lever's proposal, if I understand it properly, is intended to restore immediate and long-term capital facilities which have disappeared. It is a scheme largely to channel private finance into this market by providing the Government's moral support and some modest reward. There have, of course, been some rather fantastic versions of what the scheme implies.

The Budget next week will describe the second side of the triangle. The third side is the subject we are debating today, the international side. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, the increase in oil prices is at the very heart of the international problem. The terrifying estimate now is that the oil producing countries will have in this one year £29,000 million which they simply cannot spend on goods and services from the oil-using countries. The great question remains whether the consuming nations will first recognise and then accept all the necessities that this situation imposes on them.

The first of them is that the old-time conventional wisdom, to take traditional steps to reduce the growing deficit on the external account, has largely to be abandoned. For the time being we all have to live with these deficits. This does not mean that countries like ours which have a non-oil deficit must not do what they reasonably can to get rid of it as fast as possible. But if they are to do so, then the surplus countries must make it possible—or refrain from making it impossible. And all the advanced countries must do their best to help the developing countries to solve their new and massive problems.

The danger is, of course, that the world financial system can break down unless the problems of recycling the surplus oil funds are successfully resolved. We are facing a terrible combination of external crises: a monetary crisis, a fuel crisis, a crisis of relations with the Third World, and there is the possibility, as has been said this afternoon, of another war breaking out in the Far East. There is no simple solution for Britain on her own. The noble Lord, Lord Segal, and I heard a Frenchman say this morning that any country which seeks a remedy in concert with another single country is asking for failure. Britain can advance to a solution only in concert with the world and, I believe, in concert with her partners in Europe.

My Lords, my Party is of course totally committed, as the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, reminded us, to seeking the view of the British people as to whether we should remain in the Community. There was a certain value in accepting that obligation. What I regret, as the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, did, is that we are tied to a date-line not later than next October, and by that time we could be in the midst of a crisis that could make a campaign of the kind we would have to have a shocking irrelevance. If, as I suppose, we cannot with honour, postpone the vote beyond October, perhaps we can, as the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack suggested, take it in the spring of 1975 if that seems to be a propitious moment. Perhaps our partners in Europe will understand that it is in all our interests, theirs as well as ours, for this new deal that we are asking for to be completed as early as possible so that Britain can make finally her great decision.

5.47 p.m.

LORD BOURNE

My Lords, I have only two points to make on the gracious Speech, but, first of all, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, on his maiden Speech. He obviously had to say a hell of a lot in a short time and I hope he quickly comes again to take part in our debates. My first point is an international one, and the second is about NATO. I would suggest that there is grave danger in reducing the Forces again. Please, my Lords, let us remember that they were reduced by 346,000 by the Conservative Government, followed closely by the Labour Government in the last 18 months, and they have already thinned themselves down to the point where they are not very strong. I only hope that the intended cuts, if there are to be cuts, will not go below the safe minimum.

Defence is the servant of foreign policy, as has often been truly said, but we have given up power in the Far East, in South-East Asia, in the Arabian Gulf and very nearly in the Mediterranean and the influence of our foreign policy is not what it was. Of course it is no good looking back, I admit, but before the war the Indian Army and the British garrison in Egypt kept the peace and there could not be a war without the British taking part in it. Even as recently as 1957, I had under my command 50 Centurion tanks of the 10th Royal Hussars at Aqaba. They kept the peace. They knew in Baghdad that it was only a matters of hours, and they knew in Cairo that it was also only a matter of hours, and it was a great mistake, in my opinion, that we withdrew those tanks. There have been goodness knows how many wars since then, so I do not envy the people who have to conduct our foreign policy in that part of the world.

I suggest, also, that defence is usually a whipping horse on these occasions for cuts. There ought to be all-round cuts. The gracious Speech is necessarily vague on the point, although it hints at future expenditure on the Health Service, education and investment coming before defence. I should like it explained to me. Always it is defence which is affected.

I have a mechanical point on the method of calculating defence expenditure, which is 5½ per cent. of our G.N.P. It is top of the list for NATO, but it is not necessarily so. Measuring it by head of population, for example, Federal Germany comes out 191 dollars per head; France 176; with the British third at 154. It can be measured by any means one likes. I suggest it would be better to aim at the minimum requirements of defence and leave it at that—not join a league.

My second point is about NATO. General support for NATO is good, so far as it goes, but something is left out. This morning I was checking the successive Defence Reviews, not one of which has mentioned the defence of sea communications. For centuries this country has been dependent upon two things—keeping out an enemy in the low countries, and defence of our sea communications. Remember, my Lords, we nearly lost two World Wars in succession by starvation through submarine blockade. A special feature attached to this country—it does not apply to any others in NATO—is that we can starve if we do not get our food.

On the subject of détente, I support entirely what the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, said. Although it is the climate of opinion, it is very dangerous to assume that it has taken place. I have written down in my notes, "It is not yet a fact." I do not believe it is. I ask the Government, through the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, whether the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1970 (Cmnd. 4290) is still true. It said: Altogether some thirty Russian divisions and 1,900 tactical aircraft are … opposite the … Allied Command Europe, the central front. At sea, the Russian western fleets alone include about 257 submarines … 400 strike … aircraft and ninety sizeable surface ships. Are those facts still true? If so, there has been remarkably little détente so far. It is dangerous to assume that détente is necessary, although we look forward to it. We still are looking forward to it. My Lords, I believe that the Warsaw Pact, backed up by the Soviet Union, is still going ahead. The disparity of two to one is worse than it was when NATO was set up 25 years ago. I intended remarking about careers in the Services, but I think that comes later.

Lastly, I refer again to sea communications, which are of vital concern to this country. I suggest that the defence of sea communications is wider than NATO. Although it includes the absolutely vital North Atlantic route, equally vital is the Cape route, particularly if the Suez Canal is shut. If the Canal is opened the position will not be any better, because the Russians and the Egyptians can open and shut it according to their requirements now that we have lost Aden. We ought to examine the problem of Simonstown as a base which, incidentally, a large fleet can anchor in. Last time I was there I saw a big fleet. We should look at it from the defence point of view and not purely from the political point of view.

My Lords, the fact that there are now 45 black African States against only five when the agreement was drawn up does not impress me; because none of them has a navy worth a damn. In this connection, I suggest defence ought to be seriously considered. We await the Defence Statement at the end of November with great interest.

5.57 p.m.

THE EARL OF GLASGOW

My Lords, when I tabled my name last week to speak to-day it was my intention to strike a blow not only for the retention of the Simonstown Agreement but also for its forwarding. During the days between, and as time went on, and I tried to think about what I would say, every day I found myself overtaken by events. If what I have to say now is a little disjointed I hope that I may crave your Lordships' indulgence.

Much has been said already to-day about Simonstown. A few wise words came from my noble friend Lord Bourne who preceded me. I feel strongly on this subject. If I have an interest to declare it is that in 1949–50 I commanded a frigate on what was then the British South Atlantic Station working out of Simonstown. Many of the senior officers in the South African Navy in recent times have been personal friends. In the last two years of the war I played a small part in trying to find destroyers from the Eastern Fleet to defend the Cape route. My sister was drowned at sea when her ship was torpedoed after rounding the Cape in the early months of 1942.

My Lords, I wish to begin by considering the strategic aspect. My noble friend Lord Bourne has brought back again what one can never repeat too often—how absolutely vital are our sea communications, particularly in times of confrontation and war. A large proportion of our shipping, and allied shipping, comes round the Cape. The reopening of the Suez Canal, as already stated, is totally irrelevant to the problem. As my noble friend also said, the Egyptians can open and shut it at will. We are threatened with another Middle East war which will probably shut it again anyway. The chances are that in any future conflict, as in the last, the Mediterranean will become untenable and the Cape route will be vital again, as it was in the last war.

My Lords, for the first time in history the Russians have established a formidable presence in the Indian Ocean. This will increase with the opening of the Suez Canal. The fact that this presence is at the moment being used for peaceful penetration does not make it any less dangerous in war or times of tension. Noble Lords must be well aware of this, and it seems idiotic to have to repeat it; but it is equally dangerous to ignore it simply because we have now lived with it for a number of years.

Our defence lies in the Simonstown Agreement. It is well known that successive Labour Governments have lived very unhappily with the Simonstown Agreement, and in fact it began to wither on the vine in the late 'sixties, when a previous Labour Government first took the step of withdrawing the British Naval Commander-in-Chief South Atlantic, whose duty it was to co-ordinate the activities of the British and South African Navies in the South Atlantic. Later came the embargo on the sale of arms to South Africa. These arms were sophisticated frigates, submarines and modern aircraft, none of which by the longest stretch of imagination could possibly have been used in civil disturbances or to quell a black revolt. What that decision lost to this country in jobs and foreign exchange I do not know, but the French and the Portuguese were not slow to jump in and fill the gap. The legacy of all this is that, instead of being confined to British stores and spares, South African naval depots now provide stores and spares for French submarines and Portuguese frigates.

It is said in some quarters that South Africa and ourselves would not anyway be able to defend the Cape; therefore, it is better to forget about it and let the Simonstown Agreement die. This is surely totally defeatist. The Cape route is of considerable concern, not only to the United States but also to most countries in Europe. In any future conflict we could expect considerable support, particularly from the United States and France, in the defence of that route. In this event perhaps the biggest contribution we could make would be to offer to share the facilities of Simonstown with our allies, with the agreement and co-operation of the South Africans.

My concern in speaking tonight, my Lords, is defence, but in passing I should like to make three rather general remarks. First, it has been asserted that any defence dealings with South Africa so infuriate the black African countries that it lays them open to Communist influence. But are not the Chinese already building roads and railways throughout black Africa? Are not the Russians already established in various places, building ports, bringing in industry and selling arms wholesale to all these countries? The opposition to apartheid by all political Parties in this country is well-known. Who are we trying to appease, and for what reason?

Secondly, the policy of apartheid, however much we all dislike it, has softened over the years. If we are to be realistic, the lot of many of the subjects of the black African dictators is much less enviable than that of their brothers in the Union of South Africa. Over the last few years the South African Government have been trying very hard to establish friendly relations with their black neighbours, and not without some success. Would not the British Government be in a better position to forward this initiative if we still maintained commercial and defence links with both sides? My third point has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and by the right reverend Prelate. Our commercial links with South Africa are close and of great importance to both countries. No British Government have ever suggested that these should be severed. Could not mutual defence—also vital to both countries—also be removed from the political arena? The proposed situation is, as has already been said, pure hypocrisy.

My Lords, I come to the recent naval visit to Cape Town, which seems to have sparked off all this trouble. I have not of course been privy to the details of this visit; nor have I any knowledge of what instructions were given to the Admiral. But from all I have read, and drawing on a lifetime of experience of such visits, the senior officers appear to have conducted themselves entirely correctly, both in terms of protocol and of official entertainment. What cannot be controlled by diktat is the private hospitality offered to officers and men of the fleet by a warmhearted and generous people. Such hospitality would be returned in the time-honoured naval way by inviting hosts and their friends on board ships to meals or drinks. Such exchanges are private and personal—and, as I know to my cost can be very expensive, even at duty-free prices. Any attempt to put a stopper on this practice because it might offend, let us say, General Amin, is an absolute travesty of civilised human behaviour. Nor can you expect ships' companies to be ordered to remain on board their ships after two or three weeks at sea during which they have exercised very hard indeed.

My Lords, at least one-third of the white population of South Africa are our own kith and kin. The remainder are descendents of the ever-friendly Dutch, with a small minority of French Huguenot stock, for whom throughout history this country has always had a warm regard. They are not fanatical, sadistic, racialist tyrants, as they are sometimes made to appear. Those of us who served in the last war will never forget the lengths to which the South Africans went to look after and befriend our Armed Forces returning round the Cape from the battlefields of North Africa and Burma and from the Indian Ocean. They established vast organisations, superbly run, to give our fighting men a brief rest from their labours, and they lavished upon them kindness and hospitality. Surely, my Lords, if an old and trusted friend with an almost insurmountable trouble on his hands is handling it in a way which we are unable to support, that is not the moment to snub him, to send him to Coventry, to treat him as a pariah and encourage others to do the same. Should we not instead retain our close personal friendship while agreeing to differ and exert our considerable influence in persuading him to change or modify the methods which he uses and of which we disapprove, in the solution of his problem?

In a way I thought the crunch came last week in the Security Council of the United Nations, and I can only congratulate the Government on standing firm with the United States and France in vetoing the Motion to expel South Africa from the United Nations Organisation. Despite the difficult situation in which the Government were placed with their own Party, I like to think that some of the arguments which I have deployed had an influence on that decision. What I cannot congratulate the Government on is their attitude towards the Simonstown Agreement. To end this Agreement unilaterally would be very damaging to this country in a wide sense. Much pious reference has been made to the Defence Review. This is a red herring—and red is probably the right colour. The Defence Review is a continuous process, and the savings which would result would be negligible. The decision, if taken, would be seen to be a purely political one to appease the Left Wing of the Labour Party and the Governments of certain countries abroad, in particular those of the black African States. I do not think that any of these bodies of opinion has the best interests of this country at heart.

Nor would such a decision redound to our credit with our real allies in Western Europe and across the Atlantic. It would be assumed, rightly or wrongly, that we had abrogated our responsibilities in the South Atlantic and to some extent in the Indian Ocean. We must be prepared for France or some other country to step in, to make their own Simonstown Agreement and to assume our responsibilities. Fond as I am of the French, I would find this deeply humiliating. Finally, and most import- ant, by severing all co-operation with the South African Navy we would greatly weaken the ability of the Western Powers to defend the Cape route against a far more formidable potential enemy than we have ever before encountered. Time is running short, my Lords, but I can only pray that in the few weeks which remain wiser counsels may prevail.

6.10 p.m.

LORD O'HAGAN

My Lords, quite a number of the speeches made this afternoon in your Lordships' House have made a respectable case that the best answer for the allocation of the fourth television channel would be to give it to your Lordships; and one of the moments which would have been most worthy of general transmission was the distinguished contribution of our new colleague on these Benches, the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill. I cannot possibly hope to follow him in the scope and depth of his comments and I shall restrict myself to one small aspect of the gracious Speech. I shall say a very few works about Britain's membership of the European Economic Community.

My Lords, I am very glad the question mark will soon be removed. I am very glad that the uncertainty will be dispelled. Whatever the outcome one way or the other, continued uncertainty of the sort we are going through now is good for nobody and, although, as a Parliamentarian, I regret that the mechanism of choice may well be a referendum, if the other place—the elected House of Parliament—chooses to limit its authority by setting up such a procedure, I, as a democrat, accept that. I am not one of those people, I hope, who denigrates the motives of those who disagree with him, and I hope that nobody who disagrees with my point of view on British membership will think that anything that I say implies any criticism of their sincerity or patriotism. I am not a bigot.

I do not believe that there is no future for Britain outside the Community. Of course there would be a future for Britain outside the Community. But what sort of future? As the terms of renegotiation become clearer and as the changing nature of the Community becomes more apparent and its likely evolution—not the mythical evolution foreseen by the "Euro-bogeys"—becomes more obvious, a very heavy responsibility will fall on those who oppose British membership; because I suggest that they will have to keep pace with the Government and the Community in offering alternatives. If the real nature of the Community and of the renegotiated terms becomes more evident, then the real nature of the alternatives—if they exist—should also become more evident, if they can be made so.

As an incorrigible seeker after truth in these matters, I went the other day to hear Mr. Enoch Powell speak at Chatham House. He made a number of philosophical observations, and among other things he said that all inflation was domestic. One of my other disciplines is to read Tribune regularly and, shortly before the Election, I noticed that Mr. Jack Jones was on record as saying on October 2 that a large part of our inflation was directly or indirectly attributable to Britain's entry into the Common Market. Mr. Enoch Powell and Mr. Jack Jones—whatever else is between them—are twin ornaments of the tiara of the anti-Market campaign and if, in their analysis of the causes of one of the most fundamental threats to the stability of our society and of the world monetary and political order, they cannot agree upon the extent to which inflation is affected by the Community, what is there that can bind them together in offering an alternative future for Britain outside the Community? With great respect, I say that if Mr. Powell believes that leaving the Community will bring inflation home where it belongs, and if Mr. Jones believes that leaving the Community will send most inflation back to Brussels where he thinks it belongs, it will, during the coming months and when the referendum campaign gets under way, be incumbent on those who are against Britain's membership to reconcile those differences of analysis and to present to the country some well-founded, well-costed, well-documented alternative scenarios for Britain's future.

I am not going to use the debate to-day to go through all the arguments that we will be hearing for or against membership of the Community. There will be a debate on Thursday. There will, I hope, be regular debates on the Reports of the Select Committee of your Lordships' House on European secondary legislation. There will be debates, as I understand it, on the six-monthly Reports by the Government on the British membership of the Community. It will be during those debates, and during the greater and wider debate that will begin to take place in the country before it takes a decision, that I shall try to argue some of the more detailed points. However, I would say that it is a mistake to underestimate the ability of the British people to grasp complex issues and that people who do so, do so at their peril. I am looking forward to the referendum campaign because I believe that the great debate that never happened before our entry will now take place and that those who want us out will be forced to say what they would do with us instead, think that they will have difficulty in convincing the electorate that there is a satisfactory alternative to British membership which can provide for a Britain with a, perhaps, diminishing role in the world, the safeguards that it needs to maintain the standards of living and all the other things to which it has become so accustomed.

I am cautiously optimistic. I should like to echo the words of the noble and learned Lord who sits upon the Woolsack, when he said that the economic map of the world had been transformed over the last year. That transformation has reinforced the fundamental reasons that move people like me to be enthusiasts for membership of the Community, and simultaneously it has undercut many of the old arguments against membership, particularly those on food prices, which I shall not enter into to-day.

My Lords, I would say to Her Majesty's Government that I wish them continuing success in the renegotiation which they have so far carried on, and that I look forward with pleasure and with no foreboding to a referendum campaign in which they will be able to recommend to the British people as a whole that our best, if not our only, future lies inside the Community.

6.20 p.m.

LORD WIGG

My Lords, it is indeed fortunate that I speak after the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, because I can help him a little. I spoke on the same platform with Mr. Enoch Powell and Mr. Jack Jones in Pudsey and I was the chairman for Mr. Enoch Powell's meeting in Lancashire. I do not want to be rude to the noble Lord, but I feel that any difficulties he may have in understanding the position come from his failure to comprehend rather than any failure of logic or of explanation by either Mr. Enoch Powell or Mr. Jack Jones. Indeed, the noble Lord answered his own question. He commented that he has great faith in the British people: so have I. I have every reason for saying that, because I won a Conservative seat and held it in seven Elections. I suppose I have been as much misrepresented and vilified as anyone in public life, and I still come up smiling. It does not matter if people say I am wrong: what matters to me is the number in the frame at the winning post.

The noble Lord says that he has this great faith in the British people and welcomes the possibility of a debate. Well, who is responsible for the fact that there was no great debate?—a Conservative Administration and a Conservative Prime Minister who promised that the British people should have the opportunity to express their views and said that we should go into the European Community only with the full hearted consent of the British people. We were denied that opportunity. Who holds the major responsibility?—this House. Conservative Leader after Conservative Leader, including the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has put the case in more recent times, but it has been said during the whole of my life that this House exists for two purposes, which I support. One is its function as a Revising Chamber—as the pressure gets greater in the elected Chamber, the more necessary it is to have a revising instrument. Secondly, this Chamber is a delaying instrument; and if ever there was a case for legislation to be held up until the British people had an opportunity of saying "Yea" or "Nay"—not by means of a referendum but by a General Election—it was the Treaty of Accession Bill. But this was denied them. I would say to Her Majesty's Government: "Do not trust this place. This is the home of reaction." I regret that in the gracious Speech there is not one reference either to the abolition of this House (which I should regret) or to its reform. If ever there were any signs in the country of losing by elections, the occupants of these Benches will quickly find out how deep is the sincerity of those who wish the Government well.

We have been through this before. Long, long ago a Liberal Government found this out. This place has always existed for one purpose: to preserve the wealth and privilege of a small select class—and, my Lords, your day has come. The hour has struck. There has emerged in this country another force, and for the moment you have to live with it. That is the power of the trade unions. The case is made as if all our problems are due to inflation, and that inflation is due to wage demands. Of course, excessive wage demands exacerbate an already difficult problem, but the fact is that throughout the whole of capitalist society—and this is why inflation is endemic—there have been major structural alterations which have not been recognised. There exists the power to produce goods and services like a cascade, by day and by night. These have to be consumed or the machine chokes. In 1929 to 1931 there was an attempt to curtail the flow and the world rocked, choked with its own surpluses.

Now there is another force: the force of television. How many times have I said this to your Lordships?—day after day and night after night, television stimulates wants which have nothing to do with anything constructive. It is the old story—something to eat, something to drink, something to make people look nice, somewhere to go on holiday, something for the dog or the cat—and yet the crisis we are faced with is under-investment. That is why there is no growth; and you cannot go to the wageearner—even the trade union leader cannot do it—and put the emphasis upon investment, because he has been taught to consume. He has been taught to get wages. So he or his wife sees the person next door wearing something new or using a new gadget: he wants it too. Therefore you have to live with inflation, whether you like it or not; and the only way this country can solve its difficulties—and it may be a very hard and narrow race—is to get a contented, understanding and indeed (drawing upon one's wartime experiences) an enthusiastic labour-force which trusts the political institutions and the instruments which provide the means of government. Unless that exists, then you will not get the co-operation you seek.

That is the major case against the Common Market and the case for the referendum. You cannot get this instrument, which, if I may say so with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, is a creation of the Foreign Office and its francophile tradition. It has been pushed across whether we like it or not—and we do not like it—and Mr. Enoch Powell, Mr. Jack Jones, myself and others (and I am going to a meeting to-night) will do everything in our power to ensure that the British people have the case clearly put in front of them and that they have the chance to say "Yes" or "No". If they are not given that clear choice, then all is ashes. That is the problem and it has to be faced.

I want, if I may, to turn to the subject of defence, and I must say that almost every word that has been uttered during this debate causes me most profoundly to disagree. I should like to turn to some very wise words of the Foreign Secretary, speaking in another place on October 30, when he said: Of course Britain has a role to play in the world."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons. 30/10/74, col. 230.] Then a paragraph later he says this: Having said that, there is a large role for Britain to play and many people in all parts of the world are looking to us to play it. But we require on our part a sense of realism about our capacity to influence world events. We are a medium-sized Power and we are not at present among the strongest of these. Indeed the choice for us perhaps, with the emergence of super-Powers, is that we could be at the bottom of the First Division or the top of the Second Division. We did not make that choice. We went for the illusions of power, and the result is that we have the bill but not the power. So we are falling all the time to the bottom of the Second Division. That is the truth of (he matter. The reason is that those like the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, and the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, are the products of a bygone age, political dinasaurs. To-day what matters are not Armed Forces, as expressed—and which are so pleasing, I am sure, to the British public and to every Member of your Lordships' House except myself—in the spectacle of the Trooping the Colour, because that is part of the fairy story. What matters is the totality of power; and if I may put it in an extreme form, if I had to choose between a frigate at a South Atlantic station and a team and training facilities to teach our footballers proficiency in a game which we invented, so that we could win the World Cup, I would choose the game of football, because that is part of the totality of power. Some 1,200 million people watched the World Cup final at Munich. We were not there because, although we could, we do not provide the facilities for our young people to take part in sport on the international scale which would ensure prestige for this country. There can be no Spitz produced in Britain, because there are not the swimming baths of Olympic standards. We will not be able to produce people who can dive to get gold medals, because there is only one bath suitable away—in Cardiff. And so the story goes on.

I did not come to your Lordships' House on the festive occasion last week; I watched it on television. It was a fairy story which begins, like all fairy stories, "Once upon a time". The Queen's Speech was delivered among the great ones of the land, and it was televised so that all could see it; all could share in the glory that is ours. A couple of hours later I travelled on a plane to Algiers. I witnessed celebrations of independence, where 15 million people, by their valour, had taken their independence from the French. It was not given; it was taken—although the French killed 1.500.000 people in the process. There were 13 Heads of State there, and representatives from 100 governments—China, Russia and every Latin American country, including Miss Allende representing Chile. There was no Minister from Britain. I stayed at the Alletti Hotel and talked to an Australian Cabinet Minister and Ministers from Norway; but there were no Ministers from Britain. The Algerian ambassador held a reception at Claridges Hotel and there were 700 people celebrating Algerian independence, but there was not a single Minister from the Foreign Office.

You can have it one way or the other, my Lords. You can have your little bill, and your defence, or you can realise the reality: your power to influence men by the fact that you have a society which is cohesive and disciplined, because people understand the objectives and share them with enthusiasm. I witnessed a parade on the Avenue de Liberation from the airport into Algiers last Friday morning. There was a parade which demonstrated clearly the continuity of the revolution. The last 50 minutes of it showed the armed forces. The Brigade of Guards could well attach some of their instructors to the Algerian Army and learn how to march. There was no great display of weapons—there were no tanks, but light automatic weapons. There was a demonstration of a people who had struggled and won and knew what they were after, and were determined to get it. That is what has to be recreated in this country. You are not going to create it if you try to twist them as they were twisted over our entry into the Common Market.

LORD O'HAGAN

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but he said he was going to educate me. Could he explain how this spirit that he would like to see recreated is to be recreated by Britain leaving the Community?

LORD WIGG

My Lords, it would be created by giving the British people the choice. That is what matters. On every plaform where I have spoken about the Common Market I have always said the same thing. If the choice goes against me, like the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, I am a democrat and I accept it. But I am not going to be a party to the people of this country being treated as a defeated Power. That is what is happening at present. It was M. Lardinois who said "What is the good of a referendum? The ordinary people cannot understand." But how little does he understand about the British people!

Therefore, it is not a question of coming out; it is a question of education. This is what an election is about. The noble Lord, the Lord O'Hagan, has not had the privilege of fighting an election. What matters is not the decision at the ballot box; it is that for three weeks the mind of the country is concentrated on great issues. Of course the public do not understand the details; they do not want to. But they can take the broad decisions on this issue to come in or stay out.

LORD WINDLESHAM

My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point, he has had a very long and distinguished career in public life and fought many elections. Has he never felt in the past that an issue was so important to the future of this country that it should be put to the people in a referendum? Or has he changed his view now that he has retired from active public life?

LORD WIGG

My Lords, by and large, I believe in the sovereignty of Parliament. Because we were taken in as we were, when we were promised we would go in only with our full-hearted consent, I want the referendum in order that the public may be educated. It needs to be recognised that those who said—I would not include the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, although it is probable—" They were the best terms we could get. The Labour Party cannot get any better terms" are now saying, including the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, "We have much better terms already, so let us go on negotiating and we will get even better terms." In other words, they are hedging their bets because the policy of renegotiation, on which only a few weeks ago contempt was being poured, is succeeding.

LORD WINDLESHAM

My Lords, that was not my point. Does the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, accept, or does he not accept, that this is a constitutional innovation to hold a referendum?

LORD WIGG

My Lords, of course it is, just as it was in Northern Ireland. We have no written Constitution; we have always said that we play it by ear. A situation is reached here where it is obviously desirable that the British people should be consulted. The Conservative Party would have been wise—and but for the stubbornness of Mr. Heath, it would have done so—to accept the principle of renegotiation. I have great respect for the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. I believe that in his quieter moments he would agree with me that it would have been wiser to accept a referendum; in other words, accept the Sovereignty of the British people.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way to me. I have a problem which was brought strongly to my notice by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, about this very subject when he was talking about capital punishment. Going around village halls, he took a vote at the beginning of each meeting and found there were 2 to 1 in favour of capital punishment. After he had argued the case, the vote was taken again and it was found that there were 2 to 1 against capital punishment. In this case we are going to have not one Lord Gardiner arguing with all his tremendous eloquence on the relatively simple matter in one direction; we are going to have people arguing in opposite directions. How are the uninformed British public to be informed?

LORD WIGG

My Lords this is quite extraordinary! This is supposed to be a mature assembly. Democracy is not a hot-house plant. It was not born in Oxford common rooms; it was born by argument, by strife, by men arguing. They realised something: argue, dispute, be strong minded—abusive, if you like—but it is the most civilised way, with all its imperfections, that men have discovered of governing themselves. It comes by contradiction. That is how ordinary men make up their minds. In this country the die is cast against the ordinary man.

The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, is a governor of the BBC. They, like the Foreign Office, long ago made up their minds about the Common Market. I listened to the overseas news—ceaseless propaganda in favour of the Common Market. What chance does the ordinary chap have if he listens to the B.B.C. or reads the British Press? In the long run, my faith in my fellow citizen is greater than that of even the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan. Despite the B.B.C., despite the Press, I believe that in the long run the British people will take the right decision.

LORD GREENHILL OF HARROW

My Lords, may I interrupt?

LORD WIGG

Certainly.

LORD GREENHILL OF HARROW

My Lords, lest silence should indicate consent, the noble Lord speaks about ceaseless propaganda on the B.B.C., and, quite honestly, I think that anybody in this House who has listened to the B.B.C. over many months would know that that is not correct.

LORD WIGG

My Lords, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, that if in respect of the last two or three days he would ask the Overseas Service to play back to him some of the broadcasts which I have heard, he would find that every single one has been biased in favour of our membership of the E.E.C, or statements such as this have been made: Of course, it is generally understood that the Government will recommend that we shall remain in the Common Market. This is commonplace.

I trust that I shall be allowed to continue because I want to make one or two further points. What I was trying to demonstrate was that Armed Forces as we know them, measured in terms of tanks or frigates, are a load of nonsense. Let us examine the Simonstown Agreement. I regret that the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, is not present because he is a distinguished naval officer; but the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, is present. Let us demonstrate what nonsense this is. Simonstown—go and have a look at it! It looks about as important as Bognor. Something like that; or perhaps I wrong it and should say one of the nicer resorts—Southport, or a South Coast resort. As one drives along the front one finds the houses are quite close to the sea, and what does one see? House after house is a boarding house placarded up. "Rhodesia by the sea," it says. I was there not so long ago.

Let us consider for a moment those who think we should retain the Simonstown base as a means of defence for the journey round the Cape. Let us assume that the Russians have taken the bit between their teeth and have decided at that distance to interfere with the flow of trade. It is rather like Lord Avon's forecast about the Suez Canal being a knife across our jugular vein. We know how true that was. Let us assume, then, that the might of the Soviet Union is then placed in the scale and it is going to take extreme steps to interfere with our trade. Does any Member of this House seriously think that the Simonstown base, which it is argued is vital, would continue in existence? How long for? Five minutes? Ten minutes? Do these noble Lords not hear a rustle of missiles at this range? If this base is said to be of such strategic importance as to be a matter of life and death, not only to Britain but the Western World, does anyone seriously, honestly think it would continue to exist for any longer than it would take to fire a missile from a Soviet base? To argue the case is to demonstrate the utter futility, the complete out-of-dateness of the thinking of people who argue for the essential nature of Simonstown.

There is another factor about Simonstown. This, it is said, is so necessary because the Russians have intruded—that is perhaps the word; "sailed into "would be perhaps less tendentious—into the Indian Ocean. So, then, if the Indian Ocean is important to us, would one not have thought that this country would go out of its way to make friends with the Indian Government? The Foreign Secretary has seen the Indian High Com missioner once since he took office last March—once, and then only when the High Commissioner was making a duty call. Never during the office of any of the Labour Governments has any Minister of high rank visited India. Oh yes, Mr. Heath went—on his way, I think, to Singapore. Sir Alec—God bless him!— went. But is not the friendship of India, in order to have the security of the Indian Ocean which we are told is vital to us—

LORD GORE-BOOTH

My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for just a moment. Mr. Michael Stewart, to do the Labour Government justice, visited India in my time.

LORD WIGG

My Lords, the information I have is that no senior British Minister has done so, certainly not since March; but I did make—

LORD GORE-BOOTH

Not in the present Government, my Lords; I am sorry. I thought the noble Lord was referring to the whole period.

LORD WIGG

No, my Lords, I will not run away from it. Certainly not since March. And the Indian High Commissioner has made one visit only. He did receive a letter written in rather avuncular terms by the Foreign Secretary—rather like uncle writing to one of his nephews about Christmas time; the kind of letter with which he sends five shillings and wishes him well for the next year— and he sent rather a dusty answer. My information is that no senior British Minister visited India during the period. If I am wrong I naturally accept such an authority as the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth.

I am very pleased to learn that Prince Charles will make a visit to India early in the New Year. I take this not to be the influence of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; I think this must be the influence of Lord Mountbatten! But I do not mind: I welcome it. But I do not want our foreign policy run that way. It is a step in the right direction. But the point I want to make and drive home is that it is completely out of date to think of defence in the terms in which it has been thought about and talked about in this House this afternoon. It has no validity at all. We have to think in terms of the totality of defence. We must accept the totality of force. It includes not only military force but economic force, the power of propaganda, the victories at sport. This is why the Soviet Union puts her great resources into winning sporting activities. I am astonished at the noble Lord, who is a forward-looking man, who talks about defence in completely out-of-date terms, and then says, "Of course, there is this about détente. There are so many Russian tanks." Why does he think the Russians train their young people to go all over the world to get a harvest of gold, silver and bronze medals, except of course to demonstrate the power of the Soviet Union in that particular field? It seems to me so simple, so obvious, and yet I go on banging my head against a brick wall in trying to make this clear.

I want to put defence in terms which are quite startling. I have done some homework; it has taken me a lot of time to do it. I have tried to ascertain beyond any shadow of doubt the total defence expenditure by this country from 1946 to the end of 1973. I take it to the end of 1973 for this reason. I am going to ask the quesion: What have we got for it? At the end of 1973 a Conservative Government were in control, and obviously they were continuing the policy of Governments based on the previous 1957 White Paper. This is at a time, by the way, when this country is looking round for a few hundred millions. Since the end of the war we have spent £51,943 million. Our total expenditure on defence up to the end of 1974 will be £55,000 million.

Now what have we got for it? Well, I am sorry, but we did not get peace because of that expenditure. That is perfectly clear. The noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, as usual, talks without thinking. Let us examine it together. In Cyprus there were two sovereign bases. So here we were uninhibited, in complete control. We had a defence policy which had twice as many women and children as there were men. We had to reinforce it—not in order to discharge any international obligation; we had thrown a hal in the ring so far as that was concerned. We did it because we had to put troops in in order to protect the women and children. This may be marvellous, but it is not a defence policy exactly. And when we needed reinforcements we had not a battalion to put in. We put in a battalion of the Gurkhas, which is marvellous, except of course that if you have the Gurkhas it is difficult to find a place to use them. That is the situation there.

Turning to the Rhine Army, I regret the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, because he is a bit of a "corker". He talks about the Labour Government going back on its promises, on its defence commitments. Was it a Labour Government which committed Britain to maintain four divisions and the Second Tactical Air Force on the Continent until the end of this century? Was it a Labour Government which walked out on it? It was a Conservative Government. We have got the word of Mr. Churchill. Go and look at Lord Moran's diary. Mr. Churchill said, "Oh, that? I don't believe a word of it. I don't intend to do it". So what is the good of coming along and talking this kind of poppycock? The fact is that we have a defence policy, based upon the 1957 White Paper, which is costly in the extreme and which guarantees to do one thing. It produces no defence. We can no longer afford to put abroad forces of that kind, and the quicker we bring the Rhine Army home the better because they could not fight. They are committed to a forward position but the only atomic tactical weapons that they have are completely obsolescent. They are the same old 8 ins. howitzer, the same old Honest John, with a range of 12 miles. They have to hold a forward position because their range is only 12 miles; so, if ever things go wrong, in the first two hours they are "in the bag". I do not regard that as a policy at all. It is absolute nonsense, and this is where I come to Lord O'Hagan.

My Lords, he will go round the country and will say, "What is the alternative?". We come out, if that is the view. There is a going concern, of which we can be a member. There is this country's record in terms of international co-operation. It is among the best in the world. There is no reason at all why we should not co-operate with anybody over anything. We can co-operate on a functional basis. But when I am in Algiers and I see President Boumedienne as chairman of the non-aligned countries—76 of them. 77 in all—with over 100 States represented, I say to myself, "I dont' want Britain to be at the bottom of the second division. Britain ought to be amongst the non-aligned countries". We are not a great super-Power and we canot afford the defence bill. If, therefore, we join the non-aligned countries, by 1980 Algeria will be exporting more gas than anybody else in the world: they have the greatest gas deposits in the world. We are joining those Powers who have great economic resources. So have we. We shall ultimately need to harmonise our oil policy with theirs; so why not get among them? And, if it means giving a lead, they have much to learn from us. We can, perhaps, help them. We can help them because they need our technical know-how. There are markets which are open to us. There are markets for our investment. They want us.

My Lords, that leads me to the last and perhaps the most controversial of the things which I have to say. I want to turn to the problem of the Middle East. The Foreign Secretary thinks there are three fundamental needs. He said that Israel must have satisfaction of her need for recognition by her neighbours of her permanence as a State and of her legitimate security requirements. I think that is right, but again what precedes it is that any settlement in the Middle East must accept the totality. This is the mistake which Israel has made. She is supplied with the Phantoms. She is supplied with sophisticated American equipment and she thought that gave her permanently a position of supreme military strength. She over-looked the fact that you have to take into the balance sheet and bring into the equation the economic power of the Arab countries which has now been expressed.

My Lords, the second point is that her Arab neighbours will require the withdrawal of the Israeli occupying forces back to the 1967 line. Thirdly, the Foreign Secretary thinks that there must be satisfaction of the needs of the Palestinians—" By which", he says, "I mean not only the rights of individual Palestinian refugees". I think there is a fourth point. Jerusalem is the place where great faiths meet and there must be agreement about the faiths of this world being able to worship in freedom. I do not know the form that this will take but I am absolutely sure that, very high up in any permanent settlement, that fact has got to be taken into account.

LORD JANNER

My Lords, is the noble Lord really suggesting that people are not allowed to-day to worship in freedom in Jerusalem?

LORD WIGG

My Lords, of course they are, but they do not think so and by "freedom" they do not mean freedom with the Israelis policing the area. They mean freedom to worship in their own way and under their own control. That is precisely what they mean. It can be international, but currently the most difficult problem of all is the problem of the PLO. They are described as terrorists, but who were the gentlemen who blew up the King David Hotel? Were they members of a Sunday School party? What about the gentlemen who murdered Sergeants Paice and Martin? What were they doing? Were they collecting postage stamps? The State of Israel was established by the Haganah and by the Irgun Zvei Leumi, and, so far as they were concerned, in the process no holds were barred. That is not the way to permanent peace, and I say to those who care to listen that these are the requirements and that until those requirements are met the tensions in the Middle East will most certainly continue and while they continue there is no possibility of military peace. Then—hence my theory of the totality of force—there is no possibility of the West getting any amelioration of the conditions under which it can obtain oil.

My Lords, may I recall to your Lordships that the General Assembly which met in April was convened at the instance of President Boumedienne who was acting on behalf of the non-aligned countries. I think that very few British newspapers took cognisance of what President Boumedienne had to say, but when he was talking about oil he talked also about other commodities and the position in which Britain finds itself will continue for a very long time to come. In this country—silently, almost without notice—there has been a revolution, a move, a shift. Exactly the same thing has happened on the international plane. Until that fact is recognised we shall go on from crisis to crisis. We shall blame this one; we shall blame that one; and we shall blame one another; we shall blame it on to oil and we shall blame it on to inflation.

I, sharing the views of the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, have sufficient belief in my fellow-countrymen that they will realise the true position, which requires an enlightened, a disinterested and an objective Press and television coverage but unless people can recognise the truth and be given an opportunity to learn the truth, how can they make the right decisions? It is only for that reason that I have spoken. I have spoken for far too long, but I have had my fair share of interruptions. The only reason that I have intervened in your Lordships' debate to-night is because what I have said I shall go on saying at every opportunity I can—for the most part outside this House.

7.0 p.m.

LORD ORR-EWING

My Lords, I last heard the noble Lord who has just sat down speak—as many of your Lordships did—on June 20, when he spoke for 15 minutes and he described your Lordships' House then as "a contemptible institution". He said: I do not want to be here. I do not like being here. Having listened to him for 39 minutes this evening, I wonder whether he had revised his views because he seemed to be enjoying himself. He added one further slogan—" Don't trust this House"—to those he has already recorded in Hansard. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, has left because he opened our debate on the Queen's Speech with a succinct and very statesman-like speech, not of 39 minutes but of 20 minutes and I think we would all like to congratulate him. I thing I have spoken in every defence debate for 24 years and I was ragging him earlier that this must be the first occasion when I have not actually heard him speaking on the defence issue. He said "As I opened the debate I did not think I could speak again. In any case I have an opportunity at the Savoy Hotel to-morrow to let off a speech on defence". So we miss his wise words on this defence issue.

My Lords, I want to concentrate on two main points on defence and then move on to some remarks about British industry because like the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, I consider it is the well-being, the prosperity, the investment and the competitive spirit in British industry which makes a defence policy possible at all. I agree so much with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that the first priority for the United Kingdom must be the united defence of Western Europe. We must play a worthy part and we shall make it much more difficult for the United States to maintain its presence in Western Europe as strong as it is if we start to back down from our responsibilities and to further the move for less defence by some of the weaker brethren in Western Europe.

The second vital issue is the Middle East because that is where a great part of our oil must come from between now and 1980. Of course, it is no good being utterly dependent upon Arab oil unless they are able to transport it down the Arabian Gulf, round the Cape and up into Western Europe. That is why I want to say a word or two about the defence of the Cape route. Two-thirds of Britain's oil comes round the Cape. Rather more of N.A.T.O.'s oil comes round the Cape and therefore we should not allow the Russians to predominate and we should continue to exercise our right to use the Simonstown base and to exercise with the South African navy.

Yesterday in the other place I thought the Foreign Secretary spoke in much more measured terms than perhaps reports over the weekend in the Press and on the media, which suggested that we were about to withdraw. But I cannot understand why, until we have our own sources of oil from the North Sea secure and at a competitive price, we do not keep our options open. When the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor started our debate to-day he first, quite rightly, condemned apartheid. I think we all do in this House, but he went on to say that it was the policy of Her Majesty's Government to give no help for internal oppression. But my Lords, no one is suggesting that they should. The Tory Government did not give any help: they did not supply machine guns or bombs or anything which could be used for internal oppression. But the position has tightened up immensely since then.

There are now 300 orders which have been waiting since the Labour Government came to power at the beginning of March, for the export of spares—and vital spares—for the South African military forces. Many of these, as I know from personal experience, are for such as torpedoes, radar, radio and sonobuoys. None of these things can be used for the oppression of the black majority in South Africa and I cannot understand why we cannot trade reasonably with that country. If we can supply cars, machine tools and other things why can we not supply spares to make these exercises which were approved by Her Majesty's Government realistic? In many cases they have no explosive content and they cannot possibly be used for oppression.

I went to South Africa a year and a half ago and I would point out the degree to which the French, the Italians and to a less extent the Germans are driving in and providing them with goods that we refuse to provide. It surely does not make any sense at all that a country with which we have co-operated in time of war for the maritime defence of that route should progressively have to look to other nations of Western Europe rather than to us for vital spares. I cannot help but think, as others have said, that it is pure humbug and I would urge this Government not to let themselves be bullied by their own Left Wing. By making relationships more difficult with South Africa we make it more difficult for those forces working for democracy within the Union, particularly for the Progressive Party which has recently won five Parliamentary seats. This is beginning to make some progress and if we ban and do not co-operate then we make their task in reversing apartheid so much more difficult.

I wish now to turn to another subject and I hope the noble Lord will excuse me if I am not here when he winds up this debate. I had hoped to be here but the 40 minute speech by Lord Wigg has made it imperative that I leave before the winding-up speech. I want to turn to some of the cuts which are predicted. We do not know for certain but we read that following the defence cuts which have already taken place and which affected our intelligence services we are to have another series of cuts. The security service, perhaps more generally known as MI5, and the secret intelligence service, perhaps more generally known as MI6 are to be further cut. These services do not use large quantities of expensive equipment. They use high-grade brains and that is very good value for money. I remember Lord Rutherford came when I was at Oxford. He was then doing pre-eminent research at Cambridge on nuclear physics, which I was studying, and I remember him saying at a time when we were having cuts all round "Gentlemen, we have not got much money so we must use our brains".

I think that is true to-day; we have a limited supply of money so let us please use our brains so that we may dispose our forces and our equipment most economically. Of course every nation makes some mistakes in the intelligence field but I think most of the Free World recognises that the British intelligence services are second to none in the world, and this is certainly recognised by the United States of America. We are now deeply dependent on the information which we receive from the sophisticated military satellites launched, serviced and read by the United States of America. If we cease to make any useful contribution to the intelligence services and knowledge then we shall not go on receiving the photographs or the wireless intercepts which we now receive from that country. So I suggest again that we should look most seriously at the whole business of cutting our intelligence staffs.

I now come to the third and last portion of my speech, and that is my sadness that so little was made in the Queen's Speech of the importance of British industry. When the Labour Party came to power in 1964 much was made of the fact that there was a deficit of £800 million in the balance of payments. In fact it turned out to be rather less than that; it was £382 million when the sums were done. But the deficit now is not £382 million; it is £3,860 million—over ten times as great, and yet we have not heard much about that. Of course, over half of that deficit is due to the price of oil and it is fair to say that mention has been made, and I hope we shall have some real drive on the issue of conserving our energy in this country. But the balance must come from the exports, visible and invisible, of British industry—competitive industry principally.

I have grown up in the engineering field of British industry and there is not one company with which I am associated which is not now desperately feeling the pinch of cash resources. We should all like to be investing in more sophisticated machine tools, in better and more up to date methods, but due to inflation we find we need vast amounts of money for funding our stock, much more than we can afford. If inflation accountings were universal we should soon realise we are not making profits on which we are being so heavily taxed. So I would have thought that line 1, page 1 of any gracious Speech, before telling us about the giveaways and the improvements to the social services or education services, or the needy, would have paid attention to the needs of British industry, which generates the power and the wealth. If you have bankrupt British industry you do not have any wealth, foreign policy, defence services, social services or any housing, so I hope the Government will give some priority in this sphere.

Yesterday in the House of Commons—I was there for a short while—the right honourable Member, Mr. Wedgewood Benn, was telling us about more nationalisation. I would echo what was said then. Surely in the present crisis of British industry this is an irrelevancy, and one which undermines the confidence of so many firms. They are all anxious to get on with the job. At this stage, why not postpone this step until we are through with the present crisis? Each day we read about firm X, firm Y or firm Z to which the right honourable Member, Mr. Wedgewood Benn, has decided to grant some millions of pounds of aid. I would ask, on what authority? Has Parliament voted this? Have we seen anything of this? I know of no authority. It may be that this is done under the Industry Act, but certainly these sums of money are not automatically voted. And you can operate under the Industry Act only if it is recommended by the Committee specifically set up to examine it. We know in some of these instances that the Committee has said that some of the firms which are now to get big grants are not economically viable and should not be given grants. So on what authority docs a senior member of the Cabinet spend millions of pounds of our money? He was asked, and he gave no answer, how much the nationalisation of all these firms is going to cost. One estimate is £1.000 million. Where is this money to come from? It can only come from printing; and if it is printed, it is going to stoke up inflation. So I ask the Government to think most seriously about whether this is the first and the most urgent problem. Surely the wellbeing of British industry must come first and foremost.

Now I turn, as did the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, finally to perhaps the most important question of all; namely, to what is going to happen to our sources of supply of coal and electricity in the coming winter. In March the National Union of Mineworkers was appeased and got a 30 per cent. wage award. That was meant to be exceptional, but I am afraid it has become the norm. We read that on Clydeside a lorry firm have got between 39 per cent. and 44 per cent. We are told in the Queen's speech that everything is pinned for success on the social contract. Do noble Lords realise that this is already breaking down? It is the most fragile instrument. I wished it well when it came. It is a voluntary incomes policy, and if it could have worked I would congratulate the Government. But honestly, they have left nothing to fall back on. Twenty-seven out the 39 last settlements are outside the terms of reference of the social contract, and yet they have gone through.

I do not want to be a prophet of doom, but I regret to say that I cannot help feeling that militants in the National Union of Mineworkers are not going to serve this Government any more than they served the Conservative Govern- ment, and that they are probably going to bring our coal supplies to a halt either in this February, or in February of 1976. I would ask: What are the Government going to do? In 1961 the late Hugh Gaitskell stood up against his Left Wing when he made that great speech. "Fight", fight and fight again". I regret to say it looks to me now as if it is: appease, appease, and appease again. That is no cure for our problems. If the situation breaks down, there is no fallback position for the Government. Then I am afraid there is no possible alternative but the formation of a Government of national unity which will face up to the problems, and which will govern in the interests of every person of every political Party in this country.

7.15 p.m.

LORD SEGAL

My Lords, this debate has already covered a very wide area. It has travelled over Cyprus, the Middle East, India and Bangladesh. I hope the House will forgive me if I carry it still further east, and refer a little to some of the problems facing the much maligned and grossly misrepresented British Crown Colony of Hong Kong. As is often the case, it is misrepresented because of the sheer failure to see these problems in their proper context by many who are superficially aware of the problems, but who, out of the highest and most worthy motives, fail woefully to approach them objectively. It is very easy to spend a few days in Hong Kong and to come back denouncing the appalling conditions of overcrowding, the bad housing, the low wages, the absence or impotence of trade unions, the denial of representative government, and of free elections, the drug addicts, the vice dens, and all the worst aspects of colonialism.

We had a notable example of this during a rather one-sided criticism in a recent debate which took place in your Lordships' House on the walled city of Kowloon, which I thought was somewhat below the usual standard of debates in this House. It was a case of special pleading, a statement of isolated facts with an almost total lack of judgment of the situation as a whole. It was, in my view, a grossly unfair criticism of a band of devoted colonial servants from this country who had dedicated their lives to the welfare of millions of Chinese who are refugees from Communist rule, who are daily facing problems of appalling magnitude with a quiet courage and devotion to the highest ideals of public duty which deserve a rather better recognition from their countrymen at home.

What are the chief facts, the facts that are beyond dispute? Hong Kong to-day has a population of over four million, a population that has grown more than tenfold in the last 20 years. That alone gives some idea of the problem. But why have the Chinese come in such numbers to Hong Kong? Why has Hong Kong been compelled to impose the strictest regulations against any further imigration? It is simply because, if free and open immigration were permitted from the Chinese mainland, this immigration would swell to a flood, and millions of refugees would cross the border into Hong Kong. These facts are not in dispute.

I would be the last to decry or minimise in any way the magnificent achievements of the Communist Government on the mainland of China. They have virtually stamped out famine, have brought work, hope and succour to starving millions, to nearly one-quarter of the world's total population. They have created a spirit of national pride, enthusiasm, purpose, energy, and will to work that has stirred the imagination of countless millions of oppressed people all over the world. They have recreated China into one of the world's great Powers. Why, then, is there this urge on the part of millions of Chinese to escape from Communist China into the so-called hell of Hong Kong, that den of iniquity that symbolises the worst vices of colonialist rule?

The answer is simply this. There will always be some people in every country, perhaps a minority of people, who wish to be free—free to think for themselves, free to express their thoughts, however ignorant or misguided, openly without fear of reprisals or punishment or retribution of any kind. They wish to be free to work and to worship, free, within certain social limitations, to bring up their families, to educate their children, to have access to news unadulterated by propaganda, free to live their own creative lives with a minimum of interference by the State. In Communist China these people have to conform. Work is available, but there is direction of labour in the interests of the Stale. Food is available, but production is controlled. News of the out-side world is available, but is heavily overloaded by propaganda. Criticism of the régime is allowed, but it has to be muted. Organised opposition such as we know it in Western Europe is not to be tolerated; it is an offence against the régime.

The existing conditions in Communist China may well be ideally suited to the Chinese character and they may have proved their worth. That I do not wish to dispute. What I wish to question is whether 800 million people can all be expected to conform, and if only one per cent. of the people of China wish to seek their freedom there are 8 million who are potential refugees. It is the same story of the struggle for freedom that has persisted since the dawn of history.

The New York Times said, on July 31 this year, that the number of illegal immigrants flowing to Hong Kong from mainland China is now higher than it has been for a decade. Mostly they have to swim to freedom, often in shark-infested waters, sometimes swimming from 4 to 12 hours to make their escape. They all have to take enormous risks in order to escape. One young girl who managed to swim to safety in Hong Kong had her right foot snapped off by a shark. Her three companions perished in the attempt. The majority of these refugees are young people who have been sent to rural communes from Canton and other Chinese cities as part of the general movement in China to send educated young people from the cities to the countryside.

I would be the last to decry the enormous strides made by Communist China in the fields of education, medicine, economic growth, culture, art and science. But why do these people risk their lives to escape from this economic and cultural land of progress into this backwater of colonialism which is Hong Kong? It is simply to be free, to be free to criticise, to organise and, if necessary, to denounce and to condemn. It is an irony and a tragedy of the human race that we begin to value our liberties at their true worth only when we are deprived of them. That is why Hong Kong to-day is not only a sanctuary but also a symbol, perhaps the finest symbol anywhere in the Far East, for those who wish to be free.

Of course, there is no representative government. Of course, in Hong Kong there are no free elections. Of course, there are no flourishing trade unions in Hong Kong. But Hong Kong is fortunate in having a government, albeit a government by a colonial power, dedicated to the welfare of its people, so that they are free to concentrate on their bitter struggle for economic survival, aggravated by conditions of the fuel crisis, by intense economic competition from Taiwan and South Korea, without having recourse to the luxury of Party strife, Party bitterness and political dissensions.

What country in the world to-day—although this is possibly highly arguable—would not consider itself fortunate to be relieved of some of the corrosive influences of Party strife by the existence of an experienced benevolent government, even from outside. Of course the 4 million Chinese in Hong Kong are deprived of certain human rights, of some political powers, but many millions of those 800 million on the Communist mainland would risk their lives to enjoy these deprivations if immigration into Hong Kong were unrestricted and uncontrolled.

Of course, corruption exists in Hong Kong, but corruption is endemic everywhere in the Far East and is far worse almost everywhere else in the Far East than in Hong Kong—the Phillipines, Vietnam, Indonesia, Cambodia, Laos, Malaysia, Thailand. You have only to name the country to be aware of the existence of corruption in its midst. The Hong Kong Government has been loud in its denunciation of corruption and more active than any other country in the Far East in its efforts to suppress it.

As for opposition, the Hong Kong Government has wisely allowed full scope for Communist propaganda, Communist economic infiltration, so that both Communist and capitalist enterprise can flourish freely side by side, and the Chinese themselves can best be left to judge the merits of both systems. And still the one salient overriding fact remains; the potential flow of population is always in one direction. If we decry the low wages paid in Hong Kong, we must not overlook the fact that, certainly when I was last in Hong Kong nearly two years ago, the wages paid in Taiwan were half of those paid in Hong Kong and the wages paid in South Korea were half again of those paid in Taiwan. That is a measure of the bitter struggle for economic survival that now faces the 4 million Chinese political refugees from the mainland of China who today form 98 per cent. of Hong Kong's population.

That is why we ought to plead for a fair assessment of Hong Kong's position to-day, for a fair deal, for a decent, responsible British Administration wholly devoted to the interests of the Chinese community whom they are fated to govern—a community the majority of whom certainly wish for a continuance of this enlightened benevolent government that they now enjoy. Let us criticise by all means, but let us be fair in our criticism and weigh the good against the bad. Let us realise, as so many millions of Chinese realise to-day, that the good in Hong Kong far outweighs the bad, and let us also seek to encourage our own fellow-countrymen now in the Hong Kong Administration in their efforts to improve conditions in that colony in every possible direction, so that Hong Kong may become the showcase for all that is honourable and good in the British tradition.

7.29 p.m.

LORD GORE-BOOTH

My Lords, I will not follow immediately on the noble Lord, Lord Segal, except to say one thing; that is, that what he has said will, I am sure, give the greatest pleasure and encouragement to that very fine Governor, Sir Murray MacLehose, who was transferred from the Diplomatic Service and has exercised his position with conspicuous success. May I start by apologising to the Minister who will wind up the debate that I shall unhappily not be here to hear him do so, as I have unfortunately, an engagement contracted a very long time ago.

It is a very special pleasure for me to be present at the debate at which my old friend and colleague the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, made his maiden speech. His speech was quite remarkable for its compactness, the amount that he managed to pack in to very few minutes, and also by the skill with which he gave to his speech a certain sharpness of edge which was extremely useful to all of us without going beyond what would be considered proper in a maiden speech, I certainly hope that his voice will continue to be heard, and often. May I, before I leave the subject of the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, and as one who has nothing to do with the BBC, go on record as confirming his intervention in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wigg. I am a considerable listener and watcher, and I am convinced that the reason why the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, may have felt that he was overwhelmed by pro-Common Market propaganda is that at last to some extent the people who are in favour of our remaining in the Common Market have once again found their voices.

The debate, like many debates when there are so many things to discuss, has been a little diffuse and untidy, and I am afraid that I shall do nothing to improve this. It has seemed to me that when difficult problems all over the world impinge on us, the only thing that one can do is to select a few of them and talk about them. All the same, I think we should recognise that we are having this debate at a difficult stage in world history. If at some moments in the debate we feel a little dissatisfied with what we are saying and doing, I am sure, as one noble Lord has said, that it is that we have a certain feeling of frustration that we, as a country, can do so little about it. This is particularly frustrating for those of us who have been through times when we could do a great deal about it. None the less, there are things that we can do, and in particular if we manage in the months and years to come to get our own affairs into somewhat better order than they are at present.

I propose to deal shortly with three subjects: subjects that are not really related to each other but which directly concern actions by ourselves. The first is to say something on the Common Market; then I should like to follow on what the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, had to say about détente, with a short analysis of the propaganda side of what goes on underneath super power détente. Thirdly, I should like to say a word which would combine the South African item with what I would call a critique of trendy diplomacy. On the Common Market, it seemed to me that it was the right moment to enunciate certain principles, but not, as the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, rightly said, to enter into details. I have tried to formulate three principles governing our attitude on staying in or coming out of the Common Market which may perhaps be useful for further reference, quite apart from whether they say anything to your Lordships at the moment.

The first principle—and I feel that it is important that somebody should say this officially and with all gravity—is that despite what certain very important persons may have said in recent weeks, the EEC is not a shambles. I have been there twice this year, once less than three weeks ago. You may say that the building is rather large; you may say that there are too many people in it, which they would dispute; you can certainly say that there is too much paper; but what one has to admit, if one takes any serious interest in what is going on, is that the personnel are of very high quality; that the work is extremely seriously carried out; that there have been major accomplishments, whether it be in agreeing on a programme of international lending and borrowing. All these things amount to some very serious work, and it simply is no good suggesting that we can sail in and put the shambles right. That is not the score at all.

If I may be slightly less serious for one moment, when the word "shambles" was used some conscientious Frenchman looked it up in a dictionary and translated it as it appeared in the dictionary as "abattoir", which means a slaughter house. This had to be put straight, but when they got it straight they exchanged from "slaughter house" to phrases like "tomber en ruines", which means "falling apart", so may I plead that Ministers take care of their vocabulary about the Common Market, whatever may be their immediate sentiments, because what they say is listened to on the Continent and runs the hazard of translation.

LORD O'HAGAN

My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord will agree that it is far easier to insult the staff of the Commission, who are about a third of the size of our Ministry of Agriculture, than to deal with the real absence of political will in the Council of Ministers, which, if anything, is the cause of the EEC occasionally becoming something approximating to a shambles.

LORD GORE-BOOTH

My Lords, I certainly think that the indecision of Ministers as to where the organisation is going is a contributory factor, but I felt that the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, was perhaps asking a little much of Ministers in asking them to define where they were going. I think I would agree with him that they should have long sessions at the summit, but I think one is having to compromise in the Community between the Latin a priori outlook and the Nordic pragmatic outlook, and one can go perhaps two or three steps at a time but not too certainly, especially as all the Heads of Government have always to look over their shoulders to their constituents. I agree that there is the impression of indecision, but it still is quite wrong to use the word "shambles".

My second principle would be that it is possible to deal with the Common Market from two positions; within, and without. We have had experience of both. If you deal with the Common Market from within, then at once you achieve friends and allies in a particular argument. They will not be the same friends and allies in each argument, but there will always be a division within, and there will also be a propensity to help. If you leave the Common Market, and start to argue again from without, you will start by finding that the drawbridge is up and the portcullis is down, that the members are closeted inside working out an agreed line. You will then be courteously invited in, and you will find it immensely difficult to break the common front. There is absolutely no question that there is only one conceivable way to deal with people who will undoubtedly be doing anything from 30 to 50 per cent. of our trade with us in the future, and that is to be one of them. That is pure, economic sense.

My third principle is that there should be no nostalgias: no nostalgias about things that were, and no nostalgias, if there can be such things, about things that were not. I do not go so far as that brilliant man, Mr. Louis Heren, who constantly tells us that the special relationship with the United States is dead. It is not dead, but it is a very much smaller item in the United States thinking than it obviously was thirty years ago, or even twenty years ago. The one way to make it a little smaller still would be to pull out of the Common Market.

Secondly, the Commonwealth is an important political association, multiracial, on the whole relaxed within itself although always subject to the motto, if you will, "fragile, handle with care", but there is no prospect whatever of going back to a sort of latterday Ottowa Agreement situation. All round the world Commonwealth countries have either had to make provision for themselves or have chosen to do so—Canada inevitably with the United States, Australia with Japan, India with the Soviet Union and so on; therefore there is no prospect of restoring even the limited economic unity that existed before and the Commonwealth countries would not now wish that to happen. So those are two nostalgias of something that was, up to a point, but will not be found if it is looked for again in the future. The other is the nostalgia for an industrial free trade area. The answer to that one is that there was not an international free trade area. Some have painful memories of how that attempt came sadly and rather angrily to an end. That again is not something that we can re-establish for the simple reason that when it came to an end it was clear that our efforts offered us so much more than it offered the Community that the project simply could not be realised.

So there are three factors—that this is a going concern, that we would be very much worse off economically in dealing with Europe without it than within it and that there is nowhere else to go in a world of regional groupings—that make it for me decisive that we must do the best we can in renegotiation; and I congratulate Ministers who have achieved as much as they have so far and I am sure will achieve more. We must go on to reap the gains which surely await us as members and also the influence we shall have on the future of Europe by being there. If we are outside we shall have none.

On the referendum, I note that the gracious Speech does not precisely say that but it does not seem to contain many options. I felt that the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, was quite unfair in discussing the matter with the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan. The point surely is that there are some subjects which lend themselves naturally to a referendum, like divorce in Italy or the employment of foreign labour in Switzerland. They are straight, easily understood questions and it is no insult to the ordinary member of the British public to suggest that perhaps Parliament is the right way to decide on something so complicated as the implications of joining the Common Market and of staying there. None the less it looks as though the public will be consulted directly and all that one can say there is that it will be incumbent upon all of us who believe in this as our future to make ourselves heard and read as much as we can in the months to come. The latest signs, as one noble Lord said, seem a little more favourable, and possibly as education goes on so will understanding increase as to why so many of us support what has been our policy for so long.

My Lords, may I change gear completely and turn to an examination of the reality of Marxism-Leninism in this world because it affects both what we do externally and what we believe and say. I hope your Lordships will bear with me for a moment if I indulge in a little of what might almost be called dialectics. It is an interesting and sometimes embarrassing fact that the British as a people are not much given to ideological thinking—perhaps we are happier without it—but it is worth remembering that it took us in Parliament five years of Hitler to acquire any understanding at all of what Nazism was to be like. Moreover, if one is critical of Marxism or Marxism-Leninism in this country one is apt to be criticised. This is the great political crime of the late Senator Joseph McCarthy who, apart from the personal pain he inflicted on so many people by his unfair accusations, succeeded in making criticism of Communism not done or not respected.

I have studied this matter a little, and in order to explain what I am about to say I have invented in another context something which I have christened "the cliche secretariat". It is no good looking for "the cliche secretariat" in the Post Office directory or in the telephone book or probably in a basement in Moscow. It is a kind of bush telegraph, an emanation from like-minded people who when there is criticism of Marxism set up a kind of buzz communicating itself from one person to another until everybody believes it. If one criticises Marxism-Leninism the cliche secre- taria turns itself on and says "reds under the bed, reds under the bed "until everybody turns to everybody else and says "Yes, reds under the bed". I notice that the noble Lord the Leader of the House said it the other day, although I will give him credit for not saying it with great conviction. Equally, if, for instance, the Americans do a little successful counter-espionage and there is a certain amount of public debate about it the cliche secretariat turns on and say, "CIA, CIA" until again we all begin to believe that everything that is wicked is done by the CIA. The same happens with international companies.

In case your Lordships think I am just having an amusing word game with myself let me bring this up to date and take your Lordships to the breeding ground for this kind of situation. In September the Federal German Foreign Minister and the East German Foreign Minister met with the purpose of improving understanding. The East German Minister's response to this was to say, "The fate of the German nation's future has been decided by destiny", which could mean a little, or not very much, or a great deal. Then he went on to say, "The difference is that Federal Germany is capitalist and East Germany is Socialist"—a very convenient and easily learned tag containing two false suggestions. The first false suggestion is that Germany is capitalist. It is more capitalist than this country, but it still is a mixed economy with a great deal of State operation and a very rapidly growing trade union power in German industry. The second suggestio-falsi is that if Germany is Socialist—and what surprises me is that social democrats do not immediately protest at this—all socialism is in fact Communist. This is something one finds particularly in Asia. People buy the idea of socialist countries and I wonder that social democrats do not protest more loudly. To continue the story, Mr. Brezhnev went to East Germany and made a speech. He said, "The conflict of systems is between socialism" on which my comment stands, "and bourgeoise democracy". That again was a very carefully planned phrase, easy to remember, and it suggests that all democracy is bourgeoise and that is its purpose.

I do not go further than that. This is not intended to be a denunciatory speech of anybody, but I do beg people who are social democrats to beware of this kind of way in which the Marxist-Leninist thesis is propagated by apparently innocent words devised for a specific purpose. I do this because I happen to have read some of Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago and on about pages 30 to 50 your Lordships will find a description how under the leadership of Lenin every single variant of policy from middle Left to social revolutionary Left was utterly destroyed.

I leave that to draw its own moral, but it is an aspect of the method which will go on—it must go on, because Marxism-Leninism is a religion—under the perfectly genuine super-State détente in terms of arms at the top. In other words, it means that to an important degree détente is wanted by the Soviet Union but not at the expense of a continuing pushing of Marxism-Leninism around the world. It is not wholly irrelevant to present events—since we are all waiting in some suspense to see how Marxism-Leninism will fare—in Portugal, in Italy, where there is considerable political instability, and also in Greece. Of course I do not need to explain the problems for N.A.T.O. which will be involved in significant Marxism-Leninism advances in even one of those countries.

I come to South Africa and what I might call the dangers of trendy diplomacy. I start not with a protest but with wholesale applause for what the Government did in the United Nations about South Africa's continued membership of that Organisation. I wish to compliment the Government for very special reasons; not that this was expedient, because it was not; not that this was imposed on the Government, because they could well have ducked out and let the Americans use the veto; but because an important double principle was involved.

The first principle was that if there had been any yielding on this point, one would then have gone into an era in which there was a danger each year of the Assembly voting who was the most unpopular member and relegating that member to limbo. The next member to go, as The Times editorial perceptively suggested, might have been Israel. So we have maintained, at least, that there cannot be an emotional majority vote which, simply by acquiescence of the great Powers, would permit such expulsion. I am sure that the Government were absolutely right to do it for that reason. Moreover, if one looks at the Charter carefully, one will find that in the preamble there is a statement that: The peoples of the United Nations are determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom. Article IV lays down conditions for new members coming in, which is that they must be able and willing to carry out the obligations of the Charter. If one went through the membership and strictly abided by that standard, then it would most regrettably fall off sharply. It is better that everybody should be there, vices and all, than that there should start to be discriminatory expulsion.

I come now to the subject of Simons-town. Here I feel somewhat more sympathy for the Government than has perhaps been seen in the average of speeches to-day. I believe this is a difficult problem for them. It is more than extreme opposition which this agreement encounters. Also, I have some fellow-feeling for people who doubt whether you can protect British shipping in those waters by methods which would have been appropriate in the two World Wars which we have experienced. On the other hand, I feel strongly that if you look at the map and study the distance between Ascension Island and Australia, you then see that to have some foothold at the southern tip of Africa, anyway for pre-hostility and general observation purposes, is very valuable indeed.

If I might venture a word of advice to the Government on this question, which I do with great humility, it would be that they might be wise to get it lost for a while, to discuss it with the United States, France and other Governments and work towards something—of course, I am not able to say how the constitutions will make it possible—which will diminish our obligations to South Africa, but which will retain the facilities which we really need. I think that that would be the right solution to aim at, but it would mean the Government fending off a good deal of attack on a subject on which they would be accused of being dilatory. But I think that they might, in the end, get the best of both worlds.

Earlier I alluded to "trendy diplomacy". What I hope the Government will try to avoid doing in their second innings is making some of those righteous and irritable gestures which affect nothing. To tell the British Ambassador in South Africa not to give tea to the Lions was complete nonsense, even in the light of a perfectly legitimate expression of opinion that the Lions should not have gone there. I sincerely hope that had I been the Ambassador I would have devised a way of evading this instruction. Equally, there was no sense in prohibiting the Ambassador in Chile from at least being represented at the anniversary parade, because the job there is not to show either pleasure or pain, but to look entirely impassive and get a good idea of what is going on. That is what a diplomat is for.

I mention these trivial, trendy things because all these situations, particularly in Chile and Greece, cloak one of the most difficult problems we will have to face in the years to come when democracy is at stake. That is the question to what extent it is legitimate to use democratic institutions to damage democracy. That, although little admitted, is what the late President Allende did. I hope some message of this kind might be conveyed to Mr. Andreas Papandreou, whose part in provoking the coup of the Colonels should not be underestimated. I do not mean that he did it on purpose, but there are ways of producing situations in a democratic society which bring on dictatorship with a horrible inevitability. These are matters which we shall have to be thinking about in the years to come.

My Lords, I am conscious of having made a "fractionated" speech, if there is such a word, and I apologise for being to that extent discourteous. I hope that your Lordships will allow me one final diversion. Several noble Lords have said they felt justified in breaking away from the main subject of the debate in order to make some general comment on whatever it might be, notably the position of this country. I think we can all agree that this country is not at the moment displaying its best form. If I may read, being briefly anecdotal, it is better to bring out my moral by quoting rather than by pontificating.

In a recent, "If You've Got Problems" programme, a citizen who had been disadvantaged by a change in the law found himself in a position where he was reliant in an important matter upon somebody else who had given his word to do something. When he appealed to that man the answer was, "No. I am now protected by the law and do not see why I should do what I said I would do." In this country we have made marvellous progress in helping the unfortunate, the disadvantaged, the sick. Collectively we have come a long way. I was not surprised when the liberal lady who summed up the programme said: I am afraid I must advise you that this used to be a country where a person's word was his bond. Now I cannot give you that assurance. I wonder whether as a country, in making the advances we have, we have slipped back somewhat in the personal trust and reliability between individuals.

I could be right, I could be wrong, but I should like to finish my remarks by suggesting that we look at ourselves a little in our relationships between individual and individual, producer and customer, worker and consumer, to see whether, in our general thinking, we are really thinking also of the person next door to us. I think we shall have a few shocks but I believe that, if we have them, then perhaps in the future we shall go back on to the upward curve to which we so much need to return.

8.0 p.m.

LORD SELSDON

My Lords, in ten years in your Lordships' House this is the first speech I have made from the Benches of Opposition. It is not a job that I relish very much, but I think it gives me for the first time in your Lordships' House a chance to be slightly less diplomatic than usual, and perhaps to have some minor "go" at noble Lords opposite, because quite honestly I do not really know where I am. I have no idea from the gracious Speech exactly in which direction our foreign policy will lead us, or our policy on defence, as my noble friend Lord Carrington has said; but there is one simple thought in my own mind that I should like to put across.

For many years now this country has lived in an age of self-deception, and very suddenly, in the past nine months, we have seen the basic quality of our life and the fabric of our structures beginning to be destroyed. We are faced with the fact that, as an island or as a nation, we cannot survive without international influence, international co-operation and international activity. We therefore must perforce be outward-looking, and we must, perhaps above all else, give greater emphasis to defence and foreign affairs than the bulk of people in this country would have us do. It is fair to recognise that those who have never known the horror of war do not appreciate the value of peace; nor do they understand expenditure upon defence. It is true, too, that those who do not travel or do not work in the international world do not know the value of international relations. Whatever we do, we know we cannot do it from a position of weakness. As my noble friend Lord Carrington said, we are faced first of all with the economic situation.

My Lords, despite the feelings that there may be in this country that we can survive, there could be nothing more savage than what has happened in the last six months to British industry. No Government, however diabolical they may have been, however much they may have plotted or planned, could have taken away so much from so many people in such a short space of time; and, with that, has gone the basic confidence of British industry, and to a large extent the basic confidence of the individual. There is thought and worry that we may not survive at all; and in my travels abroad now I have found people who, for the first time, are ceasing to be proud of being British. I even catch myself on odd occasions passing myself off as some form of foreigner. It is not that one does not believe that there is some future for this nation, but that it is (we must face it) a fact that we are in an economic mess. There is a way out. It will be by investment, by expansion, by aid from abroad—all of these; but at the moment we are faced with a position of uncertainty, and uncertainty creates further uncertainty.

I now move to the international field, and in particular to the effects of British entry or membership of the EEC. We have been exhorting our industry at home to invest in England, and they, wise as it turns out that they have been, have been investing abroad. Those companies which did not listen to the Government, but instead set out and invested abroad to earn profits abroad and to expand overseas markets, are those who will survive these hard times. It is those whose statements by their company chairmen read: "We cannot foresee what is going to happen at home, but we are confident of the continuing success of your company in its overseas markets". Equally, in my commercial job I am faced with the continual problem of encouraging people to set up and expand over here, and I have been faced in the last nine months with innumerable companies who would like to come to England. They are not worried about the cost of coming to set up over here. They are, it is true, worried about labour situations; but they are more worried about the instability and uncertainty of continued British membership. Why should they invest and set up a plant in England when there is even a remote chance that in weeks or months they may be the wrong side of a tariff barrier? Why, too, when they doubt that we have political stability, or that it is even safe for their children to go about in the streets, should they encourage themselves or their colleagues to come to this country rather than to others?

The economic position is, as we know, serious, but it is becoming more and more serious abroad as people begin to realise that we are in a mess—and yet we are not in a mess. I go abroad to the Continent about three days a week, and I was in Paris quite recently with a large French company. They said at a dinner which we attended: If only we had what you in England have—nuclear power and technology greater than all the reservoir of the rest of Europe put together! Coal, which we need badly; and the prospect of oil. If we had that in our country and did not have your people or your attitude to life, we would be the most powerful country in the Western World within a decade". I am continually fed up with the problems that one has of needing to defend ourselves and our attitude abroad. We are faced, as we know, with a weak economic position, and yet despite that the Germans are appalled that they, with their economic strength, cannot influence the rest of the world to the same extent as we can, with our economic weakness.

Part of this, obviously, is our Defence power; and even if that is slashed a little, there is one last advantage that we can cling to which might be described as good will—good will built up over generations, over centuries. It is true to say that the British are probably the least disliked nation in the world, and even from economic weakness we have managed, through the strength of our Foreign Office and old-established links, to be able to exert some form of pressure or influence in all quarters of the world. I am concerned, and I think others are, that this influence should continue to be exerted. It is not simply with the basic commodities. We have seen the oil problem, we will see the mineral problem and we shall probably see the food problem. We cannot survive without any of these three elements; and yet they may become a greater bargaining power than exports or diplomacy.

However, my Lords, when we return to something nearer home, I do not know whether noble Lords opposite are aware of the damage that has been done by this uncertainty over E.E.C. membership. I would not in any way wish to be rude, but I think one could liken their policy on renegotiation to the activities of a certain mythical bird, the oozlam-oozlam bird, which learnt to fly backwards in ever-decreasing circles until it ended up somewhere unmentionable and then performed an unmentionable act upon the assembled multitude from a great height. Renegotiation and negotiation are, as we know, the same; but what they have done is to create in the eyes and minds of many people abroad the belief that the British no longer stand by their word—and we know that your Lordships' House was totally behind the E.E.C., more committed than any other single body in the history of this country.

We are faced now with the difficulties of how the Government can get out of the awful mess they have got themselves into. There are many of us on both sides of this House and in another place who believed some while ago that one should take the EEC out of Party politics; that a democratic decision was made by an elected Government, and that matters should be left as they are and we should not go on creating this uncertainty. When noble Lords are faced or the Government are faced with the problem of deciding what they do, do they hold a referendum or an election, or do they invent some new form of instrument, classified under "the usual channels", for communicating with the British people? I would say to them that if I were allowed to phrase a referendum I believe one could get the answer "Yes" or the answer "No" depending upon how it was done, as has been proved time and time again.

If an Election were called it would be difficult for the Government to do so without first stating their case. I think all of us on this side of the House feel that in general the Government support continued membership of the EEC; but let them not wait too long before coming out with their commitment to it. Let them take, if they like, the glory for renegotiation. We on this side do not feel too strongly about it, because I think that all of us know where we stand. But let them start trying to negotiate from within rather than from without, and let them remember that there are a lot of hairs that are bristling on people's necks over what has happened over this matter.

Many people are living in a world of uncertainty, and that uncertainty extends not just throughout the EEC but also to other quarters of the world, and even as far as mainland China. There are people there who see a great future for this country as a member of the EEC and also as a point of entry for their products, their services, their goods and their own influence to Europe. There are others who believe in and support the old idea that if they can destroy Britain they can destroy Europe; and if there are such people seeking to destroy Britain, many of us would feel that they are doing a reasonably good job at the moment.

The EEC is one factor only. Looking, as one can, into other parts of the world which I will not cover in the ten or twelve minutes for which I shall have been speaking, it must suffice to say that, in my travels in the Middle East—and I shall be going there more and more often—I have found considerable support for the British. In many of those countries—countries which we feel are so preoccupied with war—there are sound and sensible men who recognise that they have only a short time to live with the oil benefit. They are, as we know, concerned about food. There are the plans to turn the Sudan into the granary of the Middle East. There are considerable demands for British goods, services, technology and know-how—and we have this technology and know-how which could be exploited. We have, too, a mass of people who, because of the economic climate here, are thinking of leaving their homeland, which is something we should do what we can to discourage.

We are faced with what one might call economic sadness. I have never felt less optimistic in my life, yet I can still feel a tinge of optimism when I sit at a conference table abroad and see that the British still seem to be head and shoulders above other countries. I am concerned that if some of the policies which we believe the Government may push forward to-day destroy or in some way shake the confidence of the British in themselves, that destruction of confidence will have wide reverberations throughout the world, so that not only will the British cease to have confidence in themselves, but other countries will cease to have confidence in us. This, my Lords, is my main concern. I do not speak with a total feeling of gloom because I am fortunate enough to be cushioned in my travels from some of the depression that one sees at home, and I know that there are still countries and organisations which believe that we have an economic future. There are those who would support us in coal, in the North Sea and in the exploitation of our technology. There are always those who have an affection for us, but I do not believe that we can survive for ever on good will and affection alone.

8.14 p.m.

LORD ANNER

My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will forgive me for not following him, but it is late and I want to speak about one subject in particular, and in the circumstances I shall try to restrict myself to that one subject. The noble Lord, Lord Wigg, in his final remarks in a very long speech, made his usual attack upon Israel and of course misrepresented the whole position. I have just returned from a short visit to Israel—and, incidently, a nation with which we have a favourable trade balance, which may be of interest to the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon—a nation which has always had great confidence in Britain and one which has realised that Britain produced the Balfour Declaration, the effects of which some people are trying altogether to destroy. It is upon that that I wish to speak.

My Lords, once again I saw Israel carrying on a highly civilised daily life. It is a democracy which seeks to develop facilities for its citizens, Jew and Arab alike, and, in spite of the vicious threats and actions of its enemies, proceeds with these activities, thus continuing to build up a land fit for human beings to live in. Anyone who visits that land will undoubtedly agree with me that that is the position in the land itself. It is free from the corruption which contaminates political and social life in many other States and it maintains a judiciary which I feel, like our own, is an example to the world. I believe that practically everybody who visits that land will not be surprised, therefore, that Israel is astonished that some international bodies are prepared to allow themselves to act against her in a manner so immoral as to allow the representative of cold-blooded murderers and assassins to participate in deliberations in the General Assembly of the United Nations.

My Lords, I went to Ma'alot and there saw the room in which 21 children were slaughtered by members of one of the constituent bodies of the Palestine Liberation Organisation. The assassins, who came from their lairs in the Lebanon, where they continue to cover themselves by hiding behind women and children in refugee camps, commenced their horrific plot by mowing down three defenceless persons standing on their door-steps. They proceeded at 2 o'clock in the morning with their weapons to a school in which some 100 children were sleeping; they terrified them with guns and other weapons and held them until 5 o'clock in the afternoon—that is, from 2 o'clock in the morning until 5 o'clock in the afternoon—when they committed the ultimate barbaric act I have referred to. The other children, mercifully, were saved by the Israelis but, in the meanwhile, some 11 or 12 terrified youngsters had jumped from a window 15 feet from the ground.

The noble Lord, Lord Wigg, always refers to actions condemned by ourselves —and I myself have time and again condemned in another place the actions to which he referred—but this is the action of a body which had set out to slaughter children as part of its plan. Those children were there on a holiday. They had come from Safed, a village in which Jews have been living for thousands of years and adjoining which there is to-day an artists colony, part of Israel's cultural activities. Ma'alot itself is a place which indicates what the Israelis are trying to do. Their fight is not, and never has been, a fight directed against neighbours; it is a fight against the ravages of nature which have eroded the land, which erosion has continued for centuries. That is their fight—it is a fight to establish and continue to establish a centre in the Middle East where civilisation can be carried on on a proper democratic basis. In Ma'alot itself, incidentally, they are to-day digging the rocks from the soil in order to build homes, in order to provide arable land on which to grow food, much of which will be exported and which, if only the Arabs realise it, could help the Arab world as much as it can help Israel itself. The terrorist attack to which I have referred was one part of the action planned by terrorists who belong either directly to or come under the roof of the Palestine Liberation Organisation.

The butchery that went on at Kiryat Shemona and other places, the numerous other murderous crimes committed under the wing of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, such as shooting down defenceless passengers at Lodd, the assassination of an American diplomat and the Munich murders, have shown clearly that the Palestine Liberation Organisation will stop at nothing to gain its own ends. To think that a leader of that organisation of murderers should be allowed to address the Assembly is beyond my understanding and, I believe, that of any reasonable person. I greatly regret that our own representative at the United Nations abstained from a vote on such an issue instead of voting against it. I sincerely trust that we shall take steps to see to it that we make it quite clear that we do not approve of that kind of organisation being represented in any way at the deliberations either of the United Nations or of any of its Agencies.

Why do I say that? Since the founding of the United Nations in 1945, so far as I have been able to ascertain, only one man who did not represent a member State has addressed the General Assembly. That man was Pope Paul VI, the spiritual leader of the Roman Catholic Church and the head of a sovereign State, Vatican City. The second will be Yassar Arafat, chief of the terrorist gang, Al Fatah, father of the Black September Movement and head of the Palestine Liberation Organisation. The decline in the moral authority of the United Nations must be measured by the invitation extended to him to speak from the same United Nations rostrum that was graced by His Holiness. The American Ambassador to United Nations, John Scali, took a stand for humanity and decency and against the cynical acceptance of murder as the common currency of international politics. Why did not we? Where were America's allies? It is America with whom we want to make a closer relationship for the benefit of the Western World.

The best that Britain, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands and West Germany could do was to abstain. France, Ireland and Italy supported the terrorists. The effect of their vote, in my opinion, was to give legitimacy and an international platform to the murderers of international airline passengers in Athens and those who committed similar acts. The United Nations resolution describes the Palestine Organisation as "the representative of the Palestine people". Where did they get that from? Where are the Palestinians?—60 per cent. are in Jordan; 10 per cent. are in Israel living very decent lives. Why is the representation of those people to be regarded as being in the hands of that organisation? Has there ever been an election by Palestinians to this end?

The fact of the matter is that the terrorists themselves have so far managed to deceive the world, or at least the greater part of it. The idea that they can represent decent civilised Arabs is certainly not one which can be accepted by anyone who knows the facts. What do they want to do? How can you possibly invite to the deliberations of the United Nations an organisation which has stated categorically that the destruction of the State of Israel must take place? It is late in the evening otherwise I could quote dozens of statements made by Arafat himself to this effect, some as recently as a few months ago. How on earth can people who represent that kind of view be accepted in deliberations of the United Nations in which Israel is recognised as being a sovereign State, created by the United Nations, and indeed one of the finest jewels in the United Nation's crown?

I want to appeal to my right honourable friend along the following lines: let us, for heaven's sake, try to get the people who really can and should settle matters in direct talks and produce peace in the Middle East together, instead of introducing an element which is determined not only to destroy any possibility of peace in the Middle East but to destroy it for their own people as well as for the rest of the world. As I said a few moments ago, I could give very many examples to support the argument I am putting forward, but I do not want to delay the House any further at this late hour. My hope is that the deliberations which have commenced between Egypt and Israel, between Syria and Israel and extended to talks between Jordan and Israel will be resumed. That would mean the continuance of the Jordanian State, which really represents the vast majority of the Palestinians. Unless that happens, it is impossible for Israel itself—and I am sure anybody would understand this—to come to a table and sit with people who absolutely deny its right to exist. If a Palestinian State were put up in Gaza and the Western Bank, will that put an end to it so far as the Palestine Liberation Organisation is concerned? Will they not spread their terrorism into Jordan and will they not continue to do what they possibly can to destroy the State of Israel? I do not think anyone can deny that such is their plan, and I hope we shall have the good sense to frustrate it and bring real peace to the Middle East.

8.29 p.m.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Janner, has raised in detail a matter I have not heard dealt with by many others. I should like presently to follow up what he has just said to us all, and I hope he will be kind enough to remain until I do so, because I have a very few points to make by way of introduction.

I should like to join in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, whose speech I read with enthusiasm, though I did not hear it. He mentioned the social contract, and of course it is the foundation stone of everything that is going to develop advantageously from the gracious Speech. I have had great difficulty in obtaining it: the Printed Paper Office had not heard of it; the Library did not know about it. I want to ask whether I have at last got hold of the document. It is labelled Economic Policy and the Cost of Living, and was produced in February 1973. I wonder whether this really is the social contract because I have nothing else to go on. I do not rely on the interpretations of these things I read in the newspapers. I read with some astonishment the devastating criticism of this document of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, and it may be that everything he said was true. But I am sorry that nothing was said in its favour because in a very difficult situation it seems to be groping after a concept of justice. I do not know whether that is its main theme because I have not studied it sufficiently; and while I still do not know whether I have the right document, I should like to have it because I subscribe to this ideal of justice.

Justice of course has many departments, one being theological. If we legislate against the Ten Commandments, for example in violation of the Commandment, "Thou shalt not kill", we are in for a lot of trouble. There is political justice: it has been my sorrow to be engaged in controversy. When I first came to this House to arrange for political justice in accordance with the wishes of certain peoples, these views were not taken and a painful "war" of four years ensued. I have enumerated eight such "wars" since the last "war", in all of which cases one can say that a more obviously prudent arrangement, in accordance with the wishes of the people, would probably have avoided it altogether. So we have some responsibility. There is then social justice, which is more or less a matter of dignity. I was much impressed by the tremendous enthusiasm all over Africa, all over the Third World, when the greatest sporting event of the year, perhaps the most distinguished sporting event in my time, was held, when Mohammed Ali went to the heart of Africa, and two splendid athletes fought it out and conveyed to Africans that they could manage a great event of world significance, something important, for the first time. Dignity counts for a lot.

Then there is economic justice. I should have liked to speak a lot about that because there is not much difference between a low paid worker in this country, such as my shepherd, and myself. His daughters go to school, free; two of them have thirteen and eleven O levels between them, three A levels apiece, a degree apiece at London University after winning a scholarship— all free. They have a small car and a cottage. But when I was appointed in my youth as a ruler, in the name of His Majesty in Africa, I ruled over a district about one-fifth the size of England which I managed on foot. It was part of an area which was twice the size of England. I suppose my subjects were 30,000 in number. None of them ate properly. They wore few clothes, only token skins. They had no houses; they had no furniture; they could not read or write. There was not a doctor, a dentist or a surgeon. There was not a shop; they had no tools of any kind. They did not till the soil and neither did they spin. It was a way of life. Possibly the Green Paper on the wealth tax would have classified them as having some wealth, whereas it would classify my shepherd on Exmoor as having none. Which of these people is the deprived?

Although it was fifty years ago when I exercised the responsibility which I have never had since, the people changed very little. I went to look one day. Because I had said, "Thou shalt not kill", they said, "Provided you stop other people killing us we will co-operate". The cattle were stabbed with injections to cure pleural pneumonia and other epidemics. Forty years later they had destroyed their environment, it did not resemble anything. One interferes' at peril in these matters. We owe a lot to the people of the Third World; and some people in this country who regard themselves as deprived are not remotely deprived compared with billions and billions of people. Unless our balance of payments is restored to respectability, we can do nothing for these people except by borrowing from the Shah. That is a dreadful thing to which this great country has come at the moment. But we shall get out of it, I am sure.

On the other hand, we have a duty to try and encourage détente and reduce wars, especially among those such as I am talking about. I am thinking that one of the best ways of détente before us may well be that the international community has agreed that the Olympic Games for 1980 will be held in Moscow. There was great delight in the pages of Pravda. They regard it as justice following upon all the gold medals that the Russians win at Olympic Games all over the world. They are going to lay themselves out; they appear to have promised to open the doors and to have undertaken a lavish and extensive construction. I hope that we shall take part with enthusiasm and because they have an "iron curtain", because they discriminate against certain people, because they have no Parliamentary system, and will not think it a discredit to our moral stature—an expression used in the debate to-day. I feel ostracism is not the way to treat the publican who commits sins that you do not like. You dine with him if he asks you to, and you make friends.

Regarding the festering sore in the Middle East, on the subject of which the noble Lord, Lord Janner, has spoken eloquently, feelingly and understandably, I feel I have a duty to put a different point of view in some respects, difficult though it is. I am slightly associated with the foundation of the States, remotely so in that Balfour was an uncle of mine, and we were enthusiastic for a Jewish State in Palestine. I visited there in 1932 and I had a shock. I was shown round by the best possible person, the chief publicity agent of the Jewish organisation—a man called Josiah Gordon. I saw everything that was to be seen and I was very alarmed, not because I ceased to enjoy the fact that the Jews could find a home of their own, but because the pledges seemed so likely to clash and to be incompatible. I had luncheon with the Governor and he said, "Both sides denounce my policies with equal intransigence and vehemence". I said: "Perhaps that is a sign of your impartial justice." He looked at me and said: "No. I wish it were." The Royal Commission of 1937 indicated a possible solution of the irreconcilable problem. So it has gone on to this day, more than fifty years of an insoluble problem.

The noble Lord, Lord Janner, now mentions that the international community—without I think one dissenting voice; I am not sure—has decided that the representative of the Rump of Palestine will speak. The Presidents—

LORD JANNER

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt but it is not so. America were against and several other countries were against. Our country abstained, as did some of the other countries I mentioned while I was speaking.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

My Lords, I hope I am right in saying that the substantial majority were in favour of their being heard.

My information on the next point is derived from a broadcast from Cairo 15 minutes after midnight on the day of the Queen's Speech, monitored by the BBC, and happily translated into a language that I understand. That indicated that the Presidents and Kings of the Arab States, meeting at Rabat, had decided that the Rump of Palestine should not be managed by Jordan—that is to say, when it is recovered from Israel. It is called the West Bank, that is the larger part of it, the Old City of Jerusalem. That is a unanimous Arab decision for the first time, and the King of Jordan made a last ditch attempt to stop it, but failed. My Lords, a solution must come. There is a solution for everything. I look to something of this kind as a solution—in other words, an independent rump of the former Palestine under Palestinian management. That is what I look to as the solution which is developing as a consensus of the international community.

I could not agree more with the noble Lord, Lord Janner, in what he said about the danger of these terrorists, but I myself have been through all that. Some of my brother officers were murdered on the first "bloody Sunday" in Ireland, ten or eleven of them in front of their wives. A gentleman called Michael Collins was alleged to be responsible for that particular atrocity. In 1922, I think it was, Lord Fitzalan handed over the keys of Dublin Castle to this same man for whom I had been looking, hoping that I would win £10,000, which was the sum of money placed on his head at the time. Others of my brother officers were concerned with the Mau Mau affair, and Jomo Kenyatta was sentenced for managing it. It was a very horrible and brutal thing and I read every detail of the atrocities performed. But Mr. Kenyatta has long been a respected, and one of the most intelligent and able and authoritarian successors to the Imperial rule in the country I used to know so well. Again and again we have dealt with people of this kind whose hands are dripping with blood from the most horrifying things. When I was a youth I thought, "Have I served in vain that this dreadful man Michael Collins should be handed over the keys like this?" We were worked up. We hated the "Shillers", as we called them, far more than we hated the Bosch. That is what happened. It was the first lesson in life, and I do not know that one can escape it.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Janner, that this is a very serious problem and that every kind of international support will have to be given. But I myself think that an independent rump of Palestine is possibly the only solution that is emerging after fifty years of unending trouble. I do not entirely subscribe to the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, that we must capitulate on this because the sheikhs and the Shah are holding a pistol at our heads in the matter of oil. I think in the end we must recognise that the dispossessed Palestinians have suffered an injustice, an injustice comparable in its way to the immense and prolonged injustices that the Jews have suffered in Europe. It is a pity that Europe was not made to pay the penalty for all that it inflicted upon the Jews.

LORD JANNER

My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down may I ask whether he is really suggesting that Israel should be destroyed and that a different government should be set up, and that only those Jews who have been there since 1917 should be allowed to remain? What is to happen, if the noble Earl would be good enough to answer this, to the 750,000 Jews who are in Israel to-day having come from Arab countries?

THE EARL OF LYTTON

My Lords, I am not quite sure what it is that is worrying the noble Lord, but I will explain positively what I mean by the "Rump of Palestine". There is an area which, when the first Jewish war occurred, was invaded by Jordan and the executive officer was Glubb Pasha, a Briton. The Arab Legion took over that area and for part of the time it has been referred to as the West Bank and the Old City of Jerusalem. That is the area that is being talked about, the principal area. I myself do not think the international community is thinking of abolishing Palestine. Has it not again and again referred to the boundaries of 1967, as though a boundary of sorts has already been accepted and approved by the international community? No, it is not going back on that. That is my view. All I am saying is that there is an area which has been poached rather irregularly by Jordan with British troops, and, rather than go back to Jordan, I see a solution, if it is acceptable—I repeat, if it is acceptable; it may never be accepted. It is a solution that the Palestinians themselves should have a home. It is all very well for the Arabs to talk about "the Arab State". Palestinians are one group of people and the people of Rabat are a totally different crowd, and there are different aspects of their language every fifty miles you go.

8.48 p.m.

VISCOUNT LONG

My Lords, at this late hour I will not take too much of your Lordships' time. If I might have just two minutes, that is all I want. The reason why I am taking part in this important debate to-day is that where I live, in Wiltshire, I am in the centre of one of the biggest Ministry of Defence areas in the West Country, if not the whole country. To the North, South, East and West of where I live, we have the Royal Air Force at Lyneham (so many of your Lordships will have flown out from there on different errands); we have one of the few ships that has never seen water, HMS "Royal Arthur"; we come round to the School of Infantry which is one of the most important training establishments for infantry—and the Americans have never seen anything so efficient—and we then come right round to the commands at Wilton, all the Army commands, on to Boscombe Down, the scientific research station for the Royal Air Force, and the other camps at Bulford.

During my visits of one kind or another for the Royal British Legion, I meet many serving men and officers who are either off to a campaign, such as Northern Ireland, or to do an important errand in dropping supplies of wheat, or whatever it is, to another nation in trouble. May I say that when my noble friend Lord Carrington was Minister of Defence I never saw greater morale throughout the Forces than he inspired in them. It is very important that the Government should realise that one of the most important things in defence is morale and, while having to acknowledge the difficulties of cost of defence, and the rumours that fly about in one way and another that the Government are to cut down the Ministry of Defence—whether it be the Royal Marines, the Parachute Regiment and others—one hopes that the Government will try to inspire and keep going the inspiration and morale of our Services.

It is vitally important that those 15,000 men in Northern Ireland should continue to keep law and order there, but they can do it only if they see leadership coming from the Government and I hope that the Government will see this. There is no substitute for morale; there cannot be. While all the problems continue over the cost of defence, let us hope that the Government will be able to keep this morale going in the officers and men, who are the people who run the defences, whether it be radar or otherwise. I hope that the Government will be able to retain that morale, because once it starts to slip we shall not get new recruits to defend our islands. My Lords, may I leave you with the word "morale" on that point of defence, because so much else has been said.

My second point is that in this country we have always been acknowledged as a trusted friend of other countries, whoever and whatever they are. Whenever we have made a treaty we have always abided by it, come what may. What I fear more than anything at the moment is that if the Government insist upon scrapping the Simonstown Agreement—although it is only a rumour at the moment, as I understand it—and are not happy with the Common Market Treaty, we shall be in peril of isolating ourselves as a country, which, if we are not very careful, will give us more problems than anything else, such as trade. We shall isolate ourselves from our friends. Who will trust us in money dealings? Who will trust us in trade?

Therefore, I ask the Government to be very careful about how they allow the words "treaties" and "friendships" to be bandied around, because if we lose our friends, whoever they are and whatever they are, we shall find it extraordinarily difficult to get our trade through; or, in an emergency like that in Pakistan, where we have to send over our Royal Air Force Hercules fleet with wheat, we shall find that we do not have flying space. They will not allow us to go. Therefore treaties must be kept, and in this respect I ask the Government not to allow rumours to fly about that they are worthless paper things. The public in this country must feel it all-important that the Government respect treaties, and they must feel that the Government will abide by them at all times. My Lords, that is all I have to say to-night as the hour is late.

8.55 p.m.

LORD LLOYD OF KILGERRAN

My Lords, may I add my congratulations to those of others of your Lordships to the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, on his brilliant maiden speech, and may I also say how much we hope that the noble Lord, with his great experience in these matters, will be heard frequently in the debates in this House. I am also sure that your Lordships will feel indebted, as I do, to the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack, for the statesmanlike way in which he introduced this excellent debate and for the tone which he set for it. However, I am conscious that at this late hour your Lordships will be addressed by two other speakers of great eminence in world affairs, the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, and the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts.

Therefore, if I may, encouraged by the brevity of the previous speaker, the noble Viscount, Lord Long, whom I do not propose to follow in his interesting pursuit through the military scene in Wiltshire, I will try briefly to stick to some of the salient points that have been expressed in the gracious Speech. I hope I shall be able to do this succinctly and uncontroversially, and I propose to pass over a number of points fairly quickly. Then, encouraged as I am by the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack, who said that economic and defence policies are of such great importance, I propose to make a few observations and suggestions which it may be possible for the reviewing committee of the Government on Defence matters to consider, particularly in regard to reducing the costs of the European defence system.

My Lords, first of all, may I say that we on these Benches support the efforts being made to make a lasting peace in the Middle East. As so many of your Lordships have said, the world's major political and economic difficulties to-day seem to stem from the failure to find a settlement in the Middle East. May I also express on behalf of my colleagues a warm tribute to Dr. Kissinger's tireless efforts to make permanent the present fragile peace. In connection with the reference to Cyprus, I was greatly moved by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, on this matter. I should like to pay a tribute to the United Nations Force in their dangerous and continued tasks of peace keeping.

In so far as the gracious Speech referred to the Commonwealth, we on these Benches support the expressions made of support for the Commonwealth Association, and we feel sure that the meeting of the Heads of Government of the Commonwealth in Jamaica next year will show to the world the value of friendly co-operation between free and independent nations. So far as NATO is concerned, it is now a commonplace to say that so much depends upon the United States and the Atlantic Alliance for defence. We note that the gracious Speech—and, indeed, the noble and learned Lord who initiated this debate also mentioned it—echoes the words of Dr. Joseph Luns who is Director-General of NATO. Speaking in April of this year, he said that NATO is now achieving the dual aim of providing a shield and also promoting détente.

We wish success to the negotiations for force reductions in Central Europe and to the Conference on Security and Co-operation. There are obvious advantages in having continuing dialogues with all nations seeking agreements of substance which, as is hoped, are not merely a collection of meaningless words. For my part, may I say, as somewhat an outsider in regard to defence and foreign affairs, and not having the great experience of the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, that I am unable wholly to agree with his despondency at the progress of détente during these last few years.

My Lords, after making these general observations, I turn to consider what is the most significant part of the gracious Speech regarding European defence and the question of its cost. If I may quote the gracious Speech it says this: In consultation with their allies and in the light of a searching review of our defence commitments and forces they will ensure the maintenance of a modern and effective defence system while reducing its cost as a proportion of our natural resources". I pause to emphasise that the gracious Speech refers to consultation between allies. There is no mention of who the allies are or of the procedure which will be adopted in order to continue these discussions. These decisions will be made in the light of a searching review of our defence commitments and forces". Then your Lordships will note that there is a reference to the basic question of the cost of defence in relation to the resources of this country—a point which was emphasised by the noble and learned Lord who initiated this debate. The searching review may not be available until early next year, so we understand, but I presume to suggest that some of the suggestions I am about to make may be of interest in regard to reducing costs.

There is one aspect related to the cost of European defence which is at present under careful consideration; that is, the urgent matter of replacing obsolescent equipment. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, presented a report on major equipment plans in December, 1971, known as the "Europackage", when he was, I believe, chairman of the so-called Euro-group. Other reports have been issued by that group and the significance of some of those reports has not attracted the attention that perhaps they should have done. However, in the light of the increasing economic crises in Europe, the manner and the cost of the replacement of major equipment for European defence requirements requires urgent attention.

May I direct your Lordships' attention to the question of military aircraft? There is the question of the replacement of the United States F.104, which is used in the air forces of the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark and Norway. Then there is the question of the desirability of adopt- ing the French Mirage aircraft—for many interesting reasons. Next there is the question of further replacement of United States aircraft. This question of aircraft replacement clearly involves major economic and political repercussions. On October 28 last, Signor Spinelli, who is the E.E.C. Commissioner for Technical Affairs, is reported as having urged that Western European countries should immediately replace 350 ageing military aircraft by European made machines.

How far this is a matter which affected the United Kingdom Government's policy in regard to their proposal to nationalise the aircraft industry, and what is likely to be the attitude of the United States Government—who, no doubt, may continue to expect United States equipment to be purchased in order to offset the cost of United States' troops in Europe—may be the subject of further information to this House by the Government on another occasion. But if the Government, and indeed Europe, are to be able to reduce European defence costs, much more active support must be given immediately to, first, measures for the effective working of a procurement agency for military weapons; and secondly, and above all, measures to achieve far greater standardisation of military equipment for use in European defence.

The danger and increased costs arising from the lack of standardisation within NATO was the subject of a very forceful statement by the Secretary-General, Dr. Joseph Luns, in London only a few days ago, on October 25 last. He is reported in The Times on October 26 as having said that the lack of standardisation was a nightmare to its military commanders. Those are very strong words indeed. He gave as an example that the Alliance had more than 130 different types of military aircraft, including 30 different types operated by Britain. He went on to say, as reported: If NATO forces are to operate together efficiently and support each other in a crisis, they need a certain level of standardisation of arms and equipment. This could reduce the cost of development, acquisition and maintenance of equipment. I fully realise that a great deal of discussion about the standardisation of arms, the consequent reduction in cost and the value for strategic purposes has taken place in relation to the defence of Europe. For example, this has happened in NATO, but I suggest that as France is no longer a member of NATO many of these discussions have not been very effective. Again, so far as the Eurogroup is concerned, France at the present time does not appear to wish to take a full part in the Eurogroup; and, once again, France seems to some extent to be outside the scope of these discussions.

My noble friend Lord Gladwyn has told your Lordships that the E.E.C. Defence Committee is becoming more and more virile, but in view of the present state of the E.E.C. I venture to suggest that the E.E.C. Defence Committee cannot hope to be effective for many years in regard to European defence. There is, however, one institution—namely Western European Union—which is still the only European organisation with responsibilities in the field of defence policy, and which has an active secretariat and an assembly for open discussion. Therefore, it seems to me that it would not be unhelpful for the Government in their pending review seriously to consider the use of, at least, the Western European Union framework in regard to the urgent problem of the standardisation of arms, particularly as the W.E.U. is an active assembly for parliamentary discussion.

I have the honour to be a member of the United Kingdom delegation to that assembly. There is a strong view expressed from many parts of Europe at the present time that this assembly could be used to give fresh impetus to Europe. Indeed, there are many reports before the General Affairs Committee urging that Western European Union, modified or strengthened, should be used for standardisation purposes. The noble Earl, Lord Avon, suggested this to your Lordships' House last April, and I presumed to support his view in my address to your Lordships on April 3. In taking any course which attempted to co-ordinate the institutions dealing with defence matters, it would not mean setting aside NATO, the E.E.C., the Eurogroup approach, or any other approach to these questions, particularly the vital question of reduction of costs by standardisation.

Therefore, I venture to suggest to the Government that if it is to achieve, as the gracious Speech states, … the maintenance of a modern and effective defence system while reducing its cost … in consultation with its allies, Western Europe could be helped to get out of its present political and economic crisis by the use of the framework of W.E.U., modified or strengthened. Such a modified framework, with its active assembly for parliamentarian discussion, could be capable of acting as an attractive force towards European defence unity.

My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will not consider that I have been too technical in the 14 minutes in which I have had the privilege of addressing you. But we are concerned with technological matters of the highest significance. Standardisation, production and distribution of military weapons are increasingly vital elements for the survival of the European defence system in the present political and economic climate of Europe. But in my view, progress in this direction can only be achieved in the near future through some form of institutional procedure in which our main allies, particularly France, Germany and the United States, can play a real part.

9.10 p.m.

BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BEL-HELVIE

My Lords, I should like to join in the congratulations given to the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, on his maiden speech. I had a very happy two years with him in the Foreign Office, and had a chance at first hand to see his wisdom, and his steadiness when things got rough—which they often do in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I feel that he and the right honourable Member Sir Alec Douglas-Home were indeed a formidable combination. We hope to hear from him often.

I think all noble Lords will agree that this debate has been of great interest, and that it has also been very necessary in view of the widespread rumours of large cuts in defence and, indeed, talk of specific cuts in defence. The fact that we have a Statement on defence which will not be given until later this month, and that the detailed Defence Paper will not be ready until next year has placed the House in considerable difficulty. Under these circumstances, it has therefore been necessary for your Lordships to express very real anxieties, and to ask searching questions. I hope that all the speeches made will be given most careful consideration before final decisions are taken on what are vital matters to the security of this nation.

This is the moment, at the start of a new Parliament, when one may usually hope the best of a Government, but this Parliament and Government are really a continuation of the last. Therefore, it is not surprising if there have been many expressions of concern and, indeed, of doubt. My right honourable friend the former Secretary of State for Defence told us of his deep anxieties about the effects of the Government's declared intention to make large cuts in defence expenditure and even the soothing words (if I may call them that) of the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack and the excellent sentiments expressed did not make me feel very easy, because in the same speech he told us that the Government intend to make defence cuts of several thousands of millions of pounds.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Several hundred million pounds.

BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE

I stand corrected: like Winston Churchill once said, "What does an extra nought here or there really matter?". The repercussions on foreign policy could, of course, be very serious. For example, I should like to find out a little more about what is meant by the phrase in the gracious Speech which tells us that the Government, and I quote: will regard NATO as an instrument of détente as well as defence". It can of course be so used, if the West and the Free World were to conciliate only from positions of relative strength. Surely to reduce armaments first in the belief that this will lower tension will be considered by the Communist world as weakness and we will be open to all kinds of political pressures. Surely any disarmament should come only after we have tried to ensure that we can achieve a mutual and balanced reduction. The noble Lord, Lord Bourne, spoke again of the ratio of troops and conventional weapons between the Free World and the Warsaw Pact, which I always understood was about 2½: 1 in favour of the Warsaw Pact. Therefore, to alter the balance of forces on our own would surely be highly dangerous and might well call in question as well the nuclear deterrent. Therefore, the very real fear that I feel bound to express is that those in the Cabinet who want reductions of arms will win support, regardless of the effect on foreign policy. In that event the Foreign Secretary will be unable to ensure that Britain is a strong and reliable ally.

Of course, the cost of defence is very heavy, and particularly at this time of grave economic difficulty. Indeed my noble friend made some reductions during his term of office, the most he could do to ensure that we still carried out our obligations. And that is why one is forced to question whether it is intended to cut our obligations. For example, the gracious Speech refers to trying to reduce the cost as a proportion of our national resources, and of course if one examines NATO, from figures given by the Mnistry of Defence, it is perfectly true, for example, that in 1973 the United Kingdom spent about 6 per cent., France 4.2 per cent. and West Germany 3.9 per cent. But as a basis of comparison, that overlooks the fact that in cash terms France spends as much as Britain and West Germany considerably more. Therefore the difference in terms of percentage of gross national product is accounted for by the size of the respective national economies.

Even if one saw reductions in defence spending of the lowest order I have seen quoted, of about £250 million a year, that would have to mean cuts in manpower and it would mean damage to our NATO contribution. Well, my Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, told us, NATO has been our shield for 25 years and it has been buttressed by North American and European combined strength, and, above all, by the political consensus among allies that is our best guarantee for peace. Any damage to our NATO contribution would make it very hard indeed to persuade our allies to keep up their own defence efforts and it would also undermine the will of the United States Congress to keep American forces in Europe at even present levels.

So when we consider how we can remain a reliable ally, I think we should also consider our attitudes to other aspects of our defence policy and our security needs in other parts of the world, such as, for example, the Simonstown base referred to by many noble Lords. The steady increase in Soviet naval forces in the Indian Ocean has taken place before the re-opening of the Suez Canal. The vast rearmament taking place in the Middle East countries makes a peace settlement even more difficult to secure than it has been in the last few months. Whatever happens, security of passage of our ships through the Canal certainly can never be taken for granted. In any case, with the size of oil tankers now, they have to go round the Cape as indeed do many vital supplies for both ourselves and our allies.

One is therefore driven to suspect that if the Simonstown Agreement were really brought to an end it would not merely be because our security needs were satisfied but because we would be unable to use the South African facilities because of cuts in our naval capacity. For surely if we did depart from Simonstown it could not be be because of our attitude to apartheid, which is deplored by ail Parties in Parliament. After all, African Governments trade with South Africa, and recently Zambia welcomed an apparent change in South African attitudes. I am quite sure that the Government were right and courageous to use their veto at the United Nations to prevent the expulsion of South Africa. We have always believed that it is wiser to give opportunities to closed societies to be exposed to other nations' ideas.

This has always been the strongest argument put forward by those who oppose sanctions in Rhodesia. When we had the responsibility of government we continued the sanctions policy, for reasons which I have often given your Lordships, and, of course, Rhodesia was in rebellion against the Crown. But I should like to ask the Government a question that they always asked me—and this is such a wonderful opportunity to be able to do it. I was always asked regularly whether the Government were taking any new initiatives. Therefore, I will ask them that question now, against the background of fast moving events in Mozambique and Angola and possibly South-West Africa. I think that although there is to be a debate on the Order next week, your Lordships would welcome a Statement on the Government's attitude on the Rhodesian problem in advance of the debate, and, above all, their conclusions on the review of policy towards Africa, which I understand has been under study for some months.

On the wider question of Britain's ability to influence events in foreign affairs, I always remember that Sir Alec Douglas-Home once said this: Physical security requires a strong economic base. Prosperity and lasting peace require a positive act of will by people of like mind who are prepared to co-operate to ensure it. To ensure that strong economic base, we joined the European Community, yet for eight months past, and up to twelve months ahead, our future in Europe hangs in the balance. I am sure that it is in our interests, and in the interests of our partners, that renegotiation should be brought swiftly to a conclusion. Here I thoroughly support the view put by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, for the longer we delay, the less our influence in European affairs. Indeed, it is President Giscard d'Estaing and Herr Schmidt who have emerged as the leaders of European development.

It may well be, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, that the coming economic crisis—and indeed the crisis which is already with us in a great many respects—may have the result of forcing the Europeans to work together very much quicker than they thought they might have to do. It seems that in the review of the Common Agricultural Policy, of the regional industrial policy, and of trade and aid, changes are being sought in the normal way within the E.E.C. institutions in a certain welcome continuity of policy. For example, it was Mr. Godber who proposed, when he was Minister of Agriculture, six ways whereby the cost of C.A.P. could be contained, consumer prices better held, and surpluses controlled. The European Commission then produced ideas for a radical reform of C.A.P. which would save £400 million a year by 1977, and, as the present Minister of Agriculture said in June: Everything I have mentioned could, and in many instances would, be due to come before the Council at some stage in the ordinary course of business. So therefore both Governments, Labour and Conservative, have worked to the same end in practical spirit of national unity.

It is a welcome fact that while reform of the C.A.P. is under discussion, in the Community many foodstuffs are below the world price, and not least in the recent deal on sugar. As the Foreign Secretary himself said in June of the C.A.P.: It can provide an assurance of supplies at known prices in a world where both prices and availability can be unpredictable. Then of course there are the various matters which have brought great benefit to this country. There is the Social Fund of £24 million; aid to steelworkers, £9 million; there is the European Investment Bank where the United Kingdom received loans worth £32.5 million at 8½ per cent. Interest ; and one sees the practical results. Some of this is being used to make a new power station in Peterhead in Aberdeenshire, from where I come. So it is right that we should think of the benefits as well.

What about the Community budget? Although our contribution to the budget was less than expected last year, forecasts by the Treasury and the Commission of trends for 1980 calculate that we shall pay a higher share of the Community budget in relation to our gross domestic product. These calculations are, however, based on the gloomy forecast that Britain will have much the lowest growth rate of the Nine: between 2.5 and 3.5 per cent., against an average of 4 per cent. to 4.5 per cent. in the Nine. As this forecast takes us to 1978, one assumes that it is based on the normal span of the present Parliament. Of the policies that will produce so low a rate of growth, your Lordships have given your judgment and conclusions during this debate on the Address. However, the Community exists to find solutions to problems, otherwise strains are placed on all its members. But if adjustments are to be made to help us, then our partners will need to be assured that we will remain a wholehearted member.

Some of your Lordships have referred in this debate to the sentence in the gracious Speech which tells us that: Within twelve months the British people will be given the opportunity to decide whether to retain membership. Many of your Lordships believe that a referendum reduces the authority of Parliament; a view I share. If the Government decide to bring forward legislation to authorise and hold a referendum, they may regard the result as binding upon them, but of course it will not be binding upon Parliament. I have heard it said that there are various ways in which a Government might advise the electorate. But assuming that the Foreign Secretary is successful within the Community—which of course those of us who believe in the Common Market very much hope that he will be—his partners will then expect him to urge the Cabinet to approve the terms and recommend the British people to accept them.

It is surely then inconceivable that the Prime Minister would do other than insist on the normal convention of Cabinet collective responsibility—as indeed he did last week over the three members of his Government who criticised the joint British South African naval exercises. If, my Lords, members of the Cabinet hold to their personal beliefs, it seems inevitable that there will be Ministerial resignations. I feel that the Government have made immense problems for themselves over a referendum. Which is why perhaps we shall see the decision subsumed in a General Election at a time when the economic crisis may be only too clear for all to feel. Indeed only yesterday the Minister of State at the Foreign Office told us, "The important date is October, 1975, when the British people will decide how they see the future of this country". We shall have to wait until we hear whether it is to be a referendum or a General Election. Comments like that make us very interested indeed.

So long as we are a member of the Community, whether we believe we should remain or whether we believe that we should withdraw, let us try to make it work. That, surely, must be a British interest. Whether it be by the Government's work to achieve an agreed approach to international monetary problems, to define our policies on energy, or aid to developing countries, I think we should back the Government to devise ways whereby the European Community and the United States can know each other's thinking at an early stage, can define the differences and try to propose agreed solutions. I hope we do not underestimate the influence we can bring to events if we are a reliable ally. With our knowledge of the Commonwealth and experience drawn from all over the world we have ideas, talents, and the capacity to work if we will. Above all, I think that despite our troubles we still really have faith in what we are and of what we yet can be.

9.28 p.m.

THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGNAND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS)

My Lords, this has indeed been a wide-ranging and very valuable debate. It was impressively opened by my noble and learned friend who occupies the Woolsack. He was followed by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in a speech of characteristic cogency and the noble Baroness who has made a graceful speech in reply to a gracious Speech. It is always a pleasure to listen to her. At the outset of her remarks she expressed the hope that what has been said in this wide-ranging debate will be carefully studied by Her Majesty's Government, particularly by my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, and I can certainly give that assurance.

I turn now to the group of questions raised on the matter of defence. The noble Lord,. Lord Carrington, rightly stressed the importance of the Government taking full account in the Defence Review of the possible effect of defence economies on the security of this country, on the commitments of the United States to the defence of Europe—a point I was particularly glad to hear stressed by him—of the equipment and morale of the Armed Forces to which the noble Viscount, Lord Long, also made reference and on the defence industries and the numbers of people they employ.

The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, stressed the importance of collaboration in the research, development and production of arms for the defence of Europe. I shall address myself to the point raised by those noble Lords later on. I mention now the other considerations rightly presented by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, because I wish to assure the House that all these considerations have been, are being and will be taken into account by the Government in reaching their conclusions on the Defence Review. This Review is the most thorough undertaken for some years. It has entailed analysis in depth of the whole size and shape of our defence policy for the next ten years. It is an extremely complicated and difficult exercise. Naturally, conclusions on it are correspondingly difficult. The House will judge the Review on the facts when they are made known to it. Meanwhile, individual noble Lords should not believe all they may read in their newspapers.

The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, asked me a series of questions about consultation with our allies. These will indeed be real consultations. Her Majesty's Government have repeatedly made it clear during the course of the Review that our allies would be consulted wherever their interests were affected. Until those consultations have taken place, final Defence Review decisions clearly cannot be made public or communicated to Parliament. But Parliament will, of course, be kept informed to the maximum extent possible of the progress of the Review. Our conclusions will be placed before Parliament in due course.

LORD CARRINGTON

My Lords, may I interrupt for one moment? Does that mean that our allies will be told of the Government's proposals for saving several hundred million pounds a year, but that Parliament will not be told until the Government have decided what they are going to do after consultation with our allies?

LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS

My Lords, of course decisions must be preceded by consultation. We shall be consulting our allies fully on the proposals and the suggestions we shall put forward. It is clearly impracticable to air those proposals in public while we are discussing them in preferential confidentiality with our allies. I suggest it is the normal and reasonable course to follow to engage in those discussions in full confidentiality before placing them before Parliament to let Parliament decide if they are acceptable.

The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, mentioned "several hundred million pounds a year." We shall see the extent to which it is practicable, using the criteria that he has quoted to-night, how far it will be possible to save money meaningfully and with due regard to the security of this country and our faithfulness to our obligations. The noble Lord himself, and the Government of which he was such an ornament, saved £300 million. I am sure that he did not do so without taking into full consideration all the aspects of the matter mentioned.

LORD CARRINGTON

My Lords, if the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, whom I heard saying "Hear, hear" earlier on are saying I was wrong as Secretary of Defence to save a large sum of money on defence, how much more do they have to justify saving any more in the future?

LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS

My Lords, nobody said that the noble Lord or his Government were wrong in doing this. Indeed, before I was interrupted I was endeavouring to pay something like a compliment to the fact that he went about this job of saving £300 million, having regard to the proper security of the country and our obligations to our allies. We hope to emulate him in our approach to this task, if not possibly in the extent to which we shall achieve savings.

Now the defence Standardisation—a very important point raised by the noble Lords, Lord Lloyd and Lord Gladwyn—is of course fully supported by this Government. I note what the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, has said about the possible modification of WEU for certain purposes, but our view is that NATO is the proper body through Which this matter should be discussed and implemented. Indeed, we very strongly support the cooperative efforts that are being made in the Eurogroup—a body which my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer set up in 1968, and whose efforts to achieve rationalisation and standardisation were, I am glad to say, promoted further by the Government of which the noble Lord was a member. Since Eurogroup began it has attempted with some success to bring together all European members of the Alliance to identify specifically European problems of Alliance defence and to produce technical solutions to them. It has in fact achieved much useful if somewhat unspectacular work in the field of equipment collaboration, training and logistics, and in other specialised fields. But I am quite sure that the very valuable suggestions which the noble Lord put forward in his speech will be studied by Her Majesty's Government, and indeed by the appropriate bodies which are already endeavouring to put these ideas into practice.

LORD GLADWYN

My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt him, is it not a sad and unfortunate fact that France is not a member of the Eurogroup, and that you cannot get very far without the participation of France?

LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS

My Lords, we have managed to get fairly far in certain directions, including this one, without the presence of France. It is not always possible to have a French presence in various fields. We deeply regret the absence of France from a number of European arrangements, but we always hope to have their very valuable assistance as they see that their interests are better served by being present. Beyond that I could not go.

Now may I address myself for the moment to the Simonstown Agreement? A number of noble Lords, among them the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, and the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, and indeed others, have mentioned the Agreement; and I think the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, suggested that the Government might be overlooking our security and defence interests in reaching a decision on its future. I should like to quote from the speech made by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary in Cardiff some ten days ago. He said—and I quote: Clearly, if it is an important British security interest to maintain the Simonstown Agreement, then we must do so". He went on to say: If we are maintaining an agreement that is politically damaging but only militarily marginally useful, then there is no equality of benefits in the Simonstown Agreement and it should be brought to an end or allowed to wither on the vine". I think this is reasonably close to what the noble Lord has said and to what other noble Lords have said; that is to say, that the Simonstown Agreement, like every other matter included in this very far-reaching Defence Review, is being considered from every aspect—from the aspect of security; from the aspect of consultation with our allies, of others who are interested in it; and also from the aspect of the impact of the Agreement and our attachment to it on the situation in Africa, a continent which is poised between possible solution and possible chaos. Now these are matters for very careful, balancing thought; and I must repeat that this somewhat prolonged, necessarily detailed, examination has been so because these matters are of great importance.

Certain noble Lords also suggested that there is no distinction between trade with countries and military association with them. I believe that words like "humbug" were tossed about the Chamber from time to time. I wonder whether they would seek to apply this doctrine to the Soviet Union and the countries of Eastern Europe? We trade with them all, but we have no military alliance with any of them.

LORD CARRINGTON

My Lords, I wish we had.

LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS

My Lords, we have no military alliance with the Soviet Union—

LORD CARRINGTON

My Lords, I wish we were in a position to have a military alliance with countries of the Communist bloc. It surely is precisely because we are not that we have NATO.

LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS

My Lords, I do not think that that disposes of the point that I was making—namely, that if it is humbug to trade with South Africa and not to have a military agreement with her, why is it not humbug to trade with the Soviet Union and not to have a military agreement with her?

THE EARL OF GLASGOW

My Lords, this is the most awful humbug I have ever heard. Can we not, as a great nation, stand on our own feet and say what we need for our defence requirements, without inviting General Amin or some other black dictator to tell us how we ought to conduct our affairs?

LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS

My Lords, I do not think that the worthy General is telling us to do anything, and even if he were his would not be the principal voice to which we should listen.

I pass now to what has been described as an outstanding maiden speech. On this, at least, the whole House will be unanimous. The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, spoke of Rhodesia. He has, of course, had enormous experience in all fields of foreign policy, and I think that we should do well to note carefully what he has to say, particularly about a very difficult question like the future of Rhodesia. He mentioned the possibility of putting the negotiations on an all-Party basis and of including financial provision to permit white Rhodesians to withdraw in good time and order, if a new arrangement were created as a result of which this commended itself to some of them. It is a thoughtful and challenging suggestion and I am quite sure that my right honourable friend and his colleagues will wish to examine it very carefully.

The noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, asked if Her Majesty's Government had in mind a fresh initiative on Rhodesia. We shall of course be discussing Rhodesia next Tuesday and I hope, with the agreement of the House, to intervene in that discussion. In the meantime, I note the noble Baroness's suggestion and if there is any question of an initiative we should wish to facilitate this in both Houses as much as possible. I do not know that there is, but if there is we should wish to consider the noble Baroness's suggestion as to how to put it forward.

My Lords, may I speak briefly on the European Economic Community—briefly, because it is on Thursday of this week that the House will be considering the Report of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, on the work of the Scrutiny Committee. I have no doubt that the House will not confine itself purely to the procedural purport of the Motion which we shall be considering on that day. As the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan said, we shall have not only that opportunity but others at early and fairly frequent intervals to discuss European Community matters in this House.

For this reason, perhaps, we have not had a discussion in depth on Community matters to-night, although my noble and learned friend who sits upon the Woolsack spoke at some length about the stage we have reached on renegotiation. I therefore will not follow those who mentioned Community matters at any great length to-night. Nevertheless I have listened with the closest attention to a number of points made by noble Lords about this matter, and in particular about the time-scale within which the people will be consulted. This is a point related to the need, as many noble Lords said, for an early decision as to our relationship with Europe and the future of our membership.

I think the point is well taken. We have indicated through the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs in another place last week, for instance, that within the coming 12 months—though not necessarily in October of next year—we shall be consulting the people as to their wishes in this matter. I note that one or two interesting points have been made to-night about the methods of consultation which might be used, such as the referendum. One is tempted to quote the late Lord Balfour on the question of referenda. We may perhaps have an enlarged opportunity for doing this somewhat later. His views might, I think, commend themselves to Members on the other side of the House, as he was a former Conservative Prime Minister and a very distinguished Foreign Secretary of this country.

I now turn to the Middle East. I am sure I do not need to re-emphasise to your Lordships the importance which we and the rest of the industrialised world must place on developments in this area. We hope soon to see the opening of a new stage in the long-drawn-out efforts to reach a lasting settlement between Israel and the Arab States, though the difficulties remain formidable. My right honourable friend has made clear in another place on more than one occasion his view that there are a number of essential elements in any settlement, based of course on Resolution 242, to the terms of which all sections of the House subscribe. I will not read through them, because they were in fact quoted tonight by my noble friend Lord Wigg.

It is essential that Israel should have the abiding satisfaction of recognition by her neighbours of her permanence as a State and of her legitimate security requirements. It is equally essential that her Arab neighbours should be substantially satisfied on the question of territory; and I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, make the point that we must, in any general settlement, satisfy the needs of the Palestinians, including the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, as well as the individual rights of Palestinian refugees, nearly 1½ mllion of whom are still homeless. It must surely be the objective of Israeli and Arab, as well as ourselves, to bring to an end as soon as possible the miseries of these people and to launch in the Middle East, the cradle of so much of our highest culture, a new era of co-operation among the gifted people who live there now in antagonism but who could so well and so easily live in co-operative prosperity.

We are not, of course, ourselves immediately involved in the negotiations in the Middle East. They are quite properly in the hands of the parties immediately involved in the dispute, with the untiring and, I would say, the indispensable assistance of the United States and her Secretary of State. It would be wrong of us to set out to offer precise solutions, and it would not help the negotiations if we did so. But this does not mean our attitude towards the Middle East is passive. We are closely involved in the work of preparation for the various dialogues now proceeding, not least that between Members of the European Community and the Arab States. We hope the first meeting of the General Commission, composed of the senior officials of the parties concerned, will be convened soon.

The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, put a number of detailed questions to me about the position in Cyprus. I think I have the answers to his questions. I will address myself this evening, because time is passing and I do not want to detain the House unduly, to (shall I call them?) the constitutional matters which he raised, leaving the questions which relate to the claims, the rights of the holders of British property in the island to a more direct communication with him. I will do that with the agreement of the House. The noble Lord asked for an assurance that Her Majesty's Government would not support a bi-regional federal solution to the Cyprus problem. I do not think it would help if Her Majesty's Government were to take up positions of principle on the Cyprus problem in advance of conclusions of the negotiations between the parties themselves. The important matter is that we should find out what is acceptable to the two communities in Cyprus. Nothing can be built on a durable basis unless it is based on the feelings and desires of the two main communities in the island.

It such a solution can be found, whether it is federal, by region or by canton, or whether it is purely unitary, we shall support it so long as it has the strong and lasting support of the people of the island itself. The noble Lord also referred to the possibility of setting a time limit through the United Nations. I share his anxiety that the wretched condition of so many Cypriots of both faiths and languages should be brought to an end as soon as possible. But we attach great importance to avoiding anything like an ultimatum, from whatever source, which might set off new tensions, new initiatives one might say, of disturbance in this troubled island. We are playing our part very fully in the discussions in the United Nations. We are in close touch with both Greek and Turk in the island and in (shall I call them?) the parent countries, Greece and Turkey, and in every way we stand ready to be of the utmost assistance in helping to promote a solution founded, I repeat, on the only possible basis, and that is the views and the feelings of the people concerned.

LORD BETHELL

My Lords, before the Minister leaves that point, could he give the House an assurance that the Government will do their utmost to see that the General Assembly Resolution, a unanimous Resolution supported by the United Kingdom, Greece and Turkey, is implemented in all its details as soon as possible?

LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS

Yes, my Lords. We strongly supported the Resolution, as the noble Lord reminds us. The great virtue is that both Greece and Turkey supported it equally strongly. We shall take every step possible in the United Nations, and through other diplomatic means, of pressing forward with the implementation of this unanimously accepted Resolution. I am sure I can give that assurance. I must warn that even the best Resolutions as passed unanimously by the Assembly are not always susceptible of implementation. In this case we shall do our best with our friends and allies, because there is nobody who opposes this very sensible and practical Resolution.

I will confine myself to a general statement on the question of détente, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, and others. I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, who referred to the large numbers of Soviet and Eastern troops stationed in Europe. We are very conscious of the large numerical disparity between the Eastern and Western forces in Europe, and we do not claim that the negotiations on mutual and balanced force reduction in Vienna, and in the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, in Geneva, have yet changed the balance of power in Europe. The important point, however, is that these negotiations are proceeding steadily in a serious and businesslike atmosphere, and that they are an important part of the process of détente. Equally important is that in our negotiations in both conferences we are not yielding to the hitherto unacceptable proposals by our colleagues in the conferences from the Eastern part of Europe. We do not accept their parameters; that is to say, exactly how reductions can be both mutual and balanced. A balance must be struck not simply by a percentage cut off the top in each case, but by an assessment of the net result of the process, so that a feeling of security as well as the fact of security is not endangered in the process.

I had hoped to say something about the question of energy. I think the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder were the two speakers who referred to this subject. I believe that I am not unfair to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, when I say that he suggested that European policy on energy should be distinct from that of the United States.

LORD GLADWYN

My Lords, with respect, I did not refer to energy at all.

LORD SHEPHERD

Too difficult a subject, my Lords.

LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, must forgive me. No, it is not too difficult a subject. Those who have had the dubious privilege of winding up a debate on foreign affairs will sympathise with me when I say that the plethora of notes, papers and documents which cascade on one makes it an occupational hazard to try to refer correctly to each noble Lord who has made a specific point. In any case it is a good point, is it not? There is a view, which I do not share, that European policy should be distinct from that of the United States—and just in case anybody thinks that, I will say this much. One of the great advantages of the International Energy Agreement is that it involves both Europe and the United States, and the large amount of oil (to give one example) which would be released through demand restraint in the United States would be available for allocation in an international emergency. Our American friends have a way of applying these voluntary restrictions very efficiently. They have done it more than once in regard to oil. By including them in the I.E.P.—the United States and Canada as well as other industrialised countries, members of O.E.C.D. though not necessarily all of them members of the Community—we see the way clear to create an emergency régime, which will be automatic when things are really threatening to the industrialised nations. This is an immense step forward and in no way conflicts with President Giscard's interesting proposal for an international discussion between producers, consumers and developing countries. It would be necessary to work out the agenda for such a conference and for any action that it may decide upon, but I would hope and, indeed, expect that the outcome of such a conference could be dovetailed into the I.E.P.—into the new agreement to which this country, I am glad to say, has acceded and will, one hopes, before May 1 next year ratify. That, incidentally, will give every opportunity for Parliament to discuss this agreement. We have now acceded to it but we still have to ratify it before May 1, and if one or two noble Lords feel that Parliament should have been consulted first, here is the opportunity for consultation before ratification.

My Lords, no speaker referred to the Far East, particularly China. I would, however, say this much about that extremely important part of the world in which we are expressing and practising a growing interest as a country. We attach, as our predecessors did, very great importance to our relations with the countries of Eastern Asia. Japan, with the third largest economy in the world, is one country with which we maintain the closest contact and to whose views on world affairs we listen with attention. Equally, our relations with the Peoples' Republic of China, whose membership of the United Nations we promoted for so long (both sides of the House did this over many years) are increasingly close and mutually profitable. In debates of this kind we tend, perhaps, to forget that possibly a majority of the world's population lives in Asia and possibly in Africa. It is certain that Asia to-day is developing very rapidly and is changing very rapidly and that our relations with countries in that part of the world are of great importance to us, as to them.

My Lords, I wish that I had time to go more fully into the way things are developing between us and the Far Eastern countries, but time is passing and I am reminded that I have already taken more than half an hour. My noble friend Lord Segal mentioned Hong Kong. I was very grateful for the noble Lord's remarks on that Colony, and I agree wholeheartedly with practically all of what he said. There is, of course, more to be done in this very difficult, small Colony of 4 million people who are crammed into a very small area, which in turn throws up tensions and difficulties which the present Administration—and, I would specifically add, the present Governor—are coping with with a great measure of success. We fully recognise the very real achievements already attained, but we agree with my noble friend that a good deal more needs to be done.

My Lords, I pass rapidly to the point about food which was eloquently put by my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder, by the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, and, indeed, by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry.

The World Food Conference opens in Rome today. It is held under United Nations auspices and it comes at a time when, as we all know only too well, millions of people throughout the world are experiencing acute difficulty in obtaining enough food to stay alive. It would be easy to go into this with emotion, but emotion is not enough; there must be hard thought and concrete planning and as my noble friend said, something must emerge from Rome which is immediately practicable. I am glad to say that the British delegation is being led by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and the Minister for Overseas Development will also attend. We hope that in its two-week session the Conference will concentrate attention on practical and effective measures, not only to increase food production in developing countries in the future but to come to the rescue of those millions who imminently face actual starvation. The British delegation will make a full and constructive contribution and the Government will give full consideration to any measures which are agreed by the Conference.

I think it was my noble friend Lord Greenhill of Harrow who ended his speech with the hope that this House would work together, particularly on foreign affairs and the security of the country. I do not think anybody would do anything but echo that sentiment. As the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said in the course of his speech, there is a wide area of agreement. We must emphasise this. From time to time on specific points there will be differences which are properly ventilated, and in a democracy like ours it is not only inevitable but necessary that this should be so. But there must be an underlying sense of national unity on the security of the country and its posture towards other countries. I believe that this debate, although it has revealed inevitable differences here and there, has also revealed a basic unity that our foreign policy must continue to be based on four pillars: the United Nations; the Commonwealth, in its new relaxed structure if I quote my noble friend Lord Gore-Booth correctly; NATO, which is more than an alliance, and perhaps with the emergence of a new arrangement in Europe, the Community. On those four pillars I think a meaningful and hopeful foreign policy can be practised by this country.

On Question, Motion agreed to nemine dissentiente: The said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

CROUCH HARBOUR BILL [H.L.]

EASTBOURNE HARBOUR BILL [H.L.]

PORT OF TYNE (NORTH SHIELDS FISH HARBOUR) BILL [H.L.]

TORQUAY MARKET BILL [H.L.]

The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES acquainted the House, That (pursuant to the Resolutions of October 31 last) the Bills had been deposited in the Private Bill Office, together with the declarations of the agents: Bills presented; read 1^a, and pro forma passed through all their remaining stages: Bills sent to the Commons.