Sitting of 25 January 1968

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

    Radio 2 (Scotland)
    Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the Postmaster-General what steps have been taken by the British Broadcasting Corporation to improve reception of Radio 2 in Scotland.
    The Postmaster-General (Mr. Edward Short): As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small) on 19th December, I authorised the B.B.C. to open low-powered stations at Glasgow and Edinburgh to relay Radio 2 on one of the international common medium wavelengths, 202 metres. Both stations were in operation before Christmas.
    Mr. Taylor: As the many thousands of old people who were deprived of their favourite programme have now had them restored, is the Postmaster-General aware that they are all very happy at the action taken, and with his personal intervention, and that if the B.B.C. responded to genuine public complaints like that there would be far fewer of them?
    Mr. Maclennan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that reception of Radio 2, as of B.B.C. television, is still not satisfactory in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland? In a letter to me on 29th November he drew attention to studies which were being undertaken. How far have those studies gone?
    Mr. Short: There is a question on that matter, not specifically relating to this area but to this kind of territory, which I shall answer later.

    Local Sound Radio
    Mr. Onslowasked the Postmaster-General if he will make a statement on the local sound radio experiment; and if he will indicate the proportion of the running costs being raised by local sources other than local authorities.
    Mr. Berryasked the Postmaster-General (1) if the experiment with local radio stations has now shown whether they can be financed by the local community; and if he will make a statement;
    (2) which of the experimental local radio stations are not being financed by ratepayers.
    Mr. Edward Short: Of the eight experimental stations, three are on the air so far. The remainder will start broadcasting in the next few months. The experiment is to be appraised in due course. Of course, this cannot be done before it has started. Local authorities are contributing to the cost of running each of the stations. The proportion borne by local authorities and other local organisations is a matter between them and the B.B.C. in each particular case.
    Mr. Onslow: Is it not clear, particularly in the current economic climate, that, if this experiment is to have any chance of success, the whole burden of financing it should be put on a proper commercial basis?
    Mr. Short: I believe that these stations are going to have a profound effect on communal life in this country provided they can be kept free of the kind of commercial pressures the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends want. For example, the Merseyside station is bringing a new dimension into the relations between industry and the community in that part of the country. If the hon. Gentleman does not believe that, let him go there and see what is being done.
    Mr. Berry: My Question was about payment. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he said last July that all the money was not coming from local ratepayers? Can he give an example of where bodies other than local ratepayers are helping to finance these stations?
    Mr. Short: The hon. Gentleman has "gunned" for this experiment ever since we first announced it. The financing varies from place to place. On Merseyside or at Stoke, for example, a good deal of money is coming from other organisations.
    Mr. Hugh D. Brown: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most of us on this side of the House support him in the sense that we are satisfied that he will resist the commercial blandishments of hon. Members opposite? Will he ensure that, when the appraisal of local radio stations made, local authorities—Glasgow among them, I regret to say—which have not seized the initiative are informed of the advantages of local radio stations?
    Mr. Short: The idea is catching on. Again to take Merseyside as an example, it is receiving considerable support from the Lancashire County Council and from the Cheshire County Council as well as from the county boroughs and, I may add, from all political points of view on Merseyside.
    Mr. Bryan: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that when opening the Leicester station he made a promise—it may have been a pledge—that he would never use licence money for these local stations? Can he tell us what is to happen in cases, such as look like threatening, where a station does not raise enough money locally to complete its year's experiment?
    Mr. Short: What I said at Leicester and in the House and many other places was that it would be unfair to make an addition to the licence fee for local radio, because many people, especially in rural areas, would never have local radio and it would be a bit thick if they had to pay for an additional amenity in towns where there are already many amenities.
    Dr. Winstanley: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how local broadcasting councils are to be made accountable to the people in the areas which they serve, as he has told the House they would be? Secondly, can he say whether members of local broadcasting councils are themselves permitted to broadcast on their own stations?
    Mr. Short: The selection and the method of working of the broadcasting
    558
    councils is extremly important and we have tried various things in various areas, but on the whole I think that they will work out remarkably well. We have a cross-section of the community, including young people, and I am sure that this will be one of the most successful aspects of the whole experiment.
    Mr. Berry: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Licence Fee
    Mr. Joplingasked the Postmaster-General if he will give an assurance that the British Broadcasting Corporation licence fee will not be raised during 1968 and 1969.
    Mr. Edward Short: In my reply of 23rd November, 1967, to the hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan) I said that I would of course give the House good notice of any increase in the broadcast receiving licence fees. At present I have nothing to add to that reply.
    Mr. Jopling: Was not that a very disappointing reply? Should not the B.B.C. be the forerunner in looking after the Government's policy of restraint because of the severe financial crisis and should not the right hon. Gentleman be telling us that the licence fee will not go up in the next two years in view of that policy?
    Mr. Short: The hon. Gentleman is sufficiently experienced in the House to know that the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question does not get one anywhere.
    Hon. Members: Have you?
    Mr. Bryan: Is the Postmaster-General aware that he said at Leicester that it would be unfair to pay for local stations out of income from the receiving licences? Those were his very words which he has just said he never said.
    Mr. Short: I have made it absolutely clear on many occasions and the hon. Gentleman knows it quite well.

    Television Licences
    Mr. Mawbyasked the Postmaster-General if he will make a statement on the success of the recent measures to prevent television licence evasion.
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Postmaster-General if he will make a statement on his campaign to diminish television and radio licence evasion during 1967–68; what further measures he contemplates; and what is his revised estimate of the loss of revenue this year from such licence evasion.
    Mr. Edward Short: The intention to take new measures was announced at the beginning of November, 1966. In the year ending 31st October, 1966, the number of television licences in force increased by 330,000. In the year ending 31st October, 1967, the increase was 1,080,000.
    For the two years I estimate that the loss of revenue fell from about £10 million to about £7 million.
    On Monday next, dealers will start providing information about their disposals of television sets. From then on, my Department will increasingly be able to intensify its measures against evaders.
    Mr. Mawby: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these are excellent results stemming from two main actions—first the increased prospect of being detected by having more detector vans in operation and secondly the higher penalty? Will he continue to press on these two points because it seems to be having tremendous results?
    Mr. Short: The results are very good, so good that I have decided not, for the moment, to ask the trade to supply particulars of existing agreements. I have said that I will reconsider this in the middle of this year.
    Sir G. Nabarro: May I make a new suggestion to the Postmaster-General? As the principal beneficiary of the licence fee is the British Broadcasting Corporation, could he not arrange for the Governor of the B.B.C. to flash warnings periodically on television screens, drawing attention to the fact that non-payment of these fees is thoroughly anti-social and is resulting in a large loss of revenue, as well as depriving people who pay their fees of a certain sum of money, because the fee would not be so high if everyone paid up?
    Mr. Short: I am grateful for that suggestion. I think that in this, as in one or two other matters, the B.B.C. could do a hit to help itself.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will the Postmaster-General show equal enthusiasm for seeing that the B.B.C. does not evade its responsibilities to provide programmes which can be received by people in many areas who have paid for their television licences?

    Television Broadcasting (Permitted Hours)
    Mr. Murrayasked the Postmaster-General in view of the fact that present television broadcasting hours do not always cater for old people and shift workers, he will now take steps to extend the broadcasting time of both the Independent Television Authority and the British Broadcasting Corporation.
    Mr. Edward Short: The Independent Television Authority has recently represented to me that the number of permitted hours of television broadcasting should be increased. I am considering the Authority's representations and will announce my conclusions as soon as possible.
    Mr. Murray: Even if the Minister gives unfavourable consideration to this, would he consider the point that, particularly during the winter months, old-age pensioners are not able to leave home as much as they would like to and would welcome further television broadcasting?
    Mr. Short: This is very true and it applies to old people, piece-workers and a lot of others. But other factors enter into this as well. I will consider it very urgently and let the House know what my conclusions are.
    Mr. Bryan: Now that the B.B.C. has the advantage of an extra channel, B.B.C.2, and colour, over I.T.A. is it not time that it gave way on this point and went along with the extra hour idea?
    Mr. Short: This is a consideration which I shall certainly bear in mind.

  POST OFFICE

    Postcodes
    Mr. Gardnerasked the Postmaster-General what progress is being made with the development of postal coding; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Mawbyasked the Postmaster-General what progress is being made

    561
    with the development of postal coding; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Edward Short: Postcodes have been introduced so far in 15 major towns and we expect to introduce them in a further 30 towns during 1968. By 1970 postcodes will have been allotted to 75 major towns which between them handle the great majority of the mail.
    Mr. Gardner: I welcome that statement. What is the average delay of letters not carrying the postcode?
    Mr. Short: I cannot say at the moment. There is no great delay at present, but when a sorting office becomes mechanised a letter will be delayed if the code is not used, as it will have to be dealt with manually instead of mechanically. That is why we introduce the code well ahead of the mechanisation.
    Mr. Mawby: Is the Postmaster-General satisfied that mechanisation can still continue at the previous rate, in view of all the things that have happened recently?
    Mr. Short: Yes, Sir. We have embarked on a £24 million postal mechanisation programme over the next 10 years.
    Mr. Bryan: Does that reply mean that the recent cuts will have absolutely no effect on coding and the other mechanisation measures which we are all expecting?
    Mr. Short: They will have no effect on the coding, which goes ahead as I have announced, and they will have no effect on the mechanisation of the main sorting offices.

    Decimalisation
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Postmaster-General what steps he is taking to adapt Post Office techniques and machines to be ready for the introduction of decimalisation; and if he will make a statement.
    The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Joseph Slater): Many areas of Post Office activity are affected by decimalisation. Work is proceeding to ensure that the Post Office is ready in all respects for the changeover.
    Mr. Roberts: Can my hon. Friend say whether, by decimalisation D-day, all Post Office stamp vending machines and public telephones will be capable of use
    562
    with the new currency? If not, will ancient and modern coinage, if I may use the phrase, be able to be used in machines? Is there not a case, because of the heavy cost of conversion, for postponement of decimalisation D-day as an economic saving?
    Mr. Slater: The greater part of what my hon. Friend has said might be better directed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We are arranging for coin box mechanisms to be modified in advance of D-day, as far as practicable, to permit easy and speedy conversion to the new coinage.
    Mr. Lubbock: Will the hon. Gentleman consider having all future stamp-vending machines ordered by his Department based on the shilling, which will remain unaltered under decimalisation, and also, where stamps of smaller value than 1 s. are sold, having the machines modified to sell several simultaneously?
    Mr. Slater: The present stamp and stamp booklet machines cannot be converted and we are having them replaced during the two years preceding D-day by new machines, which will dispense a number of stamps of mixed denominations for a single coin common to both monetary systems.
    Mr. Stratton Mills: How much will modifications for decimal coinage cost the Post Office?
    Mr. Slater: I am not in a position to answer that now but perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question.

    Two-tier System
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslopasked the Postmaster-General (1) what estimate he has made of the extra expenditure on similar postage of present users of first-class mail in the first year after the introduction of the two-tier system;
    (2) what is the average time for transmission of first-class mail; and what is the proposed transmission time for first-and second-class mail, respectively, under the proposed two-tier system.
    Mr. Blakerasked the Postmaster-General whether he will postpone the arrangements for two-tier postage at present intended to come into effect in the autumn of 1968.
    Mr. Michael Shawasked the Postmaster-General what consultations he has had with industry, before deciding to introduce a two-tier postage system; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Edward Short: During 1967 93 per cent. of fully-paid letters were delivered by the next working day after posting.
    The aim of the two-tier system will be to give first-class mail a service at least as good as the best we give now, with improved reliability. Second-class mail will generally take a day longer, with a small proportion deliverel later than this.
    The indications are that many people who now use the first-class service will send their letters by the second-class service. The effect for each user on actual expenditure on postage will depend on the charges, and this question is at present being examined by the National Board for Prices and Incomes. The two-tier system will introduce an element of choice for the customer which does not exist at present.
    As regards consultation, we had nationwide market research in 1966 and again in 1967. We had talks with stationery trade representatives, with manufacturers of franking machines and other business equipment, and with the Post Office Users' Council. A large majority of those consulted were in favour of the two-tier system.
    I see no reason for postponing its introduction.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: How can it be compatible with the Government's policy towards the stabilisation of costs to increase the price for the same service by 75 per cent. and for a service taking one day longer by 25 per cent. over existing rates? Is this not scandalous? Will the right hon. Gentleman assess the burden on the economy before putting this into effect?
    Mr. Short: The hon. Gentleman has whipped himself into fury about figures he himself has invented. I said nothing about any increases at all.
    Mr. Blaker: This change will make obsolete a great deal of special manufacturing equipment and surely one year is not sufficiently long to amortise it or to order the new machinery necessary. Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman postpone
    564
    the introduction of the scheme for a reasonable time?
    Mr. Short: I postponed its introduction for over a year when I took office, so the trade has had much more than a year in which to make arrangements. I understand that it is reasonably satisfied.
    Mr. Shaw: The right hon. Gentleman's Department has a very fine record for consultation with industry, particularly manufacturing industry, before any changes are made but is he aware that, in this instance, I am informed that the manufacturers of stationery, particularly of envelopes, are still most unsatisfied with the complete lack of consultation? They were not consulted at all before the announcement was made.
    Mr. Short: The decision to do this was a Government responsibility but the manufacturers have been consulted since it was taken. It may interest the hon. Gentleman to know that this morning I have received an invitation to be the guest of honour at their annual dinner.
    Mr. Rankin: Could not greater use be made of air services in transmitting first-class mail?
    Mr. Short: We use air services a great deal now. We generally use the most economic and speedy service we can find.
    Mr. Bryan: What percentage of first-class mail and what percentage of second-class mail does the right hon. Gentleman expect in the new set-up? How does he expect to be able to produce a standard of reliability for first-class mail?
    Mr. Short: The percentage split as between first-class mail and second-class mail will depend on the differentials. Different differentials will give different splits. But obviously the desirable one is 50–50.
    The great merit of this scheme is that work in sorting offices, which now comes in two big humps with little to do between them, will be evened out during the day and this will enable first-class mail to be dealt with on its own.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    Public Relations Officers
    Mr. Onslowasked the Postmaster-General why 22 extra public relations officers have been appointed by the Post Office since September, 1964.
    Sir Harmar Nichollsasked the Postmaster-General what duties are performed by the 22 extra public relations officers who have been appointed by his Department since September, 1964.
    Mr. Edward Short: They are employed as follows: 15 on the monthly Post Office staff newspaper and the quarterly Post Office Engineering Safety News; 1 on Giro publicity; 2 on public relations in the provinces; and 4 on additional publicity for recruitment, postal coding and other information on the Post Office services.
    Mr. Onslow: Would not the right hon. Gentleman do better to concentrate on restoring the falling standards of the postal and telephone services to ordinary users instead of hiring extra people to misguide the public?
    Mr. Short: One of the great needs of industry is to improve communications. This is why we have the Post Office newspaper.
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that employing 22 extra public relations officers will persuade the public that the postal and telephone services have not deteriorated, as is set out in Question No. 40?
    Mr. Short: I do not accept the premise that the services have deteriorated. On the contrary, they have improved. The greater part of these extra public relations officers are employed on the Post Office newspaper, which started last year. It is self-financing, the greater part of it being paid for by subscriptions from the staff. The salaries of these 22 officers do not, therefore, by and large fall on Post Office funds.
    Mr. Bryan: In view of the Government's cuts, how many of these extra officers are to be dismissed?
    Mr. Short: None. They are all doing a very useful job and they are all essential.

    Postal Mini-bus Service (Norfolk)
    Mr. Ian Gilmourasked the Postmaster-General what plans he has to start a postal mini-bus service in Norfolk.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: None at present. With my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Transport, we have considered a number of possible routes, but none of these has proved suitable. If the hon. Gentleman has any particular route to suggest we will be pleased to look at it.
    Mr. Gilmour: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Is he aware that up to now there has been a widespread feeling in Norfolk that insufficient and rather hurried consideration was given to this project by the Ministry of Transport if not by the Post Office? I should like to write to the hon. Gentleman about this matter.
    Mr. Slater: We shall be very happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman about it.
    Dr. Gray: If my hon. Friend is able to introduce such a service for East Norfolk, will he look at the possibility of children being given lifts when they have to walk long distances to school?
    Mr. Slater: That is a fair question. All these things will be taken into consideration.

    Giro (Computers)
    Mr. Ian Gilmourasked the Postmaster-General what proportion of the machinery of the computers for the national Giro is to be manufactured in Great Britain, and what proportion is to be manufactured abroad.
    Mr. Edward Short: All the main processing computers are being manufactured in this country. Equipment for the optical reading and sorting of documents which incorporates computers has been ordered from a firm in the U.S.A. No British equipment offering the range of facilities required is available.
    Mr. Gilmour: I regret that the Postmaster-General is unable to give a more exact reply. Can he assure the House that this proportion will not be altered by any prospective merger in the computing industry?
    Mr. Short: I should like notice of that. It is a question which I cannot answer off the cuff. The order given to the United States amounts to about £1 million out of £3·7 million.

    First-Class Mail (London Area)
    Mr. Bryanasked the Postmaster-General what is the average time for the transmission of first-class mail in the London area.
    Mr. John Smithasked the Postmaster-General what is the average time for transmission of first-class mail in the London area; and how this compares with the position in 1964, 1965, and 1966, respectively.
    Mr. Edward Short: Fully paid letters for addresses in London and posted in time for the last collection in London should be delivered by first post the next working day. With comparatively few exceptions this service is being given. Current levels of public complaint in London about the letter service are substantially less than in the years mentioned.
    Mr. Bryan: Could not the Postmaster-General give rather more precise figures as he is able to do for deliveries in the country in general? For instance, how does the figure of 94 per cent. for the country in general compare with the London figure?
    Mr. Short: The figure for London is about the average for the rest of the country. Our great problem in London, as in postal services throughout the world, is the labour problem. We have 1,200 vacancies for postmen in London.
    Mr. Smith: Will the Postmaster-General remember that there is a close relation between the efficiency of the postal service and the amount of telephoning which is done, and that the better the postal service, the less wasteful and distracting use there will be of the telephone, particularly of my telephone?
    Mr. Short: That is something from which all hon. Members suffer. I agree that London has a rather special problem because of the labour difficulties, especially in the West End of London. Nevertheless, all things considered, it is a reasonably good service.

    Postal Charges
    Mr. Bryanasked the Postmaster-General if it will be his practice in future to obtain the approval of the National Board for Prices and Incomes for increases in postal charges.
    Sir Harmar Nichollsasked the Postmaster-General if he will make a statement on the recent reference of postal charges to the National Board for Prices and Incomes.
    Mr. Edward Short: The Government have decided that all future proposals for major increases in nationalised industries' prices should be referred to the National Board for Prices and Incomes for examination. This policy will apply to the Post Office. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a copy of the reference to the Board which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs and I made jointly on 3rd October.
    Mr. Bryan: Now that the Postmaster-General has surrendered responsibility for unpopular price increases to Mr. Aubrey Jones, does he undertake to accept the recommendations which he receives?
    Mr. Short: There is no question of surrendering anything. The Prices and Incomes Board has been told of the Post Office's financial problem arising from the under-capitalisation of the Post Office when the party opposite was in power for years and years. That is why there is a waiting list for telephones. The Board has had the problem put to it and we have asked for its suggestions. When we get those suggestions, the Government themselves will decide what tariff changes, if any, have to be made.
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: The Postmaster-General must not get angry, because we have precedents for increases in Post Office charges being announced by Ministers other than himself. If the Chancellor of the Excheqeur decides to increase the charges in the Budget, will that cut across any recommendations which the Prices and Incomes Board may make?
    Mr. Short: Many people in the past, apart from the Postmaster-General, have interfered with the running of the Post

    569
    Office and the hon. Gentleman probably knows that as well as anyone in the House. If he would like me to enumerate them, I shall be happy to do so.
    Following is the Reference:

  PRICES AND INCOMES ACT, 1966
    REFERENCE TO THE NATIONAL BOARD FOR PRICES AND INCOMES

      POST OFFICE CHARGES
      The Post Office has under consideration changes in the charges both for postal services and for telecommunications services; both increases and decreases would be involved. It is proposed that there should be an important restructuring of the pattern of postal services, 3n the basis of replacing the present letter and printed paper services by a two-tier system providing for a first and second class letter service at differential tariffs. Some changes in the present basis of charging for telephone services are also in mind. In considering what will be needed the Post Office has had regard to the foreseen growth in business and in the size of the telephone system the expected increases in productivity, the requirements of the Post Office capital investment programme and its financial obligations. The new tariffs would take effect in the case of telecommunications in the summer of 1968 and in the case of postal services in the autumn of 1968.
      The Government think it appropriate that these proposed changes should be examined Fey the National Board of Prices and Incomes. Accordingly, in pursuance of their powers under Section 2(1) of the Prices and Incomes Act, 1966, the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs and the Postmaster-General hereby refer the question of the proposed changes in Post Office charges to the National Board for Prices and Incomes for examination on the assumption that the financial objectives of the postal and telecommunications services and the general programme of development for the industry are as approved by the Government for the relevant period.

      Post Office, Norwich (Mechanisation)
      Mr. John Smithasked the Postmaster-General to what extent the mechanisation of the Post Office at Norwich has improved service to Post Office users: and whether he will make a statement.
      Mr. Joseph Slater: The early developments in mechanisation in Norwich were designed to peg costs and reduce manpower. Our present experiments there have the same objective and we are using Norwich to prove equipment for general introduction throughout the country.
      Mr. Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman take care to see that mechanisation does not drive out consumer choice and human variety altogether?
      Mr. Slater: Yes.
      Mr. Ian Gilmour: Is it not the case that while a number of people in Norfolk, as elsewhere, have had trouble with their letters, this is not due to what goes on in Norwich, where the post office is working very well?
      Mr. Slater: Yes.

      Employees (Scotland)
      Mr. Eadieasked the Postmaster-General of the authorised establishment of full-time posts on 1st November, 1967, of 8,587 in Scotland, how many are women; and what has been their average length of service.
      Mr. Joseph Slater: Thirteen women were employed full-time on postmen duties. We also employed 183 part-timers. The average length of service for full-timers was 5½ years and for part-timers 1⅓ years.
      Mr. Eadie: While thanking my hon. Friend for that detailed reply may I ask him to tell the House what is being done about these unfilled vacancies?
      Mr. Slater: The vacancy situation arises from time to time with turnover of staff, but recruiting is a continuous process. These vacancies were spread over many offices and except in Edinburgh and Glasgow there was no large shortage in any one office.

      Special Delivery Letters
      Mr. Robert Cookeasked the Postmaster-General what is the average time of transmission of special delivery letters for which a charge of 3s. is made.
      Mr. Edward Short: I am sorry that the information is not available; but nearly all special delivery letters are delivered on the day of posting or the next working day.
      Mr. Cooke: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is cheaper and quicker to send a Post Office messenger over the shorter distances?
      Mr. Short: This may well be but I would point out to the hon. Gentleman

      571
      and everyone else concerned that if the letter does get delivered with the ordinary delivery the sender can claim a refund of the additional fee that he has been charged.
      Mr. Stratton Mills: Could not the Minister's extra 22 public relations officers explain to the public how very little benefit there is from this service?
      Mr. Short: This really is a silly question. I have pointed out in great detail to the House what these gentlemen are doing. They are all performing excellent and essential services.

      Mail to Rhodesia
      Mr. Evelyn Kingasked the Postmaster-General how many private letters to Rhodesia originating from the United Kingdom have been opened in his Department in the last 12 months.
      Mr. Edward Short: Mail sent abroad from this country, whether to Rhodesia or elsewhere, is liable to be opened by the Post Office at the request of H.M. Customs and Excise for Customs and currency control purposes. No record is kept of the numbers of letters addressed to any particular country that are opened for Customs and Excise.
      Mr. King: Is it not unfortunate, in view of the charge of censorship which we frequently hear brought against the Rhodesian Government, with some justification, that we should appear to be doing the same thing?
      Mr. Short: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman slipped in the word "appear". There is no censorship so far as the Post Office is concerned. Any letters opened are opened purely for Customs and Excise purposes.
      Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is the Postmaster-General aware that reputable people in this country have reason to believe that letters duly posted from Rhodesia are not reaching their destination in the United Kingdom? Will the right hon. Gentleman look into this if I send details to him?
      Mr. Short: If the hon. Gentleman can give me specific cases I would be delighted to look into the matter.

      Public Telex Facilities
      Mr. Dodds-Parkerasked the Postmaster-General what proposals he has for making available, and popularising, public telex facilities in Cheltenham and other such centres.
      Mr. Edward Short: Although they have been publicised, little use has been made of the public telex facilities in London, Manchester, Liverpool and Belfast. In view of this, I should not be justified in providing additional telex call offices at present.
      Mr. Dodds-Parker: Would the Postmaster-General consider making facilities available for the public, in publicly-owned organisations such as Thomas Cook and also in certain hotel chains, at a special rate?
      Mr. Short: Yes, a good deal is being done at the moment. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to discuss this with me. I am only too anxious to extend the telex network as widely as possible.

      Rural Offices
      Mr. Ronald Atkinsasked the Postmaster-General if he will establish in rural areas post offices, provided that they would be centrally and conveniently situated, on railway stations, as in one case on the Kyle line, and in bus stations, especially where the public service vehicles carry the mail.
      Mr. Joseph Slater: We try to site our rural offices as conveniently as possible, but they have to be at places where someone is available to run them. Some offices are at railway stations but the number has decreased with changes in railway services. Places with bus stations usually have shopping centres which give the most convenient sites for post offices.
      Mr. Atkins: May I thank my hon. Friend for that Answer and ask him if he is aware that the integration of some social services in some rural areas would not only reduce total costs, but increase their efficiency?
      Mr. Slater: There are still a number of stations where the stationmaster acts as

      573
      the sub-postmaster. This number has been reduced in recent years by the station closures.

      Mail (Public Service Passenger Vehicles)
      Mr. Ronald Atkinsasked the Postmaster-General if he will make use of public service passenger vehicles, where possible, instead of mail vans, as in Skye, to make more viable a public passenger service otherwise impossible.
      Mr. Joseph Slater: Yes Sir. Mails are already conveyed on well over 600 bus routes in Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom, and we shall continue to use them whenever they meet our needs satisfactorily and economically.
      Mr. Atkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. May I ask him f he is aware that in many cases rural bus services will be saved by this kind of integration?
      Mr. Slater: I must point out that mails must be conveyed at suitable times of the day and there must be adequate accommodation to afford proper security.

      Letter Deliveries
      Mr. William Priceasked the Postmaster-General what percentage of letters are being delivered the following day compared with three years ago.
      Mr. Edward Short: During 1967, 93 per cent. of fully paid letters were delivered by the following day compared with 91 per cent. in 1964.
      Mr. Price: Do not these figures totally discredit the claims being made continually by hon. Members opposite based on ignorance and prejudice towards a very good public service?
      Mr. Short: The Conservative Party and certain sections of the Press do not mind what public service they clobber as long as they are attacking the Labour Government. These figures give the lie so far as the postal service is concerned.
      Sir S. McAdden: I congratulate the Postmaster-General on this improved performance, but does not he realise that we are paying much more for it?

      Foreign Equipment (Purchases)
      Mr. William Hamiltonasked. the Postmaster-General what was the total cost of equipment of foreign manufacture purchased by the Post Office last year; what proportion this was of total purchases; and what steps he is taking to ensure that, wherever possible, a greater amount of British-made equipment is purchased.
      Mr. Edward Short: Post Office purchase of foreign equipment in 1966–67 totalled just over £1 million, which is less than per cent of total purchases in the period. These were in the main items which cannot be obtained in this country.
      Mr. Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend say whether this shortfall is due to the fact that British manufacturers are unable or unwilling to produce the the equipment which the Post Office requires? If that is the case, what steps are being taken by the Post Office to manufacture some of its own equipment in development areas?
      Mr. Short: I will tell my hon. Friend what the items are. There are some very special tools from Sweden and Germany; photographic equipment from Japan; and miscellaneous testing equipment from a variety of industrial nations. As I have said, we are asking the House to give us power to manufacture in the Bill which will come before it some time this year.
      Mr. Bryan: Since the waiting list for telephones is largely attributed to the shortage of supplies, to what extent has the Postmaster-General looked for supplies abroad?
      Mr. Short: We are very anxious to buy all our exchange equipment in this country. I have talked to all the managing directors of all the supplying firms. As I pointed out earlier, they have doubled their capacity over the last two or three years, and I hope that within a year or so they will be able to meet all our demands.

      Crown Offices (Hours of Business)
      Mr. Richard Wainwrightasked the Postmaster-General whether, in support of the widespread public mood of greater

      575
      attention to work and service, he will ask head postmasters to review permissions already given to certain Crown post offices to close to the public during the middle of each working day.
      Mr. Joseph Slater: The alterations in hours of opening at Crown office counters have allowed us to deploy our staff better and so are a contribution to our general drive for higher productivity. My right hon. Friend would not therefore be justified in making any general reversal of his policy, though he is always prepared to review individual cases.
      Mr. Wainwright: In view of the refusal to intervene to keep Crown offices open during the dinner hour, will the hon. Gentleman tell us what advice he offers to mill workers in scattered industrial areas manufacturing for export for attending to Crown office business without damaging production?
      Mr. Slater: We give accommodation to businesses, but in general the hours of businesses at post offices compare quite favourably with those of shops up and down the country.

    TELEPHONE SERVICE

      Automatic Exchanges
      Mr. Gardnerasked the Postmaster-General to what extent delays in the supply of equipment are holding up the construction of automatic telephone exchanges.
      Mr. Edward Short: Eighty-three per cent. of the contracts for exchange equipment are in arrears because of the practical difficulties of more than doubling output over as short a period as two years; the average delay is just under six months.
      Mr. Gardner: In view of that reply, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time we had a thorough look at the industry with a view to the Post Office having a greater stake in initiating new developments and producing equipment to meet his needs?
      Mr. Short: It is because we felt that we should have a look at this that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs and I referred the industry to the Industrial Reorganisation
      576
      Corporation. On the question of the manufacture of equipment by the Post Office, it is extremely sophisticated equipment, which we need immediately. However, in the new Bill which will be introduced to give the Post Office corporation status I am asking the House for these powers.

      Installations (South Bedfordshire)
      Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Postmaster General how many applicants are waiting for telephone installations in Luton, Dunstable, Leighton Buzzard, and the Luton rural district; and what steps are being taken to reduce the waiting lists.
      Mr. Joseph Slater: The figures at 31st December, 1967, were:
      Luton, 2,805; Dunstable, 26; Leighton Buzzard, 82; and Luton Rural District, 89. Extensions to all the exchanges are either planned or are in hand.
      Mr. Roberts: Does my hon. Friend agree that the position in this area is very much worse than in the country generally? In view of the important export contribution made by South Bedfordshire, could not special help be given to try to speed things up?
      Mr. Slater: We initiated relief measures some time ago, but the very heavy national demand for telephones has inevitably prevented us from completing some schemes as soon as we had hoped. I regret that we cannot speed them up, for the shortage of exchange equipment is a national and not a local problem.

      Telephone Information Services
      Mr. Joplingasked the Postmaster-General if he will extend the telephone service to enable callers to dial for a news report, sporting and racing results, stock exchange prices and other matters of public interest.
      Mr. Joseph Slater: The possibility of extending the Telephone Information Services is kept under review and my right hon. Friend will bear the hon. Gentleman's suggestion in mind. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the present services.
      Mr. Jopling: That is the answer which we always get from the hon. Gentleman.

      577
      Does he not agree that this would be a most valuable additional service which would be much more helpful to the public than having to rely on the type of service coming over broadcasting systems probably no more than once an hour and in some cases only one or twice a day? Would it not be much more readily available?
      Mr. Slater: I thought that my answer was adequate and that the hon. Gentleman would be satisfied. My right hon. Friend is giving every consideration to his application.
      Mr. William Price: Is my hon. Friend aware that newspapers, radio and television are already available for the dispensing of news?
      Following is the list:

      Speaking Clock.

      Weather.

      Road weather.

      Recipe.

      Teletourist.

      Test Match Information.

      Dial a Disc (recently introduced).

      Classified Directories
      Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Postmaster-General what reduction in the cost of the directory inquiry service has been achieved so far by the increased expenditure on promoting the sale of classified directories; how many of such directories have been sold up to the latest convenient date in 1967; how much has been received from such sales; and how many of such telephone directories have been issued free to subscribers in the same period.
      Mr. Edward Short: In 1967 nearly 3 million classified directories were issued free: about 78,000 were sold, yielding about £8,000 net. The directories are advertised to promote their use, not their sale. The effects on the directory enquiry service, which costs about £6½ million a year, cannot be isolated from other factors.

      Telephone Rentals
      Mr. Longdenasked the Postmaster-General what proposals he has regarding telephone rentals.
      Mr. Edward Short: Post Office charges have been referred to the National Board
      578
      for Prices and Incomes. Incomes. I have no statement to make until after the Board has reported. I shall be circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT, in reply to a Question from the hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan) today, a copy of the reference to the Board.
      Mr. Longden: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that any increase would bear very hardly on the smaller users? For instance, if one has a telephone bill for 120 units per quarter, the cost per call averages 9d. If the charge goes up any more, the cost will be even heavier.
      Mr. Short: It is for this very reason that we have to look at the telephone rentals—there are so many small users. At the moment, we are losing £3 or £4 a year on each rental.
      Mr. Bryan: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell us the average economic rental of a telephone?
      Mr. Short: The hon. Gentleman can do the arithmetic for himself, but the cost of installing a telephone is between £160 and £180, and the telephone must be maintained indefinitely.

    RHODESIA
    Mr. Juddasked the Prime Minister which firms, in which foreign countries, are now known to be breaking the sanctions imposed on Rhodesia.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): From time to time reports have been received about sanctions breaking abroad by companies incorporated in the United Kingdom. These are in each case fully investigated. I am not in a position to give an account of the activities in foreign countries of firms incorporated abroad.
    Mr. Judd: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the strongest possible representations should be made to the French Government to bring home our concern about the deliberate connivance at the despicable undermining of sanctions by firms like Total, and to assist in this should not we internationalise the supervision of sanctions?
    The Prime Minister: When we hear of any cases affecting other countries, we

    579
    bring them to the attention of their Governments. As the House knows, a working party of the Commonwealth Sanctions Committee is studying ways and means of making sanctions more effective. What has been reported is being considered by individual Governments as to the action they might take in respect of the activities of those companies in their own territories?
    Mr. Maudling: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how long he now estimates it will take for sanctions to produce a decisive result in Rhodesia?
    The Prime Minister: No. But I think that it would be a shorter period if right hon. Gentlemen opposite would tell their friends in Rhodesia exactly where their responsibility lies and make clear that they still stand by the principles which they laid down when they were the Government.
    Mr. Wallasked the Prime Minister what further communications he has exchanged with Mr. Smith's Government in Rhodesia; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the Prime Minister what progress he has made in reaching a settlement of the Rhodesian problem.
    Mr. Hamlingasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a further statement on Rhodesia.
    The Prime Minister: I would refer hon. Members to the Answer I gave on 18th January to Questions by the hon. Members for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham) and Chigwell (Mr. BiggsDavison).—[Vol. 756, c. 1950.]
    Mr. Wall: Is it not the Government's intention to let matters take their inevitable course until Rhodesia declares herself a republic? Will he not take some further initiative to try to reach a compromise?
    The Prime Minister: The course is inevitable until the regime in Rhodesia return to constitutional rule. This has always been our position. It is for them to take an initiative, and they have been given abundant and generous opportunities to do so.
    Mr. Taylor: Facing the realities of the situation, does the Prime Minister not
    580
    accept that this dispute will go on for years and years? In these circumstances, would he not be prepared to invite an international statesman like Sir Robert Menzies to mediate?
    The Prime Minister: Facing the realities of the situation means facing the fact that this Government—this former Government, this régime—acted unconstitutionally and is now unconstitutional. I put it repeatedly to Mr. Smith, both before U.D.I. and after it, that there should be a commission of senior responsible Commonwealth statesmen. A number of names were mentioned, including the one referred to by the hon. Gentleman. Every one of them was rejected by Mr. Smith. He was not allowing the Commonwealth to have anything to do with it. What he thinks about the Commonwealth is even lower than what he thinks about the United Nations.
    Mr. Ogden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that any declaration of a republic by the illegal regime would bring very strong pressure from this side of the House about the urgent need to reestablish the authority of Her Majesty's Government in Rhodesia?
    The Prime Minister: Any statement by what is already an illegal Government that they were creating an illegal republic would have no validity in law or in international relations.
    Mr. Sandys: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the point which was not cleared up by the Foreign Secretary on Tuesday and say whether or not there has been any further contact between the British Government and the Rhodesian Prime Minister since the visit of the Commonwealth Secretary?
    The Prime Minister: First, of course, there is no Rhodesian Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman has lived on this legend long enough—[Interruption.] I have checked again what I said on that occasion. I said that I had published a Blue Book setting out everything that I said to the Rhodesian Prime Minister. I said that because he was Prime Minister until U.D.I. The right hon. Gentleman spent a lot of time explaining to him—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I will, but as I was answering it I was interrupted by the right hon. Gentleman from a seated position, and I was replying to him.

    581
    What the right hon. Gentleman himself said to Mr. Smith when he was Prime Minister of Rhodesia was that he would be totally illegal and no longer Prime Minister if they committed U.D.I. That is why I cannot use the expression "Prime Minister", if he does.
    As for his other question, if the answer is not clear, I will make it clear. There has been no dealing with Mr. Smith or contact with him since the statement of my right hon. Friend in the House when he told hon. Members that Mr. Smith, so far from moving towards the "Tiger" agreement, had moved away from it in circumstances which made the position absolutely impossible by breaching three more of the six principles.
    Mr. Roebuck: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the illegal régime could be brought down quickly if their oil could be cut off? If that is so, why are the Government dragging their feet about making appropriate approaches to the French Government? Is my right hon. Friend aware that his answer to the supplementary question of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) was identical to one he gave before the Recess? Will he not stir things up?
    The Prime Minister: I thought that I had dealt with this question. This matter is being dealt with by the Commonwealth Sanctions Committee, and members of it have reported to their Governments. It will not he surprising if some of those Governments say that they cannot have dealings with firms who are sanction breaking in Rhodesia.

    MINISTERS (LETTERS TO MEMBERS)
    Mr. Eldon Griffithsasked the Prime Minister if he will instruct Ministers replying to hon. Members letters on behalf of their constituents to send personal answers rather than mimeographed statements applicable generally but not dealing with the individual points raised.
    The Prime Minister: It has always been a tradition that Ministers take a good deal of care about the replies they end to letters from Members of Parlia-
    582
    ment about constituency cases. If an hon. Member is not satisfied with the Answer he receives in any particular case, it is up to him to pursue the matter with the Minister concerned and not for me to give directions.
    Mr. Griffiths: While recognising that on general questions such as Stansted and comprehensive education there is something to be said for sending out stereotypes, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he agrees that when individual cases are put forward by individual constituents, it simply is not good enough to brush them off with a circular which misses the point of their individual question?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. I very much support the view 'that personal matters should be dealt with by personal letters. If the hon. Gentleman has any case or knows of any general practice whereby this is happening. I hope that he will bring it to me.

    EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
    Mr. Wallasked the Prime Minister if he will make a further statement on the progress of negotiations for Great Britain to join the Common Market.
    Mr. Hamlingasked the Prime Minister whether, in the light of the support of the Assembly of Western European Union for Great Britain's application to join the European Economic Community, he will make a further statement on this application.
    The Prime Minister: Her Majesty's Government welcome the recommendation adopted by the Assembly of the Western European Union. It provides further proof of the extent of the support in Europe for our application. In the Foreign Affairs debate yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary described the action we are now taking, and I have nothing to add to what he said.
    Mr. Wall: Can the Prime Minister confirm that his Government are making every effort to seek our entry to the Six? If so, will he say why Lord Chalfont is giving up his permanent residence in Brussels? Will not this convey some impression as to our determination?
    The Prime Minister: No. All the members of the Six are fully aware of our position in this respect, and it was repeated as recently as yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. The question of accommodation in Brussels was related to the hopes and the Commission's recommendation about negotiations starting right away. Since they clearly will not do so, it is not inappropriate to react in this way.
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is the Prime Minister aware that his right hon. Friend yesterday seemed to be tying far too big a proportion of our defence to the tenuous hope that we may at some time get into Europe, and the uncertainty of this makes it unsatisfying to those people who have not his faith?
    The Prime Minister: That is not at all the way in which I read the speech of my right hon. Friend.

    LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (SPEECH)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Lord President of the Council at Coventry on 8th December, 1967, about Government intervention in the fixing of rents by local authorities represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend's speech indicated that under present legislation the Government have no powers to enforce a standstill on rent increases, but that we have had to consider whether the scale of certain local authority rent increases was compatible in present circumstances with our general prices and incomes policy. This is still the Government's position and that is why we have referred increases in rents of local authority housing to the National Board for Prices and Incomes.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the Prime Minister recall that his right hon. Friend is reported as saying that the Government were considering amendments to the Prices and Incomes Act so as to give them power to interfere in respect of local authority rents? As this was six weeks ago, if it was a genuine statement
    584
    of Government policy, when will the necessary Bill be introduced?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. My right hon. Friend is reported as saying that. I read all the reports, and I recognise the one that the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. We have referred a number of increases to the Board, and we are considering the possibility that, if provocative action is taken ahead of its report, we shall certainly be ready to consider introducing legislation.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Since council rents are so dependent on low interest rates, will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that there will be no alteration in the 4 per cent. loans provided by the 1967 Act?
    The Prime Minister: We have already made it clear in our review of all these matters of Government policy that there is no change envisaged in the rate of interest provided in last year's Act. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor said that we shall of course look further and over a much longer period at what should be the right financial relationship between the Government and local authorities.
    Mr. Lubbock: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Ministry of Housing has informed Councillor McNally, the leader of the Liberal group on the council of the London Borough of Bromley, that the National Board for Prices and Incomes has power to investigate increases other than those specifically referred to it by the Government? In view of the fact that the London Borough of Bromley has imposed increases which are much more than sufficient to balance the housing revenue account, will he see that this matter is referred to the Board?
    The Prime Minister: I am afraid that the letter to Councillor McNally from the Ministry had escaped my attention, but I will certainly look into it. I think that the position is, as we announced, that where rent increases seem to exceed what is reasonable in relation to the housing revenue account, that is one of the matters which should be and will be investigated by the Board.
    Mr. Heath: Does not the Prime Minister accept that the scheme whereby 30,000 tenants out of 240,000 will pay

    585
    lower rents and others who can afford them will pay higher rents, all this to
    be arranged over a period, as the G.L.C. is doing, is the right approach on this difficult question of rents?
    The Prime Minister: What is the right approach is set out by my right hon. Friend in circulars to local authorities. En addition to the 30,000 tenants mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, there are 170,000, some of whom will receive very big increases in rents. But my right hon. Friend has referred in the House to a number of cases which have not carried out either what he was saying or what the right hon. Gentleman has just advocated, namely, considering it over a period, but who have done it provocatively at a rate which seems far to exceed the rise in housing costs.

    WELSH OFFICE
    Mr. Clifford Williamsasked the Prime Minister if, now that the Welsh Office is well established, he will allocate further responsibilities to this Department.
    The Prime Minister: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer I gave on the 11 th of December to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan).—[Vol. 756, c. 50.]
    Mr. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is now a local feeling, seeing that discussions on local government reorganisation have taken place, that the time has come for further duties to be allocated to the Welsh Office?
    The Prime Minister: These matters are kept under review all the time. Recently, I have been looking at a number of proposals for further decentralisation. Where this can be done economically, we wish to do it. However, some of the proposals, including some of those put forward by my hon. Friend, would give rise to unacceptable increases in costs and staff.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: Would the Prime Minister consider increasing the powers of his right hon. Friend, since the effects of the Selective Employment Tax and the Transport Bill could be removed from Wales?
    The Prime Minister: That raises a rather wider set of considerations which have been fully debated in the House. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will approve of what I have said. I will continue to look at other means for further decentralisation where it does not involve an increase in the number of civil servants employed.
    Mr. Hooson: Is the Prime Minister aware that the view is widely held in the Principality that such matters as health and education should come under the Welsh Office? Does he not intend to give the Welsh Office further powers than it has at present?
    The Prime Minister: We have been looking at this question. I can see the case for it. On the other hand, Wales gains a great deal in respect of the services which can be provided when such matters as education and health are covered on an England and Wales basis, overall. If I thought that there was any advantage to the people of Wales by doing it, I would support it, but it is very costly.

    WESTERN EUROPEAN UNION ASSEMBLY (DELEGATION)
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Prime Minister on what basis hon. Members are appointed by the Government to attend the meetings of Western European Union Assembly.
    The Prime Minister: I would refer my right hon. Friend to the Answer I gave to a similar Question by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) on 29th June, 1965.—[Vol. 715, c. 68]
    Mr. Shinwell: Is it, not a remarkable coincidence that all those delegates who were sent to the Western European Union Assembly a considerable time back happened to be in support of British entry into the Common Market and so expressed their opinions at the Assembly? Is my right hon. Friend aware that a substantial number of Members on this side and some hon. Members on the other side would like an opportunity of attending the Assembly in order to put a substantial and valid minority view?
    The Prime Minister: It is not a fact that all those who have been recommended from this side of the House or from the other side are supporters of entry by Britain into the Common Market. However, I will look into my right hon. Friend's representations. I can understand that if he were to go he might stir things up a bit in Paris; but perhaps, like some other hon. Members, he might go opposed to entry and come back converted by what he hears there.

SOVIET UNION (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)
The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:
Mr. ELDON GRIFFITHS: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his visit to the Soviet Union.
Mr. BLAKER: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his consultations in the Soviet Union.
Sir KNOX CUNNINGHAM: To ask the Prime Minister whether he will state the points of agreement reached with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics with regard to the Middle East; and if he will make a statement about his visit to Russia.
Sir KNOX CUNNINGHAM: To ask the Prime Minister if he made inquiries about the lighting equipment used in Moscow; what representations he made to Mr. Kosygin on this subject; and what results he achieved from such representation.
Mr. HOOLEY: To ask the Prime Minister whether he obtained further information about the health and wellbeing of Mr. Gerald Brooke during his visit to Moscow, or any assurance of improvement of consular access to Mr. Brooke.
Mr. LEADBITTER: To ask the Prime Minister whether he discussed the question of improving East-West trade with the Prime Minister of Russia during his recent visit to Moscow; and if he will make a statement.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): With permission, I will now
588
answer Questions Nos. Q15, Q17, Q19, Q20, Q22 and Q23 together.
During my visit to the Soviet Union I discussed a wide range of matters at length with the President, Mr. Podgorny, the Prime Minister, Mr. Kosygin, and with the Secretary General of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Mr. Brezhnev, as well as other Ministers and senior officials.
Our talks, in formal session and privately, over many hours, were searching and covered many subjects. While both sides expressed their views forcibly and frankly, the talks were friendly throughout and the interest of the Soviet Government in the development fo AngloSoviet relations was very apparent.
As to the Question of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley), I would only add that in the course of the exchanges there were lengthy discussions about Mr. Gerald Brooke, in which I pressed upon the Soviet authorities the position of Her Majesty's Government.
A communiqué was issued after my visit which many hon. Members will have seen but, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would also propose to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Is the Prime Minister aware that the whole House supported his efforts in Moscow and sympathises with his inability to get anything more than a very uninformative communiqué out of his visit. Will he say what impressions he formed about Soviet reaction to the incident off North Korea concerning the American ship "Creole"? Will he give a little more information about Mr. Brooke—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must be brief.
Mr. Griffiths: I did not hear what you said, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I was informing the hon. Member that questions must be reasonably brief.
Mr. Griffiths: With great respect to you, Sir, I was intending to be brief, but I had to repeat what I was saying at the beginning because of interruptions—[Interruption]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Eldon Griffiths.
Mr. Griffiths: My questions were simply these—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must be allowed to put his question.
Mr. Griffiths: What impression did the Prime Minister form about Soviet reaction to the incident concerning the "Creole" and what further progress did he make on the question of Mr. Brooke?
The Prime Minister: The first part of the question related to the communiqué. The hon. Gentleman is experienced enough in these matters not to judge the success of a visit by what is put in a communiqué. Anglo-Soviet relations, I do not need to tell the House, are a serious matter. We were discussing some serious issues of world peace, discussions which were extremely useful and may well be for the future.
Concerning the incident of the "Pueblo", I think it is, this was not raised with me by the Soviet Government and I did not raise it with them. Up to the time I left I had had only the most indirect reports about it and it did not seem appropriate for me to raise it with them, nor had I been asked to do so.
I indicated what I am sure is the view of every hon. Member about the case of Mr. Gerald Brooke. He may have been an extremely silly young man, used by an extremely discreditable and reactionary organisation in such a way that he broke their laws, but he has been adequately punished and it would be right now to release him.
Mr. Blaker: The Prime Minister will recall that when he met Mr. Kosygin a year ago they agreed in principle on the conclusion of a treaty of friendship and peaceful co-operation between our two countries. For some reason there seems to be no mention of this topic in yesterday's communiqué. Can the Prime Minister say what progress was made?
The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. As the House will know, last April Her Majesty's Government gave the Soviet Government our views on the form that it should take, and we have been waiting for a considerable time to receive their reactions. During this visit we received their
590
own proposals in the form of a draft, and these we are studying.
Sir Knox Cunningham: Did the Prime Minister get any information about future Russian action in the Gulf? Are they going to create a base in Aden?—[Interruption.]—and, with reference to Question Q20, perhaps he will say a word about his efforts as a travelling salesman.
The Prime Minister: No, Sir, they did not give any forecast about what was likely to happen in the Gulf or in any other areas.
On the question of Anglo-Soviet trade we followed up, at considerable length, some of the work that began last year. It is well known that trade with the Soviet Union has been expanding rapidly over the last three or four years and is now rising very rapidly. We discussed a lot of new arrangements for providing new orders for British goods in Moscow, especially capital goods and factories in two to three years' time.
Mr. Hooley: I thank my right hon. Friend for his persistent personal efforts on behalf of Mr. Brooke. Will he make it clear to the Soviet authorities that those, like myself, who are concerned about this case in no way call in question the legal proceedings in the Soviet Union, but are only concerned that we shall have access to Mr. Brooke in accordance with ordinary international usage?
The Prime Minister: Yes; not only that there should be access, which I raised, but that he should be released. This organisation, called N.T.S.—I think the "U" is silent—has spent a great deal of time hiring unsuspecting, innocent, and rather stupid people to do work which involves breaking the laws of other countries. I do not believe that Mr. Brooke, silly though he was, is more guilty than that, though he was certainly found guilty of breaking the law over there.
None of us holds any responsibility for N.T.S., which operates on only a minor scale in this country, nor for anyone who may be providing finances for them. It is right that the Soviet Government should know this and, taking account of it, should now feel that he has been punished enough for his offence.
Mr. Leadbitter: Although trade has been increasing these past two or three

591
years, there is still much more to do. Does the Prime Minister not agree that perhaps a British initiative to call a East-West trading conference to discuss such questions as tariffs, Communist countries' currency convertibility, and the differing practices in commerce and usage might help to break down the barriers which up to now have not produced the increase in trade we require?
The Prime Minister: This was not discussed, and it not the view of the Soviet Government that this would necessarily be the best way of helping trade between us and the Soviet Union and with other East European countries. Most of them prefer to deal on a bilateral basis. We have many bilateral agreements and a great number of orders have been sought and won by individual British exporters. What is more relevant is our decision last year, which is now being carried out, on talks between the planning department in the Soviet Union and the appropriate economic departments here looking ahead a few years to see what requirements are likely to be and whether we can establish capacity to meet the needs of those requirements. I was encouraged by what has been said in the last few days on that matter.
Mr. Thorpe: May I ask the Prime Minister, first, whether as a result of his visit he has hopes of any new initiative with regard to Vietnam and any prospect of a settlement of that dispute?
Secondly, concerning the "Pueblo", since he said that he had only indirect information, is he now aware that the Foreign Secretary put out an immediate statement accepting the American contention that the ship was outside territorial waters? May we take it that that information was not within his knowledge at the time and, therefore, did not form any part of the discussions in Moscow?
The Prime Minister: On Vietnam, I do not think I should add to what my right hon. Friend said in the House on Monday. The whole House knows that exploration contacts are going on. The House knows the position and the possibility of moving towards peace due to the San Antonio speech of President Johnson and the statement of Foreign Minister Trinh, of North Vietnam. Those
592
matters were fully discussed for many hours in Moscow and I do not think that I would help if I were to go into greater detail about it.
On the second point about the "Pueblo", as I said the matter was not raised by the other side. The information given by the Foreign Office related to the question of territorial waters, and not to any other question. Had I been asked to raise the matter with the Soviet Union, obviously the matter would have to go a great deal deeper than that.
Mr. Mendelson: My right hon. Friend has been reported from Moscow as referring to the desirability of building more bridges towards the solution of the conflict in Vietnam. While reserve must be exercised, and we must not press my right hon. Friend too hard, surely there should be no general prohibition in the House on asking whether my right hon. Friend has been able to move closer to the position of the Soviet Union on the cessation of bombing as an essential prerequisite to the start of negotiations?
The Prime Minister: There has been no prohibition. The only inhibition about answering is the one that I have imposed on myself, based on what I think will be most helpful.
The question of the bombing was referred to in Mr. Trinh's statement, which many people regard as a step forward, as was the San Antonio statement, and the State of the Union message. I think that the bridge, which is a narrow one, relates to these two questions. My hon. Friend will have seen that this year, unlike last year, in the communiqué there was a clear statement by both Governments about their intentions to take, singly or jointly, action within their power to achieve the settlement that is needed. This goes further than the Soviet Union was able to go a year ago.
Mr. Peyton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in default of being able to say something more substantial than he has yet said, the general impression will be that his journey was not really necessary?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman may feel that, but I think that that somewhat sour and even perhaps, political approach—I do not know whether it is political or not—will not

593
be shared by those who recognise the importance of our two countries meeting regularly, and frequently, and, even when nothing specific is signed or delivered at a particular meeting, will agree that it is important to understand one another's position on other things that may be helpful in the future. That is what we did last year when the hon. Gentleman had the same view about it.
Mr. Orme: We do not want to press my right hon. Friend unnecessarily about the Vietnam war, but would not he agree that it should be made clear that if a truce is not achieved the escalation which could follow could be disastrous? Is my right hon. Friend trying, with the Soviet Union, to bring about even a temporary cessation of the bombing so that negotiations on the basis of the two speeches to which he has referred can take place?
The Prime Minister: The dangers of escalation were ever present in our minds during the talks, and was referred to many times by us both. This was so on past occasions. In July, 1966—another "unnecessary" journey—there was a very severe danger of escalation, for reasons which the House knows, and our discussions then helped to prevent escalation. We had this very much in mind this year, also.
Sir A. V. Harvey: What progress was made in bringing about a treaty of friendship with Russia, which the right hon. Gentleman said last February could be expected? Also, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he received an order for the floodlighting of a football pitch?
The Prime Minister: On the first point, will, with permission, send the hon. and gallant Gentleman a cutting from tomorrow's HANSARD of the answer that I gave to his hon. Friend, who put exactly the same question to me.
On the second and more humorous point, which I think has been taken deeply seriously, this little firm, with 35 employees, is trying to export its products all over the world. I said that I would do what I could if the Moscow Dynamos aid not have floodlights as good as those produced by this firm. I found to my surprise that they had, but we were able to pursue other and larger trade deals running into hundreds of millions of pounds.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Did Mr. Kosygin express profound and sincere sympathy with Britain having got into a financial crisis due to speculation against the £ by foreign speculators? Does the Soviet Union suffer from the fact that foreign speculators gamble against the rouble? Is it true that the rouble is much more stable than the £? Finally, can my right hon. Friend say whether he went to Russia to try to borrow some money?
The Prime Minister: The answer to the first question is that there were no expressions of sympathy on this matter. There was no suggestion of borrowing money, though my hon. Friend will know the generous credit terms that we extend, amounting to a total registered figure of £125 million, for the export of capital goods to the Soviet Union.
On the question of speculation, it is a long-standing convention between us that we do not discuss the activities of individual banks, whether the Moscow Norodny Bank, or any other.
Mr. Sandys: Does the Prime Minister realise that he is now so distrusted——
Hon. Members: Oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to hear the supplementary question.
Mr. Sandys: He is so distrusted and——
Mr. Faulds: On a point of order. Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman has such a corner in discredit that he is entitled to ask a question about it?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.
Mr. Sandys: Does the Prime Minister realise that he is so distrusted—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a lot of serious business before us.
Mr. Sandys: Does the Prime Minister realise—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I want us to get on.
Mr. Sandys: Does not the Prime Minister realise that he is so distrusted and discredited at home that he is no longer—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House is getting a little too happy. It must be serious.
Mr. Hector Hughes: On a point of order. Is not the right hon. Gentleman guilty of tedious repetition, and is he not obviously and deliberately wasting the time of the House?
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman was guilty of repetition, for causes beyond his control. Nobody in the House could have judged for the moment that it was tedious.
Mr. Sandys Mr. Sandys rose——
An Hon. Member: I beg to move, That the Question be now put.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that we can let the right hon. Gentleman complete his question.
Mr. Sandys: I will not repeat the first part, Mr. Speaker—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] my conclusion is that the right hon. Gentleman no longer has any authority to speak for Britain abroad.
The Prime Minister: That was not the view of those with whom I was dealing, and it does not seem to be the view of those with whom I shall be dealing in a fortnight's time. These meetings entirely disprove what we were told from the other side of the House about tickets to the top table, but the right hon. Gentleman at least will be reassured to know that, when we discussed the question of Rhodesia, as we did in Moscow——
Mr. Sandys: But that is a British responsibility.
The Prime Minister: —that I was not even held guilty by association through having to answer questions from the right hon. Gentleman, who has utterly discredited any pledge he ever gave as a Minister on the subject of Rhodesia.
Mr. Heffer: Would my right hon. Friend tell us precisely how far the discussions got in relation to a European security conference, as this is undoubtedly of great importance? I think that everyone who read the communiqué thought that a very welcome development. Possibly he could to some extent develop the points which were discussed and tell us how far we have got in this direction.
The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I do not want to stand too much in the way of the foreign affairs debate which is to follow, but, on the security conference, we agreed again, as we did last year, that this could be useful, provided that it was properly prepared, and provided, as I said, that it was for constructive discussion and not the statement of slogans by one side or the other. One thing suggested to us—this is certainly worth considering—was that the Soviet Union and Britain should work together, at any rate informally, bilaterally, to see whether we could help forward this idea. I made it clear that if we did this it could not be on an exclusive basis—and no one has appointed us as co-chairmen—and that we would want many other bilateral arrangements on this and other questions with our friends and others concerned.
Mr. Heath: What proposals did the right hon. Gentleman put to Mr. Kosygin about Rhodesia?
The Prime Minister: I did not put any proposals to Mr. Kosygin about Rhodesia. It was quite unnecessary——
Mr. Wall: Why discuss it, then?
The Prime Minister: The position of Her Majesty's Government on Rhodesia is perfectly clear in this House. It is a British responsibility—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] It has also become a matter of deep United Nations and international concern, and the right hon. Gentleman has encouraged that by the backing which he has given to the Rhodesian illegal régime. However, in any world-ranging discussions of all world problems, right hon. Gentlemen delude themselves if they do not consider that Rhodesia is a matter of very profound international concern—[An HON. MEMBER: "What about the Suez Canal?"] Of course, we discussed the Suez Canal as well at very considerable length. We considered all the main international areas. The right hon. Gentleman cannot censor which subjects are to be discussed abroad on occasions like this.
Following is the communiqué:
At the invitation of the Soviet Government the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, the Rt. Hon. Harold Wilson, paid an official visit to the Soviet Union from 22nd to 24th January, 1968.
Mr. Wilson was received by the Secretary General of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Mr. L. I. Brezhnev, and by the President of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R.. Mr. N. V. Podgorny, and had talks with them.
Several meetings and discussions took place between Mr. Wilson and the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the U.S.S.R., Mr. A. N. Kosygin in which these also took part.
On the Soviet side, First Deputy Chairman of the U.S.S.R. Council of Ministers, Mr. D. S. Polyansky, Deputy Chairman of the U.S.S.R. Council of Ministers, Mr. V. A. Kirillin, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the U.S.S.R., Mr. A. A. Gromyko, the Minister of Foreign Trade of the U.S.S.R., Mr. N. S. Patolichey, the Ambassador of the Soviet Union to the United Kingdom, Mr. M. N. Smirnovsky, and other Officials; on the British s de, the British Ambassador, Sir Geoffrey Harrison, Mr. Harold Davies, Sir Burke Trend, Sir Solly Zuckerman, Sir Denis Greenhill and other Officals.
In the course of these discussions there was a frank exchange of views on topical questions relating to the present international situation and a detailed discussion of the state of and the prospects for the development of relations between the two countries.
The two sides exchanged views on the war in Vietnam. They set out their respective positions. Reaffirming their adherence to the principles of the agreements reached at the Geneva Conferences of 1954 and 1962, of which their representatives were co-Chairmen, they emphasised the urgent need for a political settlement of the conflict which would fully respect the exclusive and inalienable right of the peoples of the region to manage their own internal affairs. They expressed their firm intention to take singly or jointly all actions within their power to achieve that goal.
The two sides had a detailed discussion of the development of the situation in the Middle East and exchanged views on ways to achieve a political settlement of the problems of the region. They emphasised the need for the earliest possible implementation of the Security Council Resolution of 22nd November, 1967; and in this connection they declared their support for the efforts of the United Nations Secretary General's special representative, Ambassador Jarring, aimed at bringing about the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the conflict in June, 1967, and the realisation of the other provisions of that Resolution.
The British and Soviet Governments attach great importance to questions of European security. They are determined to use every effort together with other countries in order to find a solution to these problems. They confirmed that a conference on European security could be valuable subject to the necessary preparation. They also consider it important that all the countries of Europe should be among the participants at such a conference.
The two sides noted with particular satisfaction the substantial progress which had recently been made towards a Treaty for the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and
598
recognised the important contribution made by both their Governments during the discussions leading up to this result. They look forward to the rapid conclusion of the Treaty.
Both Governments will continue their efforts together with others towards the achievement of general and complete disarmament.
In the course of a review of the state of Anglo-Soviet relations it was recognised that both sides were working for the further development of ties between the U.S.S.R. and the United Kingdom particularly in the fields of economic, scientific, technological and cultural co-operation. The two sides noted that Anglo-Soviet trade had expanded substantially in recent months and that a number of agreements of an economic nature have recently been signed and preparations are under way for the conclusion of further agreements. The two sides expressed satisfaction at the exchange of views on problems of mutual interest between the Prime Minister and leading Statesmen of the Soviet Union and agreed to remain in close and regular contact for the purpose of further developing friendly relations between the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom and promoting international peace.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order. I think that this is the right moment to raise a point of order about Question Time, so that the House does not set itself a precedent which it might regret. I would value your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on one point.
When you called the hon. Member for Woolwich. West (Mr. Hamling) to ask Question Q3 to the Prime Minister, he did not rise to ask it, so I understand that the Question then fell. When the Prime Minister answered Question Q5, he said that he was answering Question Q3 with it. I submit that this is a material point, because the Questions which are taken together with the Question being asked influence what supplementary questions may or may not be put.
I therefore seek your guidance on whether or not this is a precedent, or whether it is in order to answer with one question another which has already fallen because the Member concerned did not rise to ask it.
Mr. Speaker: I would say offhand, that the absence of a Member or his refusal to put a Question which is being answered with another Question does not prevent the Minister from answering the first Question with the second.

599
I cannot really see the significance of the point which the hon. Member has raised, but I will certainly look at it.
Mr. Strauss: I should like to raise a point of order of which I have given you notice, Mr. Speaker, and I apologise to the House for keeping it for two or three minutes on a matter of some importance.
I want to draw your attention to the practice which is growing and is in danger of being established by default of asking identical questions every Tuesday and Thursday to the Prime Minister. I submit to you, Sir, that this is not only contrary to the interests of the House, but directly contrary to the procedure of the House as laid down by Erskine May.
The practice is well known to hon. Members, but, to establish my case, I want to quote just two examples from this week. On Tuesday, the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) asked the Prime Minister:
"…if he will make a further statement on Rhodesia."
Today, the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) put down a Question in identical words. On Tuesday, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick) asked a Question about the progress being made
"… with the British application to enter the European Common Market."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd January, 1968; Vol. 757, c. 211, 213.]
Today, the hon. Member for Haltemprice put down a question in identical words.
I suggest that this is a new practice, which is definitely contrary to what is permitted under the rules stated by Erskine May. On page 354, under the general heading, "Examples of inadmissible questions", Erskine May specifies in paragraph 26, Questions
"Repeating in substance questions already answered or to which an answer has been refused.… A question fully answered, whether orally or in print, cannot be renewed …"
It further specifies a Question which is
"Multiplied with slight variations on the same point."
Therefore, according to Erskine May, this procedure is obviously wrong, and all the Rulings of previous Speakers have confirmed that.
600
My second argument is, first, that this procedure is contrary to the interests of the House because it never leads to any information. For example, the Questions on Thursday are put without any new development having occurred since Tuesday, and the only outcome of these repeated Questions is that we have perhaps a short debate in which hon. Members are enabled to repeat their own already very well known views on certain topics. Second, this is a waste of time and, third, it prevents hon. Members who want to ask the Prime Minister Questions on a whole host of other matters from doing so. Rarely do we go further than Question Q4 or Q5 and, among those first four or five, are always exactly the same Questions as had been put down earlier.
Lastly, if it is permitted to put down the same Question day after day to the Prime Minister twice a week, obviously, we should be allowed to do so to every other Minister. Up to now, we have all accepted the strict rule that one could not put down a Question to a Minister to which an Answer had already been given recently.
Therefore, for these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I ask you to consider this situation and to rule, if you can, that the Rulings of previous Speakers on the matter, which are uniform, should be upheld. Those Rulings have been generally accepted by both sides of the House and, up to now, have been invariably implemented by the Table Office.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: Further to that point of order——
Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I am addressed further on this point, I would remind the House that we have a lot of business ahead of us. I hope, therefore, that any submissions made to me will be brief.
Mr. Heath: I am sure that the House is grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for saying that you will consider this point. However, when you are considering it, you will, no doubt, be willing to take into account that when there is a continuing situation—such as negotiations in Europe, or the question of Rhodesia—then that is rather different from the specific points on which the Ruling is usually given by the Table.

601
Perhaps you will also take into account the fact that if the Table has been passing the same Questions for successive Tuesdays and Thursdays the explanation may lie in the fact that the House has experienced that often, between Tuesday and Thursday, the Government change their mind and policy.
Mr. Speaker: I think that I can help the House if I deal with the point straight a way. I have every sympathy with the point which the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) has raised. I have been troubled about this matter for more than 12 months and the right hon. Member for Vauxhall is not the first Member to bring this problem to my notice.
Questions are refused at the Table if they repeat
"… in substance questions already answered or to which an answer has been refused …".
The right hon. Member for Vauxhall was right in pointing out that that appears in Erskine May. It appears on page 254 under paragraph (26). The difficulty, as the Leader of the Opposition has just rightly pointed out, about certain major issues is that the situation may be a continuing one, with the possibility of development.
I would also remind the House that Questions which are likely to be reached by the Prime Minister are usually put in thee weeks ahead. As long as Questions are in order, the Table cannot refuse them. I do, however, remind hon. Members that it is not in order for one hon. Member to have identical Questions of this nature appearing simultaneously on the Paper, but for different dates, and that attempts to do this have been disallowed.
I am acutely aware of the fact that many hon. Members put down Questions to the Prime Minister which they wish to be reached, but which are not reached because of what we might call the regular Questions. On the other hand, I remind the House of the intense interest which is shown in these two regular Questions, which keep popping up their heads on Tuesdays and Thursdays. The final solution must be in the hands of hon. Members themselves.
Mr. Strauss: Further to my point of order, Mr. Speaker—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Strauss.
Mr. Strauss: You said, Mr. Speaker, that the Table has no option but to accept Questions which are in order. My submission is that, according to Erskine May, these Questions are not in order.
Mr. Speaker: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I understood his submission. He was suggesting that the Table was not in order. I have been ruling.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: Further to the point of order raised by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), and bearing in mind the tenor of your Ruling, before you become too sympathetic with the points put by right hon. Members on both sides of the House, Mr. Speaker, may I ask you to bear in mind the difficulty involved in getting Questions past the Table; in other words, that the Officers who are under criticism do their job thoroughly?
I beg you, Mr. Speaker, when thinking of where the rights and wrongs of this matter lie, to bear in mind that back benchers have the right to see that their Questions are clearly and properly answered. Their desire is to ensure that, once Questions have passed the Table, no further obstacle is placed in the way of getting them answered thoroughly, bearing in mind the rights of Privy Councillors.
Mr. Speaker: When the hon. Gentleman reads my Ruling in tomorrow's OFFICIAL REPORT, I do not think that he will find that anything I said contradicts the submission he is making.
Mr. John Hynd: Further to the point of order. May I ask for clarification of your closing remark earlier, Mr. Speaker, in which I think you said that the solution of this matter was in the hands of hon. Members? Since we have no control over the Table, I would be grateful if you would clarify that remark.
Mr. Speaker: I should have thought that it was transparently obvious. The way to avoid Questions continually cropping up is for hon. Members not to submit those Questions. That would appear to be the remedy.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Heath: May I ask the Leader of the House to State the business of the House for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 29TH JANUARY—SUPPLY [8th Allotted Day]:
It will be proposed that the Winter Supplementary Estimates should be passed at the beginning of business.
Afterwards, there will be a debate on an Opposition Motion on the Growth of Bureaucracy.
Remaining stages of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Bill [Lords] and of the Capital Allowances Bill [Lords], which are consolidation Measures.
Prayer on the Industrial Training Levy (Agricultural, Horticultural and Forestry) Order.
TUESDAY, 30TH JANUARY—Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 31ST JANUARY—Remaining stages of the Consolidated Fund Bill, which, under Standing Order No. 89, will be formal.
Second Reading of the Town and Country Planning Bill.
THURSDAY, 1ST FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Industrial Expansion Bill.
FRIDAY, 2ND FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY, 5TH FEBRUARY—The proposed business will be:
Private Members' Motions until 7 p.m.
Afterwards, the Ploughing Grants (Emergency Payments) Scheme.
Mr. Heath: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that a certain amount of legislation and a number of Orders, both affirmative and negative, will be required as a result of the 16th January Statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Can he say when this legislation and these Orders will be brought forward?
Can he also say what has happened to the Government's White Paper on Fuel
604
Policy? Is it being rewritten? When will it be presented and when will we be able to debate it?
Mr. Crossman: To answer the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, I hope to be in a position to ask the House to consider a Bill which will have various provisions in it towards the end of next month. As he said, some of these provisions will come under affirmative and some under negative Order procedure; and I hope that some of these will be available by March.
To answer the second part of his question, the White Paper on Fuel Policy still stands. I understand that my right hon. Friend will be answering a Question on this subject at a not too distant date.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that hon. Members will show some restraint in asking Business questions. I remind the House that we are in the middle of a foreign affairs debate.
Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Can the Leader of the House say when he proposes to set up a new Select Committee on Education?
Mr. Crossman: I hope to make an announcement about this in the near future.
Mrs. Ewing: May I call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to Motion No. 114—
[That this House considers that in view of the great hardship, distress and loss of life caused by the recent hurricane in the West of Scotland and the fact that remedial work will involve enormous expense and labour, immediate consideration should be given by Her Majesty's Government to declaring affected parts of Scotland as disaster areas.]
—and ask whether the important statement which is about to be made by the Secretary of State for Scotland about the storm disaster in Scotland may be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee so that a full and proper discussion may take place on all aspects of the matter?
Mr. Crossman: I will bear that in mind. I hope that my right hon Friend will be making a statement immediately after Business questions.
Mr. Hector Hughes: In view of the importance of increasing Britain's exports, particularly in the present situation,

605
will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on my Motion dealing with transport from North-East Scotland to the Continent of Europe?
[That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take immediate seeps by legislation and otherwise to stop the trend south from Scotland of skilled and other workers and to that end to facilitate exports by increasing facilities for the carriage of goods by sea and air from North-East Scotland to Scandinavia, Northern Germany, Russia and other parts of Europe and also to take steps to prevent British expenditure on the proposed tunnel between England and France us being a trend in the opposite direction.]
Mr. Crossman: I have seen my hon. and learned Friend's Motion. I will certainly consider it, but I do not think that it will come in next week's business.
Mr. Biffen: Is it the intention of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to make a statement next week on the continuation of the ban on the importation of meat from countries which have an endemic record of foot-and-mouth disease? In the absence of such an undertaking, may we have a debate on Motion No. 117, which stands in my name arid the names of a number of my hon. Friends, and which seeks to recognise some of the difficulties for the agricultural industry on this most sensitive issue?
[That this House deplores the refusal of Her Majesty's Government to retain the bin on meat imported from countries with a record to endemic foot-and-mouth disease at least until the committee of inquiry on the present epidemic has reported on the hazards arising from these imports.]
Mr. Crossman: That might be one possibility, but I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that there might be the possibility of raising this issue when we discuss the Ploughing Grants (Emergency Payments) Scheme on 5th February.
Mr. Baxter: May I add my voice to the plea made by the hon. Lady the Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing) that the question of the disaster which befell Scotland a fortnight ago should be immediately taken up in the Scottish Grand
606
Committee so that a clear expression of opinion of the hon. Members of that Committee may be heard by the Secretary of State for Scotland?
Mr. Crossman: I will bear that in mind, but, considering that the whole House is interested in this matter, I suggest that we await the statement which my right hon. Friend intends to make immediately after Business questions.
Mr. Peter Walker: Is the Leader of the House aware that, following this morning's sitting of Standing Committee F, a Motion was tabled by all Opposition hon. Members, Liberal and Conservative alike, urging that the report on track costs—on which much of the Transport Bill is based and which has been in the hands of the Government for two months, although it has not yet been published—be published? Failing that, will he agree to adjourn further sittings of the Committee until that is done?
Mr. Crossman: I was not aware of that. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing it to my attention and I will discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend.
Mr. William Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend be making a statement next week on progress on the talks on the reform of the House of Lords? And will he give an assurance that before the Government publish legislation on the matter there will be a White Paper or some other way in which the House can discuss proposals before the Government take legislative action?
Mr. Crossman: On the basis that this is not in the business for next week, the strict answer to the question is "No."
Sir G. Nabarro: The Leader of the House will remember that legislation has been foreshadowed arising from the Anglo-Soviet Agreement signed on 6th January, 1968—a simple and non-controversial Bill, in a party political sense. Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this Bill will be brought to the House for First Reading next week?
Mr. Crossman: I can say that it will not be brought to the House next week. I would also qualify the question whether it is wholly simple and uncomplicated.
Mr. Ogden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on this side there is deep concern about the housing policies of some local authorities; and that, while the Prime Minister was in Moscow, Liverpool made proposals to increase house rents——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask for time to debate an issue.
Mr. Ogden: May this be debated at the earliest possible opportunity?
Mr. Crossman: I will certainly bear in mind my hon. Friend's suggestion for a debate on housing and house rents, but I cannot promise, as we have to remember that between now and the Budget we have a very intense programme, and very little extra time for general debate.
Mr. Webster: In view of the action of the Minister of Transport in withholding valuable information from the Standing Committee on the Transport Bill, as referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker), will the Leader of the House adjourn the Committee and the Bill until the information is available?
Mr. Crossman: I would suggest that what we discuss now is the business for next week. What the hon. Gentleman said was something that, when I hear about it, I will bear in mind, and discuss with my right hon. Friend, but it cannot affect the business of the House for next week.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can the Leader of the House assure us that next week the Government will not resign because of their defeat in the House of Lords?
Mr. Crossman: I think that that is one of the difficulties which we shall overcome.
Mr. Bessell: As the activities of the Standing Committee on the Transport Bill are part of the business of this House, will the right hon. Gentleman give the undertaking asked for by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster)?
Mr. Crossman: The answer is "No", because I have not yet been acquainted with the facts. When I have learned the facts of the situation and have had time to discuss them with my right
608
hon. Friend I will be able to give a considered reply, but it is quite unreasonable to ask me to give an off-the-cuff decision on something that occurred only a few hours ago and was not brought to my attention.
Mr. Pavitt: Will my right hon. Friend undertake not to lay the Orders relating to prescription charges until such time as arrangements for exemptions have been completed?
Mr. Crossman: That is an assurance that I think I can almost certainly give. I must reflect on it carefully, because I have not yet considered the timing of the Orders, as I do not think that we are far enough advanced to do so. But I do not think that they will be laid in the immediate future.
Mr. Goodhart: Can the Leader of the House say whether hon. Members will have the traditional allocation of time for a discussion on defence before the Vote?
Mr. Crossman: Yes, Sir.
Mr. MacArthur: Can the Leader of the House say when there will be a statement, or a debate in Government time, on the unexpected cut-back in grants to the Scottish universities and the serious impact this will have on higher education?
Mr. Crossman: I would not expect us to have a special debate on Scottish universities and the effects of the economic cuts on them, because I think that these are effects on United Kingdom universities in general. But I will certainly bear in mind demands for discussion of that topic.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order.

SCOTLAND (STORM DAMAGE)
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Ross. Statement.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you aware that the statement of the Secretary of State for Scotland consumes nearly five pages and more than 1,000 words? Is it appropriate at this stage—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—with an important debate coming up—[An HON. MEMBER: "This is important."] I realise that it is on

609
foreign affairs. Would it not be more appropriate, Mr. Speaker, if the right hon. Gentleman were to circulate his statement, and give us a very brief synopsis at this time?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not aware of the facts that the hon. Gentleman has stated. I have not yet seen the statement. In any case, it is a matter for the Minister. Mr. Ross.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): Mr. Speaker, I wish to make the statement I promised on further news about the Scottish storm damage, and I apologise for its length——
Mr. George Lawson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Need my right hon. Friend apologise for telling us in this House, and not upstairs in any Committee, of something of such importance to Scotland? May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to bear in mind that we Scots demand our share of time on the Floor of the House?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I can assure the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) that, if I were ever to forget the claims of Scotland, Scottish Members would remind me.
Mr. Ross: In the statement which I made to the House on 16th January about the gale which struck Scotland early the previous day, I promised to keep the House informed about progress in dealing with its effects.
As the House will know, I visited Glasgow myself on 17th January to inspect some of the damage there, and on that date, and again on 22nd January, I held meetings with a number of local authorities representing the worst affected areas. My Ministerial colleagues in the Scottish Office have all visited damaged areas, and have had useful discussions with the people concerned on the spot.
About 750 people—350 of them in Glasgow—are still in rest centre accommodation provided by the local authorities, while others are living with relatives and friends. A total of 796 families in Glasgow are having to be rehoused as a result of storm damage or threat to their homes: up to yesterday, all but 61 of these had been offered alternative accommodation, and 459 had been placed.
610
The storm caused millions of pounds worth of damage to public and private property as well as to agriculture, horticulture and forestry. Because of the widespread nature of the damage, it has not yet been possible for full assessments to be made by all the authorities and agencies concerned. Estimates indicate that local authority property, including housing and schools, has sustained damage which will cost some £9 million to restore. The present figure for private housing is over £7 million. Hospital damage is estimated at £130,000.
Most farms in the severely affected counties suffered damage, some of it severe. A reliable estimate of the cost of repairing damage to farm buildings is not yet possible, partly because of the restrictions imposed on access to farms on account of foot-and-mouth disease. Only a small number of stock have been lost. Horticulture has suffered relatively more severely, because much of the Scottish glasshouse acreage is in the areas most affected.
The damage to woodlands is at present estimated at about 30 million hoppus feet. This appears to be equally shared between the Forestry Commission and private estates. Arrangements for extraction and marketing will be considered at a meeting which the Chairman of the Commission is holding in Glasgow next Monday, when the Scottish Woodland Owners' Association and the timber trade will be represented.
My own Department has provided help to local authorities with staff for the handling of emergency arrangements and with the provision of supplies from emergency stores. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has provided more than 9,000 tarpaulins for emergency roof repairs, and a further 5,000 will be delivered today, while the Ministry of Public Building and Works has been helping with arrangements for the supply of roofing materials.
The Ministry of Social Security gave immediate help in dealing with the welfare problems which arose in the aftermath of the storm. All three Armed Services have given help in the form of manpower, supplies and transport which has been greatly appreciated by the local authorities.

611
Local authorities are dealing effectively with the necessary repairs to their own houses, but there are problems in securing rapid and adequate repair to privately owned houses, particularly tenements in multiple ownership, many of which have suffered very severe damage. I am, therefore, asking authorities to organise repair work not only to their own houses, but also to others so far as that they judge this necessary to get essential work done quickly. Indeed, many authorities have already done excellent work in this direction.
Damage to tenement property is particularly widespread in Glasgow, and the
Corporation and my Department are working out with representatives of the owners and contractors a scheme to ensure that necessary repair work proceeds rapidly.
As regards finance, it is not yet possible to assess the extent to which damage generally is covered by insurance. But it is already clear that the costs to local authorities of the necessary repairs to property are likely to impose undue burdens on the local ratepayers in some of the worst hit areas. Where these conditions arise, the Government will provide appropriate financial help to the authorities concerned, on a basis to be worked out in discussion with the authorities as soon as all the relevant facts are known. Meanwhile, to deal with situations in which limited financial resources would otherwise lead to delay in proceeding with essential work, an immediate advance of up to £500,000 is being made available from the Civil Contingencies Fund, to be drawn upon by local authorities as required.
In addition, as already announced, arrangements have been made to deal urgently with applications for improvement grant for the restoration of fences and other fixed farm equipment. Similar arrangements have also been made to deal urgently with applications under the Horticultural Improvement Scheme. The forestry situation will be considered further in the light of next Monday's meeting.
Mr. Noble: I thank the Secretary of State for giving us that comprehensive report. I am sure that the whole House will appreciate the fact that this report
612
shows the very extensive damage which has been suffered all over Scotland. The whole House sympathises with the people who suffered. I think that the whole House would wish to thank not only the Ministries concerned and the Armed Forces for the work they have been doing, but also the Post Office and electricity boards, who have been working day and night to restore communications.
I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman has been able to help in the multiple tenement situation in Glasgow, where private owners might otherwise not be able to effect immediate repairs. He has been able to offer half a million pounds to local authorities from the Civil Contingencies Fund. Does he think there is any need for help of some sort to private owners outside this in view of the very stringent restrictions on bank overdrafts at the moment? Those carrying out emergency repairs may need special help.
While I welcome the possibility of getting the damage repaired under farm improvement schemes, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that many people will have started immediate repairs to buildings and fences so as to maintain the viability of their farms? Can these be considered even though applications were not put in beforehand? Does he consider that 3⅓ per cent. is enough for horticulture? Glasshouse destruction having been very great, perhaps 3⅓ per cent. will not cover the need to repair.
After the meeting which, I understand, is taking place soon, will the right hon. Gentleman study the question whether any special steps by the Government are needed to help with forestry equipment?
Mr. Ross: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the tribute he has paid to those who have been involved, including those in the nationalised industries. I am glad that he mentioned the electricity boards, because one of the difficulties has been that many dairy farms have been without electricity. We have been trying to get priority treatment there.
I appreciate that apart from multiple ownership, repairs to other properties may be held up. My concern is that local authorities shall authorise the repairs. The question of the cost will come

613
later. I shall consider the point the right hon. Gentleman made on that matter.
I hope that we shall show a reasonable flexibility over the farm improvement schemes and what can be done there. Vie have already had talks with the National Farmers' Union about this and I had a meeting with the union in Glasgow on Monday. In regard to the rates, we are pretty well tied. There is no doubt that people who lost glass have suffered considerably. In one particular case at Burnhead, Larkhall, about one-third of a very large acreage of glass was lost.
Mr. Small: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for making this statement. I did a tour of the reception centres and saw a trail of human tragedy. I made a t analysis and I commend to the Secretary of State the heavy burden placed on rehousing by local authorities. My right hon. Friend should not leave out of mind the principle of requisitioning of private property—say, for nine months or a year—to balance the stresses and strains of those who are most desirous or re-equipping themselves and their families, even temporarily.
Mr. Ross: I appreciate that many local Members have been playing their part, and I am grateful for it. I am quite sure that we will not require to requisition private property. We were very fortunate in having such a record housing completion total last year so that we could put many people into new houses.
Mr. Stodart: Last week the Secretary of State expressed sympathy with the suggestion that the National Coal Board might be invited to suspend imports of timber and to use home-grown timber instead. As so much of the Board's requirements come from the South of England, a long way away, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of a transport subvention to make homegrown timber more competitive?
Mr. Ross: I am grateful to the hon. Member. He spoke about timber on the day when I made my first statement and I have had a report from the Forestry Commission. We should leave this to the meeting which is to be held. The position about timber is not nearly so bad as at was in 1953, when there was a problem of transport clearance and the
614
rest. These things will be looked into at the meeting on Monday.
Sir M. Galpern: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that extensive repairs will not in any way be delayed by an acute shortage of slates, ridges and chimneypots? Will he carefully review the half a million pounds in relation to the tremendous financial damage which has already been suffered?
Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend should appreciate, to take his last point first, that I spoke about an immediate advance. One of the things brought to my notice by the trades themselves was that there was a danger of slaters not going on the roofs unless they were sure that they would be paid. We are getting over this hurdle. There is no shortage of slates. Slates are virtually indestructible and those which come off an old building can be put on to a new roof.
I do not think that there is any shortage—it is a matter of distribution—but we have asked people to intimate their needs and they are being well directed. If there is a shortage, it may be of tiles, for the simple reason that there is such a variety and there are special demands.
Earl of Dalkeith: In view of the tremendous contribution which forestry can make towards the problem of imports, will the right hon. Gentleman do everything he can to speed the recovery of the industry? In particular, will he give sympathetic consideration to a subsidy to get the blown timber to the markets in the South of England, where it can compete with imports?
Mr. Ross: I think that the hon. Member will have heard me say that this matter is being looked at at the meeting on Monday.
Mr. James Hamilton: I thank my right hon. Friend for his very comprehensive and detailed report. I congratulate him and his hon. Friends at the Scottish Office on the expeditious way in which they have carried out their duties. Is it possible for my right hon. Friend to use his good offices with the insurance companies in cases where there are tenemental buildings with various occupiers and one insurance company which will not grant the necessary permission to carry out work, to cut through this red tape and get

615
these houses put in good order for those concerned?
Mr. Ross: I have discussed this with the property owners in Glasgow and with the tradesmen, and we are in touch with insurance companies. We appreciate that in multiple ownership there may be complexity, but I am satisfied that they will get on with the work.
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Will the Secretary of State recall that on the occasion of a previous gale the licensing system was used to ration the cutting of standing timber so that the blown timber might be more quickly marketed? Is not this worthy of consideration?
Mr. Ross: This matter will come up at Monday's meeting.
Mr. Lawson: I commend the very speedy way in which the Minister of State and the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, went to the worst areas without being invited and acted speedily. Is there any truth in Press statements to the effect that the Scottish Office was unmanned over the weekend?
Mr. Ross: I thank my hon. Friend for his expression of appreciation of what Ministers have done. This is our job. I have heard this allegation about the Scottish Office being closed. The staff at the Scottish Office have been working day and night since this disaster. I was appalled to read a report in a newspaper that the staff was not in attendance on Saturday or Sunday. The appropriate department worked for 12 hours on Saturday and for nine hours on Sunday. The civil defence emergency stores were open all weekend dealing with claims.
Miss Harvie Anderson: Is the Secretary of State aware that there are many steadings which cannot be adequately insured? They are old, and an intolerable burden would be placed on the farmers concerned if they had to effect the repairs on the basis of the improvement grant scale. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware further that slates have nails and that when slates fall off a roof they are apt to be broken? Therefore, there is a shortage of slates and it is quite unrealistic to say this is not true.
Mr. Ross: The hon. Lady can take it from me that there is no shortage of
616
slates. If she gets into difficulty over this, she can do the same as she did last week and phone me up personally. This was the one thing she did not mention when she telephoned me. I had the impression that she was on the roof of a steading up in Stirlingshire. I was very angry to discover that she was in London at the time. I assure her that we will examine this question. Agriculture has an advantage here, in that there are statutory schemes which we can use. This facility is not available in other spheres.
Mr. Tom McMillian: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the next phase of this exercise in Glasgow tenemental property is that we shall be spending up to £6 million to ensure that people continue to live in filthy slums? Would it not be wise to use this occasion to spend the money on Clearing the slums and asking authorities inside and outside Glasgow to house the people moved from these buildings?
Mr. Ross: I appreciate my hon. Friend's feelings. As a result of this exercise, I hope that we shall be taking down many of these filthy slums. It would not help Glasgow if we took down all these places, many of which are still quite good homes. It would be impossible for Glasgow to deal with those who would be made homeless if that were done. We have been speeding up slum clearance. I gave the figures last year. We hope to continue with this trend.
Mrs. Ewing: Will the Secretary of State give consideration to the fear and distress of those who are still in so-called habitable houses, but who know that those tenements have been severely affected? The strength of the structure has been affected by the gales. The normal February and March gales are coming. What steps does the Secretary of State intend to take in regard to these properties which, though not the worst affected, are nevertheless affected? People in private property—some of it tenemental—are now affected by risks against which they cannot get insurance. They do not know where they stand. Some of them are finding that no tradesman will effect the necessary repairs. No one from the local authority has been to tell them whether the property is safe. These people are living in fear.
Mr. Ross: I congratulate the hon. Lady on her maiden oral question to me since her arrival here. Last week I began to think that she had emigrated.
On the question of tenement property, it was to meet this very need that we drew up this scheme, so that people needing help can go to the local authority, which will be able to authorise work. We are aware that there are dangers. This is why we spent our time first on demolishing chimney heads and buildings which were dangerous. An examination will be carried out to ensure that no building which is dangerous will be allowed to stand unattended.
Mr. Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It was discourteous of the Secretary of State for Scotland to make that reference to the hon. Lady the Member hr Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing). She has indeed emigrated. She has left her home in Scotland and she has been down here a hell of a lot of the time.
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that the House or the Chair needs the advice of the hon. Gentleman. The Chair must look after matters like that.
Mr. W. Baxter: As it is evident that all Scottish Members are greatly concerned about the terrible disaster which has befallen Scotland, will my right hon. Friend give serious consideration to having a debate, either on the Floor of the House or in Scottish Grand Committee? I have gone over a goodly part of West Stirlingshire and seen the terrible damage which has been caused. What will be done about the cash crops in the cash lands of Scotland, which have been blown all over the place? Those people will be very dependent on trying to retrieve some of that crop, as it is the very substance of their livelihood. In other places, where the seed——
Mr. Speaker: Questions must be brief.
Mr. Baxter: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. This is why it is so important that there should be a full debate. I will not pursue it further.
Mr. Ross: Cash crops can be, and have been, destroyed overnight without a disaster such as this. I am more concerned with getting on with the repair work than with having a debate. Hon. Members must appreciate the complexity of the matter. No one knows better
618
than my hon. Friend that one of the things we are up against now is that practically all the work must be done on roofs. There are a limited number of people who can do it. We are getting all the help we can. We are trying to organise this on a basis of priorities.
Mr. Baxter: Why should we not discuss it?
Mr. Ross: There is no reason why my hon. Friend or anyone else should not discuss it with me at any time.
Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Will the Secretary of State agree that, despite the valiant efforts of public authorities, the job in Glasgow will take months because of the shortage of labour, and so on? Would it be possible to see if other public authorities or councils not affected could help with the massive job to he done in Glasgow?
Mr. Ross: The job facing the building industry is a vast one. With the best will in the world, it must take months. Last week I read critical statements about working men in Glasgow on demolishing air raid shelters. The implication was that they should have been on the roofs. I hope that the editor who allowed that criticism to appear in his paper now appreciates that in that week two men were killed having fallen from roofs. Roofing is a skilled job. We are doing all that we can and getting all the cooperation we need from the building trades. The places from which one would normally be able to draw tradesmen are places which are themselves affected. It was put to me that the S.S.H.A. should be able to do some of this work. The association is very busy on exactly this problem with its own houses. There has been such co-operation that local authority workmen have been working on private houses and vice versa. This is the kind of spirit in which we shall be able to get on. People have volunteered to come to Glasgow to help.
Mr. Rankin: Does my right hon. Friend realise that he is minimising the problem? It will not take months to deal with this; it will take years, particularly in Glasgow. Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are 85,000 houses at this moment in Glasgow in which human beings should not be living and that with the heavy winds of March in

619
front of us a similar disaster might occur? Does he not think that next week the Scottish Grand Committee should meet to discuss this Situation?
Mr. Ross: I assure my hon. Friend that the Scottish Ministers and I have been in constant consultation with the people in Glasgow who know the facts, and that it is quite wrong to say that there are 85,000 people at risk. My hon. Friend was, I think, a bit reckless in saying that. In my two Statements, last Tuesday and today, I have made absolutely clear what the facts are as we know them and what action has been taken. Most people in Glasgow are appreciative of what has been done.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Chair is by no means unsympathetic to the problem which we are discussing, but I must protect the business of the House.
Mr. Manuel: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for raising this matter, but I realise that you do not know the geographical areas of Scotland. My constituency was extensively damaged. In one small village 23 families were rendered homeless. Should not I have an opportunity to ask the Secretary of State about it?
Mr. Speaker: I am not unsympathetic. The problem exercised my mind all the time I allowed supplementary questions.
Mrs. Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the discussion has not been full enough, I beg to give notice of my intention to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

ADJOURNMENT
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Varley.]

FOREIGN AFFAIRS
4.41 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey): I shall speak today on the way in which the changes in defence capability which the Prime Minister announced last week relate to changes in our foreign policy both outside and inside Europe. I hope that the House will agree that detailed questions of forces and equipment are more suitable for the debate in a few weeks on the Defence White Paper. Also, since the Opposition intend to divide the House, I hope to be forgiven if I say a few words about the line of criticism, often highly personal, which they have chosen to follow, although some may feel that that is unnecessary after the remarkable speech of the noble Lord, Lord Thorney-croft, this week in another place.
The acceleration of our withdrawal from Singapore and Malaysia, our decision to leave the Gulf by the same time, the limitation in our capability for use thereafter outside Europe—these are the only changes in the statement last week as compared with the statement we made in the House of Commons in July—have brought fully home to the House that this is the end of two centuries of British history, an era which covers some of the brightest pages, and some of the darkest, in the story of our people. It is the end of east of Suez in the sense in which the phrase has been used in public debate over the last few years, and I dare say that my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) may find more satisfaction than I do in that.
I often feel that historical memories and our attitude to them, often different between one side of the House and the other, have made it difficult for us to see what the issue east of Suez really has been in recent years. Also, the scale of our military involvement in the last 15 years has created a misleading impression of the way in which the future was likely to evolve. It may have been true in the 19th Century that Britain was the dominant Power in the land masses bordering the Indian Ocean. But the Second World War revealed the limitations of our power in dealing with the challenge of an industrialised and militarised Japan. Our defeat in Singapore marked the end

621
of an era, and the years following showed that Asian Arab and African nationalism could mobilise forces which it was neither wise nor possible for us to try to resist by force.
The Conservative Government's attempt to resist them in 1956 produced the most humiliating political defeat of our post-war history and destroyed the whole basis of British influence in the Arab world, and when, partly as a result, its closest friend in the Arab world was murdered in Iraq two years later, the Conservative Government was powerless to intervene. Instead, they took only two weeks to give diplomatic recognition to his successors.
Whatever may have been true of Britain's military rôle east of Suez after 1956, we have not had the ability to dominate the area or to decide by ours elves the course events should take. Nevertheless, our forces were continuously engaged in fighting somewhere or other east of Suez from that time on—in Kenya, in the Gulf, in Malaya, and later in Borneo, East Africa and Southern Arabia. Looking back on it, much of this fighting was an inevitable part of the process of disengaging from our old imperial rôle, and in too much of it we were fighting against local nationalism. In some cases, however, our forces were fighting not against but alongside the forces of local nationalism both before and after it won independence, as in Malaya. In these cases, they made a contribution to peace and stability of which we should always be proud. I am thinking now of the Gulf in 1961, of East Africa in 1964, and of the Far East during the three years of the confrontation, from 1963 to 1966.
Mr. Julian Ridsdale: And Mauritius now.
Mr. Healey: And Mauritius now, certainly. This was the rôle outside Europe which I and the Government in which I serve believed worth while. This was tile sense in which I and the Cabinet as a whole were east of Suez men. We believed that, partly as a result of the experience which our people had gained in very different circumstances in past days, Britain could make a military contribution of unique value towards peace and stability in the third world. I believe that still, as a general proposition.
622
But none of us has ever believed that the British military contribution could be more than one of many factors to determine the course of events outside Europe or that it could be provided everywhere east of Suez with equal ease. We were very conscious that in some cases our imperial history might make the presence of our forces an irritant rather than a stabilising factor, particularly in the Middle East, where the events of 1956 still cast a long shadow.
As we said in last February's Defence White Paper, we looked forward to the time when the local peoples would be able to live at peace without the presence of external forces. It is here, I think, that our approach to the problem east of Suez differed so fundamentally from that of people, perfectly sincere, like the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) and Mr. Julian Amery, who may have appeared to support us and whose apparent support did so much to prejudice a great deal of radical opinion against us.
Above all, none of us on this side of the House has ever believed that, important as our contribution to stability outside Europe might be, it should ever take precedence over our contribution to peace in Europe. For the foundation of Britain's security is today, as it has been for the past 1,000 years, the maintenance of peace in Europe.
The result is that, whenever economic pressures have forced us to reduce our spending on defence, we have had to look for the consequent reductions in our military effort outside, not inside, Europe. This was so in the first Defence Review of February, 1966, which led to our decision to withdraw from South Arabia and to reduce our forces in the Far East, and it has been the case in every such successive defence cut, including the one announced last week.
I shall not pretend that these successive cuts in our defence expenditure have been welcome to me personally, but I would not have carried them out if I had not believed them to be necessary in the nation's interest as our economic situation worsened. My essential duty as Secretary of State for Defence has been clear: on the one hand, to make certain that I get the best value in terms of men and weapons for any sum of money which our economic situation permits,

623
and, in the second place, to make certain that the resulting military capability is in balance with the commitments it is required to meet; in other words, that we cut the tasks of our forces as we reduce their capability, and in consequence that we revise the political commitments from which they flow.
I explained to the House in July why any major reduction in our defence expenditure below the level we planned in February 1966 would mean the total evacuation of Singapore and Malaysia. The need to make further savings faster has now compelled us to advance the date of that evacuation by at least 12 months before the earliest date envisaged last July. And if all the financial benefits we can obtain from leaving Singapore and Malaysia are to be obtained, we must leave the Gulf as well by the same date. Otherwise we should require to keep not only our forces now stationed in the Gulf, but also all the other forces on which they might need to call in a crisis—in particular the carrier force, which might in certain circumstances be highly valuable so long as we have any military presence in the Gulf.
Dame Joan Vickers Dame Joan Vickers (Plymouth, Devon port) rose——
Mr. Healey: With respect, we are very late in starting the debate. Although I shall give way on occasion, I hope that the House will allow me to deploy my case expeditiously, so that as many back bench Members as possible may speak.
Last July we envisaged that in 1975 we would have reduced the overall manpower working in and for the Services by 75,000 uniformed and 80,000 civilian personnel. The decision not to maintain a special capability for use outside Europe after our withdrawal, and our decision to withdraw earlier, will enable some further savings to be made in both manpower and equipment. As a result, we expect a Defence Budget in 1972–73 of £1,600 million-£1,650 million at 1964 prices—a cut of over £300 million on last year's Budget.
In our first five years of office we shall have saved over £1,600 million compared with the long-term costings which Lord Thorneycroft made of his
624
own defence programme and which the Treasury, under the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), approved. If the right hon. Gentleman disputes these facts, I will gladly enable him to refresh his memory by showing him the documents. In broad terms, over the five years from 1967–68 to 1972–73 we shall be spending over £3,000 million less than was provided for in the Conservatives' long-term costings. The Opposition tell us to restore that expenditure and at the same time claim that we should cut public expenditure still further.
My right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs have already spoken of what this means in terms of cuts in the tasks of our forces and reductions in our commitments. What I cannot understand is how, when the need to maintain a balance between our commitments and our military capability has been the constant theme of so many Opposition speeches over the past two years—and in particular the theme of the speech of the right hon. Member for Barnet in the debate last July—the Opposition should now be complaining that we are acting as they suggest.
I turn to the effect on our general military capability of the cuts in commitments east of Suez. I hope that the House will understand that full details of the size and shape of our forces when our withdrawal is complete will have to wait until the White Paper which I hope to publish before the Summer Recess.
Mr. Cranky Onslow: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the point of his view of his duties in the high office of Secretary of State for Defence, will he elaborate on the question which has agitated most of us, namely, why he did not, apparently, ever give consideration to leaving that office?
Mr. Healey: Yes, Sir. I shall spend a little time at the end of my speech, if the House permits, in dealing with that specific question. Since so many hon. Members opposite have asked me to do so, I hope that they will do me the courtesy of listening to what I have to say.
As a consequence of our withdrawal we shall, despite the big cut in our expenditure, have available a bigger proportion of our defence resources for the

625
defence of Europe than we have today, and an important part of those resources will be available for operations outside Europe—often, I hope, under United Nations auspices—in case of need.
When our withdrawal from east of Suez is complete, despite the 20 per cent. reduction in the overall size of our forces which will accompany it, our Navy will he second in size and striking power only to the American Navy in the Western world.
In addition to a Polaris force and nuclear-powered hunter-killer submarines unique among the European members of N.A.T.O., its guided missile destroyers and the other new ships I described last July will be among the most modern in tie world.
Our Army, though smaller than some other European armies, will be the only full-time professional army in the West, with a range of fighting experience gained world-wide without equal among our European allies. In the Chieftain, our armoured regiments will have the most Powerful tank in the world.
Our Army, though smaller than some other European armies, will be the only full-time professional army in the West, with a range of fighting experience gained World-wide without equal among our European allies. In the Chieftain, our armoured regiments will have the most powerful tank in the world.
An Hon. Member:What about our reserves?
Mr. Healey: I am Coming to all that later.
Despite the loss of the F111, of which I shall say more later, our Air Force will be second to none in Europe, with about 400 of the most modern combat jets, including the Phantom, which will be the most effective aircraft of its type throughout the 1970s; the Harrier, the only operational aircraft in the world with a vertical and short take-off capability; the Nimrod long-range military reconnaissance aircraft; and the brand-new Jaguar strike aircraft then just Coming into service. I would remind the House that if the Conservatives had stayed in power the Royal Air Force would still in 1971 be waiting for the P. 1154 to carry out the vital rôles for which it will now have both the Phantom and Harrier.
As the defence correspondent of The Times pointed out in two articles which have a lot of good sense in them, as well as some ideas which no one will expect me to endorse, the impact of the for-midable contribution we shall be able to make to the Alliance in the 1970s may
626
be as important politically as it is militarily.
Big changes are on the way in Europe. Whatever our hopes may be, it is not possible now to foresee the precise nature of our relationship with the Common Market in 1972. But what is certain is that our political relations with our European neighbours will be even more important than they are today, and that the scale and nature of our military contribution to their defence may exercise a more important influence on those relations than it has in the last 20 years.
President Johnson's recent statement on the need to reduce American spending overseas may well foreshadow some reduction in America's military contribution on this side of the Atlantic. I cannot imagine any situation in which America's security no less than that of Europe will not depend on the alliance which binds together both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. But I believe that if America is to retain her essential commitment to the defence of Western Europe in the 1970s we on this side of the Atlantic will have to be more self-reliant in defence than we have been in the 1960s.
In other respects, too, the scene may change. Though we all passionately hope that the recent Soviet-American Agreement on the text of a non-proliferation treaty will lead to some firm international arrangement which will guarantee the world against the further spread of nuclear weapons, it is far from certain now that the 1970s will not see a move in the opposite direction. In that case, our own nuclear capability may assume greater importance than it has today, not only for our own security but also in opening the way to acceptable solutions of the problem of arms control within the Western Alliance.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The right hon. Gentleman is making some important judgments about our future defence policy. Since he has been so disastrously wrong before, why should we have any confidence in his judgment for the future?
Mr. Healey: I am not encouraged to give way again by the two interventions. Both have been frivolous in the extreme, and in any case I shall deal with the

627
thoughts that lie behind them in the concluding section of my speech.
Whatever happens on our relations with the Common Market, which has absorbed so much of our energies over the last 10 years, I think that in the next decade we shall have to give more thought to improving co-operation with those who will work with us, not only in the Common Market, but in other parts of the Continent as well. The concentration of the British Navy in the European theatre will make possible a powerful strengthening of N.A.T.O.s Southern flank at a time when the threat to peace may appear to be increasing there. This at least I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) will welcome.
On the other hand, there are encouraging signs that the rigidity of the division between Western and Eastern Europe may continue to melt. The prospects of agreement on the mutual reduction of forces may be brighter in five years' time than they are today.
I hope that the Prime Minister's talks in Moscow may have made an important contribution to this end, but, whatever precisely the future holds, it is a fair assumption that big changes may well take place in the next 10 years in the pattern of political relationships affecting the whole world between Washington and Moscow. Britain's military relationships with the other European Powers could be a decisive factor in determining the new pattern.
The concentration of our military effort in the European theatre—modified though it will be by regular training, and, no doubt, some operations overseas—will come as a disappointment to many in the Services for whom campaigning outside Europe has been taken for granted in the last 15 years or so. But I believe all our experience suggests—and the superb morale of our forces in Germany today confirms this—that the Services will continue to provide a career in the future no less attractive for men of courage, skill and dedication, than they had in the past.
Meanwhile, my Department faces a gruelling six months in programming a much faster withdrawal and a much faster
628
reduction in service manpower and in restructuring the forces for their new rôle. As I have said, I hope that the result of this work may be presented to the House in a White Paper before the Summer Recess. At present I will refer to only one aspect of the problem—the implications of the Government's decision to cancel the F111A.
Dame Joan Vickers: The right hon. Gentleman says that we are not to get the White Paper until June. Does this mean that 2,600 men will continue to be employed on the refit of the "Ark Royal" between now and then and that the ship will then be scrapped?
Mr. Healey: It does not mean that. I think that the hon. Lady is already aware that, as soon as we are able to take a decision on the work load at Devonport, which concerns her as much as the "Ark Royal" or the "Eagle" as such, we shall do so.
I was talking about the implications of the Government's decision to cancel the F111A. Of course I did not welcome this decision—any more than some of my colleagues welcomed all the decisions affecting their departments. In the 70s—though not in the next year or two, it will bring big savings. But it means the loss of a capability for long-range conventional strike and reconnaissance which our forces have possessed till now in the Canberra aircraft, and that aircraft must begin to be withdrawn from service in a year or so.
Outside Europe, we shall have the V-bombers and the carriers until our withdrawal is complete, so the F111 cancellation will have little effect on the security of our troops while we still have our forces based there. The most important consequence will be to limit the variety of circumstances in which we can usefully intervene outside Europe after our withdrawal. Our allies are well aware of the nature of this limitation.
Mrs. Anne Kerr Mrs. Anne Kerr (Rochester and Chatham) rose——
Mr. Healey: No.
Inside Europe after 1971 the Fleet at sea will still obtain the protection it requires from land-based Buccaneers and Nimrods, and in the narrow waters Phantom aircraft can perform a useful rôle.

629
But, once the Canberras phase out, our land forces in Europe—like all the other land forces in N.A.T.O.—will depend on toe United States alone for this particular capability of long-range conventional strike and reconnaissance—as they and all other land forces in N.A.T.O. have always depended upon the United States for tactical atomic weapons.
For short range reconnaissance and strike the Phantom, Buccaneer, Harrier and Jaguar have an impressive capability. Our air forces will certainly require some reshaping to make up for the loss of the F111 and this will reduce the saving of about £400 million over 10 years which might otherwise have been obtained.
Now, I hope I may say a few words on my personal position, which has been raised so often by Opposition speakers in the last ten days. I do not complain about that. As Harry Truman said, "If you don't like the heat, don't go into the kitchen."
I was told to resign last week by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) in a performance positively manic in intensity. His colleagues looked as embarrassed at his excesses as he himself looked when the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire was speaking yesterday. The trouble is that we have heard it all before. The right hon. Gentleman has told me to resign every time he has spoken as the Shadow Minister of Defence.
The right hon. Gentleman was particularly ferocious last week because he was defending his party's undertaking to stay on in the Far East after 1971, though he personally has said that there is virtually no point in being there, even during confrontation. He obviously thought that if he shrieked loud enough and made a lot of nasty faces no one would notice that he was standing on his head. At least he has the qualification to ask me to resign, because he himself did resign on one occasion, and I honour him for doing so. But I was also told to resign by the right hon. Member for Barnet. He never resigned. He stayed in the Conservative Government after their decision to seek entry to the Common Market, despite the fact that he had said, on 12th February, 1959, that he could not
630
"… conceive that any Government of this country would put forward a proposition which would involve the abandonment of Commonwealth free entry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1959; Vol. 599, c. 1381.]
Of course, all the right hon. Gentlemen opposite want us all in the Government to resign. They want our jobs. But I do not think that any Member of this House is impressed when his political opponents tell him to resign. Nor since Burke's famous speech to the electors of Bristol has any Member felt it right to let his conduct be decided by the views of some of his constituents—even by the management committee of his constituency party. It is when his colleagues in his own party in the House of Commons tell him to go that he should start worrying. I do not complain that the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire did not resign on the many occasions when we told him to go, but I believe that he was right to resign when his colleagues made it clear that he no longer commanded their confidence. The present Leader of the Opposition has had his own recent personal experience in this field.
From some of the things said and written over last week, one would think that this is the first time any British Government had changed its mind on an issue of foreign or defence policy. One would think that no Conservative Minister had told the House—as Lord Colyton did on 28th July, 1954:
"… they cannot contemplate a change of sovereignty in Cyprus."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th July, 1954; Vol. 531, c. 504.]
Five hundred people had to die before the Conservative Government broke that pledge by giving Cyprus independence five years later. One would also think that a Conservative Prime Minister had never given pledges on the Central African Federation—as Harold Macmillan did in 1960—which he broke unilaterally two years later, causing one of his colleagues to write:
"Sir Roy Walensky's well documented indictment of the British Government has presented a shameful record of principles ignored and solemn undertakings dishonoured".
If the right hon. Gentleman, who I believe, is to speak later, is forgetting all this, I hope that he will look at Sir Roy Welensky's White Paper, which was headed,
"British Government's Broken Pledges and their Consequence".

631
I think that the House may find it most relevant to recall how the Conservative Government handled the continuous series of somersaults on defence policy which took place when they were in office. They invented a brilliant technique. They switched their Defence Minister to another job before the somersault took place. That is why they had nine Defence Ministers in 13 years and why our defences were in such a mess in 1964.
In 1955, Mr. Macmillan found that he would have to cancel four major aircraft projects, and so he let the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) take over for nine months so that he could take the blame. I sympathise with the right hon. and learned Gentleman—he was cast as the fall guy in so many Departments for the mistakes made by his predecessors.
When the right hon. and learned Gentleman had done his part——
Mrs. Anne Kerr Mrs. Anne Kerr rose——
Mr. Healey: Lord Monckton took over and cut most of the aerospace projects which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had left. Then, after ten months, Lord Monckton left the Ministry of Defence, according to one of his Ministerial colleagues, because he was disgusted at the moral turpitude of the Suez operation. In any case, Lord Head then took over for three months and it is generally believed that he left his Ministry because he would not accept Prime Minister Macmillan's orders to end conscription. Certainly he did not do the forces a good turn by going, because when he went he was succeeded by the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys).
The right hon. Member for Streatham, in nearly three years, cut our forces to ribbons, slashed our commitments in Europe, left scars on the Services from which they have not yet recovered, cancelled aircraft right and left and relied on the missile Blue Streak. When it was obviously a flop, after a short spree at the Ministry of Aviation finishing off his work on the British aircraft industry, he stepped smartly into the Commonwealth Relations Office and spent his time creating new commitments for the Forces which he had just crippled. He was the architect of the overstretch which I inherited in 1964.
632
I have already told him in a letter which he published without my permission—although I have no complaint about that—that I did not intend to imply last week that he planned to withdraw all our forces from Singapore. I would have made that clear in the House at the time if the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West had allowed me to do so. But I regret it if the right hon. Gentleman thinks that I misrepresented him. I have no desire to be unfair to him. I do not believe that it is necessary.
Mr. Sandys: The right hon. Gentleman knows quite well that he is wriggling. What he said the other night was perfectly clear. He said:
"… the right hon. Member for Streatham … like me, as Defence Secretary recommended his Government to withdraw from Singapore".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th January, 1968; Vol. 756, c. 1897.]
Those words can mean nothing but that I had advocated the closing down of our base in Singapore, which, of course, he knew perfectly well I had never done. If he merely wished to suggest that I reduced the size of our garrison in Singapore, I do not know why he thought it worth while to interrupt my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) to make that totally irrelevant remark. But I am very glad to see that he is now eating his words, like so many other words which he has eaten recently.
Mr. Healey: Lord Watkinson took over from the right hon. Gentleman. He did his duty and cancelled Blue Streak and put everything on Skybolt, and when it was obvious that Skybolt was heading for disaster, he handed over to Lord Thorneycroft. Lord Thorneycroft presided loyally over the collapse of Sky-bolt. It was not his fault, any more than the collapse of the A.F.V.G. was mine. But, in spite of what he said in that remarkable speech in another place on Tuesday, he landed us with the most expensive defence programme of all time, including three major aircraft projects which no British Government could ever have afforded to complete. He did not have to move sideways—he was saved by the General Election of 1964. If not, no

633
doubt he would have handed over to Mr. Soames to carry out the necessary cancellations.
There we have it—nine Defence Ministers in 13 years, one long stream of somersaults in policy.
Sir Ian Orr-Ewing Sir Ian Orr-Ewing (Hendon, North)
rose——
Mr. Healey: The only obvious concern of those Defence Ministers was not to be found holding the baby when the music stopped. They institutionalised passing the buck as part of the machinery of Conservative Government.
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The right hon Gentleman is being a little unfair to Lord Thorneycroft, because did not Lord Thorneycroft leave him with the Polaris submarines by which the right hon. Gentleman set such store in an earlier passage of his speech?
Mr. Healey: A good debating point.
The present Government have taken a different view of their responsibility for defence, and in my case the buck stops here. I am the longest-serving Defence Minister since 1950, and it has not been altogether pleasant task. In the last three and a half years, I have had to plan five separate reductions in defence expenditure, imposed partly by changes
economic circumstances and partly by errors of economic judgment, for which, I fully agree, I bear my due share of responsibility. I do not deny that it has been a painful and difficult task to carry cut these five successive reviews, imposing cut after cut on those with whom and for whom I work.
But one thing at least I have done, something literally of vital importance to the Services—I have made certain that as capability is cut, commitments are reduced accordingly. What frightens me most about the promise which the Opposition have made to keep forces in Singapore, even when no carriers and no F111s are available, is that they are breaking this fundamental principle and thereby putting the lives of our fighting men unnecessarily in jeopardy.
The right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire added a further commitment, in the Gulf, when he spoke yesterday. I hope that the right hon.
634
Member for Barnet, who, when he spoke in July, concentrated almost exclusively on the need to match commitments and capability in Forces, will explain how he can now support the new open-ended commitment which his leader made last week, extended as it was to the Gulf by the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire yesterday.
It is no good arguing that all they are proposing to do is to put a handful of troops on the ground in the Gulf and Singapore, because they know, certainly the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West knows, that if the presence of these troops is to mean anything to our Allies and if they themselves are not to be exposed to unacceptable danger, the Government must back the troops on the ground with ships, aircraft and other troops to reinforce them. We know, and the Opposition Front Bench knows, that the cost of such a presence would then amount to hundreds of millions of pounds a year.
But I daresay that my fears for the safety of our forces are unnecessary. We know how little Conservative actions over defence in office correspond to their words in opposition. Our European Allies know it well. Despite the fact that Sir Winston Churchill himself launched the idea of the European Army when he was in opposition, the first act of the Conservative Government which followed was to refuse to join it if it were set up. I will never forget the consternation, anger and despair expressed by the Assembly of the Council of Europe when that news reached it in 1951.
I have made it clear that there are aspects of the policy announced last week about which I am unhappy, not only in defence. But so are others of my colleagues unhappy about aspects of the policy. This will always be so in any democratic Government. What I cannot understand is the idea that a Minister should always resign rather than reach a compromise with his colleagues on a matter about which he has strong views, because such a view is inconsistent with any form of government except personal dictatorship.
A Cabinet of over 20 Ministers is bound to contain a wide variety of views and attitudes. The right hon. Member for Barnet remembers how strongly he

635
disagreed with his right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham in 1962, on the constitutional problem in Central Africa. There is nothing wrong, as some newspapers have suggested, in trying to reconcile these views to produce an agreed programme for action—indeed, Government depends on such a compromise. A newspaper like The Times can have one view expressed by its leader writer, another by its political correspondent, and another by its defence correspondent. The present Conservative Opposition seems to believe that it can afford the same liberty of self-contradiction. That is why the right hon. Members for Kinross and West Perthshire, for Wolverhampton, South-West and for Barnet can all speak in the same debate on defence.
But a Government, at the end of the day, must express a single view on what is to be done and must take the decisions which flow from that view. Those decisions must meet the need of the nation. That is what this Government did last week, knowing the results would be unpopular, imposing strains not only on its own members, but on its supporters in Parliament and the country. On this occasion, it is not survival of the Government that is at stake, it is the survival of the nation. Everything that I have heard in this House in the last ten days has convinced me that if we want a Government which will take the necessary decisions, however unpopular, and yet preserve the basic values of a compassionate society, there is no alternative in Britain to a Labour Government.
Since I do think this, it is my duty not to run away, not to abstain. I have never been one for abstaining. So long as I do remain a member of the Government, the decisions that we have taken on foreign policy and defence impose on me a special duty. I believe that in foreign policy and defence we are now showing a new and necessary realism. We have done away with wishful thinking—the besetting sin of so many post-war Governments. The sacrifices that we are imposing on the men and women in the Services, and on our Allies overseas, will go for nothing unless we can all show the same realism and readiness to sacrifice in the rest of our affairs.
Wishful thinking, the search for the easy option, a flabby lack of self-disci-
636
pline masquerading as permissive liberalism, the idea that the world owes us a living and it will be all right on the night—all the corrupting illusions which spread from that disastrous slogan "You have never had it so good", have for too long had too much influence on our affairs. How right the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, was to trace this moral infection back to its real source in the attitude of the Macmillan Government of 1958.
Last week's decisions can mark a turning point in the nation's life. They can mark the foundation-stone for our long delayed recovery, recovery not just of economic solvency, but of Britain's pride and dignity among the nations. They can mark not only the end of an old illusion, but the beginning of a new achievement. Just as our determination to limit our defence spending to what we can afford will make it easier for us to play a leading role in Europe, so the sacrifices that we have made—and have yet to make—in other areas of spending, private as well as public, can create the basis for an economic re-awakening in Britain, no less impressive than other countries no better than us have already enjoyed.
It is because I believe that this can be true, and because I intend to make it
So——
Hon. Members: Resign.
Mr. Healey: —that so long as my colleagues wish it I am proud to continue as a member of this Labour Government.
5.25 p.m.
Mr. Reginald Maudling: The Secretary of State devoted a large part of his speech to his own personal position. Therefore, I am sure he will not object in any way if I begin by explaining once again why we on our side of the House do not think that he is right to continue in his present office. In the course of his spirited counteroffensive, he made no reference at all to the real issue, which is simply and fundamentally this: that a man whose statements have so often and so completely been falsified can carry no further credence at home or abroad.
I will give just a few examples. They may be familiar, but they have not lost

637
their cutting edge. First, in November 1966:
"The Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft… is the core of our long term operational and industrial programme."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd February 1966; Vol. 725, c. 240.]
That was cancelled in July, 1967.
In March, 1967, he said:
"… we shall need a replacement for the Canberras … whether we are east of Suez or not … I cannot conceive of fewer than 50 F111Ks as being a replacement for the Canberras."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1967; Vol. 742, c. 477–505.]
The F111 was cancelled last week.
In April, 1967, he said:
"The Gulf is an area of such vital importance, not only to the economy of Western Europe as a whole but also to world peace, hat it would be totally irresponsible for us to withdraw our forces from the area."
In October, 1967:
"A disorderly British departure before there is an alternative basis for stability in the area could lead to a prolonged conflict."
Last week the Prime Minister announced a British departure by the end of 1971, irrespective of whether there is the alternative basis for stability to which the Secretary of State referred.
Then the Far East. He said in 1967:
"Our responsibility first of all is to our Commonwealth partners in the area, Malaysia and Singapore, so long as they want us to help."
Last week the Prime Minister announced our withdrawal from Singapore, despite the repeated protests of the Singapore Prime Minister that his people still want our help.
Hon. Members: Shame.
Mr. Maudling: Those are four major matters of policy upon which the Secretary of State has made important statements that have been totally and absolutely falsified by the Prime Minister, tinder whom he is still happy to serve. If he blames it all on devaluation, let me quote a statement he made after devaluation in this House on 27th November. He said:
"I believe, and the whole Government share my view, that we must, above all, keep faith with our forces and with our Allies in making these Cuts."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th November 1967; Vol. 755, c. 59.]
This afternoon he talked about the sacrifices that our Allies would have to carry—not after discussion with them, not
638
after renegotiation, but after the imposition of this decision, willy-nilly, whether they like it or not. Is that keeping faith with our allies? Profoundly it is not.
After these statements, after these falsifications, the Secretary of State can no longer properly hold his office, because there is no reason why anyone, at home or abroad, should ever again believe one single word he says.
Hon. Members: Resign.
Mr. Maudling: It has always been a tradition of previous Governments that when Ministers have so exhausted their usefulness to their Government, to Parliament and to the country they have no choice but to resign. But in this Government prevarication has become a mere technique and broken pledges are flaunted like political campaign medals. Standards have changed.
The Secretary of State was on television the other night—he has been on television often recently, too often, I think. He was asked by the questioner:
"It does seem to me, Mr. Healey, that you have had to eat an awful lot of your words on defence. Would you agree with that?"
The Minister replied:
"I'm afraid I have, yes, and I'm not the only Minister who has had to do so as a result of last week's decision."
What an extraordinary and frivolous way to treat this. We must ask the Secretary of State, so long as he so remains and he is apparently determined to cling to his office, that when he appears so often before the television cameras he will remember the dignity due to his office. Let him avoid phrases like "white slavery". Let him remember that in the eyes of the world he still speaks as a Minister in the Government of Britain.
Having explained as precisely as I can the reasons why we believe that the Secretary of State should no longer retain his office, I turn to the major issues of this debate which arose yesterday: the consequences of the Government's decisions on the political position and the foreign policy of Britain, particularly in the Gulf and in the Far East. I wish to deal first with the decisions which relate to the Gulf, because I believe that these are by far the worst of all.
There is no doubt that there has been a dramatic change of policy and a breach of solemn undertakings concerning

639
Britain's position in the Gulf. The Government sometimes try to prevaricate about this. Sometimes they say that these are major, historic decisions, as the Secretary of State said today. At other times, the Foreign Secretary says that it is only a matter of timing. The truth is that it is a matter of timing; but timing is of the essence. No one has ever suggested or argued that we should stay in the Gulf for ever. But, equally, the Gulf Rulers were assured only a few weeks ago that we had no plans for early withdrawal from the Gulf area.
The saddest fact of all this is that Britain has gone back on her word. May I make, as I made in an earlier debate, a personal reference? As hon. Members know, I have paid many visits to the Gulf and to the Middle East recently, largely engaged in trying to sell British financial and other services. I have been asked, "What should we do about our sterling balances and British protection?". I have consistently said in reply, "You can rely on the word of the British Government. You can leave your sterling in London because they mean what they say when they deny any intention of devaluing sterling". I said to people in the Gulf, "You can rely on the British Government not deserting you, because that is what they have told you and that is what they have asserted." On both those matters the advice which I gave has been falsified by the actions of this Government.
I say very seriously to the Government that they should consider the difficulties which they are placing on those of us who go abroad and who are asked by our friends abroad whether they can any longer trust the word of the British Government. This is a very serious matter. It places British people, not members of the Government, in a very difficult situation indeed.
To continue with the situation in relation to the Gulf, there is the highly unfortunate position of the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, despite his gallant attempts at defence. He was sympathised with by the Prime Minister in an answer after his statement on the Tuesday and told that no doubt he was put in a very difficult position. Of
640
course, he was put in a difficult position through having to say one thing in November and going back to precisely the same people in January and saying exactly the opposite. There is no getting away from this fact.
Why did the Government reach the decision to abandon the Gulf by the end of 1971? Was it a political or an economic assessment? Here again, their arguments are full of self-contradiction. Sometimes they say—and I think that the Secretary of State for Defence is inclined to say this—that it was necessary to withdraw British forces because their presence had become counter-productive. This is sheer unadulterated humbug. If it is true now, it was just as true in November or July.
The Secretary of State argued today that it is not possible to maintain our position in the Gulf unless we maintain the carriers and all the present apparatus for the defence of Singapore. How can the Commonwealth Secretary be so confident that we can maintain our position in Hong Kong? How can he maintain, as he did last week, that we shall be able easily to help our friends in the Indian Ocean and east of Suez after all these changes? If what the Secretary of State says is true, the promises and undertakings implied by his right hon. Friend yesterday are clearly quite worthless.
It is plain, if one looks between the lines of what the Secretary of State said today, that the major decision came as a result of devaluation. I do not think that that is the same thing as saying that it came as the result of economic necessity. It was a domestic political assessment. Let us look at the economic arguments again. We have been often told of the need to save foreign exchange and to right the balance of payments. But what the Government are doing makes no substantial contribution to that at all. It is calculated that the cost of the Indian Ocean policy will amount to about 1 per cent. of our total import bill—no more than that. The Secretary of State, during his incursion on "Panorama", denied that the foreign exchange had anything to do with it. He said that he was talking about domestic expenditure.
Finally, the fact is that the Government were offered substantial financial assistance by at least one of the Gulf

641
Rulers towards meeting the cost of defence, and the Government have been aware of this for many months. The Secretary of State was asked on television:
"Was the Government aware before the cuts were made that they could get some financial payment from the Gulf States?"
He said:
"Not, in fact, before the decision was taken".
That is totally inaccurate, as I know myself. Offers had been made by the Rulers in that area last August to help finance the defence which we were providing. What was done about them? Were they followed up? I do not believe that they were followed up in the slightest. We had all this rubbish from the Secretary of State about mercenaries and white slavers. It does not apply to support costs in Germany or the contribution made in Hong Kong. All this silly talk is part of the cover-up for the Government's failure. There is no argument about foreign exchange which can be sustained.
The other argument of the Government that it is a question of the burden on our resources. Accurate figures have been hard to come by as to the cost of maintaining our force in the Gulf. Figures like £20 million or £25 million are often quoted. They are not denied by the Government. If what the Government are talking about is home demand and the burden on resources such figures would have very little bearing on home demand, and certainly not in the next few years.
However, if the Government's argument is that the pressure on domestic expenditure is the reason why we must leave the Gulf and break faith with our friends there, they must realise that they are saying that they would rather do that than cut expenditure on transport nationalisation, the Industrial Expansion Bill, the Land Commission and the expansion of bureaucracy at home. On their own arguments, they prefer all these alternatives to carrying out Britain's word in the Gulf.
When the Government talk about not being able to afford something, they do not mean that at all. This country could afford it. What they mean is that they do not want to afford it. For their own
642
party domestic reasons they prefer these economies to economies which in the long term national interest would be far better but which in terms of political convenience they are not prepared to face.
What is at risk in the Gulf? The British interests are enormous. There are our vast investments in oil and the enormous balances which countries, despite everything and their big loss as a result of devaluation, still maintain in this country and the fact that upon the proven reserves of the Middle East depend for the foreseeable future the maintenance of the oil supplies, not only to Britain, but to Western Europe. These are not mere bagatelles to be played with in internal party arrangements. They are of enormous importance.
The dangers in the Gulf are real and they cannot be brushed aside. There are local dangers. It is not long since there was tribal warfare between one State and another in the area. Now new money brings the possibility of new armaments, and old border disputes could again flare up in a much more violent fashion. There are big power rivals in the Gulf and different and conflicting claims by big Powers against small Powers. In the area there are many States which are indefensible in terms of their own population but which have vast and growing economic resources. There is in the area the danger of further external penetration, particularly by the Soviet Union coming round from the Yemen and past Aden. These dangers are great and just as real as the size of the British interests and resources threatened by them.
That is the position which we have reached under this Government. What can be done to mitigate the damage? First, let us give all the help that we possibly can to the countries in the Gulf to organise themselves into a more coherent unit and create as rapidly as possible coherent and intelligible defence forces. They will not be able to do it from their own resources. They will have to use many of the so-called "mercenaries"—in fact, "technical advisers" would be a more polite and accurate term to use.
Secondly, the Government should clarify the position about the relationship of this country with the Gulf States. So far, we have undertaken to protect

643
them, and in exchange they give us control of their foreign affairs and an influence in that part of the world which has been of great value economically and politically to this country. But it is a two-sided bargain. Once we have announced our decision unilaterally to withdraw our protection from them, what obligations have they? What right have we to call upon them? If we welsh on our commitments, how can we expect to hold them to theirs? In particular, what is the position about the Trucial Oman Scouts, a force which has provided a great deal of stability in this area without, 1 think, firing a shot for many years? Its present position and future seems to be entirely in the air.
These are matters which can be cleared up, and we hope to make some amelioration of the problems. What we must do as an Opposition, answering partly the challenge issued by the right hon. Gentleman, is to make it clear that we oppose the Government's policy in this matter and are not committed, as they are, to withdrawal by the end of 1971. If, as we believe, we shall be returned as a Government by that time, and if they have not in some way or other totally sabotaged any chance of reversing their policy, reverse it we certainly shall.
I turn now to South-East Asia, where very much the same arguments apply. If the obligations there do not spring so much from explicit treaties, they certainly spring from repeated statements of intention by the British Government upon which our friends there have relied and were entitled to rely.
Once again we have the immense British interest in terms of investment and trade, the danger of local disputes, the danger of our evacuation destroying confidence, the possible resumption of aggressive actions by Indonesia, and, brooding over it all the time, the constant menace of China, which no one can believe will diminish in the next decade.
There can be no doubt about the deep disillusion felt by our Commonwealth partners in that part of the world, and no doubt about the rightness of and justification for that sense of disillusionment.
The Government have decided to close the door on East of Suez. I believe that
644
this is a decision of profound and far reaching importance which will not be to the benefit of this country, of Europe or of the Western world as a whole.
As the Government know, the United States value our presence East of Suez very highly, not because our forces in military terms add very much to their vast power, not even entirely because of the bases which we could help them find. They value our presence there for political reasons. The continuing presence of British troops and British influence alongside the Americans in the growing difficulties which they face are of immense importance. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) said in a very perceptive speech last night, our withdrawal from East of Suez will have a profound effect upon American policy.
There are two dangers. The first is that they will abandon any attempt to contain Communist expansion in that area. Then what will happen to Malaysia, Singapore and Hong Kong? Then what will happen even to India if the barrier against Communist expansionist forces—at present the American shield—is withdrawn?
The second danger is that, once again, the Americans will turn to isolationism. I believe that the second danger is by far the greater, since nothing could be a more serious loss to the Western world. The Americans may say, "If the Europeans and the British turn in on themselves and shut the door behind them on the rest of the world so that we are left entirely alone to carry the burden outside Europe, we will leave the Europeans alone in their turn."
I implore the Government not to underestimate the reality of this danger. If that happened, either Europe would be left defenceless—because, despite what the Secretary of State says about his naval forces, it is the American nuclear shield which provides and will provide the protection of Western Europe—or the Americans might come to some arrangement with Russia over the head of Western Europe which could not in the long run be of benefit to us or to them. The implications of the events of the last two weeks have been underestimated. I look back as one often does to what Sir Winston Churchill used to say about the unique position of

645
Britain at the point of intersection of the three circles—our position in Europe, our position in the Commonwealth, and our relations with the United States. That was a unique position, and it need not be abandoned on financial grounds. If it is being abandoned, it is only because the will of the Government has collapsed.
If this policy is pursued, the Western world is in great danger of being divided, and we may be left abandoned by a Commonwealth whom we have totally disillusioned, estranged from the United States, and knocking at the door of a Europe which even the persistence of the Foreign Secretary cannot guarantee to open to us. These are the dangers into which, for totally unworthy reasons, the Government has led this country.
5.46 p.m.
Sir Geoffrey de Freitas: The right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) has argued about the withdrawals from east of Suez. I wish to argue about the other side of the coin, and that is our concentration on Europe as a result. I will deal with the point which he made about the danger of the Americans thinking that Europe has turned in on itself, and the danger referred to by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths).
When opening the debate yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary set the frame of this debate with his point about the concentration on Europe and spoke of the future he saw when we would enjoy greater power and greater influence in the world by being a leader of a major group of European nations.
Among the suggestions made yesterday Alas one to the effect that the Government should work harder for a détente between East and West, making it easier for the Western countries to co-operate with the Eastern countries. My right lion. Friend the Secretary of State used the word "melting" this afternoon.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) wanted the Government to go as far as working for a European peace and security council. I do not follow my hon. Friend that far, because I am particularly concerned that in any unfreezing of relations between East and West in Europe, we should preserve our guard in N.A.T.O. in a
646
balance with the Warsaw Pact. As a result of the withdrawals from east of Suez, I welcome the strengthening in our contribution to N.A.T.O. I would go so far on this question of balance between the two as to hope that the Warsaw Pact would not be unduly weakened, because, if there is a balance between N.A.T.O. and the Warsaw Pact, fear is more likely to be removed and the Governments and peoples of Eastern and Western Europe may come to greater friendship more easily.
It was also suggested by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds—and the right hon. Member for Barnet has just referred to it—that this country could act as a hinge upon which the narrow Europe of the Treaty of Rome could be swung wider towards the Atlantic and the underdeveloped world.
It is on those three points that I shall comment: first, our rôle in encouraging a dialogue between Europe and North America, second, a détente in Europe, and, third, encouraging our fellow Europeans to look outwards, especially towards the developing countries.
Because we have been excluded from the Europe of the Treaty of Rome we are in danger of thinking that we have no cards to play in Europe. That is not so. We remain one of the 18 members of the Council of Europe. Although our role is not a dramatic one, both the Government and our Members on the delegation have important tasks before them in encouraging the Council of Europe to play its part under these three headings.
Naturally, in its earliest years the Council of Europe Assembly was concerned primarily with European problems, but over the last few years it has become increasingly outward-looking. First, there is the point about North America and the danger, which I entirely accept, put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Barnet. But every year since 1965 a United States Congressional delegation has come to Strasbourg to debate informally, but in public, current problems. On the United States side, Senator William Fulbright and Representative Wayne Hays were the initiators of these debates. In May this year the fourth informal meeting will take place and one theme will be the technological gap. Since these discussions are informal, there are

647
no resolutions. But these frank exchanges of views in the presence of many American and European journalists helps to clear up misunderstandings which exist and turns the Council of Europe outward across the Atlantic.
There has been another development. A year ago a Canadian Member of Parliament came and spoke, and it is hoped that this will lead to regular debates with the Canadians. Mr. Paul Martin, the Canadian Minister for External Affairs, wrote recently in Le Monde:
"… We hope to develop the friendly relations with Europe established through multi-lateral organisations such as O.E.C.D. and the Council of Europe."
That Canada should regard the Council of Europe as an appropriate platform for the development of good relations with Europe is not surprising if we remember how broad is the base of the Council of Europe.
It was U Thant who encouraged the Assembly to regard itself as a regional European forum for Parliamentary debate of European and world affairs. I have emphasised world affairs, but the Assembly has not abandoned its essential European vocation.
My second heading was on the point about bringing together East and West Europe. The Assembly has had many debates on this subject, and it has realised that it is only if in the long run Europe is united that our Continent can play a really important part in world affairs.
Fortunately, the Council of Europe includes neutral countries, and fortunately, too, in this context, we never debate defence. For this reason, in any political climate of improved relations with the East, it is the most suitable organisation for the discussion of East-West relations.
Let us remember that N.A.T.O., to Eastern Europe, is a dirty word. Indeed, I heard one ambassador from a Communist country go even further and describe it as a dirty "four-letter word". But our Council, unlike O.E.C.D., the Six or the Seven, is not responsible for any specific economic inter-Governmental operation. Therefore, under this head, to Eastern Europe it looks respectable. Because the Council of Europe is not
648
compromised by being identified with any military or economic bloc we could have an important role in détente.
In the January issue of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Brzezinski writes on "The Framework of East-West Reconciliation". He refers to the necessity of creating an East-West political assembly and suggests that the Council of Europe Assembly might fill that rôle. Of course, this raises problems. Mr. Brzezinski obviously does not understand the feeling in the Strasbourg Assembly that since in Eastern Europe there are no freely elected Members of Parliament it would be impossible for members of the Assembly to sit in alphabetical order with these so-called Parliamentarians. Yet Mr. Brzezinski's suggestion is well worth studying. Certainly, if there is more of a détente over the coming years, the political possibilities of the Council of Europe will increase and it could be both the place in which to pursue the dialogue between Europe and North America and also the meeting place of Eastern and Western Europe.
Under the third heading I come to the developing countries. The Assembly—I hope that historians will study this—through the influence of the Members of Parliament of former colonial countries, is becoming more and more concerned about the responsibilities of Europe towards the developing countries.
The single most important event in this field was the speech made in the Assembly by U Thant in 1966. Of course, U Thant was not the first non-Western statesman to speak in the Assembly on development problems. There have been several others. For instance, we had the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs of Senegal and we had the Chilean Foreign Minister and the Tunisian Minister of Planning. Last September, the Israeli Foreign Minister talked about the prospects for economic development and co-operation in the Middle East, and next week the Jordanian Foreign Minister will take part in our debate.
Until recently the European countries which contributed their fair share of development aid have been the former imperial countries. If we study the O.E.C.D. figures for the flow of financial resources from the industrialised countries—this is in alphabetical order—it

649
appears that Belgium, Britain, France and 'the Netherlands have contributed substantially more than the average, and all he other European countries have contributed substantially less than the average.
I think that the explanation will be chat one day—it is too close now to be certain—the former imperial Powers will be recognised as having felt a responsibility towards their former Colonies. But in the long run it will be bad for development if European aid programmes continue to be based on former colonial links. The problem now is to get all the Europeans to regard development aid not as a means of pursuing national political aims, but as a common responsibility.
Thus, I arrive at the conclusion, which will not develop, that the process of European integration is a direct concern lot only to Europeans, but to the developing world.
I know from experience in developing countries that it is difficult for them to realise that development poses such tremendous long-term problems and that it is bound to take not just a decade, but several decades. After all, Europe and North America did not become developed overnight.
The campaign for development, which is undoubtedly the greatest international problem of the second half of the twentieth century must be a co-operative effort by both the developing and the developed countries. It will also require the existence of strong institutions not only of the United Nations—the world organisation—but also of regional groups like the Council of Europe.
When U Thant spoke to us in Strasbourg he claimed that the problem of economic inequality in the world was now the principal threat to the peace and security not only of the less developed countries, but also of Western Europe, although Western Europe, as he said, felt secure—and he challenged the belief that it was right in so feeling—in its "prosperous provincialism".
The Council of Europe has a great task before it, and it is up to the Government—because, after all, it is an organisation of Governments—and up to our Parliamentary delegation there—because, after all, it is an important Assem-
650
bly—to see that the Council of Europe does not forget its duty to the Atlantic Community, to the whole of Europe, and to the developing world.
6.0 p.m.
Mr. Hugh Fraser: I shall not follow the right hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) except to refer to U.N.C.T.A.D., and some of the problems which face us today in the underdeveloped world.
I must say a few words about the speech of the Secretary of State for Defence. He has developed a new technique, a sort of formal non-speech of non-resignation. His was one of the most humiliating speeches that I have ever listened to in the House. He is quite capable of telling even further untruths, to add to those which he has told over the last few years. I shall not say much more about that, except to refer to some of the major things about which the Government have been mistaken and foolish, and, frankly, base during the last few months and years.
I think it only fair to say that people in this country seeing the way some politicians are behaving, seeing their total lack of shame, are saying that politics are a waste of time, and even turning away from the world which surrounds them and becoming obsessed with a defeatism which I believe is quite unnecessary.
The world situation has seldom been more perilous than it is today. The economy of a number of nations, especially the backward ones, is in a desperate plight. One sees from the U.N.C.T.A.D. meeting in February how desperate their plight is. Subscriptions, instead of being £3,000 million, may be £1,200 million, though this may rise to £1,500 million after compromise. We see a total instability in the Western exchanges, where there is a real fear of a repetition of 1931 on the economic side. When we consider the military situation, we find that there is grave disturbance, military imbalance, and a total lack of confidence in many respects.
What contribution have the Government made to this situation over the last three years, and what contribution are they making now? If one looks back over the last three years, one realises

651
that, except when there was a completion of the operation against confrontation in Malaysia, there has been very little achievement at all. There have been great missions in all sorts of directions. The Prime Minister is permanently in and out of aeroplanes, but there has been failure after failure. There has been failure in Europe, failure in Vietnam, and now we have this string of failures leading to devaluation and the adjustment of our defence budget.
I believe that the two great contributions which this country should make to the world are, first, to get our currency trusted abroad, and put our currency and our finances on a sound footing. I believe that this is by far the greatest contribution that we can make at the moment, yet none of the military cuts being carried out is relevant to this situation, and this is the most damaging point that can be made against the Government. Secondly, we must ensure that there is a proper hand-over of power in those areas where there is a danger of disruption, and where there can easily be outbreaks of violence, as my right hon. Friend said.
Perhaps I might deal with the first of those matters, that of what we should be doing now. More than 60 days have passed since devaluation, and still the £ sterling is regarded with about as much regard as the Prime Minister is held in this House. Hon. Gentlemen opposite should not think that by bringing in a swingeing anti-capitalist budget they will restore confidence, that by a gimmick they will restore confidence in our capacity abroad. They will not do so. They failed totally during the first few days after devaluation to take the right action and come forward with proposals which showed that they were not, for all their claims, purposive people.
The whole attack has fallen on the defence budget. How effective will this be? We know that the success or failure of devaluation will be judged during the next 18 months or two years, yet not one of these cuts will have any impact at all on spending during that period. On the contrary, it may mean that we will have to spend more on cancellation charges, and it may mean also that our friends in the Persian Gulf will decide that hon. Gentlemen opposite are to be
652
as little trusted as the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence, and withdraw their sterling balances.
On the most cold economic calculation, this is the worst of all possible worlds. Only one sacred cow has had its throat cut, while the rest go bellowing and mooing about the Committee rooms upstairs. I am, of course, referring to the F111. What a brilliant exercise this has been. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Defence, in interminable speeches, has prided himself on what he called value engineering and cost effectiveness. This exercise has been carried out by human beings, as opposed to performing morons in a flea circus. It is the most incredible disposition that we have ever seen.
Let us consider what it means to the taxpayer. The cancellation of the TSR2 cost £250 million, and all the jigs were destroyed. The cancellation of the F111 will cost £50 million or £60 million. The loss of markets overseas will account for a fabulous sum of money, and make the total about £300 million for an aeroplane that wasn't. This is about the best piece of cost ineffectiveness that has ever been witnessed.
Far more important than that, however, is the permanent damage which has been done to our defences by the cancellation of various weapons systems which cannot be restored, but before I deal more fully with that I would like to say one thing which I believe is most important of all, and that is the closing down of the Territorial Army. This decision has been taken for the sake of a very small sum of money. I see that one hon. Gentleman opposite disagrees with me, but this country may well need a framework for military expansion when the Government are reduced to the state of penury which they look like achieving, and the Territorial Army is being thrown away for the sake of about £2 million.
I deal, next, with the F111. It is no good my noble friend in another place saying that it ought to have been cancelled. He was never all that keen on the TSR2. I believe that without such a weapon as the F111 it is impossible to have a defence policy which does not go straight to the use of megaton weapons. This is the sort of situation into which the Government have

653
manoeuvred themselves. There is nothing between the small aircraft and the megaton weapon, because—and right hon. Gentlemen in the Defence Department know this—there is no defence against hostile aircraft unless one is able to have a long-range strike capability to knock out an opponent's airfield. All the aeroplanes put up locally are a waste of time. We saw this in Singapore.
Next, there is the cut which means the.slimming of the hunter-killer type of submarine programme which is the only sure defence for this country—and perhaps not even a sure defencein time of war if we are faced with a blockade. We are, after all, an island. It is no good the right hon. Gentleman talking about how strong our Navy is compared with those of France and Germany. It should be strong, because we can be starved out, which they cannot.
For the benefit of the Foreign Secretary, I will recapitulate my short argument. What the Government have done over three years is weaken sterling, which has damaged world trade and led to a situation by which all world currencies are imperilled. They must rebuild sterling as strongly and as fast as possible, and no serious steps in this direction have yet been taken. Secondly, these defence cuts will not affect devaluation. Their effect of devaluation will come too late in the cycle. They are merely concessions o the Left wing and may well be counter-productive.
This Labour Government, for all their line gestures, have achieved remarkably little in foreign affairs. This is not entirely the fault of the Foreign Secretary Or of the Prime Minister, but of the point of view of some of their hon. Friends, which is that the instant pursuit of moral interests, real or imagined, is to be preferred to the pursuit of national interest. I do not wish to see the imposition of Conservative, Socialist or Liberal regimes abroad. That as nothing to do with me. I want to see an effective advance in our trade and power and the defence of our own interests.
Apart from anything else, the Government should consider and reconsider, this very night, their policy towards Rhodesia, towards. South African arms and towards arms for Spain, because these are real issues on which they lack realism. This
654
lack of realism and double-talk and deception will one day bring them down, but it could well bring down the country.
6.12 p.m.
Mr. Maurice Edelman: I was sorry that the few grains of common sense in the speech of the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) were swept away by the flood of personal abuse against the Minister of Defence with which he began. He spoke about the need for cuts and deplored the fact that the emphasis was on defence cuts, but I would ask him what cuts were implicit in his argument. It was clear that he would like a savage attack on the social services and the abolition of the Welfare State. That is the kind of cuts which he wants and which we would resist to the limit of our ability.
If the right hon. Gentleman is concerned with the future of sterling, I can think of nothing more likely to undermine the status of sterling than his speech tonight, because it is clear that what the Government have sought to do after devaluation is to take the appropriate measures in our situation to restore the value of sterling and also to decide what our world rôle is. Some time ago, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that Britain's place is now at the top table, but it is important that we should now reappraise our situation and consider what our capacity is in the new situation after devaluation and the economic cuts and, in that connection, reappraise our interests and strategy.
To begin with, we must rid ourselves of dangerous and paralysing illusions. The first is that, despite everything, President de Gaulle loves Britain. He does not. His rebuff to us was more than an exclusion from the Common Market and more even than a blow to Britain's prestige. It was the beginning of a process by which he took every opportunity to attack British interests, to talk down sterling and to present Britain as a spent force. Parallel to this attack on sterling was his attack on the dollar, in which, by an anachronistic process of thought he tried, through M. Rueff, to revive the idea that Europe's monetary problems could be solved by a return to the gold standard.
In addition, he tried to attack our world interests by his visit to

655
Canada, where his call for a free Quebec, though superficially pro-French, was fundamentally anti-British. In the Middle East, General de Gaulle, by his pseudo-independence policy, will certainly have obtained some short-term interests to the detriment of his colleagues in the West by taking a line close to that of the Soviet Union, but this policy is also damaging to British interests.
The President has shown himself a doubtful ally in N.A.T.O. He has acquiesced in a Soviet presence in the Mediterranean and has brought nearer the day when Mers-el-Kebir can be used as a Soviet base, and Malta is also under pressure to make itself available to the Soviet fleet in the Mediterranean. Therefore, tonight we must try to assess our relations not only with France, for which I have a great personal affection, but with the policies of President de Gaulle himself, and we must separate his policies from those of France, as they may be separated today and certainly will be in future.
The subject of the Common Market has engaged our attention in the last few days. I believe that our application to join was premature. Powerful industrial and agricultural interests, ideologically reinforced by Gaullism, but, even worse, by some of the old Vichy interests which remain alive in France, are hostile to Britain. I must add, however, that there is also a great body of opinion in France which is wholly sympathetic to British entry. Before applying, we should have cultivated that opinion to the point where it would have affected President de Gaulle's attitude. Even he cannot be indifferent to French public opinion.
We have created a self-deluding myth about momentum. Momentum alone could not have carried us into the Common Market. General de Gaulle's virtue—perhaps his vice as well—is his consistency: he has consistently taken the view that Britain does not belong in Europe. But, to quote the Prime Minister's words, "We will not take 'No' for an answer." That was, perhaps, an injudicious phrase, because some of our biggest bores are those who will not take "No" for an answer. There is no guarantee that the "No" will become a "Yes", and Gaullism will not necessarily disappear with the General.
656
There is no guarantee that the Common Market will continue to evolve in such a way that, by the mid-1970s, when we may perhaps be acceptable, we will want to join it. The essence of the matter—I have said this repeatedly—is that General de Gaulle does not want Britain in Europe. His views of Britain's insularity and our attachment to the Commonwealth and our association with the United States have not changed at all. I am convinced that even if we were to sever all connections with the United States, whether military or economic, and renounce what President de Gaulle has called our "privileged relationship", he would still not want us in Europe. The fact is that he does not want a major political competitor in Europe.
This brings us to the question: where do we go from here? It is not in Britain's interest to try to undermine the Common Market as it exists, certainly not in pique. A strong Europe is as much in Britain's interest today as it was in 1949. Time and again Europe has reassured us of its friendship and, certainly in the processes of negotiation, it has given us its support.
Should we take part in any of the ingenious proposals for association, pre-adhesion or para-community which have been put forward? I believe that the Foreign Secretary was right in declining any form of second-rate status for Britain in relation to Europe. In any event, if there were to be any substantial advantages to Britain in these proposals, General de Gaulle would not play. Once again, there would be a waste of time and dilatory negotiations. And even if the advantages of these proposals were only marginal, we obviously could not take part in so humiliating an arrangement.
Here I pay tribute to the firmness and consistency of our friends in Benelux, who, even today, have put forward proposals which are designed to be of benefit to Britain and which deserve careful consideration. I say that because, whatever happens, Britain is a European power, has a place in Europe and should do whatever it can to maintain that position.
President de Gaulle has neither the right or the power to keep us out of Europe. It is true that the tariff barriers of the Six present a problem, but

657
it is not insuperable. It could be overcome by agreements, if there is mutual agreement to do so. It could also be overcome by technical and productive efficiency on our part, for that would make our exports both cheap and indispensable.
Only yesterday the question of E.F.T.A. was raised. Is it right that we should strengthen our ties with E.F.T.A. and the Commonwealth, but it would be o waste of time if we gave any attention to the idea, which is being floated in certain quarters, of an industrial free trade area which would combine E.F.T.A. with the Common Market. We can be absolutely certain that such a proposal would not, when it came to tine crunch—as long as Britain has a cheap food policy—be tolerated by the French or any of the other industrial countries inside the E.E.C.
This brings me to another question which I regard as being of the greatest importance. It is the question of our technological co-operation with France. For many years I have been an enthusiastic supporter of the idea of functional co-operation with Europe. I believe that division of labour would be in the interests of Europe as a whole. However, I cannot have any kind of sympathy with technological co-operation, so-called, which is one-sided and which turns out to be to the detriment of British interests.
I believe in many of the projects which we have been considering with the French. However, if we, with good will, engage in projects of functional co-operation with whoever it may be and find, in the long run, that they have milked us of our technology and have then dropped the contract, that can only be disadvantageous to us. We should not entertain such projects. I believe in a technological community in Europe. In the postindustrial age, as the French call it, we have an enormous amount of technical knowledge to proffer for our advantage and for that of Europe as a whole. But in our relations with the French henceforth, we must be careful, whatever agreements we arrive at, to proceed on the basis of a strict quid pro quo.
The question of efficiency is at the core of the matter and in dealing with this issue, I wish to refer to the aircraft in-
658
dustry. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) was bewailing the balance of trade and payments difficulties which we would have had to suffer if we had gone into the E.E.C. The heart of the question is whether we could not, as a country, produce more effectively, more efficiently and, therefore, more cheaply. Can we compete in the world and obtain favourable balance of payments through a rise in efficiency and productivity?
We must not forget that since 1951—these figures appear in the O.E.C.D. Report—whereas our deliveries in the engineering industry have risen from 3,000 dollars per man to 6,000 dollars, Japanese deliveries in the engineering industry—my right hon. Friend was in that country the other day—have risen from 3,000 dollars per man to 10,000 dollars. That has been achieved because Japan has concentrated on advanced technologies and on reducing effort to a few lines of production with long production runs.
Whereas we have stagnated, the Japanese, with a somewhat comparable economy, have leapt ahead. I am not pessimistic. I believe that we could do the same if we put the emphasis on efficiency and cost-effectiveness. We must restructure our industry, and that is the essence of the matter. It is not just a question of playing about with finance. That may be a solution for the short-term, but it will not help in the long-term. It is not a matter of having more and more severe cuts in the economy. We must restructure the economy and so be more productive and, therefore, more competitive. This will make us more capable of earning more. I know that those engaged in the engineering industry will agree with and support what I am saying.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence referred briefly to the aircraft industry. It will be within the memory of some hon. Members of long service in the House that Mr. Ernest Bevin, when Foreign Secretary, said, in effect, "Give me a few more million tons of coal and my power in Europe will be greater than ever before". We have the coal, but it may not have been noticed with sufficient force that time has moved on and we are now in the electronic age. Nevertheless, if we use our resources properly and

659
effectively, then, through this rise in industrial strength, we can once again be a leading Power, which we deserve to be.
What I have said is directly relevant to the aircraft industry. I do not regret that we have decided not to buy the F.111. I am not persuaded, in the technical sense, that it is a very good aircraft. But I do regret—although I accept that some of my hon. Friends may not agree with me—the cancellation of the TSR2. It is often said that, if we had continued to make the TSR2, they would have cost us £10 million an aircraft. That is rather like saying that if one makes the prototype of a wristwatch it will cost £30,000.
My right hon. Friend the present Chancellor of the Exchequer set up the Plowden Committee to inquire into the aircraft industry. That Committee reported that the American aircraft industry was three times as productive as Britain's and that even the much smaller French aircraft industry was one-and-a-half times more productive than ours. If we had not cancelled the project, but had improved our efficiency, we could today have precisely the aircraft about which the Minister of Defence was speaking—a tactical strike reconnaissance aircraft—and which we need in our reappraised situation.
I believe that technology—and this is no longer a cant phrase, but a phrase that has relevance to our needs—is the key to the future. Yesterday, many of my hon. Friends talked about the Middle East. The Council of Europe, about which my right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) spoke, is interested in a regional plan for nuclear desalination in the Middle East which could bring Israelis and Arabs together in a way that none of the political combinations we have discussed can ever do. I hope that we in Britain, who have made so much progress in nuclear desalination, will reinforce the efforts of the Council of Europe and encourage this plan for nuclear desalination, so that not only in Israel, but in the Arab countries, too, the deserts will flower again.
From a strategic point of view, it is quite certain that, having shortened our lines of communication, we must regard ourselves as a Power based on the
660
Atlantic, with Europe as our fulcrum. This must be a time for rethinking our position and harmonising our military and political strategy. Just as the first Industrial Revolution swept Britain to the height of its political power, so, in the second Industrial Revolution, we should use our technological knowledge as an instrument of diplomatic influence. I reject the idea that Britain is in decline. I believe that our malaise can be ended by our own wisdom and determination to use our inner reserves to support our external strength.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I would remind the House that there are only two and a half hours of general debate left, and almost every hon. Member present wishes to speak. Mr. Pardoe.
6.32 p.m.
Mr. John Pardoe: It is very difficult to congratulate this Government on anything they do, but I believe that they have taken several correct decisions during the last few weeks. But they have done so by such a circuitous route that it is almost impossible to follow. The Secretary of State for Defence has told us this afternoon that we are seeing "a new and necessary realism", and I cannot help wondering what we have been seeing these past three years.
Many of these decisions have been advocated by Liberals for a very long time, and this is not the first time that the Liberals have been proved right. We have consistently opposed the Government's defence and foreign policies. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) said that the Secretary of State had been proved wrong so often that he should resign, but if resignation is the proper reward for being wrong, what is the proper reward for being right? Whatever it is we Liberals have certainly earned it.
I do not want to deal wit h the resignation issue except to say that political resignation is a personal matter. The Secretary of State is a very able man of great intellectual integrity, but in this present situation he has not enhanced his reputation by not resigning.
If we cannot congratulate the Government on the way they made their

661
decisions, we must congratulate them on their good fortune. They did not exactly aim to make those decisions—not even their most ardent supporters could claim that the Foreign Secretary has been almost apologetic: they were blown off course, they tripped over obstacles on the way, slipped on banana skins, and finally landed face down in the middle of Europe. They may be in the right place, but they have a strange way of getting there. The Foreign Secretary, (aught in possession of a new foreign policy, seems to me more like the scullery maid, caught with the broken vase in her hand, who says, "I didn't mean it, Ma'am. It came apart in my hands".
In their attitude to foreign policy this is a Government of beachcombers. They have turned over every pebble on every teach and at last, after three weary years, they have come upturned some of the right decisions. But is the commitment they have now reached firm at last? The record of the Government's changes in defence policy, foreign policy, and social policy has been pretty disastrous. Do they have any firm commitment to any sort of policy at all?
But if one has reservations about the way in which the Government have reached their decisions, what can one say shout the Conservative alternative? I ask, because I suppose that one has to make a choice in tonight's vote. I have studied the speech made yesterday by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) and although it was, as all his speeches are, an excellent aid an honest speech, I could not find a vestige of an alternative foreign policy
in it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Let us look at what he said.
The right hon. Gentleman first attacked the Government for fixing a rigid ceiling for defence expenditure. How does one reduce total Government expenditure if, at some point in this massive area of defence expenditure one does not say, "Enough is enough"? I believe that 1064 was the right time to say it. I only wish that the Government had gone about their task of cutting defence expenditure and taken these decisions then. We should now be seeing the fruits.
The right hon. Gentleman then attacked the Government for having
662
brought about a very low point in the morale of the Armed Forces. The right hon. Gentleman is not now present, but I may say that I am rather younger than he. I was in the forces at the time of Suez, and I do not believe that the morale of the British troops has ever been lower than at that particular time. I was then responsible for controlling aircraft, and I sat doing nothing because there was not petrol to fly with. If that does not destroy morale I do not know what does.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Government's European policies and said, that they were inherited policies, not their own. Well no, they are not. They are ours! What part the right hon. Gentleman played in establishing a European policy for this country when such a policy could have given us the leadership of Europe for the asking I do not know, but I do not believe that it was a very singular part, nor was that of his party.
The right hon. Gentleman then attacked what he called the "crass folly of the refusal to sell arms to South Africa". Why did the Tory Government themselves refuse to sell certain arms to South Africa? Presumably, the reason was that one does not think of selling arms to one's potential enemy. I believe that eventually there is bound to be war in Southern Africa—and whose side shall we be on? We have to make that decision now——
Mr. Frank Hooley: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that for several years there has been war in Southern Africa, and continual war?
Mr. Pardoe: I am thinking particularly of the holocaust that is to come. I believe that South Africa is the enemy of this country, and of everything it has stood for in its greatest moments,——
Mr. Ridsdale: Does not the hon. Member agree that South Africa is our second best customer?
Mr. Pardoe: I suppose that every principle has its price.
Who are these men? What kind of Government do we have in South Africa? Who are these people to whom the Conservative Party wishes us to sell arms? I would remind members of that party

663
of a statement made by Balthazar Vorster, the present Prime Minister of South Africa in 1942. He said:
"We stand for Christian Nationalism which is an ally of National Socialism. You can call this anti-democratic principle dictatorship if you like. In Italy, it is called Fascism, in Germany, German Nationalism, and in South Africa, Christian Nationalism."
I should have thought that was enough to convince even the most Right-wing Tory that these people were not exactly the best of friends for this country.
The right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire also said that this decision not to sell arms to South Africa was not a foreign policy. It is not, but I do not believe that his speech was a foreign policy, either. Nor do I believe that his oft-remembered statement in 1961 was foreign policy. "The British people", he said, "are prepared to be blown to atomic dust." If that is a foreign policy for any country, I beg to differ.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I recognise that in his comments on the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) the hon. Member is making party points, but I think that he should withdraw the suggestion that the former Prime Minister of this country made that statement in the context the hon. Member has just suggested.
Mr. Pardoe: I said that he made it in 1961. I know that he made it in the context of the Berlin crisis, because that happened to be the crisis of the time, but I quoted the date. I do not think that I have said anything which I should withdraw, and I certainly do not do so.
What is Tory policy in relation to the decisions made in the last few weeks? I understand it is that we should renew commitments, but that we shall not have anything with which to carry them out. Is it a firm policy? We heard from the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod):
"We will keep the Prime Minister's word for him".
But he was very careful to balance it with a singularly vacuous piece of waffle when he said:
"If it is practical and helpful to us to maintain a presence in the Far East, we shall do so."
664
We know that it will not be practical or helpful for hon. Members of the Opposition to do so.
British foreign policy in the last 25 years has depended on one myth after another. There was the myth, "We won the war", the myth of Commonwealth, the myth of the special relationship, the myth of the independent nuclear deterrent, the myth of Suez, the myth of east of Suez and the myth of being a world policeman. Liberals have, over the years. attacked every one of these. Unfortunately, some of them are still with us, but some of them we have now escaped from. We now have to concentrate, as we have said so often in the past, on our European future; but not just the maintenance of peace in Europe, not something as simple as that.
We want the long-term settlement of European political problems and the development of greater European responsibility to the world. We want the creation of a supra-national economic community. There must be various forms of association, not only for overseas territories but for European countries as well, particularly, of course, for Eastern European countries.
By leaving the myth of world policing behind us I do not think that we wash our hands of world problems. Rather, we leave ourselves free to concentrate on those problems. The problems we have left behind are puny by comparison with the real problems which face the world today. There is the problem of nuclear proliferation. I do not now wish to discuss British nuclear policy. Unfortunately, the Government have not taken our advice on that, although they will do so eventually. There are tremendous problems of racial tension in the world in which we have to set an example at home and use our influence elsewhere to bring about racial harmony. There is, I hope, too a renewed commitment to international co-operation. We want a permanent world peace-keeping force.
There there is the problem of providing a stable income for the functions of the United Nations. It is becoming a fashion on all sides to denigrate the United Nations, but nothing can stabilise the United Nations better than a permanent income for it. In that respect,

665
I welcome the proposals put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, to provide the United Nations with an income in future from the development of the ocean bed. Then we have the ever-present problem of world poverty and, largest of all, the expansion of world I population.
This change we have had in the last few weeks is not a retreat. It offers a tremendous opportunity to come to terms with the problems I have outlined and a whole host more. We do not need arms or troops or carriers or planes toe helpful in these fields. There is a tremendous rôle to play as one of the middle Powers and we must play it to the full, especially through the medium of Europe.
6.45 p.m.
Mr. Desmond Donnelly: I hope that the hon. Member for Cornwall, (Mr. Pardoe) will forgive me it I do not refer in detail to his speech. My reason is that I want to discuss some rather large issues which led me to take that was for me a very sad step last week. It is not a step which one takes lightly after nearly 18 years in the Parliamentary Labour Party and over 30 years since I joined the Labour Party. For the purposes of compression, I am omitting to refer in detail to what the hon. Member said, but he will gather what I think about his views as I proceed.
For the convenience of the House I thought it better to assemble my argument under three main groupings: first, because this has been a wide-ranging debate, the Atlantic Alliance and the circumstances which led it to come into being and whether and how far it is still relevant to our case today; secondly, same of the problems which have arisen since the alliance was formed; thirdly, the policies which, in my judgment, the Western world has to follow for the next 10 or 15 years; and finally, I will draw some conclusions from that. It will be seen then how wide is the gulf between myself and my hon. Friends, especially my right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench.
It should not be necessary, in this assembly of middle-aged men, to recall why the Atlantic Alliance came into being, but, listening to the speech of the
666
hon. Member for Cornwall, North and many others in this debate, it strikes me that certain hon. Members do not know or have forgotten. Perhaps I might remind them briefly of the reason. Let us look back to those years, 1946 and the Treaty of Dunkirk; 1947, the Marshall Plan and Ernest Bevin's magnificent and statesmanlike response to General Marshall's speech. That more than anything else pulled Western Europe up by its boot straps.
Then there was 1948 and Ernest Bevin's proposals for Western Union and the Treaty of Brussels and, also in 1948, the day when Jan Masaryk's body lay in that courtyard in Prague. There was the Berlin blockade when aircraft thundered in and out all round the clock and the West was doing what was considered impossible, the supplying of a city of 2 million people entirely by air, and the defeat of the blockade by the controlled, confident and determined response of the Western nations. Then, in 1949, there was the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance. Then there was the Communist zigzag to the Orient and the day when the tanks appeared in South Korea and the anti-tank shells bounced off them like tennis balls. There was the immediate American response and loyal support by the British Labour Government of the day.
It was very different from the attitude adopted by hon. Members on these benches to the issues of Vietnam. There was the American stand in Korea. Checked in Korea, the Communists moved southwards to Indo-China. where was the tragic situation in Dien Bien Phu when the flower of the French Army perished in 1954. There was the dramatic Geneva Agreement so ably negotiated by Anthony Eden, an outstanding achievement in the annals of British diplomatic history.
Then there was the period when Germany was brought into the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance, in 1954, and the London-Paris Agreements, in September and October of that year. All that is old history, but that is how it came into being. How far is that alliance still relevant to our requirements now? I will say a word or two about the Russian attitudes in a minute.

667
What about Western Europe? Looking at Western Europe today, with its divisions, I would say that there is no cohesion, nor sufficient prospects of a possible cohesion for Western Europe ever on her own, without an American presence in Europe, to be an effective counterbalance to the Soviet Union's growing technological, military and economic power.
Therefore, from our point of view the alliance is essential. We who have exercised the right of free speech in this House over the years have exercised it because of that alliance, as I have so often said. What about North America? From the North American point of view, if ever Western Europe were to be overrun by a hostile, predatory hegemony, the prospects for North America would be very bleak indeed. So, from the point of view of the Americans and of Europeans, the alliance must remain an essential basic factor in all our policies.
Having said that about the alliance, and having drawn that conclusion, I come to some of the problems that have arisen. There are many, but perhaps I could deal with three only. The first is the growth of nationalism and of separatism. Nationalism is not merely confined to France. We see it in the local state elections in Germany. We see it in Scotland. We see it in my own country of Wales. Separatism, too. This is a separatist Government of a kind, as we shall increasingly sec as time passes.
What is the basis of that nationalism and separatism? It is difficult to determine it. There are a number of contributory factors, but, in substance, it is partly born of frustrations and political irresponsibility that comes with those frustrations. It is partly born of pure selfishness. It is partly born of people who have ceased to have their minds focused on the wide issues and who suddenly contract to miniscule horizons. This is a real problem throughout Europe. It is applicable in other parts of the world, too. It can be met only by the challenge of vigorous democratic leadership. It is vigorous democratic leadership that is lacking more than anything else in the world today.
The second problem is the changing attitudes of the Soviet Union and of
668
China. I do not think that it is necessary for us to argue in detail that the Chinese pursue a hostile and aggressive foreign policy. I think that that is a matter of general acknowledgment throughout the House. It is not confined merely to the Orient. It is now beginning to have an increasing impact on the Continent of Africa.
What about the Soviet Union? Much has been said about how things have changed. I do not think that hon. Members here, or members in other Parliaments in European countries, are fully aware of the new nature of aggressive diplomatic and political activity being adopted by the Soviet Union. I will give one simple illustration which was referred to in what I may presume to describe as an admirable speech by the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home).
I refer to the Soviet naval presence in the Mediterranean. I believe that this is one of the most important events of the 1960s. Here we are talking about various issues, when scarcely one hon. Member is aware of this new sudden change in world balances of power. The Soviet Union, four years ago, had three ships in the Mediterranean. It now has 46, including four cruisers with rocket-carrying nuclear capability.
Egypt, since the events of last June, has become virtually a Soviet military captive. The Soviet Union has discovered suddenly the importance of sea power. The importance of that sea power is opening up to the Russians the historic ambitions of centuries—first, in the Mediterranean. The Russian presence there poses a very serious threat to Turkey, to Greece, to Italy and to France. This is Europe's soft underbelly. It is also having implications along the whole coast of North Africa.
But its immediate application is in the Middle East. The Russians are given a unique opportunity by the defection of Her Majesty's Government to her alliances. There is a Soviet delegation sitting in Aden at this moment as we are sitting here in the House of Commons. There has been a Soviet agreement with Iraq in the last few days, which is an historic milestone in relationships in the Middle East. The Soviet prospects of first moving in and filling the power

669
vacuum which we are creating in the Persian Gulf and then moving south wards to the Horn of Africa have very great implications for the future of the whole continent of Africa. It will not be con-lined there, in my view. It will move I further round the whole arena of the Indian Ocean.
This brings me to the central theme of the cuts which were announced last week. I shall not argue here the economic case which was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said that it was because we could no longer afford to stay there that we had to go. The answer to that was given by the right lion. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire yesterday in some remarkable and very important figures which the House would do well to study.
The question is not whether we can afford to stay there. The question is how we can afford to leave. There is also the larger question of the power vacuum in the Arabian Gulf and the whole arena of the Indian Ocean, which is now becoming ever-increasingly an arena of instability. Do we seriously think that local Governments in Rawalpindi, New Delhi, and Rangoon can indefinitely sustain the balance of power in the Orient without a Western military presence? Is it right, and is it practical, that it should be only the United States of America? These are questions which we must ask ourselves.
I am not one for saying that we should continue to carry former burdens in the future as we did in the past. I am not unmindful either of our national interest in Europe. I am the only Member who sits on these benches who voted against E.F.T.A. when it was formed, and I recall very well how when the Labour Party abstained, the present right hon. Member fir Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson) led 20 of his fellow troglodytes into the Tory Lobby against us. Nevertheless, this whole Oriental area of the world is one of increasing instability and of consequence to the rest of the world.
This must seem far away from North Cornwall, but I well remember a day when a British Prime Minister spoke of Czechoslovakia as being a far-away country of which we knew nothing. The distance between London and Hanoi is row just about the same in terms of flying time as it was between London and
670
Prague in those days. The implications of what goes on there in this rapidly diminishing world are ever-increasing.
Reference was made yesterday to the American position in Vietnam and also to the British position in the Far East. There were two speeches from this side of the House which, I think, deserve attention. The first was the speech of the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Alan Lee Williams)—balanced, knowledgeable and succinct. There was also the speech of the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick). The hon. Member for Croydon, South must sooner or later learn that an agglomeration of indifferent Press cuttings is no substitute for argument.
May I put the matter in its perspective? We can argue about American tactics in Vietnam. I am dealing with this in the wider position of the whole of this area. We can argue about whether the Americans should bomb here or bomb there, or not this day or not until next month, or not at all. But the Americans drifted into this commitment for wholly honourable reasons after the 1954 Geneva settlement. They are not there for predatory, colonial purposes. They are there because they do not know what they can do as to how to get out. [Laughter.] They are there because, if they do get out, they leave a power vacuum in Asia which has much wider repercussions. This is what hon. Members of this side must face.
Mr. Raymond Fletcher: Will the hon. Gentleman permit me?
Mr. Donnelly: No.
Mr. Fletcher: Of course not! I know why.
Mr. Donnelly: I shall be quite ready to permit the hon. Gentleman to intervene later, after I have presented this argument.
Mr. John Lee Mr. John Lee (Reading) rose——
Mr. Donnelly: Perhaps that hon. Member will contain himself, too. His anguish will be much the shorter if he does.
The Americans are there because they have incurred a social responsibility, and the consequences of their withdrawal would have wide repercussions throughout the whole arena. I now give way.
Mr. Raymond Fletcher: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, for once. If what he says is correct, why is General James Gavin, who may be assumed to know a thing or two about military affairs in general and South-East Asia in particular, in favour of such a partial withdrawal to defensible enclaves?
Mr. Donnelly: There can be all sorts of arguments, and I do not wish to be drawn into them, about how the situation can be handled. I am not arguing that. The point I am making is that the American position is fundamentally honourable. It is time someone said so in the House. [Interruption.]
The hon. Member for Croydon, South made a speech of extraordinary sentimental hogwash yesterday, and I am getting a bit bored with such trivialities. It is time that someone said that the American position is honourable, and I say it in the House now. If I were an American citizen, regardless of the actual tactics of the operation, I should be immensely proud of the courage and self-control of my fellow-countrymen in Vietnam. I have spoken about Vietnam and the wider area of instability in that arena, and I define that as the second problem which has arisen.
The final problem which has arisen since the formation of the alliance has not been discussed in the House except briefly, namely, the decision to go in for rival anti-ballistic missile systems. This is a new type of arms race, and it will have great repercussions for the whole world. I do not think that the people of Britain are fully aware of the new technotronic impulses which are being set up in both the United States and the Soviet Union to conduct this arms race. That is my third point. I shall not go into detail about it because, I wish to compress what I have to say. Yet it is vital.
What should be our responses? First, what about France? We come back to this time and again. The hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) spoke of it earlier. Our view of the situation is totally different from that taken by President de Gaulle. If he were asked, President de Gaulle would say, I think, that the central problem facing Europe is Germany. We should probably say that the central problem is the division
672
of Europe. I think that President de Gaulle would far rather have a divided Germany and keep the Germans permanently in a second-class State. This is why, probably, he would like a triple alliance. Because he cannot have a triple alliance with us, he has a dual alliance with the Soviet Union. This is really what he means when he talks about Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals. What happens after the Urals I do not know, and probably he does not, either.
What should we do about France? In my view, we must get on with planning the alliance without the presence of this non-ally. The French do not contribute anything to N.A.T.O. at the moment—nothing at all—and the sooner we get on planning the alliance, ignoring the French for the moment, the better. If President de Gaulle leaves the alliance and denounces it shortly, very well. If he does not, it will be a blessing, but only a minor one. We really must address ourselves to the alliance and our future security.
Second, what should be the functions and the membership of the alliance? I shall deal briefly with the functions first. In my view, the alliance must be an alliance not merely for defence purposes, but also for negotiating purposes. It must be a political as well as a military alliance. It must be an alliance with a number of objectives, including a European security arrangement, and our ultimate objective in the European theatre should be the unity of Europe.
It goes wider than that. The next quarter of a century is likely to see sporadic outbursts of violence on a global scale. Our central problem will be to contain these outbursts of violence. Therefore, the alliance must think in global terms. The world is now too small for it to be restricted to Europe.
The membership, therefore, must be more widely extended. For my part, I would include ANZAM, to which the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire referred yesterday. I would widen the alliance to include the countries of ANZAM and also Japan, the third industrial Power of the world. We talk too much in the House about foreign affairs while ignoring the growing potential, political and economic, of Japan.

673
Finally, there is the question of our part in all this. The one thing not to do is to contract out, yet this is precisely what we are doing at this moment of history. This is precisely where I part company from my right hon. Friends. One can argue about local issues in Britain—little local difficulties like steel rationalisation—but this is a great, historic decision about Britain's world rôle. I cannot bring myself to support the proposals of the Government to withdraw.
What can we do? There is only one Cling we can do—reverse the policies on which the Government are embarking, which, I am certain, will lead to disaster. This is the central problem facing this country now. It is what brought me to the sad decision which I have now reached, after 30 years since I first joined the Labour Party. To me, Socialism has meant social responsibility towards people who are less well off than I am aid also a better and more fair life for the British working man. The Government's decision has betrayed both. I am not prepared to betray either. This is why I did not support them in the Lobby last week. It is why I shall certainly not support them tonight.
7.7 p.m.
Sir George Sinclair: The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) speaks for a great number in the House when he says that the Government's policies of the last two or three weeks have sounded a general retreat from our responsibilities in the outside world. I go all the way with him in the solution which he urged.
I do not remember being more depressed, more depressed for Britain, than I was after hearing the Prime Minister's wretched statement in the House on the 16th of this month. My depression and anger were increased as I listened to Ministerial statements during the debates of the following two days.
In winding up the debate last night, the Commonwealth Secretary said that these decisions
"accord with the inexorable pattern of history and the inescapable necessity to match our military commitments to our economic resources."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th January, 1963; Vol. 757, c. 544.]
That statement applied to last week's decisions to withdraw all our forces from
674
the Persian Gulf, Singapore and Malaysia by 1971 is manifest nonsense.
It is not the principle of withdrawal which is being argued; it is the precipitate programme of withdrawal, what the Foreign Secretary called "a change of timing". This is what we on this side consider to be against our own national interests and against the interests and wishes of our friends and allies in those areas. We have made it clear that the removal of our military presence by 1971 will leave in each area a dangerous power vacuum which will be a threat to peace and stability. To remove our forces from these two areas before the Governments there have reasonable opportunities to build up their forces and achieve new defensive groupings is, as many hon. Members from this side of the House have said, both dishonourable and against our interests.
In spite of what the Foreign Secretary said at the end of his speech, the Government's measures, announced last week, sounded a major retreat from external responsibilities and from important commitments which we had accepted within the past few months or even weeks. This decision to fix the date for withdrawal at 1971 was neither inexorable nor inescapable, as the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs tried to prove. The decision stems directly from the Government's lamentable scale of priorities, coupled with their lack of capacity to manage our economy and lack of will, of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) spoke, to ensure that Britain continues to make a major effort to protect our interests abroad and to help some of the staunchest of our Commonwealth allies in a way which they consider most important over the next few years—I repeat, over the next few years, not indefinitely. The Government's priorities are wrong arid their will in these matters seems to be a reflection of pressure by their far Left wing.
They have decided to slash our defence commitments and our armed Services to maintain Government spending at home on policies that are irrelevant or harmful—the £70 million on further transport nationalisation has been mentioned—to leave untouched many of the basic weaknesses of our economy. I do not believe that these decisions on withdrawal can

675
be justified on financial grounds. Other slashes in Government spending could have been made to better purpose.
Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary asked us on this side of the House
"… in what other way we can get the priorities right."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th January; Vol. 757, c. 434.]
The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) gave one answer, and I shall try to give another. There is one measure that would help make the cuts unnecessary, have a continuing tonic effect on our whole economy, and enable us to increase our influence for good and for peace in the world.
The savings expected from withdrawal from the Persian Gulf and South-East Asia could have been made far more effectively and over an identical period by cutting back drastically on the over manning of our Civil Service, which has expanded by 57,000 in the past three years; by a cut back of about 25 per cent. over the next four years. What has the Prime Minister offered? He has offered a "Non-Proliferation of the Civil Service Treaty". It is not enough.
Mr. John Lee Mr. John Lee rose——
Sir G. Sinclair: I shall not give way at this moment.
The savings expected by the withdrawal from the Persian Gulf and South-East Asia could have been made far more effectively by such a cut combined with a cutting back on the overmanning in our nationalised industries, and in local government. After giving such a lead to the public sector, the Prime Minister would have had a right to call on private enterprise to make similar cuts.
Management consultants know that this is possible; many industrialists know that it is possible and desirable; and the public, horrified by the growth of bureaucracy under Socialism, knows that it should be done. Add to this, as a top priority, a mobilisation of national training resources to ensure an effective and massive transfer of manpower from redundant to productive work and a new deal for industrial relations.
Those three inter-connected measures would, over the same period before 1971, make a vast difference to the basis of
676
our foreign policy, greatly revitalise our economy, reduce our industrial costs and thereby increase our exports and help to restore our balance of payments. If the Prime Minister had announced such measures and seen to it personally that they were carried out—personal direction and leadership are needed to see that cuts of that magnitude are carried out—he would have done much to restore confidence in Britain overseas, confidence in our determination to remain a real force in the world and to have an effective foreign policy. We were challenged to say what cuts we should make, and that is one suggestion.
So much for the general scene. My right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) dealt with the question of the Persian Gulf. I should like to deal shortly with South-East Asia and Britain's contribution towards developing countries.
The withdrawals from South-East Asia mean that Britain will leave a power vacuum and jeopardise our great and proper interests there, and leave our allies unprotected before they have a reasonable opportunity to build up their own forces and make alternative defence groupings. Nobody who listened to the courageous and determined Prime Minister of Singapore, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, can be in any doubt of the real danger we are creating in that area by our complete withdrawal by 1971. The hurried pace of withdrawal is a complete retreat from our undertakings of only a few months ago.
What of the dangerous power vacuum it will leave? Australia and New Zealand, whose forces would be acceptable in Singapore and Malaysia, cannot yet take thier place. They have said so publicly. Nor could the United States. It is already fully stretched, and would not be acceptable at present. Nor would Japan.
No one need have any doubts about the sadness and anger against us and the distrust of us felt in Malaysia and Singapore as well as in Australia and New Zealand, which are both now fighting in Vietnam to prevent the progressive subversion of South-East Asia. [An HON. MEMBER: "They could go home."] The hon. Gentleman may think that, but

677
I do not agree with him. Our military presence in the area has been a great reassurance to them while they are engaged further north. After their help in two world wars, as a matter of honour, there should be some reciprocity in these matters from this country.
The acceptable presence of our forces it; Malaysia and Singapore in the immediate future, because of their impact on puce and stability, is probably Britain's most valuable contribution to the economic development of that part of the world. People there know what our help meant, first, in containing the attempt at infiltration and, secondly, when we helped them against the aggression of Indonesia. They new rate our presence in the area as far more valuable than any compensatory aid the Government are prepared to offer to offset our military withdrawal. That was made perfectly clear to the Government by the Prime Minister of Singapore and to the public at meetings held when he was over here, and on television.
In this area of South-East Asia, the area under the most immediate threat, our forces can certainly, over the next seven years, play a far more important rôle than we could with comparable forces in a Europe, which is not under immediate threat. We can in South-East Asia play a rôle that no other country can fill so acceptably or effectively. In this, I agree with what was said yesterday by the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Alan Lee Williams).
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) that the Government had a duty to make this case clearly to our N.A.T.O. allies—the case for a practical division of labour. I believe that the cuts in the Services were made regardless of our real defence requirements, of our real interests and of our commitments to our friends and allies. They were, as has been said, a sop to the Government's Left wing.
Turning now to aid, I am glad that the Government, in the midst of the troubles they have brought upon themselves and the country, have reduced aid by an effective amount of only 10 per cent. I do not accept that compensatory aid to South-East Asia should be counted as an addition. The Governments there
678
would prefer to have our military presence maintained, as was originally promised.
Mr. Hooley: As a matter of accuracy, I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that my understanding of the figures is that the fall in aid will be effectively £10 million—which is 5 per cent. and not 10 per cent.
Sir G. Sinclair: I thank the hon. Member. I should have said a cut by £10 million and not by 10 per cent.
Our stagnant economy and the discouragement of overseas investment, which are both the fault of the Government, will reduce our capacity to help developing countries and will, therefore, reduce the credibility of anything we have to contribute at the United Nations Conference on Tariffs and Trade next month.
In conclusion, I accuse the Government of turning away from their proper responsibilities and of deciding in favour of slothful living at home. This is why we are censuring the Government and why they should go before they do more harm to Britain.
7.22 p.m.
Mr. Paul B. Rose: For a moment during the speech of the hon. Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair), I thought that he had mistaken the day and was speaking on the subject to be debated next Monday. He must recognise, as we on this side do, that last week an historic and irreversible decision was taken on Britain's world commitments. That decision was an overdue recognition of reality. It was a shedding of illusions about what rôle Britain has to play in the modern world. It was taken primarily because of the necessity to cut our military coat according to our economic cloth. Defence expenditure should be the servant of foreign policy, and in terms of foreign policy these cuts make a good deal of sound common sense.
I cannot understand how the Opposition can promise the country cuts in taxation and yet ask it to continue the sort of rôle in the world that we have had. We should not be in the Persian Gulf if our purpose is to protect feudal sheikhs. We did not protect our oil

679
supplies, because it was our presence and, perhaps, memories of Suez which led to the cutting off of our oil supplies in the Middle East during the summer. No other nation had troops in the area and no other nation had its oil supplies cut. We under-estimate our bargaining power if we have no troops there. If the oil-producing countries have oil which we need, then equally they have to sell it. They have to have customers.
In Asia, I believe that the only kind of balance of power which can be valid is an Asian balance of power. Any stability induced by the presence of British forces is more than offset by the irritation and provocation their presence creates, particularly where emergent nationalism is only thinly distinguishable very often from racial resentment.
I welcome the Government's moves, first because I believe that our future is basically in Europe and, secondly, because, in spite of our presence in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf and east of Suez, we have been impotent in recent crises.
In Vietnam, I doubt whether we have any influence with the United States. Nevertheless, we slavishly follow American policies, even at the expense of those growing forces opposed to the war in that country. In Rhodesia, we were powerless to intervene, or perhaps did not wish to. We are unable or unwilling to back sanctions by blockade or destruction of oil supply routes. In the Middle East, despite good intentions, we were unable to guarantee freedom of passage through the Straits of Tiran.
It is time to come to terms with the reality of the world, but this does not mean that we abandon a world rôle, as the Leader of the Opposition suggested last week. He said that the Government could have no influence on world affairs. Do the Scandinavians or tiny nations like Ireland have no influence on world affairs because they do not have their troops stationed all over the world? Indeed, such countries have received a great deal of honour and prestige in the councils of the world because of their peace-keeping rôle and the rôle they play in the United Nations.
Keeping highly mobile forces able to get to trouble spots in a short time in defence, not of imperialist interests but of
680
international morality and peace, is the kind of honourable rôle that Britain can play in the 1970s and 1980s. This will bring the country prestige and influence in the world. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary had a success recently in the United Nations on the Middle East. This is an example of the rôle we can play. I have been sharply critical of my right hon. Friend with regard to some of his previous remarks, but I must say that this was a balanced resolution, which was able to gain acceptance from both sides.
Next to Vietnam, the Middle East is the world's most dangerous flash point, and only the ultimate restraint of the major Powers and the remarkable swiftness of the six-day war prevented the possibility of escalation into major conflict. The Russian build-up of arms for use against a tiny nation, which has thrice had to fight for its survival within 20 years, was as cynical a piece of power politics as ever displayed by so-called imperialist Powers. Only when that area is taken out of great Power confrontation and militarily neutralised will we see permanent peace there. That, above all, should be the long term aim of British foreign policy in the area, not only for the people of that area but for the people of the world.
I do not want to raise the temperature of the debate, for I believe that the subject of the Middle East causes a great deal of understandable emotion, but I must make some reference to the speeches made by the hon. Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour), the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Walters) and, in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Mrs. McKay). I have given my hon. Friend notice of my intention to refer to her remarks.
I thought that my hon. Friend made an irresponsible and disgraceful speech. It contained a mass of half-digested hand-outs and a great deal of venomous verbiage from Amman about a country which, I understand, she has never visited. She made most offensive remarks about what I can only call in quotation marks, "humane repatriation" of those who went to Israel from Europe 20 years ago. She missed the fundamental point that 60 per cent. of the people in Israel were born there or in the Middle East. It may well be that

681
certain camps in Europe, having lain idle for 20 years, could be put to good use again, but I hope that my hon. Friend was not going so far as to advocate that.
I pass from the speech of the hon. Lady and say only this about the cause of the war. When the Gulf of Aqaba was blockaded—and this was never mentioned in her speech—and when the United Nations Forces were withdrawn at the request of Egypt—and there was no mention of that—and Egyptian Forces massed in Sinai—which was never mentioned—and the Syrian forces shelled the Golan Heights in Upper Galilee and the maritime nations were unable to guarantee freedom of access after an act of war in closing the Straits of Tiran, Israel, and I say this very sadly, had no alternative but to act as she did.
The crudest kind of propaganda coming from Cairo and Damascus, the type of caricature which I saw some time ago in the Gaza Strip and the presence of dozens, if not hundreds, of ex-Nazis in Cairo were hardly likely to reassure Israel as to good intentions. It is true that there are some Arabs who might not have wanted war—probably very many—but I cannot accept that those people in Israel with their heritage could take any risks about the Arab States not carrying out what they had stated to be their intention over a period of 20 years.
I do not believe that very much good will come at this stage from recrimination. What is now needed are policies which will help stability in the Middle East by creating an atmosphere in which the people of the Middle East can live together in harmony within the same geographical area for the benefit of both Israeli and Arab. The legitimate claims of Arab nationalists and Israeli territorial nationalism could benefit the people of the region as a whole if they were not tragically turned one against the other in mutual distrust and hostility.
The most difficult task facing British diplomacy in the Middle East, one which cannot be shelved if we have the real interests of Arab-British relations at heart, is to make it quite clear to the Arab States that Israel is there whether they like it or not and is there to stay. The realisation of that very simple fact of life would be the beginning of wisdom.
682
I also believe that we have a very strong moral obligation, an obligation which was underlined by the late Aneurin Bevan in a speech of great foresight when, as a result of the unprecedented withdrawal of Israeli forces following the Sinai campaign of 1956, he pointed out the obligation which we had to underwrite that very courageous action at that time.
I believe that the United Nations failed Israel in June of last year. Israel is understandably more obdurate this time because of that failure of the United Nations to guarantee its own decisions, not only about that, but also about the free passage of ships through international waters.
The key to present Israeli attitudes lies not only in this failure of the world to guarantee Israel's existence having created it, but also in geography, because anyone who has been there knows that it has borders which are quite undefendable. At some points the waistline is only a few miles wide and settlements beneath the Golan Heights were sitting ducks. Jerusalem was open to the sniper's bullet and the Gaza Strip has often been referred to as a pistol pointing at the heart of Israel. The war has culminated in far more defenable frontiers which the Israelis will not give up for anything short of real recognition, real acceptance and real security with the same rights of access to international waters as are enjoyed by other nations.
Last week's cordial meeting between Mr. Eshkol and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will, I hope, set the climate for the future. Mr. Asba Ebbon said recently that there had been
"a big advance in Britain's appreciation of Israel's attitude culminating in the balanced resolution of the Security Council."
In spite of recent hopeful signs, such as exchanges of prisoners and the freeing of ships from the Suez Canal—and this is not only my view, but the view of my hon. Friends who espouse the Arab cause—I see very little sign of a fundamental change in Arab attitudes.
We are faced with the situation where, with the honourable exception of Rumania, the whole might of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe is backing the Arab nations, whether feudal or nationalist, whether reactionary or revolutionary, without regard to any sort of principle and without regard to the dangers to peace.

683
Russian technical experts pour in and Russian arms pour in, including the most sophisticated modern weapons such as the missile which sank the "Elath".
The Arab States, as the hon. Lady said with great gusto yesterday, may well be able to resume the war in six months. Iraq is even stronger than it was before and there is a grave danger that, in his endeavour to advance the oil interests of France, President de Gaulle will sell the Mirage planes to Iraq and not to Israel who originally ordered them. Egyptian military strength is already at about 80 per cent. of its pre-war level. Peace moves today, therefore, are as urgent as, unfortunately, they seem to be unproductive. The aims of the Arab States remain not only to take back the lost territory, the lost ground. I quote the Egyptian Minister of Information immediately after the war—and I commend these words to the hon. Lady and those who think like her—
"I do not use the words 'the liquidation of the results of aggression' since the aggression itself is signified by the continued existence of Israel in the midst of the Arab nations".
Only when that spirit gives way to a recognition of the realities of the situation shall we be able to move towards peace in that area.
President Bourguiba of Tunisia courageously and aptly put it in Le Monde of 19th July when he said:
"The road followed hitherto has led three times into an impasse, obstinacy has proved to be of no use and a change of method should come about."
The fact is that Israel does not want to fight a war every 10 years, although it will if it has to. Its leaders on the whole—and, as in any country, there are vast differences of opinion—but those in control on the whole are mostly intelligent and enlightened men who know that, while immediate security is paramount, nevertheless long-term security can come only through peace and acceptance by the Arab world. Those extremists who reject this concept are few, but there is a warning which should be made to the Arab States—that if they persist in their obstinacy, they run the risk of making it more and more difficult for responsible Israeli leaders to gain public acceptance for the kind of generous terms in relation to the occupied territories which I for one would like to see.
684
One thing is certain and must be understood by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary—and I have no doubt that he understands it. It is that at this stage there can be no going back to the pre-June position. It is frequently said, and I know that some of my hon. Friends say, that there should be no territorial aggrandisement as a result of war, leaving aside the Sudetenland, Alsace-Lorraine, or many other examples from European history, and perhaps the New Zealanders should cede New Zealand to the Maoris. But one must realise that Gaza was never part of Egypt and that Jerusalem and the West Bank were incorporated into Jordan following the war in 1948.
Ideally, the kind of solution which I would like to see would be a federation which would include the West Bank on the one side and Jordan on the other in confederation with Israel. Certainly an independent Arab State creating a new Palestine with an Arab identity would provide this sort of ideal solution, and it would remove the pretence for interference by outside Powers. It would also provide a framework in which we could deal with the problems of the refugees in co-operation with the United Nations, and solve that problem in a liberal and humane fashion.
In spite of a spate of neo-atrocity propaganda—and we had some of that from the hon. Lady and the two hon. Members opposite yesterday and no real atrocity has yet been alleged—it is quite clear to those who, like myself and some of my hon. Friends, have visited the West Bank that this is a very soft occupation. As Martha Gellhorn pointed out in articles in The Guardian, only 200 civilians were killed during the war and the toll of civilians, bad as it is, is very small compared with the usual toll of civilians in a war of that kind.
Terence Prittie of The Guardian, speaking at the Royal Society of Arts, said that he had never known a more generous and self-obliterating military Government than that of Israel. They can be wrong, they can be harsh, and as inhuman as anyone else. I do not believe that Israeli soldiers are imbued with anything but the same human frailties as other soldiers. Like people who are in uniform for a long time they may perhaps be more blunted to the things that they have to face.

685
But my own findings were that there was remarkably little to those who, only a few days before I visited the area, were receiving battle orders to kill every man, woman and child in the settlements there. There has been an uninterrupted flow of supplies to refugee camps and full co-operation with Egyptian-run refugee hospitals, for example, which I saw in the Gaza Strip. As long as the problem remains a political pawn it will not be solved.
One of my right hon. Friends rightly s aid yesterday that during this period 600,000 refugees from Arab States, who have suffered all sorts of indignities, were absorbed into Israel. No one can fail to be moved, as I was very much moved, to see a child born in an Arab refugee camp in the Gaza Strip, whose mother was also born in that camp and who had known nothing but a refugee camp all her life. I do not want to raise the temperature or apportion blame, but w hat we have to accept is that only a political settlement to the outstanding problems of the Middle East can lead eventually to a solution of the refugee problem.
What of this settlement? Mr. Yarring has gone to get both sides together. Only if those two sides come together at a conference table will we get any sort of settlement. No settlement will be imposed in the Middle East from outside. May I give some constructive ideas about a settlement? The settlement can only be reached from the basis of defensible frontiers and freedom of navigation in international waterways. It can comprise generous terms of settlement and compensation for refugees and also a Mediterranean outlet for Jordan, which would assist Jordan greatly. It can provide a functional co-operation in improving agriculture, forestry, waterways, desalination, and communications in the area. This is the kind of co-operation that will come about and it would benefit the whole of the Middle East.
It must also remove the military threat from Gaza and from the Golan Heights. There is a strong argument that the demilitarisation of Gaza can only be possible within Israel's borders. The defence positions will also have to be on the ridges, and not at the foot of the Golan Heights in the North. There
686
will have to be certain retifications of the old border with regard to Jordan. These are things that will only be possible at the conference table. I know that there are those who take a different view, but I think that they will agree that the only way in which this problem can be solved is by the parties sitting together and working this out.
We are in a strange position when the victorious party is suing the vanquished for peace, asking it to come to the conference table. The most vexed question, and one that causes the most emotion is that of Jerusalem. All religions must be given free access to their holy places. For the first time in 20 years this has taken place. I see no moral reason why—indeed it would be morally indefensible—that what is now an undivided city should be divided again and why Jordan should not play its part there in a peaceful Middle East.
Any one who has been to that part of the world knows that the possibility of a divided city and a return to the old situation is something that cannot be accepted by anyone in Israel and any Government which put this forward would collapse tomorrow.
In all of this Britain can play a very useful rôle. It is our job to get the parties together in direct confrontation over the negotiating table, and to introduce a sense of reality about the existence of Israel to the Arab world. This Party has an advantage here because of our rôle in Suez and Aden. I had the greatest sympathy with the aspirations of Arab nationalism. Our record on those occasions will allow us to speak with some standing to the Arab world. We have to be straightforward in telling them their obligations. The Arab people stand to gain more than anyone from a resumption of peace in the area, which is an area whose problems are probably more complex than any other in the world.
I hope that the Prime Minister, in his talks with Mr. Kosygin, has gone some way to remove that region from the sphere of Great Power manipulation, from which it has suffered for so long, and to induce the Soviet Union to see that nothing but disaster can come from stepping up arms and causing an arms race there. The land in that area has been fought over for countless years—from

687
the beginning of recorded history. Yet this area gave birth to three great religions, all of them preaching peace and love towards one's neighbours. I hope that the prophecies of peace will overcome the will to war in that area.
Mr. Speaker: May I remind the House that many hon. Members wish to catch my eye in a very short debate.
7.46 p.m.
Mr. Julian Ridsdale: I have been very tempted to follow the Foreign Secretary in what he said about the United Nations and Japan, but time precludes me from doing so. I am reminded of the occasion when Sir Winston Churchill was dining with a body of his hon. Friends about 20 years ago. The chef brought on a very flabby looking pudding. When he saw it he turned to the chef and said, "Take away that pudding. It has no theme."
When I listened to the speech of the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence, I felt that the theme of their speeches was one of "Little Englanders" and "Little Europeans". How encourging it was for me to hear the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home), whose theme was one of worldwide responsibility and adherence to our alliances, which I am sure is the right rôle for our country.
I can quite understand why the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shin-well) walked out during the speech of the Foreign Secretary. I feel bound to say that if cuts have to be made now, I would rather have them made on the continent of Europe than in Malaysia and in the Persian Gulf. We can concentrate on air and sea power in Europe, and we should use our forces to protect the interests, not only in that area but east of Suez. In the Persian Gulf, Malaysia and Singapore the decisions made will be irreversible. If we wish to come back to the Continent of Europe, if the feelings of France and Germany change towards us, we will be able to do so. But it is very worrying to me to feel that these decisions east of Suez are irreversible and irrevocable.
It is not that I am not a good European. I wish this country to get closer
688
to the Continent. But I like to think of myself as an outward-looking European, not a Little Englander or a Little European. I want to see an outward-looking Europe having an influence on world affairs, protecting the flanks of N.A.T.O. and helping, in particular, her interests east of Suez, if necessary, at the request of the United Nations. I have just visited the United Nations, and I thought that one of the weaknesses was the little influence which Europe had in the United Nations and worldwide at this moment.
How are we to get closer to Europe? The quickest way to do that is to look to the Atlantic and not longingly across the Channel. We must look to the flanks of N.A.T.O., and think about the Russian fleet deployed in the Mediterranean and the danger to Aden and the Indian Ocean which the Russians are exerting.
Mrs. Anne Kerr: What about the Commonwealth?
Mr. Ridsdale: By indirections, we have to find directions. We must support success and stand by our allies and partners and not help those who appear to be hitting us in the face. Unless we do this, I am sure that the temptation to the United States, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) said, is to withdraw to a fortress Europe.
I have just been to the United States. There is still much friendly feeling towards us. But, in view of the responsibilities which they are being asked to fulfil in the vacuum which has been created, we must be well on our guard against the danger of a fortress America. Undoubtedly, our future depends more than anything else on trade. Guns are to protect trade, not imperialist adventures. Secondly, we must do all we can to support success and look to our best customers and ask who they are. The answer is, the United States, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand. To me, it is hypocritical that we should adopt moral attitudes towards South Africa when we think about some of the pledges which the Government have made. It does not make sense to me at all that they should talk about moral principles.
I want to bring the European Economic Community to the Atlantic. I want to see the E.E.C. tempted to join

689
a thriving, liberalised, prosperous trading community. This is the way in which to get closer to Europe, not by being Little Englanders and Little Europeans. But, above all, I want to be able to back Britain; I want to believe in Britain. Since the Government have broken every pledge on which they went to the country at the last election, I find it very difficult to believe in Britain when they are the Government.
If we want to run a business, however small or however large, we must do two things: first, keep our word and, secondly, maintain good will. Alas, the Government have broken their word and their pledge. What is far more serious is that they have been counting the cost of the defence cuts in money terms alone. II they had a business, they would realise that the most valuable asset in a business is goodwill. The Foreign Secretary shakes his head, but I am sure that the consequence of these defence cuts will be to lose the good will of our three most important customers—America, Australia and New Zealand and South Africa. Let the Foreign Secretary add up that bill. This is the consequence of running out and of trying to implement foreign policy in a materialistic, economic way and not honouring our treaties and responsibilities.
The thing which worries me most is that the honour and standing of this House have been brought into grave disrepute because nobody now believes the word of the Prime Minister or of the Secretary of State for Defence, not only nationally, but internationally. I do not want to make this a party political point, but I am sure that if we want to restore the standing of this country in the corridors of the diplomatic world and the chancellories of the world, we must pay much more regard to the pledged word. This is why I feel that the only course for the Secretary of State for Defence is to resign after all his broken pledges to show that Britain's word means something in the counsels of the world again.
7.55 p.m.
Mrs. Anne Kerr: I will not attempt to deal with the remarks of the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale). I wish to make a mini-speech on a subject of maximum importance. I will try to be
690
brief, because I know that many other hon. Members wish to speak.
My main point is this. The Government could play a tremendous rôle in bringing about an end of the war in Vietnam. Not only could they stop the war in that country, but they could prevent the extension of the war to Laos and Cambodia. The rôle which the Government play at this time in history is of great importance.
President Eisenhower said at the end of his term of office that the United States should beware of the military-industrial complex in the United States. Since then, he has said some other things which are rather contradictory, but I think that at that stage he saw the truth, which is that the whole economy of the United States is tied up with this wretched aggression in Vietnam. Britain could, if it would, play a tremendous rôle in stopping the war and the imperialist rule of the United States throughout the world by stating quite openly, not just into Mr. Johnson's ear, but publicly to the people of the United States, what our real opinion is. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary questions the effect that we might have in doing this.
I met Senator Fulbright and many other Senators and Congressmen when I was recently in the United States. I have been in Japan, Hong Kong, India and Australia, and everywhere one goes one is told that if Britain were to break on this issue it would be the biggest single thing which could happen in creating a different mood and climate in the United States, because the people of the United States are democratic. It is difficult to get through to them because of the Press, radio and television, informed by the Government, but it is a sufficiently democratic country still to understand and appreciate that were this country, which is by no means looked down on in the world, to take a step of this nature, we could persuade the people of the United States to elect the right kind of Government. This is crucial, and it is the main reason why those of us who are opposed to the Government's policy on Vietnam object when they say that they are doing all that they can. We do not accept that they are. We accept their genuineness in saying that they are trying

691
to, but we do not accept that this is the best method.
All the friends of peace in the United States say the same thing to us. Dr. Spock, Senator Fulbright, Senator McCarthy, Senator Morse and Senator Case are but a few of those who say that the biggest single contribution towards peace in Vietnam would be for Britain to state publicly that she dissociates herself from American aggression in South-East Asia.
This leads on to many other matters, because one of the major problems about the present Government is that they have not enough foresight to have any ideas about the future. Unlike right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, I do not agree that we have to have military commitments throughout South-East Asia to preserve peace and what they call stability. I want to see stability, but not if it results in the poor people remaining poor and the rich people getting richer. I want to see a new kind of world in which the poor are released from their misery and the rich have to pay. However, I do not want to see them fighting in order to achieve that state of affairs.
I ask the Government to think again, not necessarily about what will happen in the next few months or years, but about what they can do in terms of the future of the world. This country can play a fine rôle in promoting humanity and decency between man and woman and people and people.
In a funny kind of way, this country seems to have lost its rôle without finding a new one. I beg the Government to think deeply about what that new rôle could be and to understand that we have a moral part to play which should be based on decency and not have to rely on military methods. Were we to take the step of dissociating ourselves from the American commitment in Vietnam, we could have an enormous impact on American public opinion and, thereby, on the future of humanity.
8.4 p.m.
Mr. John Biggs-Davison: The hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Anne Kerr) was right when she said that there is a rôle for this country to play. However, the Government are abandoning it. We are dis-
692
cussing foreign affairs at a moment when Britain has been brought lower in the world than at any time in recent generations. In future, I hope that no supporter of the present Government will ever tax the Conservative Party with the inadequacy of our defences at the time of Munich and appeasement. At least in the 'thirties, Britain sold only one faraway country at a time.
The measure of the Government's achievement in foreign policy is the dismay which they have caused our American allies, upon whom hon. Members opposite, including the hon. Lady, are always urging that we should exert influence and put pressure, the consternation that they have created in the Commonwealth, and the utter failure of their European policy.
We have heard much from right hon. Gentleman opposite about the risks which their policy entail. It is they who tell us that their policy entails risks, risks not to their political careers, but, I am afraid, to the lives of our young men. Those are the risks being run.
It is not a European defence policy that we shall have. It is a non-defence policy. The Labour Left have tasted blood. They have got their cuts in Asia, and they will be after their cuts in Europe next.
Mr. Robert Maxwell: And why not?
Mr. Biggs-Davison: The hon. Gentleman confirms what I say.
The main threat to Britain and Europe is no longer in Europe. The mantle of Marxist militancy has fallen from Russian to Chinese shoulders. When right hon. Gentlemen opposite talk about
"capability for deployment",
and the White Paper used these words, I should like to know with what aircraft they will do the deploying and by what routes.
The Foreign Secretary and other hon. Members opposite have misunderstood the prevailing Conservative opinion on our Eastern policy. It is not our view that we need vast bases overseas with super cinemas and N.A.A.F.I.s de luxe. What we need is a foothold and a military presence in the Gulf, in the Indian Ocean and in the Far East until adequate local and regional defences exist. As yet, they do not exist.

693
The British people have to put up with a. lot these days, but why must the Secretary of State for Defence always be appearing on television? I know that he has been under great strain. I know the difficulties of the television studio. I know that to many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, traditional rulers in Asia or Africa are always fair game, whether they be Rhodesian chiefs or Arab sheikhs. I know also that "mercenary" is a dirty word in Left-wing semantics.
Mr. Evan Luard: It is a dirty word in any language.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: It is a dirty word.
The Secretary of State for Defence, is a scholar, and he may have read A. E. Housman's "Epitaph on an Army of Mercenaries" who
"saved the sum of things for pay."
Those mercenaries were one of the finest armies that this country ever produced, the British Regular Army of 1914. To his credit, the Secretary of State was a distinguished serving officer in the Second World War, and he knows as well as anyone what the Indian Army—that Army of glorious mercenaries—achieved, and as Secretary of State for Defence he knows what we owe to the mercenary Brigade of Gurkhas.
Ever since the days of Joseph Chamberlain and Balfour, the Government at home have been looking for contributions to the common defence from overseas partners. There have been complaints in connection with the present cui s that the United Kingdom has had to bear too heavy a burden. I have some sympathy with that argument. It is said that the Australians should contribute more in proportion to their resources and their population.
I know that the sheikhs in the Gulf are not rulers of countries within the Commonwealth, but, in a way, they are as intimately linked with us as some of those formally within its bounds. When they come forward and say that they would like to make a financial contribution to the common defence, I should have thought that, in our present position, the Government would have embraced their offer with both hands, After all, they have written in their White Paper:
694 1
"… we still face the problem of the heavy continuing cost in foreign exchange of stationing our troops in Germany".
The hope is expressed in that White Paper that, in February, they will persuade the Germans to contribute more to the common defence.
Mr. John Lee Mr. John Lee rose——
Mr. Biggs-Davison: Time is short. I hope that the hon. Member will forgive me if I do not give way.
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. George Brown): The hon. Gentleman is in full spate. Do not stop him.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: I am obliged—[Interruption.] I would not have gone into this at any length if only one word of regret had come from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Defence. The House would have been understanding of the strains under which Ministers labour at the present time.
Nothing in today's news encourages us to believe that we can rest our vital interests and entrust our partners in the Far East to a balance between Russia and China or the local powers themselves. I think that was the fallacy in the Defence Secretary's apologia today. Here I agree with the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly)—I admired his speech and I admire his stand—when he said that it was not wise nor fitting that we should leave it all to the Americans. There is a rôle that only the British can play.
Sukarno is a fallen tyrant, thanks to British and Commonwealth troops. One thing is certain and that is that Britain cannot be replaced in Singapore by the United States. The British in those parts of the world are accepted as friends. They are part of the landscape and they have succeeded much more easily in Malaysia than I am sorry to say have our American allies fighting so gallantly in Vietnam in identifying themselves with those they are hoping to defend. The main danger is subversion, which creeps below radar screens and nuclear weapons systems. The British are not bad—
Mr. John Lee Mr. John Lee rose——
Mr. Biggs-Davison: The British are not bad——
Mr. Maxwell: Why does not the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Biggs-Davison: It is simply in deference to hon. Gentlemen who want to address the House.
Mr. John Lee Mr. John Lee rose——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irvine): Order. The hon. Member must not persist. The hon. Gentleman is not giving way.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: Unlike other hon. Members who have addressed the House, I am referring to my notes.
The British have their victorious experience of Malaya and against Indonesia. A British component is still needed to stiffen and sustain Asian and Australasian friends at a cost which would be miniscule in proportion to the interest and investment it would secure.
Yesterday, the Commonwealth Secretary wound up and I thought he was somewhat unhappy. He referred to the United Kingdom-Malaya Defence Treaty of 1957. He admitted that there was strong criticism of the Government's cavalier attitude to this agreement. The Commonwealth Secretary said that the essential purpose of that treaty was to retain our military facilities, and he said that our military needs have changed.
But there are two sides to a treaty. The Malaysian point of view has to be considered. I have been reading the Treaty, Article 1 of which says:
"The Government of the United Kingdom undertake to afford to the Government of the Federation of Malaya such assistance as the Government of the Federation of Malaya may require for the external defence of its territory."
I find no mention in the Treaty that Her Majesty's Government may run out of it at any moment they think fit and I see no provision for unilateral repudiation.
Hon. Members may have noticed in The Times supplement on Australia a very wise article.
Mr. Maxwell: On a point of order. Is the hon. Gentleman entitled to leave out from the Treaty the clause which gives Her Majesty's Government the right to renegotiate?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: I would speak longer on the Treaty but I wish to get to the end of my speech.
696
The words I am about to read from this article in The Times supplement were, I thought, penetrating words:
"Australia has for 30 uneasy years been able to balance the growing importance of the United States by relying on Britain's diminished forces in South-East Asia while building up her own strength."
We all know that Australia is entering a new era of expansion. Is this the moment for Britain to decide to fade away? I hope that the Government will give a more positive response to the suggestion made yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) to build on the ANZAM arrangements.
If I may inflict a few more words from The Times article, the writer went on to give warning that
"… a coming, and claustrophobic, British generation may have bitter regrets over a lost inheritance. It is to be hoped that they will not find any parallel between the White Paper of 1968 and the Treaty of 1783 which signed away America."
I fear that this is not the end of the cuts or the end of the story, or that we are at the end of the road to ruin. The crisis in this country is not primarily one of currency, but of confidence. This great betrayal can only add to the strain on sterling and Britain's credit in the world. The package deal was a dirty deal, giving comfort to all abroad and at home who wish us ill. When the Defence Secretary spoke of having to make a compromise with his colleagues, I could not help thinking that he also made a compromise with his conscience.
But the right hon. Gentleman who bears the highest responsibility sometimes reminds me of the late Ramsay MacDonald. It is not just a weakness for waffle, it is not just that, as under the late Ramsay MacDonald, under his administration the country has been put in fee to foreign finance. There is this difference between the two. Ramsay MacDonald sacrificed, as he saw it, his party to his country and the present Prime Minister has sacrificed his country to his party.
8.17 p.m.
Mr. Colin Jackson: During the last two days I have had the interesting experience of listening to the various aspects of opposition foreign policy being described. Some of it has had a kind of Kiplingesque

697
nostalgia about it. Another suggestion that we had this evening to deal with our problem of defence, made by the hon. Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair), was that if we cut down the number of civil servants we would be able to keep our defence forces east of Suez. It was not entirely clear to me what saving we would have in the foreign exchange level if we reduced the number of civil servants in the United Kingdom.
Another version of Conservative foreign policy has constantly included the word "vacuum"—there will be a vacuum in this, that, or the other part of the world unless the British stay. I was reminded of the statement, shortly after he Suez fiasco, by the late Mr. John Foster Dulles who, in a Press interview, aid:
"There is a vacuum in the Middle East caused by the French and the British withdrawal and unless we fill it up the Russians will fill in".
I recall the Jordanian Foreign Secretary, shortly after that, saying: "I am not a vacuum. I do not want to be filled up. I just want to be an Arab leader within the Arab world."
Trying to tie together Conservative foreign policy as it has been set out is still immensely difficult. On the one side, the party opposite says that it has no intention of maintaining a world rôle I defence. On the other hand, it has declared its intention of maintaining forces inside South-east Asia, forces in the Middle East, forces in the Mediterranean, forces in Europe and Simonds-town. Therefore, that leads one to suppose that this world rôle will leave out South America. Apart from that, it will be a very active engagement.
The maintenance of this non-world rôle on an indefinite scale I find interesting in the Conservative argument in relation to the Persian Gulf, the Arab Gulf. In the past, there has been a case for the maintenance of British troops in the Persian Gulf area. But an indefinite further permanent maintenance—"indefinite" is the word which has been used on more than one occasion—of those forces seems to be entirely non-sustainable.
One thing about the Middle East which particularly worried me in relation to recent events was the Government's deci-
698
sion to increase our naval, military and airforces—particularly our military forces—in the Persian Gulf at the time when we were closing down the Aden base. One does not have to be a penetrating observer of the Arab world to realise that the flashpoint of Arab nationalism felt by the younger generation throughout the area would switch from Aden to the last remaining military base in the area, namely, the Persian Gulf, once we left Aden. I am glad that the Government have not become too deeply involved, so that they may now move out on a phased withdrawal.
The presence of military forces—and the Russians may find this in time to come—in any part of the world—and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said this—can, at a certain stage, be an exacerbating influence. The withdrawal of military forces—as happened with the withdrawal of French military forces from Algeria—can enhance the status of a nation in that area.
I hope that during the next four years we shall have a positive opportunity of establishing a regional, political, and defence co-operation group within the Persian Gulf area. I do not always find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths), who seems to be available as a kind of alternative Foreign Secretary for any speaker on any suitable occasion, but I agree with what he said yesterday about how one foresees the political future of the Gulf area within the next four years.
I think that one must recognise that geography will assert an influence on the major political development of the region, and that on the southern side of the Gulf Saudi Arabia will be the predominant force. The difficult problem is how, during the next four years, to get these small trucial sheikhdoms to move towards some pattern of unity, and a suitable pattern of relationship with Saudi Arabia. This will apply whatever the political complexion of the Government in Riyadh, and perhaps north of the Gulf, Iran will have a positive dominating influence.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds mentioned the word "triangle", meaning the third country, Kuwait. I do not think that one would be wise at this stage to envisage the final solution

699
to the problem in that area leaving out Iraq, because it is possible that she might want to come in, on suitable terms, to a defence arrangement within the Gulf region. It is vital that negotiations for defence and political arrangements should begin at once. We should get the pattern clear during the first two years, so that in the last two years we have an easy run, with the basic picture established, and no last-minute alterations.
I would like to move on to the whole future of the Arab world with the British bases in the Persian Gulf now having a finite period. It may well be that when these bases have closed the European continent as a whole will have a new opportunity within the Arab region. The Foreign Secretary referred yesterday to our success at the United Nations, through our political intelligence and our sensitivity, in getting the Security Council to pass a unanimous resolution on the Arab-Israeli problem.
France has a good name in the Arab world, and Italy has intelligent trading prospects. I have never had much time for either American or Russian influence operating within the Middle East. There was that famous former Security Council representative of the United States who said that he hoped that Jews and Arabs would settle their problems in a true Christian spirit. He did not seem to have that delicacy and feeling which is necessary for this area.
We talk about Europe moving together. What is wrong with the southern European countries having closer links with North Africa and the Levant? In the next four years, a politically sensitive Europe can go a long way towards preventing the Middle East from being a dispute point between the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. Fundamentally, the military involvement of the United States and the Soviet Union in this area has been because of the Israeli conflict, and the more one thinks of this problem the more one becomes depressed, the more one becomes reminded of Nevil Shute's "On the Beach".
One can feel the cold climate of hatred mounting in Israel and in the Arab States. I think that Her Majesty's Government deserve all the credit and praise that
700
any understanding nation can give for their attempts to break this impasse between Israel saying, "We will not withdraw until you recognise us", and the Arab States saying, "We will not recognise you until you withdraw". There may not be much hope of our avoiding a fourth conflict in the Middle East, with all the danger of a nuclear war, and all that Nevil Shute forecast, but if the opportunity is there it lies in implementing the Security Council resolution, and the activities of Mr. Jarring.
Reference has been made by some of my hon. Friends, and by some hon. Gentlemen opposite, to the political status of Israel in the future. I am certain that one element of that Security Council resolution must be adhered to if there is to be peace, namely, we cannot have complete control of the whole of Jerusalem by Israel. This does not mean that one has to go back to the old divided city, which I greatly hated. The United Nations have suggested an international defence status. There should be free trade, with no barriers, between Israel and Jordan, because this would greatly facilitate the tourist trade, but the physical possession, in political terms, by the Israelis of old Jerusalem would greatly push the Arabs back to the saying that they will never recognise Israel, and they will wait for the fourth run.
I hope that those who have influence with Israel—and I have been there, and admired their democracy, their courage, and their culture—will emphasise that. The Security Council resolution must be fulfilled. We need Arab, Israeli and United Nations people to discuss the matter together, but we will never get it if we fail to get this recognition of the special position of Jerusalem.
In relation to this vacuum policy, I believe that it is possible, in the next four years, to strengthen the Asian States Association and for the new Indonesia, with admirable figures like Mr. Adam Malik, Singapore and Malaysia to coordinate their defence. It is not the job of Western Powers or any others to go around setting up so-called vacuum positions. The domino theory never made sense, either, because Indonesia would have fallen to internal Communist subversion while the Americans were fighting in Vietnam.

701
We need an encouragement of regional defence pacts working effectively with proper planning, in the Persian Gulf and with our help in South-East Asia, perhaps with a backstop in Australia, and thereby contain a major territorial Chinese aggression. I do not believe that this country should be ashamed of what it has done or afraid of what it plans to do with its partners around the world. As has been said many times tonight, our position does not consist simply in the position of certain soldiers at certain times. It depends on the things which we have given the world, like democracy, civilisation and intelligence, and I have no doubt that that rôle will continue and will grow for us.
8.30 p.m.
Mr. Victor Goodhew: Like so many of his hon. Friends, the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenbprough (Mr. Colin Jackson) ignored the fact that what the Government are doing here is going back on agreements and leaving these countries not yet ready to defend themselves. It is no good talking about blocking up holes or saying that tie Tories want a world rôle. This is a question of standing by one's commitments with countries until they can make good the holes themselves. This the Government have failed to do, and basically because the Labour Party will not differentiate between things which are necessary and vital and those which are desirable.
When they challenge us about public expenditure, I like to take a firm look at things which only a Government can dc and say that those are the things which they should take care of. Defence is something which only the Government can take care of. The private individual cannot. The Government are responsible for defending our interests abroad and the private individual is better able to provide for himself at home. The Labour Party has begun to acknowledge this in its move on prescription charges but has not followed it to the logical conclusion but left it at that and made the decision in defence to placate its Left-wing critics.
I want to turn to the deplorable state to which our relations with our friends and allies has been brought by the recent changes. We should make it clear, when
702
talking about this, that this is no accident or something which had to happen or has suddenly fallen upon the Government, but results directly from two things—first, their thoroughly incompetent policies which have led to our present economic situation and, secondly, the Government's determination, having got Into that state, to placate their Left wing by sacrificing our defences rather than by facing up to the realities of life and our economy.
What is the result of all this upon our position in the parts of the world in which we have vital interests? I start with Singapore and Malaysia. I do not believe that there will be any real saving, whether in foreign exchange or in money terms. We know that, before the Government had decided upon this latest advancement of the withdrawal date, we were committed to mitigatory aid, which we give to make up for the lack of our military presence and the employment which it provides. Is it not more sensible merely to leave the troops there? By the time we have paid for that mitigatory aid and for housing the soldiers back home—an enormous programme of building and buying private housing estates to house them is already going on, when they were quite happily housed out there—there will be no saving. This is purely a political gesture.
If one compares it with the general a id programme in the world, which is apparently to be merely prevented from increasing rather than cut, one begins to wonder what it is all about. But there is one person who is convinced that the withdrawal from Singapore is not for monetary saving, and that is Mr. Lee Kuan Yew. He is quite clear about this. What the Government must face now is that, having taken this decision, they are left with the obligation to render credible our capability to help in that area if we are required.
It is all very well for Ministers to talk glibly about taking risks. "We will still have our influence and be able to come to the help of the people we are leaving," they say. But how will we acclimatise our troops to the conditions in these areas if they are suddenly required in, say, Singapore or Malaysia? I visited the jungle training centre out there a few weeks ago and discovered that every soldier must go through a six weeks' course at the centre

703
on arriving in the area. No soldier was of any use until he had completed that training. This being so, how can the Government suggest that we will be in a position to aid the people of the area after we have left?
What about our air transport capability? Do we have an aircraft capable of carrying Chieftan tanks to various parts of the world? What about staging posts? What will happen to Gan? Will we stay there after 1971? Will we stay in the Indian Ocean or withdraw from that area? We have not heard about that, but perhaps that will be included in a later bunch of cuts. The same question might be asked about our over-flying rights. Will we be able to over-fly the Middle East or Africa if we must go to the aid of the people in the Far East? When asked questions about this the other day, the Foreign Secretary had little idea of the routes that could be used and he talked about a number of options.
Have the Government considered the unemployment position which will result in Singapore from our withdrawal? The population of Singapore is 2 million, of whom 600,000 are the working population. Already 78,000 people are unemployed and each year 15,000 school leavers are unable to find jobs. Against this background, 60,000 people who work either directly for the British Services or as domestic servants for them, and another 60,000 who make their living out of our presence—that is, 120,000 people, or one-fifth of the total working population—will find that their jobs are in jeopardy by 1971. How can right hon. Gentlemen opposite sit back happily and think of Mr. Lee Kuan Yew and his countrymen having to face vast increases in unemployment in an area in which vast unemployment provides a fertile ground in which Communism can be made to spread quickly?
Then consider Hong Kong. When I was there in October, during the troubles, an aircraft carrier arrived quickly with additional helicopters. The supply ship "Triumph" also arrived in the harbour. "Only a presence", one might say, but it certainly backed up our forces there. How credible will be our ability to aid Hong Kong when right hon. Gentlemen opposite have finished?
704
I was surprised to hear the Foreign Secretary say about our withdrawal from the Gulf:
"I have long thought that this time has come."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th January, 1968; Vol. 756, c. 2080.]
"I have long thought", he said, when only six weeks earlier he had sent a Minister their to say that we would be remaining for some years to come. Then he had to send him back to say that we did not really mean it.
The right hon. Gentleman, who so glibly and happily goes on television and refers to sheikhs in the Gulf who are prepared to offer us £25 million, then uses expressions like "white slavers" and "mercenaries". We are accustomed to his natural and apparently unconscious impoliteness and incivility, but people abroad expect something better, and they are entitled to expect it. [Interruption.] The Minister of Defence says that I am a pipsqueak. At least I do not go on television making enemies for this country. I hope that we will hear what plans he has for the defence of the Gulf area after 1971.
All this might not be so bad if we could be certain that the Government mean what they say about Europe, but I wonder whether we can? The Foreign Secretary talks about the importance of Europe, but in the case of Simonstown he is apparently prepared to ignore that as part of the protection of the southern Atlantic.
On 8th November last, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles) asked the Secretary of State for Defence:
"Can the right hon. Gentleman give a categorical assurance that no plans are being considered in his Ministry for further drastic reductions in the Forces"—
that is, in Germany:
"in addition to those already announced?".
He got the answer:
"I can tell the House that my Ministry, like many others in Whitehall, is deeply concerned that we shall solve the problem of the foreign exchange costs of the British Forces in Germany. With the hon. and gallant Gentleman's long Service background, he will know that it is not the custom for Ministers of whatever party in this House to speculate on planning."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th November, 1967; Vol. 753, c. 1022.]
I tried again on Monday of this week, when asked the right hon. Gentleman the

705
Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, who is present:
"Would the Minister give a categorical assurance to the House that no plans are being made in the Ministry of Defence to withdraw Half our forces from Germany?".
The right hon. Gentleman replied:
"The hon. Member asked me about plans in the Ministry of Defence. He must address that question to the Minister in charge of that Department."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd January, 1968 Vol. 757, c. 5.]
I do so tonight. I ask the Secretary of State whether it is the fact that long before the actual agreement, or even discussion of devaluation, plans were afoot in the Ministry of Defence to withdraw more than half our forces from Germany. I wonder whether he will be able to tell us whether this was not the cat that was let out of the bag by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, when talking about the likelihood of our taking retaliatory action if we did not get into the E.E.C.
Having been told by the Government that they are withdrawing from East of Suez for good, with all that that entails for our interests and allies, are we to find that, having said that this is to enable us to be strong in Europe they are planning, and have been planning for some time, to reduce still further there? One cannot help feeling that this is just part of the standard Socialist policy, and that, as Labour Party Talking Paint No. 16 of 1967 states:
"Resources have been switched from defence to the social services, which is the right priority for a Socialist Government."
No wonder Lord Chalfont was sent to Europe. He was originally meant to be Minister of Disarmament, but the right hon. Gentleman did his job for him—only unilaterally and not multilaterally—so the noble Lord was sent to Europe.
Worst of all, we have seen the R.A.F. let down by the right hon. Gentleman, and on this count alone he should no longer be sitting there on the Treasury Bench. He has pursued to a nicety the perfect Communist technique of salami tactics of just taking a bit each time that is not big enough to fight for. He said, first of all, that we were not to get 110 TSR2s but were to get 110 F111s instead. When no one resigns, a little later we are told that we will no longer get 110 F111s but 50—"but you will get some A.F.V.G.s, so don't worry". Then
706
we are told that there will be no variable geometry aircraft, but that we will still get the F111s. Now we have nothing, and the right hon. Gentleman talks about depending in the future on the Americans for long-range tactical and strike reconnaissance aircraft.
What a let-down. How can the right hon. Gentleman face the House and the country after what he has done in recent weeks? To what abyssmal depths of degradation do we have to be dragged by this arrogant and incompetent Administration before they will understand that no one here or abroad has any confidence in them whatever?
I will not be rebuked by those in another place who suggest that we are carrying out a campaign of denigration against the Prime Minister just because we speak the truth about his activities and the activities of his Front Bench colleagues. We need no lessons in these matters. We know exactly how we can count on Ministers to behave from now on. The Prime Minister talks about backing Britain, but if he were backing Britain today he would go to the country and let the country elect a Government which had the confidence of the people, and then we would have the confidence of people abroad that we need.
8.45 p.m.
Mr. Evan Luard: Most of the speakers in this debate so far have spoken of great subjects of national policy and international concern of far-reaching importance and gravity. At first sight, perhaps, the subject I want to speak about may seem of somewhat narrow, even trivial, significance compared with those, but I suggest that over the years it may appear as a subject of much greater importance than any that have been spoken of so far in this debate.
The subject is one of the many items which arose during this year's Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations. It is known as the "Maltese Item" and concerns the seabed. I shall not weary the House with the long title of this item as it is rather involved and not very instructive. But its purpose, if I can try to explain it in a sentence, was to try to do for the seabed roughly the same as has been done for outer space in the last few years, to seek to prevent it being used purely for purposes of narrow

707
national interest, whether military economic or territorial, and to ensure that it is used instead for the benefit of mankind as a whole, and so far as possible demilitarised and immunised from the effects of purely national competition.
I think that it is a pity that, so far as I know, this item and this subject generally has had practically no publicity and has aroused very little interest in this country. Anyone who was at the General Assembly this year will know that this item aroused probably greater interest than almost any other single item discussed there, not excluding the great issues of the Middle East, Rhodesia, disarmament and others. Many felt that this was the only really new item which had come to the United Nations for many years. Others recognised that its potential importance was quite as great as the items on outer space which have been discussed for many years and which, fortunately, have now been largely disposed of.
One of the reasons why this aroused such great interest was that Dr. Pardo, the Maltese representative at the United Nations, whose initiative was largely responsible for raising the issue, was able to convince delegates of almost every nation of the very grave and serious problems which will arise in this area unless some effective international action is taken, not merely within the foreseeable future but during the next two or three years. One of the main things the Maltese delegate was concerned to stress was that this is not a remote subject which will be important some time in the vague future, but which is imminently urgent.
I should like to try to describe what these problems are. There are probably four main problems which arise concerning the seabed. The first and most fundamental is the legal problem. If this could be solved some of the others, although they would still exist and still be serious, would not be anything like so serious as they are now. The legal problem, to over-simplify a question which, like almost all questions of international law, is vast and obscure, is roughly this. The International Conference on the Law of the Sea, of 1958, reached a kind of agreement on the law of the sea governing the Continental
708
Shelf, that is to say, the limits of territorial jurisdiction.
Roughly, the agreement reached was that the Continental Shelf normally stretches to a depth of 200 metres. But it added a provision which I shall read, which is extremely vague, and which unfortunately almost completely nullifies the effect of the other part of the definition. It continued in this way:
"or, beyond that limit, to where the depth of the superjacent waters admits of the exploitation of the natural resources of the said areas".
This can be interpreted in many ways and already has been interpreted in many ways. For example, several nations assert that this means that, so long as these areas can be exploited, they can be used for national purposes only to a distance half-way to the nearest coast on the other side of the ocean. What was not realised in 1958, because things had not then been developed, was that it would be possible now, with the techniques which have been developed over the last few years, to exploit almost any area of the deep seas—probably about 90 per cent. of the deep seas can be exploited.
The effect is that a claim stretching to halfway across the Atlantic or the Pacific Ocean is perfectly tenable in terms of this form of words. Others go further and say that the legal limits of the Continental Shelf, or the area over which sovereign rights can be exercised, would go anywhere in the ocean that is not in fact within territorial waters—that is, it can go to the far side of the ocean as far as the territorial waters on the opposite side.
The effect of this is immediately apparent, because some states could claim very large areas of the ocean. A large number of very small islands, such as Ascension Island, St. Helena, Guam and a few others, can claim quite a large proportion of the oceans between them. It does not take much imagination to see the enormous areas of disputes and conflicts that can arise over which particular state exerts sovereignty over some areas of the deep sea. Thus, the first question that needs to be solved, and which urgently needs to be solved, as I shall show in a few moments, is what should be international law on the question of the deep sea.

709
The second question that arises is that of the resources of the deep seas. I do not think that so far it is very generally realised how extensive these resources are. I am not now talking about the possible sea-farming potentialities of the deep sea, because I think that this is a subject which has received quite a lot of publicity and which is fairly generally known. I am talking now about the much more important question of the mineral resources of the deep sea.
It has been calculated that there are much greater volumes of real resources under the seas than there are under the land or on the land. It has been calculated that £300 billion worth of resources of various kinds could be extracted each year from under the sea, of which at present only about I per cent, is being exploited. It has been known for some time that there are large nodules of manganese under the sea. What has only been fairly recently discovered is that there are, in addition to those, very large resources in the form of copper, nickel, aluminium, titanium and various other minerals. There are also gold and silver under the sea. And there may be extensive petroleum supplies beneath the sea, too.
It is partly for this reason that the question of the exact limits of territorial waters or of continental shelves becomes so important. Another important factor in the situation is that the possibilities of exploiting these resources have radically changed within the last few years, to such an extent that some countries are now preparing to mine these areas within the next two or three years. Scientific researches have made it possible, for example, for vessels to go down to depths of 7,000 metres under the sea. The United States Navy, over the last few years, has been undertaking experiments into how long, and in what conditions, men can live under the sea. Ii is to conduct an experiment this year—in a few months' time—in which a large number of men will be living at a depth of 150 metres under the sea. It is calculated that within a few years' time it will be possible for men to live 1,500 metres under the sea.
Moreover, there have been great advances in the techniques of mining in such areas. All this means that, quite
710
shortly, within the next two or three years, there will be important and, possibly, violent disputes between nations about which nation should exploit or mine particular areas of the deep seas. This is the second reason why the Maltese item is of such importance.
The third problem is one which is already fairly well known, the problem of pollution of the deep seas. It is known that there is extensive pollution by industrial wastes of many kinds. In this country, as the result of our experience last year, we know of the danger of pollution by oil. There is also the important problem of pollution by radioactive waste. What is, perhaps, not so well known is that all these sorts of pollution can have an important effect on the whole environment under the sea, affecting plant life and marine life generally. Here again, therefore, there is a matter calling for effective international action.
The fourth problem is probably the one about which least is known but which may, in the long run, be by far the most significant of all, namely, the problem of the military exploitation of the deep seas. The question of control of the seas in general has always been recognised as of fundamental importance, but it needs little imagination to recognise that the control of the deep seas is even more important than control of the high seas. For one thing, control of the high seas is in itself likely to be dependent on control of the deep seas.
There is another more telling reason why control of the deep seas in a military sense may be important. There is already talk of the possibility of establishing missiles on the bottom of the sea in these areas. This can be of great significance in two senses. As regards anti-ballistic missiles, there would be the great advantage to the nation concerned that, if it could once establish its sovereignty in these areas in the way I have described, it could have its missiles far closer to the enemy country and thus meet an incoming missile at a much earlier stage, perhaps before the multiple warheads on that missile had separated from the original vehicle. This would be a great advantage in the conditions of Moreover, there have been great ad- modern missile warfare. For the offenvances n the techniques of mining in sive missile, there would be the corresponding advantage that it would be very

711
much closer to the targets and, accordingly, give much less time for antiballistic missiles to shoot it down.
There are also obvious possibilities in the use of the deep sea for submarine and anti-submarine warfare and various other purposes. It is not by chance that the experiments to which I referred just now were conducted by the United States navy. There is already great interest among the naval Powers of the world in the possible use of the deep sea for various military activities of that kind.
So much for the various problems which may arise in regard to the deep seas. As I said earlier, the Maltese delegate was able to convince most of the delegations at the United Nations of the importance of these matters and of the urgent need for some attempt at least to withdraw these areas, if possible, just as the Antarctic and outer space have been, from the region of unrestricted national competition.
Mr. J. J. Mendelson: My hon. Friend has given us the alarming information that hundreds of Americans in the United States navy are to live under the sea. I hope that he will give an assurance that they will take great care not to go within the territorial waters of North Korea or other countries in those areas but keep right away from them.
Mr. Luard: My hon. Friend has put his finger on the point which I was trying to stress. Precisely because there is at the moment such dispute about what are the limits of national sovereignty in these areas of the deep seas, it is most important that there should be effective international discussion.
If I have alarmed my hon. Friend, I can only say that I am glad, because I do not believe that many people have so far realised that there may be cause for alarm on this matter in the near future. This may perhaps be regarded by some people as a frivolous subject today, but it will not be quite soon. This is just as much an area which could be the subject of serious military activity as outer space seemed to be a few years ago. It is not a case of space or deep-sea fiction; it is reality.
There was unanimous agreement at the United Nations on a preliminary
712
motion to submit the issue to an ad hoc committee to discuss the question. That was a great advance and something of a triumph for the Maltese delegation, but it was only the beginning, because many of the problems remain. A number of member States, although not prepared to shoot down the initial proposal for discussion of the subject, did not conceal that they had many reservations. They included the two super-Powers and a number of maritime Powers, particularly those with deep water fishing interests.
Even if the matter goes to the committee this year, as it should, it will be a long time before it is effectively thrashed out, in view of the extreme complexity of the problems. The result is that there may not be agreement within the committee before the problems of the kind I have tried to describe, concerning disputes over sovereignty, exploitation of natural resources, and, above all, military rights, come to a head.
In these circumstances, the Maltese delegation hopes that at the General Assembly meeting this year there will be agreement on at least a preliminary declaration, as there was for outer space. They believe that the declaration should be in three parts. First, it would simply declare that the deep seas were not a region that could be appropriated for exclusive national uses, but were an area reserved for the benefit of all mankind; second, that the regions should remain demilitarised; and, third, that the benefits of the resources of the regions should be shared not only between the maritime and non-maritime Powers, but between the developed and developing countries, given the difference in the capacity of countries to exploit the regions.
I have raised the subject today simply to express the hope—and I am glad to see my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary here—that Her Majesty's Government will give every support to the attempt by the Maltese Government to have a declaration on the lines I have mentioned passed this year, whatever doubts or reservations they may have on some of the smaller points concerning international law, and so on. The whole point of the attempt to get a declaration is that it does not need to wait until those problems have been solved. That is precisely what happened in the case of outer

713
space. A declaration on very similar lines was passed several years before there Could be agreement on many of the complex problems of law involved. The Maltese Government merely hope something similar will be done in the case of the deep seas. I hope that in reaching their decision Her Majesty's Government will take advantage of the valuable help that will be provided for them by a distinguished and high-powered committee of experts on the subject set up by the Parliamentary Group for World Government, which is at present examining the question in great detail. It hopes to have its recommendations ready within three or four months, and certainly before the ad hoc committee of the United Nations Las been able to report.
I apologise for detaining the House on the subject. I would not have done so in a debate which has been dominated by many other important subjects if I had not been convinced that the question is of great importance and urgency. It is one of the most important challenges which the international community will face during the next few years.
The challenge concerns whether or not these very important areas will be used purely for narrow national interests or for the benefit of mankind as a whole. I hope that the Government's attitude to this problem will correspond with the great internationalist ideals they so frequently profess.
9.5 p.m.
Mr. Philip Goodhart: hope that the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Luard) will forgive me if I do not swim after him.
The Government have devalued many things in the last few months along with the £. They have devalued the concept of Ministerial responsibility and have tended to devalue the personal status of the Secretary of State for Defence. He made on television recently a typically maladroit remark about sheikhs offering us aid to stay in the Persian Gulf and that accepting this would be the equivalent of becoming a white slaver. In recent weeks the right hon. Gentleman has become a white slave of his own party's sheikhs.
The Government have also devalued themselves, because the withdrawal from
714
the Persian Gulf and South-East Asia will, I believe, materially increase the risk of war. I believe that the presence of British troops in the Persian Gulf in the last few years has contributed to the remarkable fact that, although there is there a combination of Arabs and money and oil, there has been less trouble, less subversion, in the area than in any other part of the Arab world.
Again, I believe that the withdrawal from Singapore while the future of Indonesia is still a matter of doubt—and this is "make or break" year in Indonesia—may well jeopardise our immense holdings in Malaya and Singapore and create a situation where an attempt may be made, perhaps by Indonesia, to take over Singapore and stir up communal fighting in the Far East between Malays and Chinese which would wreck all our investment and trade in that part of the world.
But I am glad to see that the Foreign Secretary appears to recognise our reduced status in the world because of what he said last week about two vital areas—Vietnam and the Middle East, which are the two flash points of the world. Speaking of Vietnam on Monday he said:
"I think that this is a very good moment for all of us who wish to see the hostilities to be allayed to keep quiet … —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd January, 1968, Vol. 757, c. 12.]
This modesty was further reflected when he turned to the Arab-Israeli conflict yesterday. He said:
"Possibly at a later stage we may be able to help."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th January, 1968; Vol. 757, c. 441.]
I am glad that at least the gimmicks have stopped, that we do appear to recognise that we must cut our diplomatic cloth according to our power position in the world and that we are no longer going around twittering with the gimmicks that the Prime Minister used to produce. At least it seems that the twittering has come to a stop. The word, however, is appropriate to the Government, for this is a Government not of doves or hawks but of sparrows.
9.10 p.m.
Mr. Richard Wood: This debate, having been originally planned to take place before Christmas, was postponed again a second time from last week to this. Meanwhile, never have so many speeches, those we might have made on

715
those earlier occasions, become so irrelevant in such a short time; because in attempting to set an early term to many of our defence obligations, the Government aim to reshape the whole foundations on which British foreign policy has rested for well over a century.
Certainly, where there is broad agreement with the policy which the Government are still able to pursue in, for instance, its continuing attachment to the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance and its Middle Eastern resolution of last November and the important mission of Mr. Jarring, we are naturally ready to give our full support; but the main theme of the debate has been the recently announced cuts in defence which have raised issues which have exposed the Government to criticism from both sides of the House.
Over the last two decades, the country has almost unanimously accepted the need to contract our structure of world defence, but I none the less remain convinced that our inability to play the part which we played in the last century in no way disqualifies us today from playing any part at all. Certainly we hope and I believe that the day will come when adequate local arrangements both in the Far East and the Near East exist both to moot limited attacks and to bear the first brunt of more serious onslaughts, but this longed-for time of stability in these two areas is all too plainly not yet.
In so far as the Government decisions have been taken on their own merits and not on considerations totally unconnected with them, it appears to be the Government's view that an announcement of an earlier date for the ending of British responsibilities will hasten the development of stability at both ends of the Continent of Asia and the construction of effective local arrangements to sustain it.
I believe this to be a fundamental misconception, because all our experience points to exactly the opposite conclusion. I appreciate the strength of the Foreign Secretary's contention that the time may well come when the presence of British forces in certain parts of the world may have an irritant rather than a stabilising effect, but I am equally certain that that time is not yet, because a British military presence both in the Far East and
716
in the Persian Gulf is still welcome and actively desired by many nations. The Foreign Secretary's belief that our standing in the world will not depend on our military presence must prompt the question why it was thought essential only a few weeks ago to maintain such a presence and why it has been so rapidly decided that the presence can now be dispensed with.
Listening as I have to most of the speeches during the two days of this debate, I have no doubt at all—none of us has—of the grave anxieties felt on all sides about the Government's plans for withdrawal. They were forcefully expressed yesterday by the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Alan Lee Williams) and the hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard), and this evening by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) and my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison).
One of the difficulties is that the phrase "east of Suez" has not only become highly emotive, but also seems to be profoundly misleading, because it suggests that the Middle East can be separated from Europe, while two world wars and countless other signs have painfully proved that the Middle East is an important door to Europe, both from a military and an economic point of view, and that it is an essential European interest that the key of that door should be kept in the right hands.
Surely it is necessary in this situation that we and our allies in Europe should introduce, as was urged by my hon. Friends the Members for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk) and Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour), among others, flexibility into our arrangements for the defence of Europe, that we should be jointly alert to the dangers of Russian penetration in the Middle East, and the Mediterranean, and that the interest of Europe should be stimulated in the security of the Middle-Eastern gateway to this continent.
I hope that the Foreign Secretary in his reply will say whether he sees any scope for greater co-operation between two of the pacts of which we are members, N.A.T.O. and C.E.N.T.O. No one doubts the vast importance of the Persian Gulf to our economy. Out of their

717
vast oil production, the Gulf States produce a pout half of our total requirements. The British stake, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) said yesterday was nearly one-third, in the production and sale of this oil brings us £200 million a year in foreign exchange.
I am asking whether, in the face of All this, the right hon. Gentleman the secretary of State for Defence has the right to reject so lightly and so disdainfully at this critical moment, the offer of the ruler of Abu Dhabi and some of his colleagues, to pay the entire cost of maintaining British forces in this area. So lightly does he apparently regard it hat it was unworthy in his opinion of any mention in his speech. His speech, I am sorry to say, will do more than any have heard to deepen the cynicism and disrespect which a large part of this nation now feels about politics and politicians.
The right hon. Gentleman had his fun at the expense of Conservative Ministers of Defence, but he did not remind us that on 23rd November, 1964, he said that the Minister, now Lord Thorneycroft, had
"… handed over to me the best weapon that any Defence Minister of this country has yet had."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd Novemher, 1964; Vol. 702, c. 1026.]
Nor did he say that in the defence debate of 1967 he told us that:
"Thanks in part … to the decisions taken by the last Conservative Administration, the British Army is one of the best equipped the world."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1967; Vol. 742, c. 101.]
No one could claim that our continued presence in the Gulf, whoever pays the cost, automatically guarantees either stability or the flow of oil or the security a our investments. But, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire said yesterday, it is important to compare the stability of this area with the violent eruptions in other areas of the Middle East during the last 20 years. The relative calmness on the shores of the Gulf exists in spite of latent conflicts there. Not only have the States under British protection disputes among themselves, but neighbouring States have claims on them. I fear greatly for their stability if we desert them now. In South Yemen the Government, I believe rightly,
718
have undertaken to continue aid at the formerly agreed level for six months until further negotiations take place. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us tonight, as he was not willing to do the other day, when these negotiations are to begin. The estimated annual cost of maintaining the British military presence in the Gulf is similar to the £12 million half yearly aid to South Yemen.
It seems very difficult to argue that we cannot afford £12 million a year to maintain our presence on the Gulf and yet we can subsidise one country at double that annual rate. If the Government are in earnest about ending our commitments in the Gulf, would the Foreign Secretary tell us whether there are not other countries in the Arabian Peninsula to which South Yemen ought properly to turn? Again, if the Government are earnest that these commitments should end, on what solid grounds do they place their expectation that within less than four years the States concerned can stand on their own, without a British military presence, because in order to do so they must first work out a relationship with their neighbours, especially Saudi Arabia and Iran, and it is our belief that by announcing a date, and especially an early date, for our withdrawal, we have made it more difficult to construct this basis for future stability.
What are the Government's intentions about our responsibility for the foreign relations of Bahrain, Qatar and the Trucial States? Will this Government remain responsible? If not, what is their plan for the future? It is true that Bahrain might develop into a sovereign independent state on the model of Kuwait, but it is certainly most unlikely that any of the Trucial States will do so. What is the future of the specific defence commitments in the exchange of notes with Qatar many years ago and with Kuwait as recently as 1961? I need not remind the Foreign Secretary that the exchange of notes with Kuwait requires three years' notice of termination
on either side. Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to give this notice, because in the absence of it the British defence commitment will remain in force?
Throughout yesterday illumination grew rather slowly and painfully about the twin visits which the Minister of

719
State for Foreign Affairs paid to the Gulf in November and January. Dispatched in November, apparently to inform the Rulers, a little unnecessarily, that we should not be there for ever, with no question, as he agreed last night, of setting a date for withdrawal, he was re-dispatched this month to tell the Kuwaitis and others that their financial losses from devaluation were to be augmented and aggravated by our evacuation in 1971. This was indeed a double mission of shame which I hope no Prime Minister will ever again force on one of his Ministers.
My right hon. Friends made clear yesterday that our duty in the East was to maintain our interests in Singapore, Malaysia and the Gulf. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire pointed to the importance of Simonstown and to our possible place in a framework of nations which was concerned with the protection of the routes by air and sea essential to the maintenance of those interests. There is no question whatsoever of our not being wanted or needed, because the announcement of our total withdrawal has been received with bitter dismay.
What our friends must find impossible to understand is the total atrophy of our will to help in any way to preserve peace in the two most sensitive areas of the world in less than four years. What they will find hard to forgive is the almost casual rejection of solemn promises involved by the Government's new policy.
On 18th December, when the Prime Minister foreshadowed the review of expenditure which led to the statement last week, he told the House of Commons that the review would cover defence and overseas expenditure. Yet only four days later, in Australia, the Prime Minister of Singapore received "not the slightest inkling" of what might be in store. I ask the Foreign Secretary whether the other Commonwealth Prime Ministers of Australia, New Zealand and Malaysia were kept equally in the dark. Did they ask no questions about the statement? Or had any of them reason to expect that, in spite of devaluation, Britain would continue to honour in full commitments which she had entered into in the Far East?
I am one of those who applaud the Government's decision not to reduce the
720
total of overseas aid, although, as we were told, its value in real terms will be less than before, but I cannot help being struck by the contrast between the potential reaction of the party opposite to a cut in overseas aid, which would reduce the defences of many developing nations against poverty and economic helplessness, and their known reaction to the cuts in military commitments which remove from many peoples their security from fear and their insurance against various forms of destitution.
Moreover, those who applauded the British withdrawal from all commitments outside Europe must accept what I fancy will be a great deal less acceptable, namely, their inability to raise their voices about any part of the world outside Europe with any hope of anyone paying any attention. If Lord Acton can be reversed, "Impotence silences. Absolute impotence silences absolutely". The Government's policy, if carried out, would remove for ever our right to speak with any authority outside the Continent of Europe. Our foreign policy would be a European policy, and, from the main focus of Europe, we are at present shut out.
Some may say that we can still speak and perhaps act in other parts of the world as a member of the United Nations Organisation. They are quite right, but if anyone looks down the history of the world in the last two or three thousand years I doubt whether he can escape the conclusion that at, any one time, the peace of the world, or of parts of the world, has been preserved by the will and energy of a very few nations. This situation has not been changed by either the League of Nations or the United Nations. Our interests in preserving the peace of the world are perhaps greater than those of any other nation. If Great Britain has lost the will to contribute to peace in Asia and the Indian Ocean, how can we hope to inspire our fellow members in the United Nations with the will which we ourselves have lost?
Even in Europe. which is less than a hundred miles away from where we stand or sit tonight, can we speak with authority? The Community, however unwillingly, has rejected us for the time being. At the same time, we have grave economic problems at home which none but ourselves can solve. Their solution must

721
be the buttress of our continued determination to enter the Community. In my view, the Government are right not to withdraw our application for membership, but I hope that the Foreign Secretary will ell us what steps he intends to take to,nape Britain specifically for membership.
Finally, can we be assured, as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) wanted assurance, that nothing will deter us from playing our full part in the defence of Europe, with the flexibility necessary to ensure the protection of the Mediterranean, the Middle East and the approaches to Europe.
We ask these questions because we have seen the Left wing win a decisive victory. We have seen its appetite whetted. We have seen it watering at the mouth. I see below the Gangway rows of Oliver Twists. I am not trying to be rude. Dickens invented the name, not me—Charles Dickens. [Laughter.] I see those Oliver Twists holding out their bowls for more. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give them firmly the answer that poor Oliver Twist got.
Mr. Mendelson Mr. Mendelson rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman obviously is not giving way.
Mr. Wood: Even a few months ago I could not imagine putting this question to the right hon. Gentleman. Certainly I should have been in no doubt of the answer. As the Prime Minister says, a week in politics is a long time, and the nine and a half weeks since devaluation have been a very long time indeed. All the familiar landmarks have been swept away. All the solid ground has been submerged, and we are left with shifting sands, so that we can be sure of nothing whatever.
Hon. Members: Where is he? [Laughter.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not worth more than that. [Laughter]
Mr. Wood: The promises and the commitments to some of our closest friends and allies which have been made and broken were not endorsed by the Prime Minister only on his own behalf, or that of the Cabinet, or even on behalf of the Socialist Party. They were made on behalf of all the people of Britain, and we are all involved, each one of us, in the
722
proposed disregard of them. We for our part are not prepared to share in this breaking of our word or in the threatening further of the stability in the Far East and the Gulf, or in the destruction of all our defences outside Europe. These are the reasons why we shall vote against the Government tonight.
9.31 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. George Brown): Much of the speech of the right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) I found moving and impressive. I did not agree with it, but I found myself very much impressed. The last part, when the right hon. Gentleman tried to score party political points, I did not think was quite so effective.
I want to wind up this debate, in which I have spoken rather more than enough times, by trying to deal with the issues upon which it seems to me the Opposition want to concentrate.
We had a debate last week on the economy, which became a debate on defence cuts, and we have had a two-day debate this week on foreign affairs, which has become an extension of the same debate. That is what the Opposition wanted.
It would not be any use for me to try a third time to deploy at length the Government's case. Instead, I will try to answer the arguments which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have put forward in the course of the debate. These were most clearly expressed, I think, by the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home). They were reinforced by the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling)—I could not be here when he spoke, for reasons which I know he understands—and they were again reinforced by the right hon. Member for Bridlington.
We listened to the views of the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire in silence. That was partly because we knew they were views sincerely held, but also because we knew they were views that are not generally held on the Opposition Front Bench.
It is time that the party opposite got itself organised and straightened out. There have been many charges flung at

723
us about Ministers who have not really been honest, and so on, but how the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) and the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire can take part in the same debate and purport to put forward the same argument I do not understand. They know they are being dishonest, I know, and the country knows.
As between the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire and myself, there is a deep difference, sincerely held. [Interruption.] On whose side God is is not for the hon. Gentleman to decide. There is a deep difference here. I do not want to hide it. It is a difference of view about how Britain's interests should be developed in the future. It is not, if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to say so, that this Government are careless of British interests, or of the interests of the free world, as he put it. The difference is a different one.
It is that my view of what the times in which we live demand of Britain is different from his view, and his view, and that of the right hon. Member for Bridlington, is a view much more equated to a century that has gone, than to the times in which we live. They were not even talking of the first half of this century. They were talking of the Edwardian period, long since dead, and, in the case of the right hon. Member for Bridlington, looking like it, too.—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must give both sides of the House the same hearing.
Mr. Wood: I was talking about the period six weeks ago.
Mr. Brown: I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman thought that he was speaking about a period six weeks ago, but the arguments which he raised were relevant to the period 50 or 60 years ago, and not to today. Seriously, this is the difference between us.
It is possible that I am wrong about this, of course. The one thing that is wrong with hon. Gentlemen opposite is that they never concede that they may be wrong. The difference between the right hon. Gentleman and myself is that I believe that the future of Britain will depend much more upon our trade, upon
724
the goods that we produce, and upon the skills that we can develop than it will on the bugles blown in far-off lands.
Had we greater economic strength, I have no doubt that we could have ordered our affairs differently, but, unlike the right hon. Gentleman, I think that we must face the facts as they are, get as much out of them as we can, and turn them to our best advantage.
The second thing which the Opposition have not been willing to face in this debate is that we must play our rôle in the world, with the means that we have, and that it is pointless trying to do what we cannot afford and thereby bankrupting ourselves. Those who take refuge in cloud-cuckoo land are not helping Britain or her interests, and the report which I received of what the right hon. Member for Barnet said led me to believe that that is exactly what he was doing. It is far better to base ourselves on the realities of the situation.
I repeat what I said the other night: it is better to say clearly to our friends, "We have helped you to keep the peace in the Gulf and South East Asia for as long as we could. Now you must stand on your own feet and make your own arrangements". Better by far to speak to our friends plainly, so that they will understand the need for them to act together and to get on with the job which they have to do than to exhaust ourselves to the point at which we can neither help our allies nor maintain our own security.
In defence, our paramount responsibility is, of course, the security of this country. I came into politics in the 1930s, when right hon. Gentlemen opposite and their predecessors were in power. This basic truth about our national security was forgotten then, with disastrous and tragic consequences.
Right hon. Gentlemen opposite have said that the Government are right in their defence policy towards N.A.T.O. and Europe, and the right hon. Member for Bridlington was good enough to repeat it. This, in our view, is fundamental to our national security today. This has been made clear by all of us who have spoken from this Front Bench and has been reinforced by others. I would like, if I may, to refer to the moving speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly), who also

725
addressed himself to this point—[HON.
MEMBERS: "Oh."] I pick him out because I thought that it was a moving speech and because I am one who is very loath to leave a friend even when he has done something which I think he should not have done.
The right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire slipped when he went on to suggest, in a passage which I thought totally out of character, that we should withdraw some of our troops from Europe. I could not understand why he said ii and I cannot believe that he thought through the consequences. If we were to do that, I ask him: where does he think the process would stop? Other allies might well do the same, and we all know that there are powerful voices in the United States Congress which are pressing for just this to happen. If this happened, the whole United States commitment to Europe might be questioned. The whole balance within the alliance would then be totally upset and the future of the alliance itself might well be at risk.
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: If the right hon. Gentleman looks at what I said yesterday, I do not think he will find that I ever said that we should make a unilateral withdrawal. I thought that it would be in the interests of all the allies to enable us to perhaps withdraw some troops, because in Europe's interests they might be better employed outside Europe. I was thinking of the mobile units on he eastern frontier of West Germany, reform which I would like to see.
Mr. Brown: That is a rather different formulation than the one the right hon. Gentleman gave yesterday. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Hon. Gentlemen opposite who are shouting "No" were not here when the right hon. Gentleman said what he did yesterday. I have the advantage of having happened to be here. However, I still think, even on the new formulation, that that is a very dangerous argument to put forward. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to think again about it and about the consequences of such an argument.
To go on from what I was saying, not only the future of the alliance would be at risk, but there would then be the question of the balance between East and West in Europe. This was referred to by
726
my right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas). No one can predict the consequences, but what is certain is that the risks of such an approach are really quite appalling. I trust that the Opposition will think rather carefully about the approach which the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be suggesting.
Mr. Peter Kirk Mr. Peter Kirk (Saffron Walden) rose——
Mr. Brown: I did not rise till very late. I will, therefore, not give way. I did not ask, as one normally does, for a lot of time in which to reply.
Mr. Kirk Mr. Kirk rose——
Mr. Brown: No. I got up very late. I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will allow me to make my speech.
I was about to say that this particular suggestion is all the stranger since the right hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Dodds-Parker) and the right hon. Member for Bridlington drew attention to the increasing Soviet presence in the Mediterranean. As we all surely know, the Mediterranean is the southern flank of N.A.T.O.—in which case, I cannot understand the argument that, to fulfil some other undertaking somewhere else, we should withdraw forces from our commitments to N.A.T.O.
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The right hon. Gentleman has misrepresented me. I said:
"I think that the N.A.T.O. policy and the British policy of a tripwire which trips, of a nuclear deterrent against a frontal assault on the Continent, is right. There may be modifications of deployment. I can think of several reasons why, even now, we might, as allies in agreement, be able to withdraw some forces from Europe."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th January, 1968; Vol. 757, c. 420.]
Mr. Brown: Very few speeches improve with a second reading. I have the matter clearly in mind and I think that it was a very dangerous suggestion.
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I hand the relevant passage in the OFFICIAL REPORT to the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Brown: That is simply not worthy of the right hon. Gentleman.[Interruption.] I assure hon. Gentlemen opposite

727
that I heard the right hon. Gentleman's speech the first time. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us get on with the debate. Mr. Brown.
Mr. Brown: I heard the speech the first time, I heard it a second time. I did the right hon. Gentleman the honour of reading it during the night. I still think, for the reasons I have given, that it was a dangerous and foolish thing to say.
I believe that he overlooked another point. When we have carried through these cuts and changes we shall have, as my right hon. Friend said this afternoon, modern and powerful forces, powerfully equipped, based in Europe. This will give us—and I beg the Opposition, in their desire to score party points here, not to play us down abroad—a capability, a very powerful capability, which, as we have said, can be used anywhere in the world as we may determine. We shall not do this, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, in a way that will be disruptive of N.A.T.O. We shall be able to do it in a way that is well within the arrangements in N.A.T.O. and will fit the undertakings, the commitments, we have across the world.
The right hon. Gentleman also drew our attention—quite rightly, if I may say so—to our interests in the security of the sea route round the Cape. He was absolutely right to have done that. While the Suez Canal is blocked, our oil and our trade come that way—it is clearly one of our lifelines—but what I think he overlooked in warning us about the problem is that besides its importance to us, that lifeline, that route, is important to other countries in the West. It is important to countries in Asia. It is most certainly important to South Africa herself. It does not, therefore, by any means follow that, because we have decided to uphold the United Nations resolution on the supply of arms, this major artery of world trade will be jeopardised. Too many other people have interests at stake there.
The right hon. Gentleman then referred to the possibility, separately, of a Soviet base in Aden. This is Press gossip from
728
Beirut. I tell the House with all the authority of my office that we know of no evidence to substantiate it at all. We have no evidence that the Russians have asked for defence facilities, and we have no evidence that the Southern Yemen Government have offered them facilities. I certainly believe that it would not be in their interests to do so.
The righ0t hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members—particularly the hon. Member for Windsor (Sir C. MottRadclyffe)—have spoken of the Persian Gulf. I do not dispute the figures that the right hon. Gentleman produced, but he quantified only our interest and, again, this is only one side of the picture. The other, just as important, is that the interests of the Gulf States themselves depend upon the peaceful development of that region. That is precisely why I feel confident that they will now start to work together to make their own arrangements for the stability and peace of the area which, above all, they themselves need. Indeed, this process of consultation is already under way and, as they know, we shall be glad to help in any way we can.
Various hon. Members, not only the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire, the right hon. Member for Barnet and the right hon. Member for Bridlington, have raised the question of cost-sharing in the Gulf. There are precedents for doing this in various parts of the world, but I do not believe they would be the right answer here. If we attempted to keep an effective military presence in that area after 1971, much more than local costs would be involved. It would place a severe burden on the logistic backing required for our forces which would then be concentrated here in Europe.
We listened to what the right hon. Gentleman said about consulting the Governments of the Gulf at the first opportunity about what kind of presence
"will be helpful and practical, both for them and for Britain."
We heard a similarly vague reference about the Far East last week from the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), who said that, if, in the years to the mid-'seventies, it is practical and helpful for us to maintain a presence

729
in the Far East, we should do so. That promise was so vague and it was obviously open to every conceivable twist of interpretation that it will create mistrust it the countries where we are at the moment accused of not dealing fairly with them.
Yesterday, the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire kept saying to me, "That is not foreign policy". I tell him straight that what his right hon. Friends are urging on us is, in our view, most certainly not a foreign policy that this country can follow. I have told the House quite openly that there are risks which accompany the changes and the Teed-up of the timetable of the changes in defence policy which we are making. Anyone who has held this office knows that there is very little in world affairs which can be seen with anything like absolute certainty, but assurances such as the right hon. Gentlemen opposite have given do not decrease these risks. They enlarge the area of uncertainty. They confuse almost every aim and almost every means.
Hon. Members opposite must stop confusing influence with power. They must not go on confusing a presence with a military presence. Above all, they must realise that international power without economic strength is a hollow aim. We have taken the defence decisions for the economic health of this country. They have been taken in the light of what we are convinced are our national interests. They have been taken after careful explanation and discussion with our friends and allies.
We have had nearly a week of debate in this House. We have bandied many charges against each other. Our concern is for our own interests, for the future of this country, for its economic health and for the rôle that it can play in the world, I believe that what we are now putting forward is the right course for this country to pursue.
Question put, That this House do now adjourn:—
The House divided: Ayes 227, Noes 327.

Division No. 33.]

AYES

[9.59 p.m.

Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

Cordle, John

Grieve,Percy

Allason, James (Hemet Hempstead)

Corfield, F. V.

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

Astor, John

Costain, A. P.

Gurden, Harold

Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)

Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Awdry, Daniel

Crouch, David

Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)

Baker, W. H. K.

Crowder, F. P.

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Balniel, Lord

Cunningham, Sir Knox

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

Batsford, Brian

Currie, G. B. H.

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

Dalkeith, Earl of

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

Bell, Ronald

Dance, James

Harvie Anderson, Miss

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Hastings, Stephen

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

Hay, John

Biffen, John

Digby, Simon Wingfieid

Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

Biggs-Davison, John

Dodds-Parker, Douglas

Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

Doughty, Charles

Heseltine, Michael

Black, Sir Cyril

Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

Higgins, Terence L.

Blaker, Peter

Drayson, G. B.

Hiley, Joseph

Boardman, Tom

du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

Hill, J. E. B.

Body, Richard

Eden, Sir John

Hirst, Geoffrey

Bossom, Sir Clive

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tlc-upon-Tyne,N.)

Hordern, Peter

Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

Emery, Peter

Hornby, Richard

Braine, Bernard

Errington, Sir Eric

Howell, David (Guildford)

Brewis, John

Farr, John

Hunt, John

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Fisher, Nigel

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Bromley Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Iremonger, T. L.

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Fortescue, Tim

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Bruce-Gardyne, J.

Foster, Sir John

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

Bryan, Paul

Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford & Stone)

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&M)

Galbraith, Hon. T. G.

Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

Buck, Antony (Colchester)

Gibson-Watt, David

Jopling, Michael

Bullus, Sir Eric

Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan

Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

Burden, F. A.

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Campbell, Gordon

Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

Kerby, Capt. Henry

Carlisle, Mark

Glover, Sir Douglas

Kershaw, Anthony

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

Glyn, Sir Richard

Kimball, Marcus

Cary, Sir Robert

Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

Channon, H. P. G.

Goodhart, Philip

Kirk, Peter

Chichester Clark, R.

Goodhew, Victor

Kitson, Timothy

Clark, Henry

Gower, Raymond

Knight, Mrs. Jill

Clegg, Walter

Grant, Anthony

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Cooke, Robert

Grant-Ferris, R.

Lane, David

Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

Gresham Cooke, R.

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

Onslow, Cranley

Smith, John

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Stodart, Anthony

Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)

Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Summers, Sir Spencer

Longden, Gilbert

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Tapsell, Peter

Loveys, W. H.

Page, John (Harrow, W.)

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Peel, John

Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)

MacArthur, Ian

Percival, Ian

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

Peyton, John

Teeling, Sir William

Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Temple, John M.

McMaster, Stanley

Pink, R. Bonner

Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

Pounder, Rafton

Tilney, John

Maddan, Martin

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

Maginnis, John E.

Price, David (Eastleigh)

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

Prior, J. M. L.

Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

Maude, Angus

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Vickers, Dame Joan

Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

Walker, Peter (Worcester)

Mawby, Ray

Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Rees-Davies, w. R.

Wall, Patrick

Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Walters, Dennis

Mills, Peter (Torrington)

Ridsdale, Julian

Ward, Dame Irene

Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

Weatherill, Bernard

Miscampbell, Norman

Robson Brown, Sir William

Webster, David

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Monro, Hector

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

Royle, Anthony

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Russell, Sir Ronald

Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

Wright, Esmond

Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Scott, Nicholas

Wylie, N. R.

Nabarro, Sir Gerald

Scott-Hopkins, James

Younger, Hn. George

Neave, Airey

Sharples, Richard

Nichollas, Sir Harmar

Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

Silvester, Frederick

Mr. Jasper More and

Nott, John

Sinclair, Sir George

Mr. Reginald Eyre.

NOES

Abse, Leo

Coe, Dennis

Foley, Maurice

Albu, Austen

Coleman, Donald

Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Concannon, J. D.

Ford, Ben

Alldritt, Walter

Conlan, Bernard

Forrester, John

Allen, Scholefield

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Fowler, Gerry

Anderson, Donald

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)

Archer, Peter

Crawshaw, Richard

Freeson, Reginald

Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

Cronin, John

Galpern, Sir Myer

Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Gardner, Tony

Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

Garrett, W. E.

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

Ginsburg, David

Barnes, Michael

Dalyell, Tam

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

Barnett, Joel

Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

Gourlay, Harry

Baxter, William

Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

Beaney, Alan

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Beilenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.

Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

Gregory, Arnold

Bence, Cyril

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Grey, Charles (Durham)

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

Bidwell, Sydney

Delargy, Hugh

Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

Binns, John

Dell, Edmund

Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

Bishop, E. S.

Dempsey, James

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Blackburn, F.

Dewar, Donald

Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

Hamling, William

Boardman, H.

Dickens, James

Hannan, William

Booth, Albert

Dobson, Ray

Harper, Joseph

Boston, Terence

Doig, Peter

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Boyden, James

Dunn, James A.

Hart, Mrs. Judith

Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

Dunnett, Jack

Haseldine, Norman

Bradley, Tom

Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

Hattersley, Roy

Bray, Dr. Jeremy

Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)

Hazell, Bert

Brooks, Edwin

Eadie, Alex

Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

Broughton, Dr A. D. D.

Edelman, Maurice

Heffer, Eric S.

Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)

Henig, Stanley

Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W)

Edwards, William (Merioneth)

Hilton, W. S.

Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)

Ellis, John

Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)

Buchan, Norman

English, Michael

Hooley, Frank

Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

Ennals, David

Hooson, Emlyn

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

Horner, John

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

Faulds, Andrew

Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

Cant, R. B.

Fernyhough, E.

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

Carmichael, Neil

Finch, Harold

Howie, W.

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Huckfield, Leslie

Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Chapman, Donald

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

732

733

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Maxwell, Robert

Rose, Paul

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Mayhew, Christopher

Ross, Rt. Hn. William

Hunter, Adam

Mellish, Robert

Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

Hynd, John

Mendetson, J. J.

Ryan, John

Irvine, Sir Arthur

Mikardo, Ian

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)

Millan, Bruce

Sheldon, Robert

Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

Miller, Dr. M. S.

Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

Janner, Sir Barnett

Milne, Edward (Blyth)

Shore, Peter (Stepney)

Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

Short, Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)

Jeger, George (Goole)

Molloy, William

Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)

Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&St.P'cras,S.)

Moonman, Eric

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)

Morris, John (Aberavon)

Skeffington, Arthur

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Moyle, Roland

Slater, Joseph

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Small, William

Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)

Murray, Albert

Snow, Julian

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Neal, Harold

Spriggs, Leslie

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

Newens, Stan

Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

Judd, Frank

Norwood, Christopher

Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

Kelley, Richard

Oakes, Gordon

Stonehouse, John

Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)

Ogden, Eric

Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)

O'Malley, Brian

Summerskill Hn. Dr. Shirley

Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

Oram, Albert E.

Swain, Thomas

Lawson, George

Orbach, Maurice

Swingler, Stephen

Leadbitter, Ted

Orme, Stanley

Taverne, Dick

Ledger, Ron

Oswald, Thomas

Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

Thomson, Rt. Hn. George

Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

Owen, Will (Morpeth)

Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

Lee, John (Reading)

Padley, Walter

Tinn, James

Lestor, Miss Joan

Paget, R. T.

Tomney, Frank

Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

Palmer, Arthur

Tuck, Raphael

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

Urwin, T. W.

Lomas, Kenneth

Pardoe, John

Varley, Eric G.

Luard, Evan

Park, Trevor

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

Lubbock, Eric

Parker, John (Dagenham)

Walden, Brian (All Saints)

Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

Parkin, Ben (Paddington, N.)

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

Wallace, George

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Pavitt, Laurence

Watkins, David (Consett)

McCann, John

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

MacColl, James

Pentland, Norman

Weitzman, David

MacDermot, Niall

Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

Well beloved, James

Macdonald, A. H.

Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

Wells, William (Walsall N.)

McGuire, Michael

Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

White, Mrs. Eirene

McKay, Mrs. Margaret

Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

Wilkins, W. A.

Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&Crom'ty)

Price, William (Rugby)

Willey, Rt Hn. Frederick

Mackie, John

Probert, Arthur

Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

Mackintosh, John P.

Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

Maclennan, Robert

Randall, Harry

Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

Rankin, John

Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

Rees, Merlyn

Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

McNamara, J. Kevin

Reynolds, G. W.

Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

MacPherson, Malcolm

Rhodes, Geoffrey

Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Winnick, David

Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

Woof, Robert

Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Wyatt, Woodrow

Manuel, Archie

Robinson, Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)

Yates, Victor

Mapp, Charles

Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)

Marks, Kenneth

Rodgers, William (Stockton)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Marquand, David

Roebuck, Roy

Mr. Ernest Armstrong and

Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Mr. Neil McBride.

Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

LESOTHO (GIFT OF A CLERKS' TABLE AND CHAIRS)
Mr. Richard Hornby and Dr. David Kerr to have leave of absence to present, on behalf of this House, a Clerks' Table and Chairs to the National Assembly of Lesotho.—[Mr. Armstrong.]
BOTSWANA (GIFT OF A PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY AND SILVER INKSTAND)
Mr. Blackburn, Sir John Eden, Mr. John Ellis and Mr. R. Graham Page to have leave of absence to present, on behalf of this House, a Parliamentary Library and Silver Inkstand to the National Assembly of Botswana.—[Mr. Armstrong.]

AGRICULTURE (SMALLHOLDINGS)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House now adjourn.—[Mr. Armstrong.]
10.14 p.m.
Mr. Richard Body: The Minister of Agriculture is a landlord on a large scale. He has 1,365 agricultural holdings. Most of them are managed on his behalf by the Land Settlement Association, but apart from them, he has no less than 230 full-time agricultural holdings and all but 11 of these are on the County of Holland. Many of them are very small. Indeed, some have 10 and even fewer acres. The average is 30 acres.
The Minister as their landlord prohibits them from renting any other land which may be owned either privately or by the Holland County Council. My argument is that this prohibition is unfair and unnecessary. I submit that the Minister's tenants, who have only a few acres, and on these few acres are expected to have a full-time occupation, should be allowed to rent other land temporarily pending a merger with another holding, so that they can then make fuller use of their time and equipment and to earn a reasonable livelihood.
So far, I have been unable to persuade the Minister that he should allow the tenants to do this. He is adamant that these tenants, no matter how few the acres they have upon which to earn their living, must either like it or lump it.
They must go on trying to earn a livelihood on these acres or get out. The Minister relies upon the argument that the tenants have entered into an agreement, and it is true that they have in each case signed an agreement whereby they undertook not to take any other land. This is, I suggest, rather a legalistic argument, because some of the agreements were entered into many years ago, when 10 acres of rich Lincolnshire soil could provide a very good livelihood. But conditions have changed since many of those agreements were entered into and therefore it is only fair that the conditions of the agreements also should be changed.
Professor Wise, in his Report on Statutory Smallholdings, published re-
736
cently, said that these holdings in Lincolnshire were well managed and added—in paragraph 708—that 20 acres was the minimum viable size. Mergers are, therefore, necessary and are taking place.
As with private landowners, the mergers take place when one holding becomes vacant and that vacant holding is added to the adjacent holding. What is to happen to the smallholder who has no neighbour who may die or retire in the next few years? The Minister refuses to allow him to have any other land which might be let to him by a private landowner, or by the Holland County Council, in any circumstances whatever. I do not want to seem harsh to the Parliamentary Secretary, but this is a policy which will condemn small farmers to poverty and uncertainty.
I accept that these tenants are farming some of the richest land in the United Kingdom and that one can sometimes make a livelihood on less than 10 acres, but only if one does so with intensive aids such as glass and new buildings, and yet the Ministry refuses to allow some of those necessary buildings and that glass to be erected.
There is no dispute but that many of these holdings should be merged, but, pending a merger, there can be no reason why a tenant should not be allowed to rent other land if he is successful in securing such a tenancy. I give the Parliamentary Secretary one example. I know of a tenant who is trying to manage on exactly 10 acres. He was recently offered another five acres by the Holland County Council. He asked the Ministry for permission and was refused, and it was put to him, in effect, that either he relinquished the five-acre holding of the county council, or gave up being a tenant of the Ministry. Not unnaturally, he preferred to continue in occupation of his 10-acre holding rather than go to the five-acre holding. What is to happen to him? I invite the Parliamentary Secretary to say what advice he would give that tenant.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary realises that distrust and ill-feeling can be engendered by this policy. I regret to say that the Minister has been an absentee landlord, although I am now glad to hear that soon the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to visit these tenants. I hope that he will realise that his

737
decisions have been harsh. I trust that he will soon visit the 219 full-time tenants he has in the County of Holland and the 57 part-time tenants who together provide a rent of no less than £62,000 a year and that he will hear their problems at first hand and hear at first hand how they are trying to make a livelihood on his land.
It would not be an exaggeration to say that if this harsh decision is continued, there will be people who will say that it wreaks of feudalism. Certainly, no ordinary private landowner would be as harsh as this.
10.25 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) for raising this subject, because it gives me an opportunity to put on record our feelings. I know hat the hon. Member feels strongly about this and has exerted pressure upon my right hon. Friend and myself on behalf of his constituents, and I am sure that they are grateful to him.
As a farmer in a fairly big way I appreciate that these people want to expand. He rightly raised the point that a lot of these agreements were made quite a few years ago and times change. He feels that because of that we should look at the agreements again. We have been letting the holdings over the years, some become vacant and are re-let, but all tenants know the conditions under which they take the holdings.
He mentioned the Wise Committee Report and the fact that it had suggested that the holdings in this very beautiful part of the country, for which he is lucky to be the Member, should be increased. We are very indebted to Professor Wise for his two very full reports. This is a very difficult subject. We have had a very big job consulting all interested persons—and there are a tremendous number to consult—about what we should do in the light of the Reports. Many hon. Members are anxious to know what the Minister's decision will be, and I can assure them that we are going ahead with this. It is one of the reasons why we do not want to come to a decision. We do not
738
want to alter our plans about the conditions of these holdings.
Apart from that, these estates were created many years ago in different farming conditions from today. On the estates that he mentioned, Sutton Bridge and Holbeach, many of the holdings are far smaller than would now be regarded as desirable. For some years the Ministry has pursued a policy of amalgamation and reorganisation. We are particularly anxious to avoid the creation of fragmented small and scattered parcels of land leased by the tenants from different owners. Such holdings are essentially unstable and none of the separate owners can be expected to equip them with buildings and equipment on the necessary scale for the whole area to be efficiently farmed. We do not allow farm settlement tenants to take up acres outside their own land. We do offer to tenants opportunities for applying for much larger holdings as they become available.
Basically, and I think the hon. Member agrees with this policy, we believe it to be in the long-term interests of farm management and the tenants to do this, and it would be wrong to do otherwise because it perpetuates these small holdings which Professor Wise and the Ministry want to see made larger. Such holdings are basically wasteful and inefficient. These are our main arguments for being ruthless.
The hon. Member raised the point that some of these tenants were living in poverty since they could not increase the size of their farms——
Mr. Body: I said that they will be living in poverty.
Mr. Mackie: Well, will be living in poverty, because we would not give them consent as landlords to increase their livelihood by, say, putting up glasshouses. I have said that we have had another look at this, in no small measure due to the hon. Member's pressure. We are now prepared to do just this.
He has given some cases of his constituents who have gone ahead without the Minister's consent, and asked if we are prepared to do anything there. This is the old story, if someone goes ahead without consent we have great difficulty in doing anything about it. There is

739
nothing to hinder something being done at the end of the lease to help these people if the houses or fixed equipment that they have put up are taken over by the incoming tenant. We would be prepared to look at that, there is nothing to hinder voluntary action by anyone who has put up glasshouses. I am sorry to have to tell him that we must be quite firm about the other point which he raised. I have promised him that I will try to make an arrangement with him tonight to visit these people and to try to mollify them a little, if I can. I hope that when that time comes I shall have his help.
The hon. Member has been a little critical of the Minister, suggesting that he is an absentee landlord. But he pointed out how many holdings the Ministry have, and he must realise that the Minister would have a full-time job, if not more than a full-time job, if he tried to visit them all. He has seen some
740
smallholding tenants—not these in particular—and I propose to help him by accepting the hon. Member's invitation and seeing his tenants.
Mr. Body: Can the hon. Member not give a reason why they should not be allowed temporarily to rent land away from their own farms if the Holland County Council is willing to let them have that land pending an amalgamation?
Mr. Mackie: Simply because that immediately puts them in a position in which they do not want to give up the smallholding. If they have bought land or have some other bargain, they do not want to put in for another smallholding. This perpetuates the system. Once started, it will go on and on. I am sorry to be so firm about it, but that is the position.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.

TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Home-Grown Timber
  Home-Grown Timber
  Telephone Directories (Contractors' Costs)
  Telephone Directories (Contractors' Costs)
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Television Reception (Galloway)
  Television Reception (Galloway)
  Independent Television Authority (Holiday Advertisements)
  Independent Television Authority (Holiday Advertisements)
  Licence Fee (Mid-Wales)
  Licence Fee (Mid-Wales)
POST OFFICE
  Postal Delay
  Postal Delay
  Postal Facilities (Sunderland)
  Postal Facilities (Sunderland)
  Mail (Rubber Band Campaign)
  Mail (Rubber Band Campaign)
  Data Transmission
  Data Transmission
  Computers
  Computers
  Greetings Cards (Campaign)
  Greetings Cards (Campaign)
  Postal Minibus Service (Mid-Wales)
  Postal Minibus Service (Mid-Wales)
  Overseas Telegrams (Australian Postal Codes)
  Overseas Telegrams (Australian Postal Codes)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Secondary Schools (Cost Per Place)
  Secondary Schools (Cost Per Place)
  University of the Air
  University of the Air
  Technical Agricultural Students
  Technical Agricultural Students
  Agricultural Courses (Attendances)
  Agricultural Courses (Attendances)
  The Arts (Public Expenditure)
  The Arts (Public Expenditure)
  Secondary School Pupils, Westmorland
  Secondary School Pupils, Westmorland
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Research Expenditure)
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Research Expenditure)
  Primary and Secondary Schools (Development Plans)
  Primary and Secondary Schools (Development Plans)
  Direct Grant Schools
  Direct Grant Schools
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Probation Service (Training Grants)
  Probation Service (Training Grants)
  Borstal Institution, Irthlingborough
  Borstal Institution, Irthlingborough
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  British Petroleum (Chairman's Salary)
  British Petroleum (Chairman's Salary)
  Price Increases
  Price Increases
  Industrial Reorganisation Corporation (Aluminium Smelters)
  Industrial Reorganisation Corporation (Aluminium Smelters)
  Electricity (Special Contracts)
  Electricity (Special Contracts)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Government Hospitality (Expenditure)
  Government Hospitality (Expenditure)
  Government Contracts (Cancellation Charges)
  Government Contracts (Cancellation Charges)
  Public Investment
  Public Investment
  Schedule E Income
  Schedule E Income
  Post Office Staff (Management Courses)
  Post Office Staff (Management Courses)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  South African Servicemen (Training Courses)
  South African Servicemen (Training Courses)
  Defence Estimates (Form)
  Defence Estimates (Form)
  Portsmouth Harbour (Shipping Delay)
  Portsmouth Harbour (Shipping Delay)
  R.A.F. Kinloss (Expenditure)
  R.A.F. Kinloss (Expenditure)
AVIATION
  Aerodromes (Surveillance Radar)
  Aerodromes (Surveillance Radar)
BOARD OF TRADE
  Advance Factories, Blyth
  Advance Factories, Blyth
  Nationalised Industries (Exports)
  Nationalised Industries (Exports)
  Industrial Reorganisation Corporation (Report)
  Industrial Reorganisation Corporation (Report)
  Textiles (Imports)
  Textiles (Imports)
  Aluminium Smelters
  Aluminium Smelters
  Electricity (Special Contracts)
  Electricity (Special Contracts)
  Industrial Projects (South Yorkshire)
  Industrial Projects (South Yorkshire)
  British National Export Council
  British National Export Council
SHIPPING
  Anchors and Chain Cables Act, 1967
  Anchors and Chain Cables Act, 1967
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Trade Unions and Employers' Organisations (Report)
  Trade Unions and Employers' Organisations (Report)
SOCIAL SECURITY
  National Insurance Pension Scheme (Contributions)
  National Insurance Pension Scheme (Contributions)
  HOUSE OF LORDS (REFORM)
  HOUSE OF LORDS (REFORM)
  DEVELOPMENT AREAS (GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS)
  DEVELOPMENT AREAS (GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS)
  CABINET AND STATE PAPERS
  CABINET AND STATE PAPERS
  "I'M BACKING BRITAIN" CAMPAIGN
  "I'M BACKING BRITAIN" CAMPAIGN
  GOVERNMENTS DEPARTMENTS (BRITISH GOODS)
  GOVERNMENTS DEPARTMENTS (BRITISH GOODS)
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
  N.E.D.C. (BRITISH GOODS)
  N.E.D.C. (BRITISH GOODS)
  VIETNAM
  VIETNAM
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease
  Farm Incomes (Wales)
  Farm Incomes (Wales)
  Farming Grants and Subsidies (Wales)
  Farming Grants and Subsidies (Wales)
  Departmental Staff (Educational Courses)
  Departmental Staff (Educational Courses)
  EAST OF SUEZ (GURKHAS)
  EAST OF SUEZ (GURKHAS)
  NORTH VIETNAMESE JOURNALISTS (U.K. RESIDENCE)
  NORTH VIETNAMESE JOURNALISTS (U.K. RESIDENCE)
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY (BENELUX PROPOSALS)
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY (BENELUX PROPOSALS)
  GREEK GOVERNMENT (RECOGNITION)
  GREEK GOVERNMENT (RECOGNITION)
HOUSING
  Leasehold Reform Act, 1967 (Time Limit)
  Leasehold Reform Act, 1967 (Time Limit)
  Rent Increases (Huddersfield)
  Rent Increases (Huddersfield)
  SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE
  SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Southern Yemen (Aid)
  Southern Yemen (Aid)
  Departmental Staff (Overseas Travel Expenditure)
  Departmental Staff (Overseas Travel Expenditure)
  Overseas Aid
  Overseas Aid
GAS
  North Sea Supplies (Price)
  North Sea Supplies (Price)
COAL
  Coal Industry Act, 1967
  Coal Industry Act, 1967
  Coalfields (Minister's Visits)
  Coalfields (Minister's Visits)
ELECTRICITY
  Prices
  Prices
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Construction Materials Group (Timber)
  Construction Materials Group (Timber)
  H.M. Government Properties, Brussels
  H.M. Government Properties, Brussels
  Whitehall Plan (Post Office)
  Whitehall Plan (Post Office)
SCOTLAND
  Storm Damage
  Storm Damage
  Parole Board (Members)
  Parole Board (Members)
  Scottish Office (Staff)
  Scottish Office (Staff)
  Third Lanark Football Club
  Third Lanark Football Club
TECHHNOLOGY
  Short Brothers and Harland Ltd. (Chairman)
  Short Brothers and Harland Ltd. (Chairman)
  Technical Agricultural Graduates (Employment)
  Technical Agricultural Graduates (Employment)
  Television and Wireless Rental and Relay Industry (Report)
  Television and Wireless Rental and Relay Industry (Report)
RAILWAYS
  British Railways (Road Vehicles)
  British Railways (Road Vehicles)
TRANSPORT
  Transport Research Assessment Group (Projects)
  Transport Research Assessment Group (Projects)
ROADS
  Kendal Western By-Pass
  Kendal Western By-Pass
  Road Expenditure
  Road Expenditure
WALES
  Motorways
  Motorways
  Council for Wales (Chairman)
  Council for Wales (Chairman)

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

RHODESIA: REVIEW OF SANCTIONS
3.5 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether conclusions have been reached from the review of sanctions operated against the illegal administration in Southern Rhodesia with a view to making them more effective.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government's review of sanctions is a continuing one. It would be undesirable to give the régime advance warning of any conclusions reached or new measures in view.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Is he aware, first, that the Prime Minister and other spokesmen for the Government have indicated that serious consideration is being given to making sanctions more effective? May I ask whether, in this connection, he would consider raising at the United Nations the issue that both South Africa and Portugal are not carrying out the decision of the United Nations in this matter, and that United Nations pressure should be exerted for this purpose?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, it is certainly the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make sanctions more effective rather than to extend them; but in regard to the latter part of my noble friend's supplementary question, it is the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the United Nations to report to the Security Council on the progress
434
of the implementation of mandatory sanctions. It is the Security Council's responsibility to ensure that sanctions are effective.
LORD BROCKWAY: Yes, my Lords. But is it not a fact that the British Government are represented (and we are very glad to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, as that representative) on the Security Council? Therefore have not the British Government the opportunity to raise this matter at the Security Council, and not leave it to the Secretary-General?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the, United Nations is not one of my fields of responsibility. I am sure that your Lordships are delighted to see our noble friend Lord Caradon present and he will be speaking later. It is true that we are represented on the Security Council, but my understanding is that it is the responsibility of the Secretary-General in this matter.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, it would appear from the answer which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has just given that it is still the policy of Her Majesty's Government to attempt to bring the Rhodesian Government to its knees through the operation of sanctions. That being so, would he take note of the following two things? First, that policy, of course, will make it quite unnecessary for Mr. Smith to bother about the emergence of any opposition in Rhodesia in his fight for survival. Secondly, with the increasing cost of sanctions to this country and the damage to our balance of payments arising both with regard to Rhodesia and from the ban on exports to South Africa, is it not likely that what the Government are doing is to make a second devaluation—which is already being talked about—almost a certainty?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Grimston of Westbury, participated in a Division last night. It was a Division on an Amendment that deplored the alleged breaking of faith by Her Majesty's Government with friends in the Far East. The noble Lord will of course recognise that if these allegations were correct, at least they were made under a free Government by a free people who can speak

435
for themselves. We in this Parliament have a responsibility for some four million people in Rhodesia who to-day cannot speak for themselves. It is therefore our duty to see that the Rhodesians are brought back to legality and that there shall be an opportunity for genuine political advance for the peoples in Rhodesia.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, it would be a very good thing if the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, would apply that to other nations with whom he has dealings, where the inhabitants have no rights at all. But that is part of the double-talk that always goes on. Would the noble Lord take note again that from what he has said to-day there will never be a solution of the Rhodesian problem which will end in agreement, and that is a tragedy?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Grimston of Westbury, takes a more dismal view of human nature than I do. I believe that there will be a solution in Rhodesia, although it may take time. I will say to the noble Lord that if there are any double standards they lie with those who refuse to give the rights and privileges to these people who cannot speak for themselves.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, the Prime Minister—
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, I wonder whether I might interrupt the noble Lord. I do not think that a request to "take note" really amounts to a supplementary question. I do not wish to be difficult, but perhaps the noble Lord would phrase a specific question, bearing in mind that he and my noble friend have between them rather contrived to widen the question?
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, I shall, of course, defer to the new Leader.
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether it is the clear view of the Government that the continued imposition of sanctions is the best way to encourage moderate opinion to arise in Rhodesia?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, it is the only weapon that appears to be open
436
to use by ourselves at the present time. As the noble Viscount will know, it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to leave the door open for negotiations, and if there were to be any approach by responsible persons, particularly by the Government in Rhodesia—the alleged Government—we should be only too ready to meet them.

NIGERIA: RECRUITMENT OF MERCENARIES
3.13 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action is being taken to prevent the recruitment of British citizens as mercenaries for either side in the civil war in Nigeria.]
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am not aware of any recruitment of this sort.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that the fact that mercenaries go on either side for very high payment is one of the most immoral features of this immoral age? Further, is he aware that ex-R.A.F. pilots and others are now taking positions as mercenaries on both sides in the Nigerian civil conflict at salaries of £1,000 a month? The question I particularly want to ask is this. Would it not be possible to extend the Foreign Enlistment Act so that it would apply to Commonwealth countries as well as to countries outside the Commonwealth, which would prohibit this disgraceful recruitment of mercenaries in these wars?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I share my noble friend's dislike of the thought of mercenaries' intervening in this tragic war in Nigeria. On the other hand, while I have seen rumours of Britishers or nationals of ours fighting in one capacity or another in Nigeria, I have no clear evidence that this is a fact. In regard to my noble friend's suggestion about the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870, the Department is giving thought to this. But I assure my noble friend that it is a very difficult and involved subject. I cannot offer any hope at this time that

437
we could enlarge this Act to cover the Commonwealth.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether, if I provide him with some evidence about British citizens having been recruited, Her Majesty's Government will give new consideration to this question?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I should certainly be happy to receive any information on this matter.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether we are in communication with the forces in Biafra so that we may avoid in future the incident that occurred recently at Fort Harcourt when, on the rumour that mercenaries were being recruited from Britain by the Federal Government, a number of important British installations were burnt down?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that there are occasions when unfounded rumours cause injury to life and property, but there is no evidence available to me that there are British mercenaries involved on either side in Nigeria.
LORD OGMORE: I accept that, my Lords, I was asking whether we are in communication with the authorities, such as they are, in Biafra in order to try to avoid the results of any such rumours.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, we certainly have a contact through our High Commissioner but, as the noble Lord will appreciate, this is a large country and the fighting is widespread. Therefore it is rather difficult to keep in full contact over the whole field.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene again, but is there not a difference between this disgraceful rumour, absolutely unfounded, that British troops had been sent to Biafra and the recruitment of mercenaries by both sides among British citizens?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I would agree with my noble friend.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, since all the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, indicate neutrality as between the two sides in this horrible conflict, will Her Majesty's Government say
438
whether they are also neutral in this war?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, Nigeria is a member of the British Commonwealth, and our whole attitude t3 this question is bound by that. We are neutral to both sides, but there is clearly a recognised Government in Nigeria.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I appreciate that, but I understood the implication of all these questions to be that it was wrong for British mercenaries to be on either side. I wonder whether that is the policy of Her Majesty's Government or whether, in fact, Her Majesty's Government have been helping one side only.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, we certainly are not helping one side or the other, particularly in the field of this alleged recruiting of mercenaries
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, may I ask whether perhaps a little more than the necessary amount opprobrium is in danger of being attached to the word "mercenaries"? It may be worth remembering to keep the proportion right and to prevent too much heat getting into the matter, that the Gurkhas, some of the most honoured troops in the world, are in fact mercenaries of ours.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I agree with the noble Earl, but I do not think that in this House the Gurkhas are regarded as mercenaries. It is clear to my mind to what my noble friend was referring.

SCOTTISH HURRICANE DAMAGE: RELIEF MEASURES
THE EARL OF DUNDONALD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what measures of assistance they are considering to deal with the unprecedented damage caused by the hurricane in Scotland during the night of January 14–15, 1968.]
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, my right honourable friend the

439
Secretary of State for Scotland will be making a Statement in another place this afternoon, and I shall be repeating that Statement in this House at a convenient moment after 3.30 o'clock.
THE EARL OF DUNDONALD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord.

CRIMINAL APPEAL BILL [H.L.]
3.20 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This Bill and the second, third and fourth Bills on the Order Paper are all Consolidation Bills, and if your Lordships give them a Second Reading they will go to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills in the usual way. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

COURTS-MARTIAL (APPEALS) BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

CRIMINAL APPEAL (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

EXPORT GUARANTEES BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

ERSKINE BRIDGE TOLLS BILL
3.22 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Hughes, who is unfortunately away ill, it falls rather unexpectedly to me to move this Bill—all the more unexpectedly since I had understood that on this occasion my noble friend Lord Hilton of Upton was to masquerade as a Scottish Minister. Luckily the number of noble Lords who have their names down to speak is small. I think that if your Lordships turn to the Explanatory Memorandum, you will see the scope and importance of this measure. In order to save the time of the House, since we have a long day before us, it might be best if at this stage I sat down, because we shall be interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, has to say, and then my noble friend, Lord Hilton of Upton, who I am glad to see has returned, will be able to reply. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Shackleton.)
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I have only a few words to say on this Bill in general terms. I am one of those who support the idea of tolls on bridges, tunnels and the like. I feel that in this country, where the density of traffic on our road system prevents the application of tolls to roads, there are positive advantages in raising tolls on bridges and tunnels. It has often occurred to me that if more of our bridges had been constructed by private enterprise on an economic basis, large sums of money would have been set free for the ordinary work of providing much-needed roads.
There is only one point to which I wish to refer. Clause 7 provides powers

441
to tow away vehicles stopped on the bridge, similar to the powers taken in the case of the Forth Road and Severn Bridges, but it is left open to the Secretary of State to fix the charge for this service by regulation. The estimated capital cost is put at £30,000, the annual operating cost being approximately balanced by the income from the charges imposed for vehicle removal. On the Severn Bridge the charge has been fixed at a £5 minimum—£5 for the first hour and £1 for every subsequent hour. I mention, in passing, that neither the R.A.C. nor the A.A. services are permitted to act upon the bridges. I understand that in the case of the Severn Bridge, where £10,000 has been set aside as the figure for this work, only £2,100 has been collected in the first year. I should like to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to turn over carefully in his mind whether this figure of £30,000 is right, and whether it would not be better to provide in the toll charges a modicum that would include the cost of this removal service. If a vehicle fails on the bridge, people should pay a penalty. But if £10,000 had to be recovered for the Severn Bridge, and a rate of £5 minimum brought in only £2,000, then it would look as if a figure of something like £25 a vehicle would be required to meet the £10,000 to be recovered on that bridge.
There is nothing more I want to say, except to ask the Government whether they will apply their mind to this point, and to the suggestion I made earlier: that the toll for the bridge should be an adequate one to cover all the services, except a suitable penalty for towing away a vehicle that may fail.
3.26 p.m.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, we on this side welcome this Bill very much indeed. Those of us who live in Scotland are always grateful when we see more money coming from the source of London. I am sorry that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is unable to be here to introduce the Bill. I should like to draw attention to Clause 2. We welcome the flexibility which the Secretary of State has for compounding and arranging the seasonal fees, and especially the arrangements made to lower the fees at night to attract more traffic over this bridge. I hope that we
442
shall not see any temptation to "soak" the visitor in the summer by increasing the fees during that period.
Under Clause 4 we are told that this power to levy tolls is to be for 20 years. If the estimate of £7½ million for the cost of this bridge is correct, it might look as if the toll over this period would be 4s. a vehicle. I do not know whether that is so, but if it were the case I should like to ask whether the Government would consider making it more than 20 years, in order to make the toll more economic to the ordinary passenger. I know that on the Forth and the Tay, which I use a great deal, the toll is 2s. 6d. a passenger vehicle, and it might put people off if it were 4s. a vehicle here. I may be entirely wrong about that.
The only other point arises on Schedule 1, as to who can complain. The Renfrew County Council will, I hope, be looking with the authorities into whether the development which they are planning at Erskine for the overspill of the Glasgow housing scheme will not be cut off as an island by this new road scheme, because on the South side it will cut off a considerable segment. This will need to be looked at. That is all I wish to say, and, as I have said. I welcome the Bill sincerely. The opening up of this Burns country on the South to the Loch Lomond beauties of the North will be an enormous advantage to the industrial elements—that goes without saying—and will do away with the frustration of those who have had to wait for the Erskine Ferry.
3.29 p.m.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, I must apologise to your Lordships for not being in my place at the beginning of the debate, but I had the brief for my noble friend Lord Hughes put into my hands a few minutes before I came into the Chamber. I was consulting somebody from the Scottish Office to get a few hints on what I should say, and I did not realise that I was needed here. I apologise to the House and to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I must apologise to the noble Lord for having given him such short notice.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: I am sure that, in the circumstances, noble Lords will not expect me to reply in great detail

443
to the points that have been made this afternoon. But knowing my noble friend Lord Hughes, I am sure that noble Lords will realise that during some further stage of this Bill they will get very full replies to their questions. I say that to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, and to the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, who raised one or two points. So far as the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, on fees for removal is concerned, nothing definite has yet been decided on this. It is very early days yet, and this matter will be considered fully when the exact cost is known. The charges will meet only the cost of the removal service.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, that was the question of Lord Ferrier.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, I am sorry; I have the questions in the wrong order. But the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, will know that he will get all the information that is necessary later on.
So far as the repayment over twenty years is concerned, again this at the moment is a proposal and it will have a great deal of discussion. The scale of fees cannot be fixed until the exact cost of the bridge is known and another traffic survey is taken near the time of the opening planned for 1971; and until consultations with other parties have been held it will not be possible to give a final answer to those questions.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

UNITED NATIONS AND THE SPECIAL AGENCIES
3.32 p.m.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER LORD RITCHIE-CALDER rose to call attention to Britain's role in the United Nations Organisation and the United Nations Special Agencies, such as the Food and Agriculture Organisation, the World Health Organisation, the International Labour Organisation, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, and the United Nations Development Programme; and to move for Papers. The
444
noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name. I deliberately made it a portmanteau Motion because it is such a long time—I think something like three years—since your Lordships' House debated Britain's role in the United Nations and its Special Agencies. I also wanted to remind your Lordships of something which is far too often forgotten: that is, that the United Nations is not just a political debating Chamber, or Chambers, of the Security Council, the General Assembly, the Trusteeship Council, and so on. Over four-fifths of the personnel and the budget of the United Nations, of the organisation itself, is devoted to the positive purposes of economic and social improvement. The functional Agencies (and many more, incidentally, than those I have cited in the Motion) are wholly devoted to the purpose of economic and social improvement.
I am sorry that he postponement of the debate until to-day, in circumstances which I fully understand and which your Lordships certainly realise, has meant that many noble Lords with an intimate knowledge and a personal concern for the work we are discussing are, to their disappointment and mine, unable to take part in the debate. I must say, however, that I am very impressed by the stature and informed quality of those who are taking part in the debate, despite the circumstances. I personally feel that the postponement of this debate was most significant and was almost historically appropriate; it almost has a ring of destiny that we should be having this debate following the exhaustive debates on the cuts in Britain's commitments.
My Lords, this is the moment of truth. This, I suggest, is Britain's tryst with history. When the dust of recrimination settles and the hurt—I was going to say "pride", but I substitute "vanity", and nettle prejudice lose their smart, Parliament and people will come to realise that the world role of Britain, which has shed false illusions and historical inconsistencies in the second half of the twentieth century and also has shed commitments, will be greater, and not less. Its power will be the power of example, and its influence will have the force of wisdom. We may have lost the pomp, but we have come to terms with circumstance. We have come to terms with circumstance,

445
like my noble friend Lord Caradon—the last of the great Colonial Governors, forsaking the plumed hats and the epaulettes, to become, not the pall-bearer of the British Empire but the trustee of the heritage of that Empire, abandoning traditionalism, which is the trappings of a bygone age, but upholding the true tradition; which is remembered values. For me, my noble friend Lord Caradon is the embodiment of "the new man" in the changing world. Now I am rarely addicated to quoting Kipling, but when I watch our Minister in the United Nations I remember Kipling's If:
"If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you"—
and keeping his head, for example, even in the Committee of Twenty-Four, where one learns the hard way that gratitude is not the reward for good intentions.
The future of mankind depends upon the United Nations. It depends upon the United Nations not only in its present existence or in its present constitution, but as a part of the evolutionary process towards World Government. I would say that the functional Agencies such as we are discussing this afternoon are already the prototype of Ministries of eventual World Government. Some will say that it is an imperfect instrument. I would remind your Lordships that when we are discussing the United Nations we are not discussing a supranational organisation. The U.N. and its Agencies can be as strong or as weak as its member States make them, not just in reinforcing policies, nor in paying dues; nor in the national representation, like sending Lord Caradon as Minister and not as an Ambassador; but in the quality of the people released to become international civil servants, or even in more minor representatives for technical missions. The quality of the British people whom we send is part of our contribution to the work of the United Nations. If we expect the United Nations to give of its best, we must give it of our best; and we have not always done so.
I would call your Lordships' attention to the "Miscellany" in the Guardian of this morning, which ends up, a propos of the fact that there is at the moment under discussion a post to be filled of supreme importance in the United Nations, a post
446
which British representation has held since the foundation of the Organisation:
"Pathetically few applications filed in London have come from diplomats so junior that they don't even stand a chance."
I will not develop that theme.
There are faults in the Charter; of course there are faults in the Charter. There are faults in the machinery, grievous faults, as in the case of peace-keeping. Indeed, from my own direct and very close experience in most parts of the world I could cite many examples of the weaknesses and failures at working level because of the faults of the original Charter and the machinery we set up. But when the Charter was signed at San Francisco in June, 1945, only three of the signatories were in a position to suspect that they were legislating for a world which no longer exists. President Truman the late Lord Attlee and Lord Avon—only they, of all the signatories of the Charter, knew that the atom bomb was, on its way, the atom bomb which was exploded in the desert of New Mexico five weeks later.
The world changed, not just in terms of the military and the political consequences of the bomb, with which we are still wrestling and have been wrestling ever since, but because we were entering a new epoch which would make the politics of the past almost irrelevant. The younger generation of to-day, certainly from all my experience of my students and so on, realise that the relevant history of our times began in 1945. And we are not entering, and we were not entering then, just one new epoch, but a succession of epochs, each epoch as significant as the Bronze Age, the Iron Age, the Renaissance or the Industrial Revolution. We were entering into the atomic age, the computer age, the space age, and now the DNA age, As my noble friend Lady Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe and my noble friend Lord Mitchison reminded the House during this week's debate, British science led the way in the DNA age—deoxyribonucleic acid, with its code of the secret of life; the age of bio-engineering, not just the transplantations of organs or hearts—or, as I would call it, "surgical plumbing"—but of the manipulation of the inherent nature of living things, the most portentious development in the history of mankind. Four epochs,

447
telescoped into the lifetime of the people born since 1945, when the Charter was signed.
This I point out to your Lordships as a new time calibration by which the crash programmes have reduced the interval between the laboratory discovery and its spectacular use from centuries to decades, from decades to years, and from years to months. It is a time scale which makes classical diplomacy as archaic as sending heralds to Kubla Khan, or our financial system as out of date as cowrie shells.
I said this was the moment of truth. The truth, however brutal and unpalatable it may be to some, is that this country is caught up in world forces, which means that we are no longer masters of our own destiny. Nor are the so-called super-Powers masters of theirs. Nor the new nations experimenting with sovereignty. Classical finance and textbook economics no longer apply. Conventional diplomacy, skirting round the United Nations, no longer serves. Conventional force, even with implicit threat of unconventional weapons, cannot prevail. It settles nothing, whether it is in the dragged-out war in Vietnam or in the hung-up situation in the Middle East. Political doctrines can only temporise with, or bedevil, the new circumstances.
What are the compelling forces which have so altered the world that we have been struggling in this House in the last week, and in another place, to try to understand what it is that has hit us? The forces are the two great and simultaneous revolutions—the revolution of science and technology and the revolution of rising expectations. The second is the product of the first. The revolutionary expectations have come with the awareness of change through the universality of communications. The "winds of change", to which Mr. Harold Macmillan referred when he was Prime Minister, are etheric winds—they are radio winds.
My Lords, in the last twenty years I have been in most places in the world, mainly to see what the United Nations and its Agencies can do, or are doing, to meet the new challenges about which I am talking. I can assure your Lordships that there is no place on earth where the awareness of change has not penetrated.
448
The epidemic of freedom was spread by radio. Events in one country resonate in the council chambers of the United Nations, and discussions in the United Nations reverbrate in the remote places of Africa, Asia and Latin America, and even in the Arctic, where I spent quite a while with the Eskimos.
It is difficult to imagine that the founding fathers of the United Nations, who wrote in these fine phrases about self-determination and human rights, can have foreseen what would happen within twenty years. In 1945, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Orr—who, I am sorry is not in his place to-day, for reasons which I sympathise with and appreciate—became the first world citizen, because his appointment as Director-General of F.A.O. preceded the setting up of the United Nations itself, and he was therefore the first to take the international oath. The international oath foreswears all loyalties except to mankind. When I became his temporary adviser at the Famine Conference in 1946 I, too, took that oath, and I took it in front of the flag of the United Nations. At that time there were 52 member-States of the United Nations; today in the United Nations plaza, there are, I believe, 123. The new flags represent the fragments of departed empires.
But, my Lords, flags are not enough. Freedom is not enough. The morning after independence free people wake up to find themselves just as sick, just as hungry, just as poor, just as illiterate and just as miserable. Freedom begins with breakfast. Independence is an aspiration. What I am talking about are the expectations which are implicit in what we call "independence" and "freedom". Without the substance of freedom, which it is the purpose of the United Nations and its Agencies to provide, the expectations, that total awareness which I am sure exists throughout the world—the awareness of a better life—are frustrated.
I believe that at the moment there are some 35 countries now under military government. My Lords, generals are the official receivers in political bankruptcy—and I include some quite near here. When democratic Governments cannot deliver the goods and unrest follows, when the frustration of expectation becomes apparent, the military take over and the new-found freedom is put into pawn. Human rights—and I would

449
remind your Lordships that this is Human Rights Year—are cynically travestied. People are sent to Ionian Islands.
Some noble Lords may say, "That just goes to prove that the subject peoples were not ripe for self-government". That begs a lot of questions, but I submit to the House that it is quite irrelevant. I do not believe that procrastination, repression, apartheid or any other device can in fact withstand the winds of change. What is profoundly relevant is the growing disparity between the highly, developed countries and the developing countries, with all the implications of racial conflicts and exploitable frustrations. That is where the interfering powers come in—the exploitable frustrations. The rich countries are the heirs of the first Industrial Revolution. The poor countries had no share in that Revolution, except as the hewers of wood and drawers of water.
Science and technology, which in this context we are discussing to-day, dates back to James Watt's steam engine, produced industrial wealth. Industrial wealth produced more science and technology—produced education, research, and the means to transfer laboratory discoveries to the factory floor, to produce more wealth, to produce more science, to produce more wealth. It took Britain, the first and foremost of the industrial countries, 200 years from James Watt to achieve the Welfare State. It took the United States of America 100 years of technology to achieve the affluent society. It took Japan, with its commercial Sumurai, 80 years to reach its industrial prosperity of to-day. It took the Soviet Union 40 years of consumer denial and duress savings to put up Sputnik. The developing countries, two-thirds of the world's population, have to make a leap across the centuries. The quicksands of poverty do net provide such a springboard.
What I am saying now is basic to every problem of the next thirty years, and therefore my prime concern with the United Nations and with Britain's role in it is how to gear the scientific and technological revolution, and the revolution of rising expectations, so that they will mesh instead of rending the world apart. Of course I am concerned with the politics of the U.N.—deeply concerned. Of course I am passionately concerned with
450
the problems of disarmament. Of course I am concerned about racial tension, human rights, collective security and peace-keeping. But I submit that in the final analysis they are all determined by the nature of the new forces.
The political confrontation is no longer East and West; it is now inescapably North and South. I have been convinced since that rehearsal for Doomsday, which was the Cuban missile crisis, that the super-Powers, however much they may gesticulate, however much they send Polaris carriers hovering round the coast, will never engage in nuclear war as an act of policy. I put in parenthesis that I never rule out the chance of war by accident. Mr. Khrushchev said of the Cuban cisis, in what proved to be his valediction after the crisis, "People say, 'Who won?'. I say, 'Mankind won. Reason won'." This makes it all the more important that the Non-proliferation Treaty should succeed and that we keep other fingers off the trigger, and I think Britain should make resoundingly clear its renunciation of the independent deterrent. I know it is implicit in everything we ate doing; but I want to make it abundantly clear, and I would follow the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, in suggesting that Britain should now acquit herself of the Polaris submarines.
If the cold war has become, at best or at worst, tepid, it is because the Soviet Union has graduated spectacularly as a scientific "have". As my noble friend Lord Rhodes pointed out yesterday, they have joined the prosperity club. The U.S.S.R. now talks the same language, the same technological language, as the technological tycoons, and in the space race behaves just as extravagantly and prestigiously as flamboyant America. The Soviet can scarcely profess comradely compassion for the suffering masses of the developing countries when it matches billions of roubles against billions of dollars on trying to get a handful of dirt from the moon, and when it diverts, as the space race unquestionably does, human ingenuity from the agonising problems of this planet.
The North—South confrontation is already made worse and made more ugly by the Vietnam war, which, whatever one may say, has all the reverberations of a racial war. It is against all the forces of

451
history in its contemporary meaning, because it is running contrary to the revolution of rising expectations, because it is running contrary to this universal awareness, which incidentally means that what happens in Vietnam reverberates in the streets of Detroit or Montgomery, Alabama. It is trying to enforce a solution by old-fashioned power methods while the United Nations stands helplessly by. The United Nations cannot intervene because its writ does not run in the Vietnam issue, because its peacekeeping powers have been paralysed or are insufficient, and because it cannot provide the table for which President Johnson is always asking—cannot provide it because Red China is barred from the U.N. and North Vietnam has no place.
The other great intimidating factor is that science has produced an avalanche of people. Through the intervention of medical science and the control of the massive killer diseases, the population of the world is increasing, and especially in those countries where the means of providing sustenance and material needs are the most meagre. It becomes all the more urgent that science and technology should make the means available for restricting the population increase and for increasing the standard of living, and I think this means that science should be made available, as we hope it will be, through the United Nations and the functional Agencies.
My Lords, we can provide the solutions. Of this I have no doubt whatever. I was the consulting editor of the l0 million words that came out of the United Nations Science and Technology Conference in 1963. The eight volumes of that Conference are a vade-mecum for the road we must travel. I wrote the first volume The World of Opportunity. If you read that volume and the other volumes you will see that the leap across the centuries is absolutely possible. We do not need even a fresh remit to science. We have enough science, we have enough knowledge—we should like a lot more for solving more problems more directly, but we do not need it. The problem is not lack of knowledge, it is lack of intention, and so far as the developing countries are concerned of course it is the lack of means. No country can lift
452
itself with its own bootstraps if it has not got any boots.
Even when they try to help themselves by their own efforts they are defeated. At the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development—we are having a second one presently in Delhi—we saw that the rich countries were still being carried on the backs of the coolies. The developing countries, in terms of world trade, are still essentially producers of raw materials, as they were in the first Industrial Revolution in the nineteenth century, and they are dependent on those industrial countries, those wealthier countries which have moved into prosperity, for the equipment for their further development. We buy cheap and we sell dear. I am very glad from these Benches to pay a tribute to Mr. Edward Heath's contribution to the UNCTAD Conference three years ago. His was the most constructive and enlightened speech of the meeting. I hope that in our attitude to UNCTAD we still carry that message.
If developing countries cannot earn their way into the new world of opportunity we must give them aid—that is to say, we, the better off. But aid has a very sardonic meaning when, as we find in the World Economic Survey, that of the 9,000 million dollars provided from all sources to the hundred needy countries in 1966, 5,000 million dollars was borrowed to pay the debt charges on monies already borrowed. I repeat, five-ninths of all the money was borrowed for the servicing of previous borrowing. This is what I call "feeding the tapeworm". If you feed the tapeworm it grows and debilitates you. If you starve the tapeworm you starve yourself. If the country borrows, the debt charges grow; if it does not borrow the development stops. One of the things we have to do is to get rid of that confounded tapeworm.
My Lords, I believe that however well meant and well argued bilateral aid may be, the only ultimately effective aid is multilateral aid deployed through the United Nations and its Agencies. Under that, people can keep their self-respect. It is decontaminated aid, aid without strings, without any suggestion that "Codlin's your friend—not Short", and without any suggestion of charity. And it is far less wasteful, whatever anyone may

453
say. It is less wasteful because it is noncompetitive. Your Lordships are hardheaded. I hope that you will recognise and that the Government will continue to recognise, whatever the circumstances, whatever our difficulties, that aid to the developing countries is not charity; it is investment in world resources which we have to share and which we are going to have to share to keep ourselves going as an industrial nation, investment in future markets, and in a much more profound way investment in peace and stability.
In the long term—and thirty years, in which the world population will have doubled, is long-term to me—the productive and purchasing power of the developing countries will be of far greater importance to us than the short-term advantages, however they may appear to people, of the Common Market—taking in each other's washing. I need not remind my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, of that, because he wrote The War on World Poverty.
There is at this moment a great opportunity for the United Nations itself. It is implicit in a resolution which has been referred by the General Assembly to the ad hoc Committee. It is the Maltese resolution, and it refers to the seabed and the ocean floor underlying the High Seas. It seeks to reserve the bottom of the deep seas for peaceful purposes, and to see that the resources are used for the benefit of mankind. The deeps we are talking about—and they are the deeps—are outside national jurisdiction, beyond the limits either of the Continental Shelf or any offshore definition. I would describe this as the pact of inner space, just as we had the pact on outer space in which Lord Caradon had such a big hand; and this with the Antarctic Pact to which Your Lordships gave legislative effect through the Bill promoted by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich in the last Session.
What we ate talking about refers to the deeps, not to the offshore or to the Continental Shelf, which might be regarded as a territorial extension of any nation. The deeps belong to no one, and up till now no one cared. We know now, however, that there is wealth beyond a dream, though not, unfortunately, beyond the reach of avarice. This takes the form of mineral nodules, on the average about the size of a potato, but sometimes much
454
bigger. The first of these mineral nodules were brought up by the British Oceanographic vessel "Challenger" about a century ago from the depths of the Mantic, the Pacific and the Indian Ocean. The world-wide operations ten years ago of the International Geophysical Year, in which one hundred nations combined in what was, and still remains, one of the great co-operative scientific enterprises of all times showed that these deep-sea nodules in composition and extent are a major source of economic minerals.
These nodules vary in composition according to locality, but they include manganese, iron, silica, aluminium, calcium, mangesium, nickel, copper, cobalt, zinc, molybdenum—you name it, they have it. For example, in the South Pacific there are 200,000 million ton; of these potential minerals. They are rich in this particular area in nickel and cobalt. Modern technology, II insist, can devise means for their recovery, and I insist that they devise a means more cheaply than mining deeper and deeper into the land rocks for much leaner ores and for going down a few more miles into the Rand in South Africa to get gold, which, incidentally, is useless.
The pact we are talking about is absolutely necessary. The sea bottom must be demilitarised, because already there are intentions of using it for listening posts. And. I would remind your Lordships of what is meant when nations begin using things for listening posts: we had a rather alarming example this morning, over the U.S. ship "Pueblo". There are also discussions about using the sea bottom for nuclear missile emplacements. One can also see the perils to peace of a grab by unrestricted free-for-all for the enormous resources. I can foresee this as a repetition of what happened in Berlin in the 1880's, when the Powers who could do the grabbing grabbed the Continent of Africa. Jurisdiction must be vested somewhere and the concessions must be regulated. Although this is a most debatable point, and is going to continue in debate for a long time, I want to see the United Nations given the jurisdiction and the royalty rights. Even the most nominal royalty rights on the scale of the seven seas would set the United Nations up in business—United Nations Incorporated. It would relieve it of all

455
the nonsense about failing to pay peacekeeping dues, and would finance its development programmes.
I am not going to play into the hands of those who would argue against it by saying what in fact would be the arguments against it. I know what they are. The Great Powers do not want to see the United Nations as a power. I hope that Britain will not only vigorously support the pact, but will see that the jurisdiction is vested in the United Nations. Furthermore, just as we have, as proof of our earnest intentions, offered the United Nations logistical support for six United Nations peace-keeping battalions, I hope that in this case we shall, as an advanced mercantile nation—a nation of the seas, and above all, as a technological nation, as we have stressed in the last few days—help to prepare the way with the United Nations for the development of these seabed resources in the international interest.
Your Lordships will forgive me if my speech has been analytical and perhaps prophetic, rather than dealing with the past and present functioning of the United Nations and its Agencies. I hope those speakers who follow me will do so. My own experience, as one who has been for the last twenty years for the United Nations—and out in the field in many cases—but never in it, has been to see it in close-up and in detail. My concern in opening this debate has been to raise the issues not only of the present but also of the future, and to insist that Britain's role and Britain's interest lie in strengthening the United Nations and reinforcing the work of its Agencies.
No Power, however great—and here I follow my noble friend Lord Chalfont—can, in fact, police the world to-day. We are just fooling ourselves, and the super-Powers are fooling themselves to think otherwise. That can be done only by making the United Nations' peacekeeping effective and by collective security-demanded, incidentally, by the Charter, but never properly embodied by the founding fathers. No nation can, by patronage, endow world development, but Britain, from its vast experience, and to our industrial advantage, and not against self-interest, can make a greater contribution—and I do not mean just financial—than any other country that I know.
I have only one specific reference to make to our role in any Agency. It is by way of complaint, and I personally think it is a grave one. Our Government have insisted that their policy is based on the United Nations, and the appointment of Lord Caradon as a Minister and not as an Ambassador was proof of our intention, and of our belief in the United Nations. I should have thought, therefore, that our Government, above all other Governments, would jealously safeguard the principles of the United Nations.
One of the most important principles is that the functional Agencies should be protected against political pressures. According to that principle, the members of the Executive Board of the World Health Organisation have been elected as individuals and not as Government nominees. They have been elected by the World Health Assembly. They are appointed for their professional judgment, and their loyalty is supposed to be absolutely to the Organisation. I understand that Britain has sponsored a resolution to be presented to the next World Health Assembly, by which, in future, the Board shall consist of Government nominees. I suggest that this is a sell-out, a piece of political gerrymandering which will absolutely destroy the integrity of the World Health Organisation. If the members of the board are answerable to their Governments, the political loyalties of the international staff will be equally put in question. The nationals with the Organisation, too, will have a divided loyalty.
I would remind your Lordships of a piece of past history of which my noble friend Lord Crook, as a member of the United Nations Appeals Board, is painfully familiar: the occasion when Senator McCarthy's myrmidons insisted on the dismissal of American international civil servants because they were "un-American". I may be exaggerating the risks, but I have no doubt at all about the betrayal of principle. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to reassure the House. My Lords, I repeat what I said at the beginning: that this is for Britain, and indeed for the world, the moment of truth. I believe that Britain will fulfil its historic destiny to have been the greatest Power and the widest Empire the world has ever known,

457
and to have invested both, and its best traditions, in a world system of Government. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
4.12 p.m.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, for having put down this Motion. He has made a very interesting speech which goes to the heart of his philosophy of world government and the late Lord Attlee, had he not been so sadly taken from us, would have liked what the noble Lord has had to say today. The noble Lord's unusually wide knowledge of the workings of international organisations makes him as qualified as anyone in your Lordships' House to speak on their administration. Indeed, a study of his numerous books (I think I am right in saying that he has produced some 28 and that another two are coming out in the next month or so) demonstrates, as indeed has his speech, how deeply he has studied these matters. I was particularly glad to hear the tribute which he paid to my right honourable friend Mr. Edward Heath for his constructive speech at the UNCTAD conference, and I should very much like to endorse what he said. He also dealt with a number of problems concerning science and technology in which I myself am deeply interested.
With all its shortcomings, the United Nations is the largest international organisation the world has so far seen—a world which communications-wise has now shrunk almost to the size of a pea. But we must accept that New York is, in a sense, already the world's headquarters, just as Geneva was, in a sense, before the war. At some time or another virtually every question is discussed, if not resolved, in New York, and no doubt the Special Agencies have played an important part in tidying up some of the world's social, economic, cultural medical and agricultural problems, even if the Organisation has not been conspicuously successful in its more political, peace-keeping or peace-making roles.
When I first read the Motion on the Order Paper I thought that the noble Lord would be dealing more especially with the Special Agencies; but it is clear from what he has said that he has been looking at the concept of the United Nations as a whole, including its political
458
work, and. I therefore make no excuse for referring to-day to its political role. As a young League official before the last war—I was for three years on the staff of the League's High Commissioner for Refugees—I always had the ideals of a world organisation at heart, and I still retain some of these ideals. I am therefore glad that the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, our Minister of State in New York, should be here to expound his own ideas to us and to answer some of the questions which must inevitably be raised, and of which I have given him notice.
My Lords, whatever ideals some of us may have had in the past about the League and its potential role in the realm of peace-keeping, and indeed enforcing peace, it cannot be said that the League, or since the war the United Nations, have yet been successful in achieving the kind of collective security through an international police force which it was hoped originally they might establish. None the less, there is no doubt that under the leadership of President Truman the United Nations did to some extent play the part which they should have played in Korea, and also in Cyprus, and even perhaps at the outset in the Congo before the situation there went sour. But what can the United Nations do about Vietnam and the recent capture of the "Pueblo" by the North Koreans. Regrettably, I fear that this can be only a rhetorical question. The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, agrees, I know, that the United Nations has never in fact had the kind of fire-fighting force it really needs, partly because its forces have been composed of national contingents which could always be withdrawn by the countries concerned.
More recently, in the peace-keeping field, there is no doubt that the prestige and potential of the Organisation have suffered severely as a result of the abrupt withdrawal of the United Nations Emergency Force in the Middle East in May of last year. We saw then, only too clearly, what the limitations of the United Nations were. None the less, we in Opposition thought that the Foreign Secretary's proposal regarding the appointment of a United Nations mediator, who would look for ways and means of bringing the two sides together, was very sensible, and we supported it.

459
The proposal bore fruit in the resolution which Britain successfully sponsored in the Security Council in November last, and led to the appointment of Ambassador Gunnar Jarring as the Secretary General's representative in the Middle East. We on these Benches have also looked beyond the immediate stalemate and suggested ways in which the international community, through the United Nations, could get to the root of some of the problems obstructing a settlement. For example, quite recently my right honourable friend Sir Alec Douglas-Home supported a proposal originally put forward in The Times, for desalting plants in Israel and Jordan to be set up under international auspices in order to make possible a large-scale settlement of refugees. Sir Alec has also proposed a demilitarised zone on the frontiers of Israel. Morever, an imaginative scheme for the internationalisation of the Sinai Peninsula has been put forward by a Conservative Member of Parliament, and other Conservatives have described in some detail the part which the United Nations and its Agencies could play in clearing up the debris of war.
While the United Nations must have a role to play in many international crises, there have none the less been some problems which I believe it was wrong to refer to it. It clearly does the Organisation much harm to load on its shoulders burdens which it cannot reasonable be expected to bear. For example, in the case of Rhodesia, which has been fully self-governing since 1923, Britain was not constitutionally responsible to the United Nations for Rhodesian internal affairs, and by referring them to the United Nations the present Government have, I believe, damaged the Organisation. First, they persuaded the Security Council to find a threat to the peace where it was clear that no threat existed: for peace reigned at that time around the borders of Rhodesia and within the country itself. It was distorting the purposes of the Charter to encourage the Council to find that a threat to peace existed simply because of a country's internal policies—illegal as we all agreed U.D.I. was. But do not the internal policies of certain other countries, much greater Powers, constitute more of a menace? We do not interfere with them.
460
A similar situation arose over Aden. It was not until their decision in February, 1966, to abandon Aden that the Government started the attempt to shuffle off on to the United Nations part of the responsibility for Aden. It was even hoped that the United Nations would eventually solve the political problems there. But nothing of the kind happened. The United Nations Mission was unwilling to have dealings with the Federal Government, and the extremist leaders were unwilling to have any dealings with the Mission. This failure was easy to foresee. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, will be able to explain why the Government thought that the problems of Rhodesia and Aden should be referred to the United Nations at a stage when it seemed most improbable that the United Nations would prove successful in providing solutions.
I feel I should also make a brief reference to the Committee of 24 and the attitude of certain Asian and African countries in it. When rules are so flouted as to induce the deputy of the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, to say that that Committee had
"displayed a double standard and a lack of respect for impartiality";
and again on Aden that it had
"constituted itself into a Board of Censors",
it surely is time that the organisation should be reminded that its purpose is not dissension but conciliation and international harmony. In view of the abuse of this country in that Committee, and the diatribes which I heard with my own ears which come from the mouths of certain delegates, I sometimes wonder whether there is much point in Britain's remaining a member of that Committee.
In regard to South Africa, in view of what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said last night I should like to emphasise that when my noble friend Lord Swinton spoke last night he was doing so at the request of the Party, and representing the unanimous view of the Party. He considers that last night's Vote fully endorsed what he said. I may add that, while the present Government appear to accept a United Nations resolution in regard to South Africa, they rightly do not do so in regard to Gibraltar, and I should be grateful if the noble Lord could say something on that point. He realises

461
that it was raised last night, but I am afraid I did not myself give him warning until just now. However, I hope he may say something on it.
Having said all that, may I say just a few words about the Special Agencies? In the case of the International Labour Organisation, with which I worked closely when I was on the Refugee Commission before the war, it seems to me that this organisation is still doing a remarkable job. Working in collaboration with the Industrial Development Association, it is making a concentrated effort with particular stress upon industrialisation in developing countries, to improve economic, social and working conditions on an international basis. They have reorganised their office and decentralised their operations, which I think has been a good thing. I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Collison, is going to say something this afternoon, since of course he is a member of the Governing Body of the I.L.O., whose 50th anniversary is to be celebrated this year. I am also glad to see that a committee, of which the Minister of Labour is chairman, and representatives of employers and the T.U.C. are members, has been set up to consider the form those celebrations should take in this country.
I would also think that a valuable contribution is being made by the World Health Organisation, and that the noble Lord may well be right in saying that its Executive Board should continue to be elected as individuals. The world presents almost insoluble problems to those Special Agencies, which are hampered by the population explosion, the complexities of individual faiths and Governments, and, in the case of the W.H.O., the knowledge that by providing the solution to one particular form of disease, with consequent longer life expectancy, they are possibly creating yet another problem through malnutrition. With the limited resources at their command, the World Health Organisation are undertaking a massive programme, and I suggest that their efforts merit our respect and full support.
The work of UNESCO, spread as it is over so many facets of life, is perhaps harder to assess, although this is an organisation which it is estimated will absorb some 110 million dollars during
462
the present financial year. In their publication, 20 Years of Service to Peace, I was interested to see that they have a section entitled "Dignity for All", and I think that when we consider that their efforts are to be seen in the fields of education for the illiterate, in the teaching of basic sciences and their application to development, in the social and human sciences, in cultural activities and in the problems of human communication, this sub-title, "Dignity for All", sums up their efforts very well.
If it were possible to achieve a Utopian world, all our needs might be catered for through the Specialised Agencies. Although we may criticise the structure of some of these bodies, I think we should do well to remember that many of the problems with which they are trying to deal are almost out of reach, and they do need our encouragement to continue their efforts.
The trouble is, of course, that staffs in these organisations cannot be recruited solely on merit. Each member country has to have a share of the available jobs. I am particularly concerned about the organisation of the Food and Agriculture Organisation, which has been very adversely criticised, especially by the International Committee of which Sir John Fletcher-Cooke was a member. In another place the Minister for Overseas Development has said that the British representative at the F.A.O. had been instructed to endorse the need for changes in the structure of the Organisation, and I should very much like to know whether the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, has anything to add to the Minister's statement in another place. Could he say whether the detailed plan on reorganisation for consideration by the F.A.O. Council has made any progress and what the Government's view is on the almost complete rejection of the proposals by Dr. Sen, who is the Director-General of the organisation? The Report of the Committee of which Sir John Fletcher-Cooke was Deputy Chairman was outspokenly critical of the way the F A.O. conducted its work. The control of the Organisation in Rome has been described as over-centralised, and its regional offices as having been deliberately weakened. Indeed, the whole of the staff work in Rome is said to have been buried under purely administrative tasks. I should

463
like to know what the noble Lord has to say about that.
I do not think that this is an occasion—we are covering a very wide field—for me to discuss the possibilities of reforming the U.N., although it is a subject in which many are interested. Sometimes these proposals look attractive at first sight but on inspection prove to be somewhat unrealistic. Nor do I think I should go into details of United Nation's diplomacy which might prevent armed conflict from breaking out, although the possibilities of such diplomacy could be even more important than the peace-keeping role. Some maintain that the Security Council and the Secretary-General should be more energetic than at present in pressing the parties towards negotiation, in appointing mediators or in suggesting compromises. I think something might be done about reorganising the Secretariat, and above all as Sir Alec Douglas-Home said in a remarkable speech at Oxford in November, the Secretary-General should be provided with a command structure which would ensure that a U.N. force carried out its job effectively and with authority.
Although the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, is here now, I am not going to deal with one or two matters concerning disarmament, because I have spoken too long. But I fear that what this present Government have done has been mainly window-dressing, and I do not think they have achieved anything in disarmament to compare with the part which was played by my right honourable friends, Mr. Macmillan, Sir Alec Douglas-Home and Mr. Hogg, on negotiating the Partial Test Ban Treaty.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CHALFONT): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. Would he not agree that the British Government have played a very considerable part in formulating and negotiating the Non-Proliferation Treaty recently placed upon the table in Geneva?
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: Yes, my Lords, I accept that that is certainly a step forward; but I think that the Test Ban Treaty was an even more remarkable achievement. But I am glad to recognise what the noble Lord has done. Then
464
I should like to say something good about the Pact on Outer Space. I think that the Government's efforts in promoting it should be fully appreciated. I was intrigued by what the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, said about internationalising the sea-bed and the ocean floor on the same kind of basis. I agree with him that there is in the depths wealth beyond our dreams—not only minerals but also sufficient food to feed the under-nourished populations of the world. I should be interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, has to say about that subject.
We must all hope that ultimately we shall become one world; it is not only Left-Wing supporters of the United Nations who must have that objective as their ideal. The Labour Party cannot claim a monopoly of interest in the future of the Organisation. But we must be realistic about what the U.N. can effectively undertake. It is heartbreaking, no doubt, that the basic ideals on which the League and the United Nations were set up have not been realised. The U.N. is indeed a kind of "Heartbreak House". In the play of that name—one of the best which is at present running in London—Bernard Shaw says:
"… the world has a way of slipping through your fingers".
There are many other passages in that great play which are pertinent to conditions in Britain and the world to-day.
"Is this England or is it a madhouse?",
asks Captain Shotover.
"We blunder and muddle along".
And in view of his speech yesterday, the noble Lord, Lord Caccia, will be interested to know that there is also a very interesting passage in the play about the duties of the captain of a ship in a crisis.
I am sure I am not alone on this side of your Lordships' House in saying that I have considerable respect and feelings of friendship for many who sit on the Benches opposite. I know that many of them question the policies which the Government are implementing. But, relating them to our present debate, I sometimes wonder whether they will eventually submit the situation in this country to the United Nations for solution, too! It would, after all, be in character for them to do so, since the present situation is obviously beyond

465
their control, as we learned in our debate during the last two days. I do not pose that as a question to the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, for the Government are, I think, fortunate in having him in their ranks, and we must all respect his undoubted abilities. But I do question some of the Government's policies in the U.N., especially, as I have said, in regard to Rhodesia and Aden, and I hope the noble Lord will be able to reply to the criticisms I have made in those cases as well as on the structure of the F.A.O.

SCOTTISH HURRICANE DAMAGE: RELIEF MEASURES
4.32 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, perhaps I might intervene, apologetically, to repeat the Statement which my noble friend Lord Hilton of Upton indicated, in reply to the Question from the noble Earl, Lord Dundonald, would be repeated after it had been made in another place, on the subject of storm damage in Scotland. If I may make it clear, it is through no lack of confidence in my noble friend Lord Hilton of Upton but in an attempt to recognise the importance of the subject that I have myself asked whether I might make this Statement to your Lordships.
My Lords, the Statement from my right honourable friend reads as follows:
"In the Statement which I made to the House on January 16 about the gale which struck Scotland early the previous day I promised to keep the House informed about progress in dealing with its effects.
"As the House will know, I visited Glasgow myself on January 17 to inspect some of the damage there; and on that date and again on January 22 I held meetings with a number of local authorities representing the worst affected areas. My ministerial colleagues in the Scottish Office have all visited damaged areas and have had useful discussions with the people concerned on the spot.
"Some 750 people (350 in Glasgow) are still in rest centre accommodation provided by the local authorities, while others are living with relatives and friends. A total of 796 families in
466
Glasgow are having to be rehoused as a result of storm damage or threat to their homes: up to yesterday, all but 61 of these had been offered alternative accommodation and 459 had been placed.
"The storm caused millions of pounds worth of damage to public and private property as well as to agriculture, horticulture and forestry. Became of the widespread nature of the damage, it has not yet been possible for full assessments to be made by all the authorities and agencies concerned. Estimates indicate that local authority property, including housing and schools, has sustained damage which will cost some £9 million to restore. The present figure for private housing is over £7 million. Hospital damage is estimated at £130,000.
"Most farms in the severely affected counties suffered damage, some of it severe. A reliable estimate of the cost of repairing damage to farm buildings is not yet possible, partly because of the restrictions imposed on access to farms on account of foot-and-mouth disease. Only a small number of stock have been lost. Horticulture has suffered relatively more severely, because much of the Scottish glasshouse acreage is in the areas most affected.
"The damage to woodlands is at present estimated at about 30 million hoppus feet. This appears to be equally shared between the Forestry Commission and private estates. Arrangements for extraction and marketing will be considered at a meeting which the Chairman of the Commission is holding in Glasgow next Monday, when the Scottish Woodland Owners' Association and the timber trade will be represented.
"My own Department has provided help to local authorities with staff for the handling of emergency arrangements and with the provision of supplies from emergency stores. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has provided more than 9,000 tarpaulins for emergency roof repairs, and a further 5,000 will be delivered to-day, while the Ministry of Public Building and Works has been helping with arrangements for the supply of roofing materials. The Ministry of Social

467
Security gave immediate help in dealing with the welfare problems which arose in the aftermath of the storm. All three Armed Services have given help in the form of manpower, supplies and transport which has been greatly appreciated by the local authorities.
"Local authorities are dealing effectively with the necessary repairs to their own houses, but there are problems in securing rapid and adequate repair to privately owned houses, particularly tenements in multiple ownership, many of which have suffered very severe damage. I am therefore asking authorities to organise repair work not only to their own houses, but also to others so far as they judge this necessary to get essential work done quickly. Indeed many authorities have already done excellent work in this direction. Damage to tenement property is particularly widespread in Glasgow, and the Corporation and my Department are working out with representatives of the owners and contractors a scheme to ensure that necessary repair work proceeds rapidly.
"As regards finance, it is not yet possible to assess the extent to which damage generally is covered by insurance. But it is already clear that the costs to local authorities of the necessary repairs to property are likely to impose undue burdens on the local ratepayers in some of the worst hit areas. Where these conditions arise the Government will provide appropriate financial help to the authorities concerned, on a basis to be worked out in discussion with the authorities as soon as all the relevant facts are known. In the meanwhile, to deal with situations in which limited financial resources would otherwise lead to delay in proceeding with essential work, an immediate advance of up to £500,000 is being made available from the Civil Contingencies Fund to be drawn upon by local authorities as required.
"In addition, as already announced, arrangements have been made to deal urgently with applications for improvement grant for the restoration of fences and other fixed farm equipment. Similar arrangements have also been made to deal urgently with applications
468
under the Horticultural Improvement Scheme. The forestry situation will be considered further in the light of next Monday's meeting."
4.37 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for repeating this Statement, which has been made in another place. We are very sorry to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, is unwell, and I am sure we all sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for having to take on this rather difficult subject at such short notice. The gale inflicted severe damage on farm buildings and woodlands in Scotland, and we are glad to know that consideration is being given to the difficulties of farmers and foresters; but, of course, much the most urgent problem is the large number of families in Glasgow and elsewhere who are completely homeless, living now in rest centres or with relations, and it is on that point that I should like a little more elucidation of the Statement.
The noble Lord said that, out of 796 homeless families in Glasgow alone, 735 had been offered accommodation and 459 had been placed. Does the word "placed" mean that they are actually in their new houses, or does it mean that they have been offered houses which are now under construction and, if so, approximately how long will it be before they are completed? With regard to the remaining 276 who have been offered accommodation, does that mean that they have just been given priority on a local authority waiting list for houses, or does it mean that they have been allocated specific houses which are likely to be ready for occupation at a definite time? I should also like to ask about the families who are not in Glasgow. All that the Statement tells us about those families is that about 400 persons outside Glasgow are in rest centres. Could the noble Lord tell us how many families outside Glasgow are in urgent need of rehousing, and what steps are being taken about it?
Finally, may I ask the Government to request the Scottish Special Housing Association—a Government body which was set up in 1938 and which has already built more than 60,000 houses in Scotland—to produce, if it can, emergency schemes to relieve the situation, if possible, by using the various methods of

469
industrialised building which does not put such a heavy strain on the available supply of conventional building labour and materials?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Hughes is not here to answer because he visited the area and I know how deeply involved and personally concerned he was in this matter. Very few people in England appreciate just how serious this disaster has been and the extent to which, in certain respects, emergency conditions are still continuing. It is partly that, as well as my lack of precise knowledge, which makes it impossible for me to give answers to the highly relevant questions that the noble Earl has asked. Clearly, we are still in a transitional stage with regard to the position. So acute was the emergency at certain times that there was even a temporary wireless network set up in Glasgow. Of course the precise figures are changing, but a number of people are being housed with relatives, and all one can say is that they are under cover and that emergency repairs are being made.
The noble Earl made some impotrant points, and I noted in particular his reference to the Scottish Special Housing Association. I hope he will forgive me if I merely say that I will convey these particular questions to my right honourable friend and at a suitable opportunity write a letter to the noble Earl. But it may be that the concern of the House is such that they would prefer to be given further information by way of question and answer in this House. There may be an opportunity of doing this next week.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I do not want to press the noble Lord, but I think my noble friend who put down the Question about this may want to ask one or two questions. I wanted to know what is meant by the "offer of accommodation", and what it entails. Would it be possible for the noble Lord to get further information on that matter?
THE EARL OF DUNDONALD: My Lords, as this discussion arises from a Question that I had tabled, may I join with my noble friend Lord Dundee in thanking the noble Lord the Leader of the House for making the Statement? I
470
am sure that we all wish the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, a speedy recovery. Before I make one or two points on these matters, may I pay tribute to the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board and to the G.P.O. in the North of Scotland who have done magnificent work in restoring electricity and telephones. Although in some areas restoration is not yet complete, these bodies have done magnificent work.
The Statement makes the point that full details of the hurricane, and the damage caused, are not yet available because communications North of Glasgow, which were cut off immediately after the storm, have in many cases not yet been restored. But I would ask that in planning the ail and assistance which they propose—and which, at the moment, rather naturally, is directed towards Glasgow, because the information about Glasgow is more accurate—the Government should make their survey on a wider basis; because the severity of the damage from the, hurricane in many areas was quite unusual and went far beyond that normally associated with storm damage. I am thinking in particular of the destruction of small fishing boats, which might represent the livelihood of a family. I am not asking for an answer now, but simply that this aspect may be looked into. There was extensive damage to farm buildings, where in some cases barns were completely destroyed. Houses in the course of erection were destroyed, and cattle were either drowned in the floods or poisoned through eating the hemlock washed down in the storms.
4.46 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, might I just add to what my noble friend has said? While thanking the Government and appreciating the great help they are going to give, and while thanking the noble Lord for making the Statement, may I also draw attention to the remoter areas of the Western Highlands which have suffered great damage by the hurricane? I would point out that this is the second hurricane we have had in the last ten years. While I am appalled by the damage suffered in Glasgow, and fully commiserate with the inhabitants, the trouble in the remoter areas is that it is difficult for the householders or small owner-occupiers to get repairs done. I was wondering whether in this respect the

471
Army could help. Perhaps it would be possible to send a detachment of Royal Engineers to the Western Highlands to help in repairs to farm buildings. I should like the noble Lord to put that question forward to the right quarters.
I would also point out that Lloyd's will not insure against hurricane damage in the Western Highlands unless one is prepared to pay completely exorbitant premiums. I wonder if this is an opportunity for the Government, through the Highland Development Board, to set up some special insurance fund for the Western Highlands particularly (because it is the Western Highlands which gets the brunt of the hurricanes) by which householders, farmers and landowners generally—and I have to declare an interest here as a landowner—could insure against storm damage at a reasonable premium.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, it is clear from the Statement of the noble Lord, the Leader of the House, that the magnitude of this disaster in Scotland is much greater than most of us had feared, or even imagined, and I should like to thank him for the encouragement he has given us, because it is clear that the Government are really taking this problem very seriously and grappling with it. Some years ago, when I was still the Member of Parliament for East Aberdeenshire, we had a similar disaster, though perhaps not quite so catastrophic, on the East Coast. It hit woodlands, more than anything else, rather than the towns. But these are acts of Nature which none of us can control.
The only thing I should like to say to the noble Lord—and I am sure he will agree—is that there are two things which are absolutely vital. The first is speed in assessing the extent of the damage, and where it has fallen, and the second is generosity on the part of Her Majesty's Government.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not wish to prolong this discussion unduly, but I did not wish to interrupt noble Lords in their short speeches, since it might have appeared that I was taking refuge in my position. I thought they were relevant and interesting. I am very sorry that I cannot give to the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, the information for which he asked. It is not available to
472
me, and I am not even sure whether it is available in London. I stress again that the situation is very fluid, and I have given the noble Earl all the information I possess. He may rebuke me for not having obtained this further information, but I do know that my right honourable friend has been collecting information about this problem as hard as he can. I agree that it is important, and I will try to see whether some later information can be made available.
I am grateful to noble Lords for what they had to say. A lot of the information for which they have asked is not available. I noticed what the noble Earl, Lord Dundonald, had to say about the extent of the disaster. There are precedents as to the extent of compensation which can be paid in certain circumstances. Generally, in regard to fixed farm equipment, there are appropriate rates of compensation. I cannot at this moment give details, but I will certainly pass on the information to my right honourable friend, and convey the sense of the House in this matter.
I am relieved that the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, drew attention to the second hurricane some while ago which occurred under a previous Government. Although no Government has yet been able to achieve it, I have no doubt that the time will come when there will be some degree of weather control. But that is a matter about which my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder and the United Nations may have something to say. I am not sure how far this would be relevant to the West of Scotland alone. People, including myself, who are aware of the violent weather that can occur would not ignore the fact that other areas have been struck by disaster. There was the East Coast disaster a few years ago which was of quite an appalling kind. None the less, it appears that there is no doubt (at least we have heard nothing to suggest the contrary) that the emergency services did go into action. Certainly the Armed Forces did. I understand that the Army provided craftsmen and other troops to assist in repairing and clearance work, not only in Glasgow but also in the West of Scotland. I am sure that the tribute to the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board will be appreciated.

473
My Lords, I do not think there is any further information I can give, beyond again saying that I will convey to my right honourable friend the feeling in your Lordships' House, which I hope that the public generally will appreciate, and repeating that of course the disaster did not occur only in Glasgow.

UNITED NATIONS AND THE SPECIAL AGENCIES
4.55 p.m.
Debate resumed.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CARADON): My Lords, before we return to the subject of the debate which was started by my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder, I should like to add one word to the references which have been made by noble Lords to the most serious damage which has occurred in Scotland. I was myself in Stirling a night or two ago, and I know very well the strong feeling that exists in many areas that the extent of the damage went far beyond the main cities. I cannot claim to be anything of an expert, except that, having spent ten years in the West Indies, I am an expert on hurricanes. I strongly support what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and the noble Lord, Lord Dundonald, and the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, too. The essence of relief work is, of course, speed, and a combination of Government initiative and voluntary contribution. I have no doubt that this disaster will be dealt with in that way.
My Lords, in returning to our debate on the United Nations, let me at once express very sincere gratitude to my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder for moving the Motion. Some might suggest that after recent serious alarms and excursions, and with the many anxieties which now beset us nearer home, this is no time to turn to discuss Great Britain's role in the United Nations. On the contrary, I am sure that a review and reassessment of the contribution of this country to international affairs is not only opportune but urgently necessary. Now, more than ever, I suggest to your Lordships, we need to think of our national interest in the context of international co-operation.
I can escape only occasionally from the Parliamentary diplomacy in which I exist
474
in New York in order to pay my respects to this ancient House. I do not need to be told of the frustrations and failures of international negotiation: I spend all day, and often most of the night, among them. So what a joy it was to listen this afternoon to the speech by my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder! I wholeheartedly agree with a great deal of what he said. As to his generous reference to me, I would only say that I regarded it as very right and natural that I should graduate from the school of colonial administration to the university of international affairs. To proceed from imperialism to isolation is to wither away, but to go from colonialism to internationalism is to live again.
We are all indebted to the noble Lord for the lead he gave us to-day. He certainly said some alarming things, but especially I think we should thank him because he spoke to us with confidence and hope for the future. Surely, at this time, more than anything else we need confidence and hope for the future. I would say that it was worth coming across the Atlantic to hear the speech of the noble Lord, and I shall return refreshed by his imaginative optimism.
I also listened with the closest attention to the wide-ranging speech of the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough. I thought that occasionally he was slightly grudging in his recognition of the part which the international Agencies are taking. But we shall, I hope, be able later to follow him into the number of most interesting and important subjects which he raised with us. I have wandered for nearly forty years in the adventure—I would not say the wilderness—of overseas service, and I think it was well that our debate should be started by two noble Lords who have travelled the world so extensively and therefore are able to bring the force and authority of their wide experience to our discussions. I should like, with your Lordships' permission, to endeavour later to reply to some of the points already made, and no doubt other questions will be raised later this afternoon.
I shall not attempt to comment now on the detailed points in the speeches which have been made, but perhaps I should answer at once one main criticism in the speech to which we have just listened. The noble Lord complained that on Rhodesia and Aden we should not have sought to

475
co-operate with the United Nations or to allow the United Nations any part to play. Let me assure him that we have never denied or shirked our duty to deal with Rhodesia or Aden or any other territory under our responsibility. But there is, as he knows, intense interest not only in the United Nations but in the Commonwealth, and indeed everywhere in the world, in the few remaining colonial issues. There is even more intense interest—rightly so—in racial issues.
We have consequently in the United Nations stated and defended our policies and taken the initiative in seeking support for our aims. What were those aims? In South Arabia to hand over to a Government with the widest measure of public support and in Rhodesia to find a solution just to all the people of the terrritory. In pursuing these honourable purposes we have judged it best not to ignore or flout international opinion but rather to influence and enlist it in our support. While, as I have said, we do not deny or shirk our responsibilities, we recognise that both in Arabia and Africa it is better in the long run to work for agreement and co-operation than to contest and oppose the views of the rest of the world.
The speeches to which we have already listened have shown us an obvious difficulty we face to-day. It is a difficulty which must arise whenever an attempt is made to discuss the United Nations. It is a difficulty which arises from the range and variety of United Nations activities. We who work in the British delegation to the United Nations must be constantly aware of the complexity and extent of those problems. Especially we are aware of them when the General Assembly and its seven main committees of the whole membership are in daily session, and when the Security Council may well be meeting at the same time. We face a resumed session of the Assembly soon on disarmament and perhaps on African and Middle East problems, too. Increasingly the activities of the United Nations are continuously in progress throughout the year.
The Security Council is meeting to-day to consider the question of the Pretoria trial of the South-West Africans. The Governing Council of the United Nations Development Programme has been meeting
476
this month in New York. The Disarmament Conference continues now in Geneva approaching, we confidently trust, agreement on a Non-Proliferation Treaty—the third effort towards disarmament following the success first of the Test Ban Treaty and then the Outer Space Treaty. Next month the second UNCTAD Conference is to take place in New Delhi to deal with the vital issues of international trade and aid. In March the important legal conference on the Law of Treaties will meet in Vienna. In April, this being Human Rights Year, the World Conference on Human Rights is to take place in Teheran.
Meanwhile the Secretary-General is endeavouring to use his good offices to make progress towards a settlement in and over Cyprus. Ambassador Gunnar Jarring, the Secretary-General's Special Representative, is embarked on his all-important task in the Middle East—one of the most exacting assignments ever undertaken, and no man is better qualified by experience and character and outstanding ability to attempt it. These are our immediate preoccupations.
But there is no major problem, no tension, no conflict in the world which is not also a matter of concern and debate and negotiation at the United Nations. I must consequently resist any temptation to try to cover too much ground. If I endeavoured to do so my comment would necessarily be superficial, and I should impose unreasonably on your Lordships' patience. So I shall not attempt to-day to speak in detail on the Specialised Agencies. Each one properly deserves a debate to itself.
On human rights we are privileged to be represented on the United Nations Human Rights Committee, the Third Committee of the General Assembly, by my noble friend Lady Gaitskell. Her lively and vigorous eloquence is as well known in New York as it is here in your Lordships' House, and I very much look forward to hearing her speak to us presently. On questions of international economic development there is no one better qualified to speak to us than my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder himself, and I know that there are others with special knowledges and experience in such matters who are to speak to us later.

477
As I have said, I would hope, with your Lordships' permission, to reply before this debate is completed to some of the questions raised. What I would ask to do now is to attempt a very difficult task. I am anxious to make a very general comment on the function and future of the United Nations Organisation, and I wish to do so with special reference to the interests and the role of our country.
I am glad that my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder has emphasised the importance of the economic activity of the United Nations. It is little known in this country, I find, that more than 80 per cent. of the men and money employed by the United Nations is engaged not on political discussion but on economic and social undertakings. The international community has created a working machine for raising the standard of living of those who live, in the Secretary General's phrase, in the "progressive misery of half the world." The World Bank and its associates, the Regional Banks, the U.N. Development Programme, the U.N. Industrial Development Organisation, the World Food Programme, all supported and supplemented by the work of the battery of Specialised Agencies, together represent a machine capable of a major attack on the degradation of world poverty. This is a new thing in the world, based on a new conception of international responsibility. The creation of this machine for international economic development is perhaps the greatest single achievement of the United Nations in the first two decades of the existence of the Organisation. The resources so far allotted to economic development are clearly wholly inadequate. But the means, the machine, for developments are already created.
There is moreover a growing realisation that the affluent nations can best assist the rest by international effort, by multilateral development, rather than merely by bilateral aid. The time will come, so I trust and believe, when, drawing on the experience already gained and making use of the machine already created, there will be a new international effort—on a scale so far not dreamt of—to make prosperity not the privilege of the few but an opportunity to be shared by all. So far the advance has been much smaller than we should have wished. But
478
the important thing is that a start has been made. Enough has been done to convince us that this is the way. Increasingly this is recognised, and if we want some evidence of that we can point to the fact that nearly forty countries have increased their voluntary contributions to the U.N. Development Programme for this year.
We welcome the efforts so far made in international economic development. We recognise its great potentiality. We are concerned to increase the efficiency of the machine. We look to a time when its resources and its impact on world poverty will be immensely increased. Meanwhile we admire the excellent contribution of the World Bank which was so early in the field, and also the pioneering work done by leaders like Mr. Paul Hoffman and Mr. David Owen of the U.N. Development Programme, and we support the Resident Representatives of the U.N. Development Programme with teams of experts already at work in a hundred nations of the world.
At the same time, we cannot fail to be constantly aware of how little has been done in comparison with the extent and the urgency of the need. The dangers of the world, so I would earnestly submit to your Lordships, are now so greet and growing so fast that we cannot hope to deal with them by the action of any one nation alone. They are so immense that it is only by concerted international action that we can hope to overcome them. This is the main contention I wish to put to your Lordships to-day. It is the argument which I tried to put forward in this House when I first spoke here three years ago. The contention is that the dangers of poverty and population and race are all one; that the greatest danger of all is that the division, the gulf, will grow between the overcrowded, discontented, hungry African and Asian people of the world—two-thirds of the population of the world—on the one hand, and the affluent, comfortable, complacement white people, on the other. This is surely the greatest danger of all, a danger which makes the religious or ideological differences of the past insignificant.
The consequent fear is that on these issues of poverty and population and race we of the white West will forfeit the respect and lose the leadership of the world; and if racial conflict starts in

479
southern Africa, certainly all Africa will be inflamed and the whole world involved. These are the dangers which most surely cannot be dealt with by one nation acting alone. They will be met and overcome only if we can join in a new endeavour in international co-operation.
We should not weep for the end of imperial power: we should welcome the beginning of international authority. When we look back we shall recognise that our finest achievement was not in making an Empire, but in ending it. The conversion of a subject Empire into a free Commonwealth is surely Great Britain's main accomplishment. I am proud to be able to boast in the United Nations that in less than a quarter of a century we in the British Commonwealth have enfranchised and brought into the councils of international co-operation a quarter of the population of the whole world. Now we must not look back in sadness to imperial power. We must not live in the past, but go forward eagerly to create international authority. With that main purpose in mind, let me endeavour to report what progress we have made in the United Nations since I first spoke in this House three years ago.
I put the failures first. Vietnam must come top of the list. Although the Secretary-General has himself throughout courageously sought to find a way towards a negotiated peace, we, the members of the United Nations, have so far failed to take any effective action to stop the war. This is indeed a grave reproach. The fault and the failure lie, of course, not with the United Nations Organisation itself, not with the Charter nor with the Secretary-General. A great deal of the fault can, of course, be traced back to the attitude of the North Vietnamese, who have constantly denied that the United Nations has a role to play in the Vietnam dispute. But a large measure of responsibility must also lie with the members of the U.N., and especially with those who have opposed and blocked discussion in the Security Council.
It is worth repeating that there is nothing wrong with the United Nations except the members of it. The failure over Vietnam is due to two other failures. First, there has been the failure to carry the membership with us in our contention
480
that we should do everything possible not to keep Communist China out of the United Nations, but to persuade the People's Republic of China to come in. This is not a Party issue; all Parties in this country agree about it. On that issue the vote in the U.N. has gone backwards in the past two years, and it is difficult or impossible, I am sorry to say, to see any hope of a better result while the Vietnam war continues.
The second main barrier to effective advance to international co-operation has been the continuation of the cold war between East and West. On that it is possible to make a more encouraging report. This year, for the first time, we had a President of the Assembly from an Eastern European country. Foreign Minister Manescu of Rumania filled this high and exposed office with distinction and admirable impartiality, and also with elegance and tact and good humour. This in itself, I suggest, is a welcome sign of better East-West relations. Moreover, in a wide range of issues effective, practical co-operation between East and West is now taken for granted. The co-operative work in Geneva towards a Non-Proliferation Treaty is matched by our work in New York. The Outer Space Treaty which entered into force last October was a notable achievement in itself, and in these matters in the disarmament field East and West are now often working together. In the last few days of the session which ended last month agreement governing rescue and return of astronauts and space vehicles was speedily and unanimously accepted by the General Assembly. Efforts are now being made to arrange a tripartite signature ceremony in London, Moscow and Washington during the next few days.
I have good reason to be grateful to Mr. Kutsnetsov, the Deputy Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union, who has just spent three months in New York, for close and friendly co-operation with us on a number of important matters, including particularly the Middle East. It was the Russian decision to withdraw their resolution and vote for ours which enabled Ambassador Gunnar Jarring to go to the Middle East backed by the authority of a unanimous resolution. A few years ago we assumed that there would always be a monolithic Eastern Communist opposition to our proposals

481
in the United Nations. I now find that in discussion of many subjects with representatives of Eastern Communist States there is a wide range of ready agreement. I do not suggest that the main purposes of Soviet policy have changed. We should be careful not to jump to hasty conclusions about future Soviet intentions. But these facts that I report are, I suggest, encouraging indications at least of improvement. I am far more concerned, as is my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder, about the division between North and South on the combined issues of poverty and population and race than I am about the old-fashioned ideological differences of East and West.
My Lords, I said when I spoke here three years ago that no representative of this country had gone to the United Nations with a better mandate than mine. We have no reason to be ashamed of our record at the United Nations in the past three years. We have taken our full part, often a leading part, as a Permanent Member of the Security Council in the discussions of the Council—on Kashmir, on the Congo, on Cyprus, on Rhodesia and on the Middle East. We have defended our proud record of decolonisation. When we have been subjected to unreasonable attack we have stood our ground and vigorously replied. We have paid everything we owe. We have supported every United Nations' initiative, not least in contributing to the relief of the sufferings of the Arab refugees. We have pledged ourselves to provide logistic support for up to six battalions of United Nations troops. We have provided the largest military contingent to the United Nations force in Cyprus, and met the full costs of that contingent, and have, moreover, contributed at the rate of 4 million dollars a year to the cost of the whole force. And we are still continuing to make our contribution at that level.
We are firm believers in multilateral development aid, and among the first decisions of this Government were the decisions to increase our contributions to the United Nations development programme and to other United Nations Agencies, including, for instance, the High Commission for Refugees and the United Nations Children's Fund. Since then, in times of balance-of-payment difficulties we have maintained the general
482
level of our contributions in the entire range of United Nations economic and social work.
I think the House will understand that it is not possible in present circumstances for me to give, here and now, positive undertakings about our future contributions. Certainly we shall not be able in the immediate future to give as much development aid as we would wish. But your Lordships will have noted that we are maintaining the basic aid programme at its previous cash level. Moreover, as my right honourable friend the Minister of Overseas Development made clear in another place on January 18, additional assistance for Malaysia and Singapore is to be provided, as well as some other assistance outside the basic aid programme.
We hope also to see the resources of the International Development Association renewed at the higher level most recently proposed by the President of the World Bank, Mr. George Woods, and we shall be prepared to make our contribution to that. We shall play our part in the forthcoming UNCTAD Conference, and although, of course, we must at this time have special regard to our present economic difficulties we shall, as we promised at the first UNCTAD Conference, aim to continue to provide 1 per cent. of national income in development aid and other capital flowing to the developing countries. And certainly it is our hope and our intention, by strengthening our own economy, to be able to do more in the future.
Moreover, we should not forget that when the United Nations faced grave financial problems owing to the refusal of the Russians and others to pay their share of the costs of the Congo operation, we, with the other good peacekeepers—especially the Canadians and the Nordic countries—came forward to pay our voluntary and unconditional contribution of 10 million dollars in order to help to rid the United Nations of its financial difficulties; and others have since followed that example.
Yes, my Lords, we have followed a positive policy at the United Nations. Our record is second to none. As the dangers increase, and as the days of imperialism give way, as they surely must, to international action, we need to

483
redouble our efforts to make the United Nations an effective instrument for keeping the peace and for dynamic economic progress. An effective United Nations was desirable before; it is now essential.
What we see in the world and in the United Nations is, surely, a slow, hard, painful transition; a transition from the old days of power politics and the domination of the world by a few great Powers and the balance of terror; a transition from those bad old days to a new era of international understanding and international co-operation, and, in the end, international order and authority. It is slow; it is hard; it is painful, and it is frustrating, I give testimony: and it is only just beginning. But I am convinced—and I hope that your Lordships are, too—of one clear conclusion. There is no other way to go, no other road to travel, except by the way of constant and persistent search for common ground and agreement. That is our daily and persistent endeavour at the United Nations, which is both the forum and the centre of international co-operation. I am further convinced that in the process of replacing imperial power by international order no country in the world can make a greater contribution than ours. Certainly no country in the world has a greater direct interest than ours in raising the level of world prosperity and of world peace.
My Lords, I would say one final word. I come home once a year to speak in the schools and universities of this country about our work at the United Nations. I have been so engaged during the past few weeks, before going back to New York. I shall go back greatly encouraged. Among people of my generation I find much doubt, much misgiving and much disillusion, a turning away in apathy, and sometimes in antipathy, from the troubles of the world. But I scarcely need to assure your Lordships that there is a very different spirit in the youth of this country. They are not seeking to escape. They are not anxious to go back. They are anxious to learn about the wider world. They are eager to understand other peoples, and particularly the peoples of the new countries and the new nations. They are ready themselves to go in a spirit of adventurous service. And in that spirit, which is in accordance with our country's
484
proud tradition of overseas initiative and enterprise, we can all rejoice.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask whether I am right in understanding that he will be answering some of the other questions I put to him, when, by leave, he speaks again, later on this evening?
LORD CARADON: My Lords, I shall seek the permission of the House to reply to a number of points which have been raised by the noble Earl and others which arise as the debate proceeds.
5.27 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, gave a memorable address to the local United Nations organisation in Norwich, he stressed more than once that the United Nations could achieve only what the member States and the citizens of those States would allow or expect it to achieve. I have once again listened to, and been greatly moved by, a speech from the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, this afternoon. I join with him in expressing sincere indebtedness to the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, for introducing this debate, and for the manner in which he has done so. I cannot imagine that any of your Lordships, or indeed any of the people of this country, would do other than wish to see the United Nations given every possible support to enable it to fulfil its purposes. And yet, although it would seem presumptuous of someone like myself to make an assessment, the United Nations does appear weaker today than it was. And so it is very heartening to learn from the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, of some of the recent achievements which have been made.
The right honourable George Thomson, then Minister of State at the Foreign Office, said in August last year to the Oslo Congress of World Federalists that
"the peak of United Nations peacekeeping was reached some years ago at the point the United Nations was engaged in the Congo and Cyprus as well as Kashmir and the Middle East. Since then there has been a decline. The practical prospects for action are now more limited than they were, when the concept was developed with such skill and foresight by the late Dag Hammarskjöld"
Any decline or any weakness in the power and effectiveness of the United Nations is a grave matter for mankind as a whole.

485
Last October U Thant published a report by 12 scientific experts in the field of nuclear physics (including Dr. Emilyanov of Russia, and Sir Solly Zuckerman) about the dangers of the present nuclear armaments race on which many Governments are engaged. It is the British Government's policy, faced with this sombre challenge to mankind's survival on this planet, to work with other Governments for a Non-Proliferation Treaty. Such a treaty, according to The Times, even if signed
"will not stop the great Powers embarking on new and costly phases of the arms race. It will not guarantee the non-nuclear Powers against nuclear threats. It will not be signed by China or France. It will not even provide any solid guarantees that signatories will keep the rules."
Indeed, apparently all it would do, according to The Times, is to
"provide that extra hit of trust and understanding from which other things would flow."
I would join wholeheartedly in saying that a Non-Proliferation Treaty is earnestly to be desired, and one may hope that, if it is secured, the consequences of such a treaty will prove more effective and less gloomy than The Times anticipates. But more than a non-proliferation treaty is needed if mankind is to be saved from U Thant's dossier on Death and Disaster.
In our present situation, the position of the United Nations, to which the right honourable George Thomson referred, is a matter of real urgency. If it is declining—and here again it is a matter of opinion—how is that to be arrested or reversed, or, to put it in a positive way, how is the United Nations to be strengthened in order to make it much more effective than it is at present? The United Nations Organisation would seem to have been considerably hampered in its effectiveness by certain features of its Charter, to which constant reference has been made—in particular, the present voting system, the requirement of unanimity among the five Permanent Members of the Security Council and the non-inclusion of the People's Republic of China. It is nothing short of tragic to learn that any attempt at a fundamental revision of the Charter at the present time would probably result in no Charter at all.
I should like to mention two particular ways in which I believe that a decline
486
of the United Nations influence could be reversed. The first is by substituting a sense of world community for international understanding or, since this is really a matter of the meaning of words, by interpreting internationalism in terms of world community, which in fact I believe to be the objective of the United Nations. Many people believe that greater international understanding will keep the peace, but will it? International understanding so often teaches people to recognise the differences between national communities without necessarily going a further stage of indicating the common ground upon which these communities can recognise each other's worth. National systems of education still tend to do this.
Even in sport—the Olympic Games, the World Cup—are we so sure that they help to keep the world together? One is disposed to say, "Yes"; and in the case of the Olympic Games if the influence of the International Olympic Academy should grow one would say, "Yes" with greater confidence. But it is a moot and debatable point. The insistence that every individual on this planet must have some kind of national label, and presumably a behaviour pattern to match, even when doing the same things, is about as nationalistic as to pin attributes of British nationalism on to the Almighty.
The nationalism represented by many United Nations Governments desperately needs to be balanced by some kind of encouragement of conscious loyalty to the human race as a whole—the recognition of the spirit in every man; that is to say, by a sense of world community and world citizenship such as will stress the similarities between the different families of mankind, and not only call attention to their differences. Until there is throughout the world a greater movement of thought and feeling, encouraging us to think and feel and act as members one of the other in a world community, the United Nations and other political institutions will inevitably not make the progress that they should.
The work of UNESCO was originally designed precisely for this purpose;
"to construct the defences of peace in the minds of men."
The success with which it can carry out this mandate depends, I would judge, in

487
some large measure on the extent to which it helps people to look beyond their national loyalties and national differences to their common heritage as human beings. But there is a second way in which I believe that the authority and influence of the United Nations can be greatly enhanced. This lies in the proposition so powerfully advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder—the idea of the exploitation of the ocean floors for the benefit of mankind. And I should like to say something more in wholehearted support of what Lord Ritchie-Calder has said on this subject.
Now that the depths of the ocean floor beyond the limits of the Continental Shelf hitherto unexploited are becoming exploitable, there is the opportunity that this exploitation should not be parcelled out to the highest bidder or to the nation whose coasts are nearest, but utilised for the benefit of mankind. This is precisely what the men who have undertaken this deep-sea underwater exploration have themselves proposed. The World Underwater Federation, with a membership of 42 countries, and including Commandant Cousteau, Professor Picard and Professor Link, of the U.S.S.R., have claimed the ocean floor as trustees for mankind. They have, as it were, put an international flag at the bottom of the deep seas. This area of our planet, to which no country has as yet staked a claim, needs to be placed under international control. Otherwise the ocean floor could well provide a further incentive to national aggrandisement and to conflict, or could provide the opportunity for one nation's domination of the world.
There must indeed be some early international settlement about the resources of the ocean floor. The Parliamentary Group for World Government has recently set up a Committee to consider this matter which is of such urgent importance. One prerequisite would be a definition of the geographical limitations of the Continental Shelf, based on a geographical criteria and abolishing the loophole claims of the open-ended definition of the Continental Shelf in Article I of the Continental Shelf Convention 1958. This is a matter which will clearly cause some considerable difficulty, and I should like to read that first Article. It says:
"For the purpose of these Articles the term Continental Shelf' is used as referring

488

(a) to the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas adjacent to the coast but outside the area of the territorial sea to a depth of 200 metres or beyond that limit to where the depth of the superjacent waters admits of the exploitation of the natural resources of the said areas;

(b) to the seabed and subsoil of similar submarine areas adjacent to the islands of coasts."

The other requirements for such a treaty have been spelt out by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, notably that exploitation of the ocean floor be regarded as a common heritage of mankind, that its exploitation be used for peaceful purposes only, and, as the Maltese Ambassador to the United Nations has proposed, that the needs of the poorer countries should receive consideration in connection with its resources.
If it be said that the achievement of such a treaty is quite beyond reasonable expectations, I would reply that the same argument might well have been used for the Antarctic a few years prior to 1959. After the war there was increasing tension over territorial claims in the Antarctic. As the noble Lord, Lord McNair, said when the Antarctic Treaty was debated in your Lordships' House:
"The genius of the document as I see it is that it has substituted the principle of the common peaceful user of the Antarctic for the older practice of scramble and grab in order to establish a proprietary title."
But there was an even more sinister danger so far as the Antarctic was concerned; namely, of its being used to harbour secret arsenals or for nuclear experiments. The fact that this treaty happened at all, that it bound together what would then, and perhaps now, be regarded as improbable allies, that the treaty has been honoured and implemented, that the legal complexities over the treaty and the subsequent Antarctic Treaty Bill were resolved, is at least a good augury. As with the Antarctic, so with the ocean floors there is an urgency arising from the danger in the near future of military installations being established under water by super-Powers. The precedent of the Antarctic Treaty, however, cannot be carried too far, for the Antarctic has so far not been regarded as a likely source of mineral or other wealth, unlike the ocean floor. In the case of the Outer Space Treaty exploitation is permitted to anybody and this is precisely what a regime for the ocean floor could not permit. If,

489
before the haphazard exploitation of the resources of the ocean floor develops deeply entrenched vested interests, it can be agreed to allocate these resources for the benefit of all mankind, this will not only remove a potential source of international danger but liberate resources which could establish the United Nations on a financially secure and independent footing. And I am not minimising the extremely complicated issues which would have to be faced in drafting such a treaty. It would need to provide terms for the ocean floor compatible with the differing conditions for the seas above it.
Since the whole discussion about the peace-keeping powers of the United Nations met with some opposition from the Governments of France and Russia, over the principles of payment for it, it is very possible they would now oppose anything that would give the United Nations greater financial independence. It is not certain that the other Powers, like Britain and the United States, would be willing to give the United Nations such a measure of independence either, since there have been lengthy delays in paying off our arrears, and there is still a balance to be paid. Our Government, I understand, have committed themselves to the principle of a permanent force, but always there seems to be attached the qualification" ultimately". I should be very grateful, when the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, replies to this debate, if he would comment on this point.
In December, 1965, the Prime Minister said:
"We range ourselves unequivocably on the side of those who say that the United Nations must move forward with set purpose towards becoming a world authority."
If the United Nations can be built into a world authority, the policing role performed by this country during the last century, performed perhaps in a more faltering fashion by the Americans now, will for the first time in human history be put on a proper basis, a basis which should be more acceptable because more representative than any Pax Romana, Pax Britannica or Pax Americana previously provided. One recognises the natural reluctance of Governments to see the United Nations, or indeed any analogous extranational world agency, grow into a dominant authority. But unless all Governments are willing to surrender
490
some elements of sovereignty in the interests of mankind as a whole, the, future destiny of mankind on this earth will be in jeopardy.
5.45 p.m.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder for initiating this debate and for the very generous breadth of his Motion. Although the Human Rights Committee on which I have served for the last three years is not mentioned on the Order Paper, I think I shall not be, accused of "gate-crashing" on this debate, because the Third Committee deals continuously with items that come within the province of practically all of the Specialised Agencies. Incidentally, I do not know whether your Lordships are aware that we have in this House two distinguished predecessors on the Human Rights Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, who served on this Committee a good many years ago.
I will speak briefly of both my disappointments and my hopes on this Human Rights and Social Welfare Committee. Observers from the Specialised Agencies sit in the Committee. This huge Committee is a Parliament now of 122 countries: 122 delegates plus their advisers. Its daily business is the drafting of declarations and conventions to promote human rights. During the last three years I have watched this Committee encroach more and more on the items before other Committees, such as the Political and Legal Committees. In fact it has begun to act like an overflow meeting from various Committees and it often tries to deal with matters outside its competence. Its Rules of Procedure seem so flexible as to be stretched or bent in any political direction. When I first arrived at the United Nations, though I was not so naïve as to assume that human rights could be divorced from politics, I was not prepared for the way they were saturated by politics. I felt that no great progress could be made in that direction. But over the three years the Committee has become more, rather than less, political.
I have found one more disconcerting thing in the Committee, its great weakness for drawing up declarations—and

491
here I must exclude the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, which is a really inspired document. These declarations are simply shopping lists of aspirations, and it is a kind of United Nations language, which I have called "Aspiranto". It is true that these declarations give the developing nations an opportunity of listing their aims and goals and hopes, as well as the chance to blame the more developed nations for their colonialism and racialism, which they say has held them back over the years.
I had come to the United Nations believing it to be, when pared down to the bone, an organisation created to promote understanding between nations and for mutual aid. I had thought that the British role was to work in the Committees and in the Specialised Agencies, and by example and effort to help spread more human rights around the world. We had, after all, a good record on decolonisation and were dedicated to the final dissolution of the Empire. But the role we sought and the role we were assigned looked very different to me in the beginning. The explanation was soon at hand. The United Nations is obsessed with colonialism and racial discrimination, because of Rhodesia and South Africa. These are the only human rights issues that the Afro-Asian countries are concerned with, and when you have been there in the United Nations for three years you can really understand why.
They have absolutely no interest in the kind of human rights that we in this country cherish—such things as freedom of speech, freedom of movement, the right to leave one's country, or the right of fair trial. They ignore the lack of human rights in their own country. So it looks as if, so long as there is no change in Rhodesia or South Africa, our views will not be listened to on human rights in any Committee, and for the time being our role is a shrinking one. This does not apply, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, in the Security Council. It applies simply in the Human Rights Committee. This attitude spills over to all the other Western countries though, in a maddening way, to my mind, the French are never
492
attacked for past colonial misdemeanours.
The achievements of the Human Rights Committee have become progressively less over the last three years. In 1965, the Convention for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination was concluded, and although it contained one irrelevant anti-colonial article, it had strong implementation machinery by United Nations standards. In 1966, the International Conferences for Civil and Political, and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights were drawn up and, though they fell short of western goals, they did set a certain standard for developing and emergent countries. I thought that we were too critical of them not taking into consideration the many years it took us to achieve our own strong human rights and freedoms. This Western criticism only won us suspicion and hostility during the debates.
Last year, in 1967, the results of the three-month session were very poor. Every one of our debates, whether on refugees in Africa, on the War Crimes Convention, on the Convention against Religious Intolerance, or on the International Human Rights Conference which is going to take place in April in Teheran, was channelled into an attack on Israel. The aftermath of the Middle East war engendered unbounded bitterness among the Afro-Asians, and this feeling was fanned into hatred by the speeches of the Soviet Union and her satellites.
The only document to be completed was the Declaration on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. We scarcely had a bite out of the Convention against Religious Intolerance, and there were many wasted hours countering what to me looked like a determined attempt on the part of the Soviets to try to get an atheist's charter, a non-believer's charter, out of this religious convention. The draft of a war crimes convention, originally contemplated to overcome any statutory limitation for the round-up of Nazi war criminals, was so drawn out to include apartheid and what the Afro-Asians called "crimes against humanity", that the resulting document is simply legally meaningless, and I do not believe that any Western country will sign it.

493
We wasted hours on the debate on religious intolerance by the acrimony induced by the misguided request from both Israel and the United States to include a specific reference to condemn anti-semitism among all forms of religious intolerance. This had been tried two years ago and had failed, and had produced even greater hostility this time. We would have done better if we had allocated the many hours spent in political acrimony by dealing in greater depth with an item called "The world social situation".
Of course, much of what I have described helps to bring the activities of the United Nations into disrepute, among people who do not know about it. But, as I say, this is due mainly to the lack of understanding between the richer and poorer countries of the moral relationships as well as the economic relationships. People do understand a little about the economic relationship between the "haves" and the "have nots"; but they do not seem to be aware of the main things which poison relationships between the countries of the world to-day.
There is Rhodesia, still a bastion of colonialism. There is South Africa, a strong bastion of racial discrimination. They account for the depth of feeling, for the fears of all the Afro-Asian countries to-day, the fears that are generated in half the world. Knowing this, I was somewhat surprised by the cavalier way in which the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, dismissed the ban on South African arms as unrealistic. I assure him that if he had spent three days in the United Nations he would have seen why it was quite unrealistic not to have banned arms for South Africa. I understand that the economic arguments are not simple, but are quite complicated. We trade, and should trade, with all kinds of governments.
All the same, this is a really terrible issue in the United Nations, and no one knows this better than the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union have nothing to lose, for they do not open their doors to immigrants. The Soviet Union do not have 20 million negroes in their country. They have gone all out to get the sympathy of half the world by just repeating a condemnation of colonialism and apartheid in every speech they make in the United
494
Nations. They have won a complete propaganda victory from the West. They rant with moral indignation, and it costs them absolutely nothing.
To get back to Britain and the severe present limitations to our role in tire United Nations on human rights, as I have said this is quite different from the efforts and the successes we have had in the Security Council. Here, may I say that I do not think people, even here, realise the efforts that were made by our Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, in this issue. When they talk about our not having any influence in the United Nations, they have only to look to the latest British resolution, which was the first step towards the peace negotiations in the Middle East. However, it looks as if, in this century, the extent of a nation's civilisation is judged by the, way it treats its minorities and the way it rejects arty double standards in human dignity.
My noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder has spoken of aid. Like many others, I have for long thought that there must be a complete revolution in our thinking and attitude about aid to developing countries. I have recently read a remarkable speech made by Mr. George Woods, until recently President of the World Bank. This has completely reinforced my own thoughts on this matter. He said:
"Exceptional action on a sufficient scale has to be taken, otherwise 'stagnation, frustration, disappointed hopes, leaves the great majority of our fellow men hungry, restless and reduced to delinquent despair'."
These words are not from some Left-Wing Socialist; they are from Mr. George Woods, who has just recently left the World Bank.
Arms spending has passed the 160 billion dollar mark, so no one can say that the developed countries are poor. Mr. George Woods also says that the stories of incompetence, waste and corruption in developing countries when given aid are absolutely false, and he adds:
"We are living through a time of disillusion and distaste for economic assistance."
I believe that we could perhaps reverse the malaise we have reached in human rights by a more realistic look at aid in the world.
As for the argument which the Opposition sometimes makes, that now that we

495
have relinquished an empire and have stopped policing the world we have shed all power and thus influence in the world, I utterly refute it. It merely illustrates ignorance of what the United Nations really stands for. It is not just a replica or a mirror of power politics in the world. Neither Russia nor America, the greatest Powers, exert the greatest influence—one has only to look at the British exertions in the last few months to see that. The United Nations is an organisation in which small countries have a voice, and sometimes a very great voice, particularly on the human rights side. Jamaica and Senegal are both very strong on human rights, and the delegates from the Philippines in my Committee made the most trenchant speech on aid. We ourselves have a great deal to contribute and a great role to play in the future. We are the most mature nation about government. At its best, our education is still the best in the world because it really trains men and women to have independent minds. If and when the problems of Rhodesia and South Africa are eased and settled, we shall get back our strong voice on human rights. Until then, we shall go on being accused of wanting such human rights for ourselves and not for others.
6.02 p.m.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, it is now some years since I was a delegate to the United Nations, and therefore I have some hesitation in addressing your Lordships to-day in the knowledge that there are many here who have had far more recent experience than my own. I listened with fascination to the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, and tried to follow him in the technical and scientific spheres, but I am afraid I must just sit at his feet and not go into that side of matters as I am incapable of doing so. When listening to the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, I almost felt myself back in the General Assembly watching it at work his picture was so vivid and I recalled it so well. With regard to the speech of the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Norwich, I cannot follow him to the depths of the sea; but when I listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, I realised that the Third Committee had not really changed very much since I was there many years ago.
496
I should like to make one or two points based on general principles which, I feel, must always hold good and which I do not think have been touched upon in this debate so far. Unfortunately, the United Nations suffers from overenthusiastic supporters on the one hand and uninformed criticisms on the other. It seems to me to be the duty of those of us who have been there to try to preserve a happy medium. It is perhaps salutary to remind ourselves of the actual United Nations objectives by occasionally re-reading the introduction to the Charter, thereby recalling our goal and measuring soberly how far we have gone towards reaching it. With your Lordships' permission, I will read the first few paragraphs:
"We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm a faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law"—
I want to stress that, as I shall be dealing with it—
"can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom".
We must not be too disheartened if we feel that we have fallen far short of translating those words into reality.
I am not one of those people who think that by changing the original Charter everything immediately can be put right. In fact, I myself think that any attempt at changing it would take so many years and there would be so little consensus of opinion that we should get nowhere at all. The spirit which uplifted those nations who signed the Charter at San Francisco in 1945 has, I am afraid at the moment, vanished, at any rate for the time being. I do not think that any alterations in the Charter would be for the common good unless that spirit which inspired those nations came back and pervaded the nations who are now members.
The noble Lord, Lord Caradon, said—and I entirely agree with him—that there is nothing wrong with the United Nations except the members of it. I think that that is true. When I was at the United Nations there were only 60

497
members, and in those days they were still carried forward by the hopes of the Founding Fathers. Now there are some 122 nations, all clamouring to be heard in their own interests; and I think we must therefore assess what practical steps can be expected of the United Nations in the light of this development. It does not at the moment look so much an instrument of world government as an instrument of education in international relations. There is no doubt as to the usefulness of the ablest representatives of many nations coming together in New York to discuss matters in open forum.
May I say here, as a member of the Opposition, that one cannot always approve of appointments made by the present Government; nevertheless, they have chanced very lucky in this House, both in the appointment of our new Leader and in the appointment of our representative at the United Nations, Lady Gaitskell. The Government have also recognised a point which I have always stressed: that there is tremendous value in continuing representation at the United Nations, since personal contacts and relationships count for a great deal there. It is only in the second and third year that one can reap the benefit of the foundations one has laid in the first year. Personally, I am sorry that the custom of sending Parliamentary delegates out to the United Nations has been dropped and that, instead, short visits have been introduced. I believe that a strong political representation is essential if a country wishes to make an impression. I believe that foreign delegates listen more readily to Parliamentarians than they do to civil servants, however eminent; and I say this without, I hope, taking away from the immense services which some noble Lords in this House have given to the United Nations.
Though we may be depressed at the lack of success in any particular session—and from what we hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, the present one has not been very successful—we must not forget the good work which is going on in the various permanent branches all round the world, some of which have already been mentioned. I was glad that the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, mentioned the expense which some of them, such as the F.A.O., run to unnecessarily. Indeed, I would say, in passing, that unless the finances of the United Nations
498
are taken in hand shortly and firmly dealt with, there is a danger that the institution may crumble. We have learned that we cannot live on debts; neither can the United Nations. It may be that some of those countries which have not paid up as they should are Machiavellian in their hopes that in the end, the finances will crumble the United Nations.
Also, I have a feeling that there is a weakness in the staffing of the United Nations due to the too great regard for geographical distribution rather than to appointing the right man for the job. It may be that now that we have apparently decided to stop being one of the great Powers we shall have better luck in achieving more representation on the staff of the United Nations because there was always opposition to having too many great Power members on the staff.
But there is a special branch of the United Nations' work to which I want to draw your Lordships' attention. I think it is generally conceded—it is perhaps a platitude—that good government the world over is based on sensible laws accepted by general consent and properly enforced. Here lies the real weakness of the United Nations. We talk a lot about world government, but until we have good government the world over—or at least in the majority of nations—with respect for international law, we shall be crying for the moon and, indeed, we may even get the moon sooner. To my mind, world government at the present moment is the ideal of the escapist from his own home troubles.
It has always seemed to me that we have never made enough of, nor given its proper place to, the International Court at The Hague. That has not been mentioned so far this afternoon. We have twice had recourse to it. Once we lost and once we won, but each time we have cheerfully accepted its decision It is a great pity that other nations have not made more use of it; for instance Spain over Gibraltar. Perhaps she did not because she thought she did not have a very good case.
If we could strengthen international law—and I believe that this must come before world government—if we could persuade nations to argue their cases as interested parties, not on the rostrum of the General Assembly in New York but before carefully selected and elected

499
eminent legal experts at The Hague, there would then be some sense in trying to establish an international observer and police corps. I do not believe in an international military force at this stage—it would be too dangerous—nor do I think it is realistic to think that the great Powers would agree.
Is it not an irony of fate that, now we have decided to quit as the world policeman and have been pressurised, too soon perhaps, from some of the regions of the world by certain nations who have only themselves to blame if they now find the world a more dangerous place, we are being pressed to stay? How fortunate it is that recently, at the time of the Sicilian earthquake tragedy, we still had a base in Malta from which to help. We immediately despatched the whole of our Mediterranean fleet—four ships—and the presence of the British sailors at a moment of terror for the population there was of the greatest possible comfort. I think one should congratulate the Admiral on his prompt assistance. Also, how about our fire brigade action at the moment in Mauritius?
I think it will be thousands of years before the influence of Great Britain will no longer be felt in the world. We do so underestimate ourselves. May I tell your Lordships of a personal experience? We were digging out the garden to make a tennis court, and we found a small Roman tear bottle. I have often asked myself whether that tear bottle belonged to a wife or mother of a Roman legionary who had been recalled to Rome and perhaps had died in some foreign parts. Then, when the Romans left us, our island split and fought for many years until finally it emerged as the United Kingdom.
It may well be that when we have relinquished our policing there will be splits and racial conflicts in the world. And one must say this: if only the United Nations had been ready now to step in, that might be avoided. However, as the Charter stands the United Nations can exercise a degree of control and mediation only with the consent of the nations involved. Indeed, a government can in the long-run rule successfully only with the consent of the ruled. This consenting attitude is what we must foster. But we must not put on the
500
United Nations tasks which it cannot carry out. It is when we ask the impossible from immature institutions that we must inevitably be disappointed. As was said, the United Nations will only be as good as the representatives sent there.
To sum up, I should like to suggest that progress should really be on these lines. The moral principles which inspired the Charter must be restored at the United Nations. We must not hesitate to reprove the United Nations when she falls (I do not know whether it is a male or a female) below those standards. We must engender and strengthen the understanding of international law and demand that it be respected and used. Greater recourse must be had to the Court at The Hague. We must foster the setting up of an international police force which will ensure, if necessary, that the decisions of the Hague are carried out. There must be penalties for nations in breach of their commitments. By going forward on these lines, I can see a great future for the United Nations, and I should like to see our own contribution outstanding in its history.
6.18 p.m.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, I would join with those who have spoken previously in thanking my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder for putting down this Motion, and for the excellent speech he made. He and I have been connected with the United Nations over all the years, from the day in 1950 when I first went there with "Ernie" Bevin, when there were 33 nations, to the much more difficult and terrible days with 125 nations.
I am very glad to follow the two noble Baronesses both of whom, because I am there every year, I have seen at work in the Third Committee. Indeed, as my office is near the Third Committee meeting room, I see Lady Gaitskell sitting there every morning and afternoon, because at the United Nations, as anybody who works there knows, there is a tremendous habit of people turning up late. So I see Lady Gaitskell sitting there on time, as the British usually are, hoping the others will turn up so that they can get on with the work. Of course, I also see my noble friend Lord Caradon, who is now on the Front Bench, striding through the corridors and going to make speeches; and, perhaps even more

501
important, at times sitting in an office drawing up some of his drafts which might help to bring a better purpose to the Organisation.
It is to pay a tribute to the Organisation, despite all its difficulties, that I rise. I know that there are newspapers which suggest that the existence of the United Nations should by now have produced a world of contentment and peace. That is a good dream, but the reality is a long way from being just around the corner. It really never could be that. The creation of this body in 1945 did not change the peoples of the world; it gave a new opportunity. One cannot judge the United Nations entirely by whether permanent treaties have been reached and whether war has been outlawed: it must be judged by the total picture.
We are always reading of the failure of the United Nations to do this or to do the other; and it is true that there are failures. But the United Nations family is like the rest of us, so far as publicity is concerned. If I were discovered in the bedroom of some strange lady, I might make front-page news. My happy marriage does not. It probably never will, except that perhaps in four years' time I might merit two lines in the list of golden weddings. That is the nature of things about publicity, and it is particularly true of the United Nations. The frustrations and failures catch the headlines of the world Press. We ourselves are all inclined to forget the smouldering which is there and which is stopped from being fanned into fire because it is quenched by the United Nations fire brigade. Rumours and possibilities of wars—wars which started small but which might have become general—have been averted by the United Nations Organisation, and the facts have hardly been realised by the average reader of the Press in this country.
I want to address your Lordships particularly for a few minutes on the United Nations Agencies and their particular funds, with special reference to the United Nations Development Programme, a programme designed to alleviate human suffering, because I am sure it is there that the fundamental job of laying the foundations of the more prosperous and secure world community of the years to come lies. I know that the work is not
502
proceeding fast enough. The noble Lord on the Front Bench would not think it was; nor would anyone else. But it can only be geared to the resources that are made available to it; and, as the noble Baroness has said, the financial resources are running down. Some people do not make their contributions to the funds, and certainly many do not pay their fair share. We in this country, however poor we may think we are, bear our full share financially, and in human endeavour, in all the work of the United Nations and its Agencies.
There are many temptations to be sidetracked by disbelief and by frustration at what is not immediately achieved when one goes into committee, but patience and perseverance are essential; and those, I am sure we all agree, are two of the qualities brought by the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, to his job. The first essential, surely, is adhering firmly, without reservation and with good will, to the Charter, to which the noble Baroness referred. Too often, I am afraid (and that became clear from some of the things that the noble Baroness sitting next to me said), some nations fail to stick to the principles of the Charter. They see a way to an immediate thing of value to themselves, probably only propaganda-wise, and, imbued with their own selfish endeavour, they try to take short cuts. But there are no short cuts in a world where hunger, poverty, despair and illiteracy are still the dominant features—as they are in a large part of the world.
Hunger, starvation and malnutrition will remove from this world in the next few years many more people than the dropping of the largest atom bomb. We know nothing to-day of the spectre of hunger, and of seeing children die at a young age because of malnutrition. But the fact is that in many countries half the children born each day die before they reach six years of age. They die, not only because of lack of medical treatment but because, when they suffer what we should regard as ordinary childish ailments, such as measles, they have not the background stamina, having lived a life of undernourishment. As to those who do survive—what of them, my Lords? One in three of them will never know a life that has any reasonable hope; and when they grow into adult life they will be lucky if they reach 40

503
years of age; and they will get to that age with permanent chips on their shoulders.
It is conditions of this kind that we are breeding in the men and women of to-morrow—a dissatisfied, restless and probably ruthless population. The millions of children in the exploding population who survive will become the millions of adults of the world in the next few years. Therefore when we deal with children to-day we are dealing with those who are going to grow up, not only having suffered while they are young but permanently influenced by the way in which malnutrition has left their mental as well as their bodily condition. This same group of people who explode into the world in the population explosion could lead the world in an explosion of a different kind.
No one nation, no small number of nations, can hope to solve this kind of problem on their own, but I am proud to believe that our own country bears its own, very fair share and full part in the job we do. What is more, it has done so, whatever Government has been in power, since the Charter was adopted, for the United Nations work, it is true to say, knows no bounds of Party, of race or of creed. We in this country are the third largest contributor to the central resources of the United Nations fund to which I referred, the Development Programme. I am glad to say that when we look at our history we can see how we have stepped up, year after year, all that we have done. We started by giving 3 million dollars in 1959; it went up to 8 million dollars in the next three years and to 10 million dollars in the next two; and I am glad to see that we are now finding 11¾ million dollars.
At the same time, my Lords, let us not forget that we are one of the great recipients from this fund. The present programme earmarks 4½ million dollars for six projects in British non-self-governing territories; and since 1950 expert assistance and fellowship awards, amounting to another 4½ million dollars, have been given for British non-self-governing territories. So this is a great two-way traffic. The sum provided from 1950 to date by this programme for the experts amounts to no less than 71 million dollars; and during the last ten
504
years equipment valued at over 3 million dollars was purchased in the United Kingdom for projects. Then, at the beginning of the year we had orders placed in this country amounting to 17 million dollars for projects to cover seventy-six countries and territories; and at that date we can proudly say that we had no fewer than twenty-three consulting firms in the United Kingdom engaged on thirty projects, again at a cost to the programme of over 3 million dollars.
My Lords, these are substantial figures of benefit to us, coming back to us as one of the big payers. What is more, I think we can be proud of the fact that we provide no fewer than 1,022 of the experts serving in these projects all over the world—projects covering matters of great variety, from animal husbandry to housing, water resources, electric power development and the like. I was glad that mention was made of David Owen when the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, spoke. He is a great British international civil servant who is in charge of this fund, and many of us are glad to claim him as a friend.
As recently as the 11th of this month there was a meeting of the Governing Council of the thirty-seven contributing nations—I think my noble friend Lord Caradon mentioned that—dealing, this time, with the assistance to seventy-one developing countries at a total cost of 228 million dollars. That means we have now 873 projects in all parts of the world with a total cost of 2,107 million dollars. But, of course, the programme needs more help; and particularly so as regards agriculture, food and education; and the programme itself must link up with the work of the Food and Agriculture Organisation. Whatever criticism there may be of some of it—and, incidentally, the gentleman to whom reference was made has now left the F.A.O.—the truth is that the F.A.O. has averted famine and alleviated malnutrition in several regions of the world.
Mention has been made already of the "exploding population." As time goes on, the world grows shorter and shorter of food; and, unfortunately, it is in the nations that are short of food that the population growth is greatest. The F.A.O. have been taking a look at grain—and this is one of many subjects—to see where we are going in the next few

505
years. The developing nations needed 450 million tons in 1960. By 1980, they will need 750 million tons. That is an increase of 300 million tons—and 300 million tons is equal to the entire present production of grain in the whole of Europe and of North America. That is the kind of thing that this programme, and the others, will have to face in the course of the next year or two.
Grain harvest improvement is only one of the many things which the F.A.O. will do. Its own work must fit in with that of the World Health Organisation—and I have little doubt, since the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, is down to speak, that he will be saying something about W.H.O., whose work in respect of disease in the same countries links up with that of the F.A.O. Before the night is out I hope someone will say something more about UNESCO. They come in for criticism too often. One thinks of the criticism that people offer of the big schemes to stop dams from being built because the water will cover up old monuments. But UNESCO'S work is much more important than that. They are dealing with the illiteracy which goes hand in hand with famine, scourge and disease. There must be regard to education.
My Lords, I did not want to say much more than that when I rose; but I am going to say one or two things about a subject which I did not know was to be raised. I knew nothing of the facts until I heard my noble friend Lord Ritchie Calder refer to the proposal to change the method of appointment to the Board of the W.H.O. This causes me to offer a comment as one who is elected, and has been for 17 years, by the General Assembly. I am astonished to hear of the proposal that any professional body of that kind should be appointed in the way that is suggested in this draft resolution. I am even more surprised to be told that one of its sponsors is the United Kingdom. I am going to withhold judgment until I have had the chance later on of hearing my noble friend Lord Caradon tell us what it is that has caused the Government suddenly to undertake this thing. For immediately people are appointed like this, the whole nature of a professional body changes. They are no longer the people the world has elected; they are the creatures of a Government.
506
That is not only bad for the Board itself; it is bad for the staff. Staff of organisations of this kind ought to be dealing with people who are reaching human judgments based on professional standards. If every time one of the members of the Board goes to one of the staff to ask him to do a bit of work the member of the staff thinks that the Board member is coming in as a creature of a Government to "twist his arm", the whole morale of the organisation suffers, as does its efficiency. I will have none of it, unless I hear some very good explanation. I hope there is one; although I must say at the moment that I cannot think what it is.
My Lords, I have taken the risk of boring you by quoting a number of facts and figures. I did so deliberately because I think the time has arrived when the public and the Press should understand that there are these jobs to be done to get the world going towards its goal. Slow though it may be, it will be done irrespective of Party, race or creed. I make no apology for ending with a quotation which inspired me, although I am not a member of the Roman Catholic faith. It comes from a magnificent statement of Pope John XXIII in his encyclical Mater et Magistra. I think it is a relevant thought on which I could end to-day:
"The solidarity which binds all men, and makes them members of the same family, requires political communities enjoying an abundance of material goods not to remain indifferent to those political communities whose citizens suffer poverty, misery and hunger, and who lack even the elementary rights of the human person. This is particularly true, since, given the growing interdependence among the peoples of the earth, it is not possible to preserve lasting peace if glaring economic and social inequality among them persists."
That is it, my Lords. Work without spectacular political agreement, work without anything which is good front-page news, is going on inside the United Nations, its Agencies and its programmes, all the time: a great and real job of work, trying to make the world better for some people to live in and to work in, in the hope that those people, when their environment has improved, will be better citizens, better able not only to enjoy life for themselves but to make a contribution that, in the end, will lead us to the kind of goal we have in the world.
6.37 p.m.
LORD JACKSON OF BURNLEY: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, for introducing his Motion and for the very comprehensive way in which he did so. I hope your Lordships will forgive me if some of my remarks are no more than an echo of what he said. The noble Lord raised issues of profound international significance, the satisfactory resolution of which is fundamental to the eradication of the extremely serious discrepancies in material wellbeing which exist within the world community.
I am less intimately acquainted with the activities of the United Nations Organisation than several of the previous speakers and, therefore, my remarks will be of a rather more general kind, concerning the impact of the progress in science and technology on the developing countries, the kind of difficulties in which they find themselves and the kind of help which I believe we in this country must be willing to give in greater measure than we have yet done. It has not been mentioned earlier to-day, but I was greatly relieved that the Ministry of Overseas Development survived so well the economies in expenditure which were announced last week; although I hope that the Ministry will take advantage of this opportunity to re-assess sonic of their priorities.
I do not think any of your Lordships will wish to take issue with me when I say that we in this country are an extremely fortunate and privileged people. There are only about 55 million of us in a world population of over 3,500 million, and although difficult to quantify, I should not be wrong in saying that the income per capita in this country is at least ten times as large as that of the developing countries of Africa, Asia and South America. During my lifetime, my Lords, the standard of living, the conditions of employment and the availability of amenities for the general public have been transformed. I think that perhaps we have been among the most favoured beneficiaries from the progress of science and technology, and we may well say that this is justifiable because we have been a major contributor to this progress.
The history of our national contribution to scientific research has been outstanding by world standards. It was the
508
native wit and inventiveness of our engineers which gave birth to the Industrial Revolution and sustained it over a long period. But now, regrettably, we have cause to be anxious lest we may be lagging behind some other industrial countries in our ability to exploit technologically and economically the potentialities of recent scientific progress. I hope, on the initiative of the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, your Lordships' House will be discussing this matter later in the Session.
In my opinion, the justification for this anxiety is to be found less in a possible adverse effect on our own standard of living (which I, and I am sure your Lordships, would wish to avoid) than on our ability to increase the help we are giving to the developing countries; and, in this and other ways, to continue to exercise the broadminded influence in international affairs for which this country has a special responsibility and, I believe, a special talent. The problems to be faced (they were touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder) reflect in varying degrees the state of unbalance which characterises the world situation; unbalance in the kinds and abundance of fuel and mineral resources; in the availability of water for irrigation and power purposes; in climatic conditions and population density; in dependence on agriculture or degree of industrial development; in capital resources; in the state of educational development, and not least (and this I am sure lies at the root of many, if not most, of U.N.O.'s difficulties) in the restraints imposed on the developing countries—and indeed on ourselves—by the traditions, the institutions and the social order which has been inherited.
Every country, therefore, must evolve its own approach to the resolution of these problems; but to be optimistic the resulting diversity affords great opportunities for international collaboration in the resolution of problems which, as has been said often to-day, are becoming increasingly matters of common concern. It is not sufficiently appreciated by the general public in this country how readily the developing countries are being affected by scientific and technological progress; consequences to which their attention is being directed intimately through the world developments in telecommunications and air transport.

509
During a visit to Africa some years ago I was told, and I do not think that it was meant as a joke, that the transistor radio had replaced the umbrella as a status symbol in Central Africa. Whether or not this be true, the fact is that the native peoples of these developing countries are being brought into close contact with the conditions and standards of life in countries such as this, and in the way we behave, bad as well as good. As the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, said, they are being taken, within a few years, through evolutionary phases which have been a matter of gradual progress for us, and for which, generally speaking, they are educationally ill prepared. No wonder the powers of adaptation of the peoples of some of these countries are being overstrained. After centuries of marginal existence these peoples have learned that poverty is no longer a necessary attribute of life. Increasingly they are seeking the eradication of want and the fulfilment of individual capacity; and we particularly, but Western Europe as a whole, have been basically responsible for this evolutionary situation both by example and by sermon. It leaves us with a heavy responsibility.
My Lords, the burning question is, how to ensure the attainment of a better distribution of world wealth in face of the population explosion to which reference has been made. Surely the basic approach to the solution must be an educational one. I think that tribute should be paid this afternoon to the contribution which the United Nations Organisation and its Agencies have made to this problem outstandingly, I believe, though not exclusively, within primary and secondary schools.
In a speech which the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, made to the General Conference of UNESCO in 1960 when he was Minister of Education, he referred to the wide differences in the educational provisions throughout the world as the greatest and most dangerous of all the international inequalities. He said that it was quite useless to talk about making an unbalanced economy viable, or about making any nation capable of sustained progress when the foundations had not been laid in the primary and secondary schools. My personal experiences, about which I should like to speak a little, within the developing countries have not
510
been at the level of the primary and secondary schools but at those of the universities and the technical institutes, with particular reference to the production of qualified scientists, technologists and engineers and their technical supporting staff—of the men needed to ensure the ability of these countries to take advantage of the aid being provided for them through U.N.O. and other agencies; men capable of interpreting, and then exploiting the technological achievements of more advanced countries and men hopeful of initiating new scientific and technological progress of their own.
I appreciate that the discussion to-day is about U.N.O. but I think that we ought not to ignore other agencies which also have been making substantial contributions in these fields. Based on advice from, for example, the Inter-University Council and the Advisory Council for Technical Education in Overseas Countries, the Ministry of Overseas Development has sponsored invaluable help to, for example, the Colombo Plan in these respects. This help has taken the form, not merely of finance for university and technical institute buildings and equipment but, more important perhaps, the provision of staff members to initiate teaching work and to sustain it while native staff was being educated up to the necessary level; and to sponsoring for education and training in this country carefully selected young people who are to establish the spearhead of the country's ability to exploit technological possibilities. Under the Colombo Plan (this is in supplementation of what was said a moment ago by the noble Lord, Lord Crook) over 600 experts have spent short and long periods in the Asian countries covered by this Plan and suitable training facilities in this country have been provided for over 5,500 men and women. In addition to this it is now standard practice where art individual firm in this country becomes responsible for a major project, such as building a new factory or an electricity generating station, for the contract to contain a requirement that the firm shall provide training facilities for a selected number of native people who will later become responsible for the operation of the project. Many hundreds of men and women must have been catered for in this way.

511
In addition, as many of your Lordships know there are at present over 70,000 young people following courses in our universities, technical colleges, colleges of advanced technology, teacher-training colleges and elsewhere, who are not supported by their respective Governments but are self-financing. They nevertheless are making claims upon our resources. I was one of those who deeply regretted the Government's decision of some months ago to increase the fees for this category of student. But I regard as more serious the difficulty which many of these young people are experiencing in supplementing their education by appropriate training, industrial or otherwise, in their special fields of interest. Being an engineer I have particularly in mind, of course, those who need training in industry or within public utilities.
The Ministry of Overseas Development and the Ministry of Labour quite recently issued a pamphlet entitled Industrial Training for Overseas Nationals. Regrettably, this scheme is limited to young people sponsored by their respective Governments, and there are large numbers within the 70,000 I mentioned who are not so sponsored and for whom it is proving extremely difficult to obtain satisfactory training facilities. The degree of disappointment, disillusionment and frustration of which I am aware is going a long way to destroying the good will to which I feel we are entitled as a result of the educational facilities which have been made available to them.
Some large industrial concerns, particularly in the electrical industry, have traditionally provided training facilities for quite large numbers of overseas students; and not only Commonwealth students. I think it is not unfair to say that over and above their desire to contribute to the national provision in this respect they have had the foresight to appreciate the possibility of advantageous returns in orders from overseas. Having spent much of my life in a large industrial company I have seen that many orders have their origins in these training schemes. Unfortunately a large number of our small and medium-sized undertakings, and our public utilities, have so far not been as willing as they should have been to provide comparable training facilities.
512
In my belief small firms and public utilities are probably much more relevant to the present situation in the developing countries than are the large manufacturing concerns. Unfortunately, this unwillingness or inability reflects the fact that they have not as yet provided adequate training for the young recruits from our own country. But obviously this will soon be corrected through the implementation of the Industrial Training Act. Regrettably, so I understand, the industrial training boards have not felt able to treat overseas trainees as qualifying for refund of grant to the sponsoring companies on the same basis as for home trainees. This means that there is no financial incentive to firms to cater for trainees from overseas unless they have a commercial interest or obligation in respect of them. I should like to appeal, if I may, in your Lordships' House to the small and medium-sized companies of this country, and to the public utilities, to take much more seriously than they have so far done their national obligation in this respect.
May I now move to another aspect of the overseas situation which is causing me considerable concern? This is the brain-drain of qualified manpower. I am particularly interested in scientists, technologists and engineers who go from the underdeveloped countries to the relatively highly developed ones. We shall be discussing this subject later on in the Session, again on the initiative of the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough. We have cause to be concerned about the brain-drain of qualified people from this country, notably to the United States, but taken in relation to their resources of qualified manpower and to national need for its services the developing countries find themselves in a much more serious position. Let us not be in any doubt that this country has been one of the major beneficiaries of the brain-drain from the developing countries.
In 1966, some 1,650 professionally qualified scientists, technologists and engineers from the Commonwealth, mainly from the developing countries, were granted immigration vouchers to work in this country. I believe the loss of these people to be extremely serious, and I do not think that the solution will be easy to find. Certainly a solution cannot be found by unilateral action. If, for

513
example, this country were to impose severe restrictions on the entry of qualified people from overseas, while allowing a continuing and increasing drain of qualified manpower from this country to other parts of the world, notably to the United States, this could work only to our disadvantage.
I think that this reflects a world situation which, unless it is dealt with effectively, could lead to a serious situation within the developing countries and nullify the benefits which would otherwise derive to them. Therefore I was extremely pleased by the recent statement by the Secretary-General of the United Nations that international organisations should carry out basic research on the magnitude of the drain of highly qualified manpower from the developing countries, should study the countries and individuals concerned, and the motives for, and should examine the implications of the development of the drain and the remedial measures taken in some countries to deal with it.
In conclusion, my Lords, may I express the hope that in seeking to stimulate and strengthen our economy the present Government and their successors, of whatever Party, will make clear to the general public that a major purpose of this strengthening is the need for us to give increasing help to the developing countries, whether it be through the United Nations Organisation and its Agencies or through such plans as the Colombo Plan. Failing which, I think we shall make less than our essential contribution to the eradication of the imbalance in the standards of living to which my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder referred. I should like to think that the general public might want to do this for altruistic, humanitarian reasons; but probably this is too much to ask. In that case, they would be wise to do so on the ground of self-interest, and I would not mind if the Government presented it to them on this basis, for I am sure that it will profoundly affect the degree of our participation in world trade a decade or more from now.
In my recent Presidential Address to the British Association I made a few remarks which perhaps I may be allowed to read and with which I hope your Lordships will be in reasonable agreement. As I mentioned earlier, my special interest is
514
in the field of science and technology. I said:
"Our scientists and technologists have become not only the guardians and guarantors of our national economy, but also the agents of a new diplomacy in which much more than an expanding export trade is at stake. They will have an increasing part to play as advisers and teachers in the progress of the developing countries, and must not only carry conviction as experts in their respective scientific and technological specialities, but must also gain respect as ambassadors of broad and sympathetic vision, sound judgment and unassailable integrity".
Having expressed the hope that this country will find it possible to give increasing financial help and, even more important, to provide ample qualified helpers I should not be content to finish without stressing the importance of ensuring, through our advisers to UNESCO and other similar bodies, that the projects which are initiated are well conceived and well enough conducted to ensure effective progress to the objectives that we have been talking about this afternoon, because I think the history of some of these Agencies contains examples which have not been ideally directed to these purposes.
7.2 p.m.
LORD SOPER: My Lords, in introducing this long and comprehensive debate my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder indicated that this was the moment of truth, and further, more explicitly, the moment of truth inasmuch as the juxtaposition of this debate happens immediately after the long debate on the cuts yesterday and the day before. I think he felt that it was almost providential. I believe that if this is so—and I am inclined to believe that there is a precise and particular moment, which is now—then in no particular field is this more apposite than in the field to which very little reference has so far been made, but about which I will venture to talk for a little while, ignoring all the other fields. I refer to the field of disarmament.
But before I embark upon that, I should like, quite briefly, to say, "Thank you" to my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder for the breadth and sweep of his vision, and the comprehensiveness of his own position. If I, faintly pursuing, was not able to follow and appreciate the subtlety of some of his innuendos and allusions I assure him that I shall read and appreciate his speech with the greater

515
alacrity in Hansard, and I shall speak with considerable circumspection in the knowledge of how much more he knows about the topic than I do.
I should also like to thank most heartily my noble friend Lord Caradon for the hope which he engendered; and it will not be necessary for me to say to a fellow Methodist that hope is not only a pleasurable enjoyment, but also a peremptory moral duty. But I shall also speak with considerable circumspection in his presence, because if I refer to some of the affairs which have to do with disarmament, I do so as one who is not expert in this field. And perhaps that is not a disadvantage when I would proffer two, to me, quite satisfactory reasons for selecting this particular field in such a debate as has been going on in your Lordships' House to-day.
In the summer of 1959, in the General Assembly of the United Nations there was passed by unanimous consent the proposition that the most important of all the matters with which it had to deal was the question of general and complete disarmament. I believe that is exactly true. Of all the other things that occupy the United Nations, the issue of disarmament is more contingent to our welfare and more ultimately important than any other.
The second reason is that, so far as I am aware, when the matter of the United Nations is discussed, particularly among young people, if they associate it at all with anything relevant they tend to associate it with the problem of peace and the issue of disarmament, rather than with the other matters upon which they may be—indeed, they are—intelligent. For them it is a simple proposition: what will it profit us in the modern world if we have a Welfare State, even with the warts or cuts, if we have an amplified system of education that is blown to pieces by nuclear weapons? If that happens, there is little advantage in all these various amenities. Though this is an oversimplification, I think it is a valid introduction to the question which for them is paramount: is the United Nations capable of offering real and substantial hope in the field of peace-making and, in particular, in the realm of disarmament?
516
Looking over the last few years, I tend to discern three or four peaks rising above the mists of non-success in this field, and I will advert to them. In 1963 I was much cheered, as I am sure your Lordships were, with the ban on testing which, though it was partial, was to a certain extent effective and gave hope of future and more effective bans. I regarded that as an achievement, and it filled me with a certain amount of hope that the way was not completely blocked.
Then, in 1965, the 18 Nations Disarmament Committee was particularly charged, as I understand it, with the preparation of a Non-Proliferation Treaty. By last year—in August, I think it was—there was a break-through, as I understand it, in that both the U.S.S.R. and the United States tabled identical resolutions (omitting Article III, to which I will briefly advert in a moment), indicating that they were in substantial agreement as to what this Non-Proliferation Treaty should be. And only a few days ago Article III was concerned with the difficulties of examining peaceful nuclear development so that it might not be later prostituted to the use of warfare. This particular problem, with the ancillary problem of whether Euratom or the 18 Nations Disarmament Committee should deal with it, has now been solved, and there is, as I see it, no bar to the expression in treaty form of non-proliferation. This, to me, is a great advance, if only it is going to be tabled, as I hope it will be.
Further, in February, 1967, there was a great advance, in Latin America at any rate, in the tabling of the Treaty for a nuclear free zone in that part of the world; and indeed it may occur. This country has been the first, as I understand it, to give its approval and to accept responsibilities under Clauses 2 and 3 of that tabled Treaty. This does not amount to the Kingdom of God in immediate proximity, but it does mean, it seems to me, a reasonable hope that in the matter of disarmament the United Nations has been, and is, tending to make genuine and effective progress. And I sincerely thank God for it, because, as I say, though I am not a youngster any more, I have ample evidence of the way in which young people are seized of the significant world in which they live—perhaps not all of them, but a great

517
proportion, as I understand it. They are extremely afraid and extremely full of foreboding about what happens if, indeed, we make our progress to nuclear war, either by intention or, as my noble friend Lord Snow pointed out so cogently, by accident.
That is the hopeful side. I think it is necessary to face also the other side, and I, for one, am extremely disturbed at Mr. McNamara's speech, made, I think, in September, 1967, on the antiballistic missiles system which, at least in a limited degree, is in progress or in process in the United States. I wonder whether your Lordships would allow me, without impertinence, to remind myself and perhaps your Lordships of what it means, for it turns reason upside down and is a further process in the general programme of "Those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad".
The inter-continental ballistic missile system, or the anti-ballistic missile system, is one in which enormous sums of money will be invested in the attempt to protect the great cities, both in the U.S.S.R. and in the United States of America, from bombing attacks of intercontinental ballistic missiles by a ring of anti-missile missiles. One could proliferate this particular argument. But the point is that as this defensive measure is taken by one side so it requires, in order to maintain the mutual deterrence of terror, an offensive measure to be taken by the other side; and inasmuch as the U.S.S.R. or the United States undertakes a defensive anti-missile system, so the other side will be compelled to undertake the production of missiles to counteract the effect of the antimissile system itself.
This, of course, is complete lunacy, and everybody outside a lunatic asylum would recognise it as lunacy. But it is part of the inevitable lunacy of the arms race, and I, for one, think—indeed, I am sure—it will have certain very deleterious effects. One of them is this. If indeed the United States embarks upon this new hideous adventure it will require to test the new weapons, and therefore the Test Ban Treaty—even a partial ban treaty—will be in jeopardy; and I take it that the same will apply over the other side of the world. Furthermore, it will put into considerable perturbation those countries which have looked at the Non-Proliferation
518
Treaty as a measure of their own increasing security, because included in it (here I put myself under the direction, and maybe the correction, of my noble friend Lord Caradon) is the assumption, though it is not written into the Treaty, that as other countries are dissuaded from taking this hideous weapon, so those countries which have it will make representational, and sometimes quite definite, decreases in their arms capacity. It is precisely because this has not happened that in fact the Non-Proliferation Treaty, I think, will be in jeopardy. Therefore I find it impossible to balance these two sides of the triangle.
But I would now revert, if I may, for a moment or two, to what my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder has claimed to be "the moment of truth". I am very glad to be able to think—in fact to know—that Her Majesty's Government have already responded to the Non-Proliferation Treaty; have already indicated that they are prepared to accede to the propositions included in, I think, Clauses 2 and 3 of the Latin American Treaty; and therefore no one can blame them for lagging behind in their efforts to support these genuine processes of peace-making. But if there is to be any real contribution to peace-making in the light of the new and much more menacing antiballistic missile programme, it behoves some country to make such a declaration in fact of its intentions to reduce its armed forces, so as to persuade those not now in the "nuclear club" to accede to and to support the Non-Proliferation Treaty. I think it would be unreasonable—and I speak as a pacifist, and this is, if you like, a utilitarian argument but a sound one—at this moment to expect that either the U.S.S.R. or the United States of America would appreciably reduce their armed forces. But I think that some country—and I should like to think it will be our own—will do precisely this thing. I do not underrate the moral and psychological impact of such a unilateral experiment, and I only hope that it will be undertaken.
I am reminded, on the highest authority, my Lords, that if you are going to lose your soul it is very apposite that you secure the world in the process; for that is the obverse of the New Testament Gospel. What bothers me is that

519
there are those who are so criminally negligent that they lose both at the same time. I do not think that that is an exact description of what is happening over the cuts in military expenditure in this country, but I am bound to say that, so far as I understand it, any exercise in war-time activities sooner or later is a pollution of the soul. And in our particular reduction of our armed forces we have not the credit which would accrue to us if we had done it simply for the reason that we were overwhelmingly desirous of supporting the purposes of peace throughout the world by fulfilling our obligations and setting a new standard. Though this may sound idealistic, I make no apology for that.
I wish that this country would at this time nail its particular defence cuts to the mast of peace-making—and constructive peace-making; for then I believe that those cuts would be a new order of competence and authority. If out of this particular debate it can be seen that this country has a new and a greater opportunity than before of registering in the new atmosphere of a nonproliferation world, and indeed a world where the possibilities of free nuclear zones are yet to be seen—if this country were prepared so to act, and so make a response, I, for one, should be very false to the cloth I wear if I felt that it would go unheeded either by those who practised it or by those who saw the influence of it.
7.17 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, only the other day the President of the United States had a meeting with his Commission on Civil Disorder, which is to report to him in July. I quote from Mr. Alistair Cooke's latest "Letter from America":
"The President let them talk and talk, all it seems to the point of crime and rebellion in the cities; and at the end of a couple of hours, when somebody said, 'Our main problem is …' the President said, 'Excuse me, our main problem is this: we have about thirty-two years to save this country and lots of others from being strangled by the human population, from the diseases and the pollution and the shortage of food and the hopeless overcrowding of cities that will stretch for two and three hundred miles. This is the main problem'."
My Lords, I propose to confine my remarks to this problem, and to go on
520
with a few background figures which I have taken from the U.N. Demographic Year Book. Say the world population today is 3,500 million, increasing now at the rate of 170,000 net per day—and this increase, of course, will snowball so that the world population in A.D. 2000 will be over 6,000 million. To-day 72 per cent. of the earth's inhabitants live in the underdeveloped countries; let us call them that. In these regions, the underdeveloped regions, 41 per cent. of the population are under the age of 15. The percentage of those aged under 15 in the developed countries is 20 per cent. The present birthrate in the underdeveloped countries is 40 per cent.—roughly double that of developed countries. At the present rate of growth the world population will double in 30 to 35 years; Europe's in 115 years; North America's in 45 years; the U.S.S.R's in 41 years; Oceania's in 33 years; Asia's in 31 years; Africa's in 30 years; Latin America's in 27 years; Central America's in 25 years. If these figures are broken down by countries, the following countries will double their population in 20 years: Ceylon, the Philippines, Jordon, Kenya, Ghana, Morocco, Nigeria, Venezuela, Chile and Mexico. It is estimated, at the present rates, that the United Kingdom population will double in 100 years.
To give an instance of what can be done in an Eastern country, Japan's figure is now 70 years, whereas Federal Germany's is a doubling in 60 years. To give any more figures than these in a speech I think would only be confusing and quite unnecessary when so many of your Lordships are well aware of the position. But I trust that your Lordships will agree that I have said enough to illustrate the justification for calling the population explosion a world crisis. Of course this position has been brought about by death control; the death control established by the medical, the pharmaceutical and the chemical advances of the last two or three decades.
I beg your Lordships to give the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, leave to address the House again. In the first place, I am looking forward to hearing the answers to some of the questions I am going to ask, but in any case it is such a pleasure to listen to him, whatever he says. He will be able to give the latest information

521
from the United Nations as to what is being done. I must admit that I am not quite clear about it myself, nor are some of the authorities in this country, but I imagine that the chief channel through which the United Nations gives assistance is through its Special Trust Fund. Both the United States of America and Britain have said that they will support that Fund, but both of them have still to say how much they will give. Sweden has given 200,000 dollars, Denmark 100,000 dollars. But to turn to the opening words of Lord Ritchie-Calder's Motion, may I say what is Britain's role here and what it can do?
I feel that first of all a reference must be made to the International Planned Parenthood Federation, which is now a massive organisation. This started in the U.S.A. some years ago, more or less on a shoestring. However, in recent years there have been striking financial developments. In my view these developments were "triggered off" by the Vatican Council's indication of a modification of Rome's approach to the subject of family planning. The U.S.A. and Sweden made, or promised, contributions to the Federation running into millions of dollars almost forthwith, and on top of this the Victor Fund, promoted under the will of the late Alexander Victor, now supports the Federation with very large sums.
The Federation has the support of the United Nations Organisation and of many of its branches, including the World Health Organisation and the F.A.O. It is worth quoting the words of the latter body's Director-General:
"The ever-mounting tidal wave of humanity now challenges us to control it or to be submerged, along with all our civilised values".
The Director-General of the F.A.O. ought to know, because recent harvests have been disappointing and the recent population growth rate is already outstripping food production. The office of the I.P.P.F., as I will call the International Planned Parenthood Federation for brevity, is now established in Regent Street in London.
We can now come to the question I posed: what is Britain doing? Right at the beginning, when funds were short and when London was only a branch of the Federation, a successful appeal was made for £250,000 to put the effort on its
522
feet. The noble Lord, Lord McCorquodale of Newton, who cannot be here to-day, much to his regret, was responsible for that, and it is as chairman of the Scottish offshoot of this organisation that I speak to-day, quite apart from my own personal concern for the very poor—"the suffering masses", to use the words which the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, quoted. The word which I like best is the Hindustani one, the Gharib-log. I personally have always had a passionate concern for them, and have some measure of experience in these matters in the East, besides which I am the fourth generation to have interests of this sort in the Orient.
The static income of the United Kingdom campaign now, thanks to this Fund and thanks to something like 230 covenants, is about £10,000 per annum. One-fifth of that goes to the British Family Planning Association and four-fifths is retained by the I.P.P.F. Of course, large sums have been contributed by individuals to make this up, and in 1965 Oxfam gave £11,600 to the campaign, and so on. Scotland has chosen to give what I might call "hardware". A mobile family planning clinic from Scotland has already gone to Ceylon, and a mobile cinematograph vehicle and equipment paid for entirely by the Aberdeen branch will shortly leave for India.
The completely changed circumstances of the I.P.P.F., which derive from sudden access to substantial funds, have brought about the change which is in the process of taking place in this country, and it may be that we shall have to change not only the Federation's role but possibly Britain's role in the matter. It may be that our energies should now be turned to the training of personnel rather than the contribution of funds or the supply of hardware. When I say that, I do not mean only the training of personnel in this country for service in the backward countries, or the training of personnel from the backward countries in this country, but probably a combination of them all. This may well be the role which will make the best contribution to a solution of the problem, although this remains to be worked out.
Some people are tempted to lose heart about the possibility of stemming this tide; others, like the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, and the noble Lord, Lord Caradon—and I myself am one—believe

523
that with energy and skill the tide may yet be stemmed. Food, especially protein production, can be increased in supply. Waste can be reduced. The amount of waste in countries with termites and other vermin is too colossal to calculate. Communications can be improved. From my knowledge of India and Pakistan, I am a great believer in village communications. The simplest means of communication makes a large contribution to the ability to feed the people.
As for recent action, the big event of the I.P.P.F. in 1967 was the Eighth International Conference in Chile, of which the main effect has been the growing interest in family planning throughout Latin America. This has largely been caused by the fact that the Conference involved itself in the health aspects of family planning, particularly in view of the extremely high rate of illegal abortion which is prevalent throughout Latin America. It is worth noting that family planning is an essential part of health service, and as such it seems to be much more acceptable to politically conscious Roman Catholic Latin American countries, and more effective in promoting family planning than any ideas about population control.
Talking of family planning, the most dramatic advance in recent years has been "the pill", which now is used so much that it has quite passed its experimental stage, as I hope the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, will say when he comes to speak of the W.H.O. But is it the pill that has started the downward turn in the birthrate in this country? Personally it was news to me when I read that:
"the differences between the Government actuary's 1965 predictions for the Department of Education and Science and the actual birth rates show just how easy it is to make a hash of baby forecasting. From 1965, instead of the expected increase, the birthrate has been falling at an increasing rate. Why and whether this means smaller, or simply deferred, families, or perhaps the result of the war years low birth rate a quarter of a century ago, these are matters of quite hideous complexity. But it requires no very profound calculation to work out from these figures how many children will be entering school five years later. From 1970 to 1972 at least each year's entry will be smaller than the one before. In 1972 there will be nearly 80,000 fewer five-year-olds than the Department would have expected.
Some of the above, of course, will simply ease the pressure on over-busy primary
524
teachers and over-crowded primary schools. But the rest will free resources that could be used, beginning now, to deal with some other deficiencies in the school system."
I mention that in passing only because the situation in Scotland is the same; namely, that the trend in the birth rate in this developed country, this conscious country alive to the situation, is in the same direction.
My Lords, I have gone on long enough. The subject is such a vast one that I could go on and on—India, Pakistan, successful efforts, Japan, and so on. What, I ask, and what I feel we must ask ourselves, is to be Britain's role? Britain has signed, with the hand of the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, the Declaration on Population Growth and Human Dignity and Welfare of the United Nations, in which occurs this paragraph:
"We believe that the population problem must be recognised as a principal element in long-range national planning if Governments are to achieve their economic goals and fulfil the aspirations of their people."
I feel that the thanks of the whole House are due to the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder. This debate may lead to defining what Britain's role is to be in this particular respect; namely, that of supporting the international planned parenthood campaign. Of one thing I am sure: the dreadful menace of the population explosion must be appreciated by every man and woman in this country. How are we to ensure that they do know, that this is realised, that thinking in every line of life should be adjusted to recognise the problem that this presents? Only when the danger is fully grasped and boldly faced by the whole world can the success which I believe is assured be achieved.
7.34 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I, in a first sentence, say to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, that I have listened to his speech with the greatest sympathy. He might be encouraged by the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, in his opening speech, indicated that the population problem was one of the most urgent in the consideration of the United Nations. If I may say so, I hope to end with a series of constructive proposals which will include the issue of population which the noble Lord has introduced.

525
I am going to try to be brief to-night, partly out of sympathy with your Lordships, who have had an exhausting week, partly from sympathy with the Officers of this House, partly from sympathy with the staff of this House and partly from sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, who, at this moment, should be addressing another important meeting. I say that I will try to be brief, but my experience has always been that when a speaker begins by saying he will be brief he is very long indeed. But at least I have torn up half my notes and I hope that will assist.
I want particularly to look at the United Nations from the point of view of the change which has taken place within it, in its character and indeed in its functions, by the large number of the new emergent nations that have entered since it was formed. I think the United Nations has gone through three stages and is entering a fourth. The first stage was at the San Francisco Conference in 1945 at the end of the world war, when, as often at the end of wars, there were idealistic hopes as to what would be realised. There was then unity among all the nations which had taken part in the war against Fascism, and Governments which were sympathetic to them. There was the climate of new democracy in the world. In those circumstances we had two Declarations which I believe are immortal. One was the Charter of the United Nations itself and, secondly, and subsequently, there was the Declaration on Human Rights.
The second stage of the United Nations was a reaction to that, when division and disillusionment came. It was the period when the unity of sentiment at the end of the world war changed to that of the conflict between America and Soviet Russia, between East and West. And in that period the temper for common purpose by the United Nations for the benefit of the world became subordinated to the division of the two great power blocs. There was a third, very deep-rooted, change in the United Nations when the new emergent countries entered it. At the San Francisco Conference there were only three African Governments in the United Nations—Egypt, Ethiopia and Liberia. Since the world war we have had the colonial political revolution, beginning with the recognition
526
by this country of the independence of India and Pakistan and Ceylon and Burma, spreading all over the Asian and African Continents and in the Caribbean, so that now the number of member-States of the United Nations—52 at the San Francisco Conference—has reached 125. That great development has been mostly by the entrance of the new nations.
Why do I say this has meant a difference, not only in the character but even in the function of the United Nations? It has had three very considerable effects. The first is subjective to the new nations themselves. They have won self-respect; they have won a sense of liberation in belonging as equals to an international community, and they have gained a sense of security. It was well expressed by Emperor Haile Selassie of Ethiopia:
"For us, the small, the weak, the underdeveloped, there is nowhere else to go. It we turn to one or the other of the major power groups we risk engorgement, that gradual process of assimilation which destroys identity and personality. We must look to the United Nations."
The first factor is that the new nations gained a sense of identity and personality in the world in becoming members of the United Nations.
The second effect, which was tremendous, was that the big-Power domination of the United Nations ended. It had been the scene of the conflict between the two great giants, the United States of America and the Soviet Union; but, with the entrance of the new nations, the automatic domination by America in the United Nations ended, and that inevitably meant a great change in its altitude and in its decisions.
The third change that came from the entrance of the new nations to the United Nations is, I think, the deepest of all. It not only changed the psychology within the General Assembly, it changed the actual functions of the United Nations Quite naturally, the new nations cone centrated upon the demands for the extension of self-determination over the world, for national freedoms and racial equality. In urging this, they were at first strongly opposed; they were opposed on the ground that the United Nations Charter gave sovereignty to the Imperial Powers over their colonies, and that therefore questions like the struggle

527
for national freedom and issues like racial relations were outside the sphere of the United Nations.
I was a Member of another place when those issues were being decided. I am wrong in saying that they have been decided; the speech which the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, delivered to-day indicated that, in Conservative minds, they are not yet decided. We had ten years ago the conflict between the two paragraphs of the Charter of the United Nations, the first declaring for self-determination, national freedoms and racial equality, and the second declaring that the United Nations must not intervene in the sovereign affairs of member States; and that was regarded as applying to the empires which member States occupied. We have largely now won that victory. The United Nations appreciates that the right of peoples to their national freedom, the right of self-determination, the right of racial equality throughout the world, are absolutely fundamental to any international order, and that the United Nations has the right to intervene in those respects.
I believe we are now passing to a fourth stage in the functions of the United Nations. It has begun. It has begun by the United Nations itself taking responsibility for dealing in a concrete way with the problems of population, of poverty and of peace in the world. I am urging, in conclusion, that if the United Nations is to fulfill its functions to-day it must extend these small beginnings until the United Nations becomes the international authority in all these respects.
Let me begin with the problem of the population explosion, to which the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, has referred. It is quite true that it is absolutely decisive for the future of the world. If the population of the earth increases at the present rate, before the end of this century more people will die of starvation than if the hydrogen bomb fell. The difficulty here is that many of the countries which are Catholic would be opposed to the United Nations taking action for family planning. I think that even the Catholic view of this problem is now being reconsidered, but there may be Catholic countries in the world which will not accept United Nations' assistance not
528
only in material aid but in technical personnel.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, I know India. I was born there, and have been there recently and I have seen the efforts which are being made to deal with the problem of family planning. Necessarily, however, they are very meagre in comparison with the need. In my view, while the United Nations may not be able to give help to those countries which are Catholic dominated, it should be giving the utmost possible aid to countries like India and many countries of Asia and of Africa which are seeking to deal with this problem. I want to see the United Nations itself participating in the solution of the problem.
The second problem in which I should like to see the United Nations functioning in a vastly bigger way than it is now doing is that of poverty. This is linked with the problem of population. As we look at the world to-day, there are two great areas for the production of food which could meet the danger of hunger, not merely the present problem of hunger but the greater problem of hunger in the coming years. Those two areas are the sea-bed, to which the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, referred, and the deserts of the earth. I say only this in respect of the proposals for the seabed. I hope that the United Nations will take direct responsibility for the ownership of the oceans which are outside territorial waters; that they will take direct responsibility for their development, and for the production from them of the mountains of food which lie there untouched. I should like to pay special tribute to the representative from Malta, one of the developing countries—Mr. Pardoe—who initiated this proposal before the United Nations.
The second area I want to mention is the deserts of the world, which comprise one-seventh of the area of the earth. Everybody knows that deserts can be made fruitful. Underneath them are lakes and rivers, and if this water is brought to the surface those areas can be made fruitful. I first really appreciated that fact when I read the book written by my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder, Men Against the Desert. They can be made fruitful now, and I want to urge that in this next stage of United Nations development—and this is much

529
bigger than any of the proposals at present before the F.A.O.—the United Nations, representing the peoples of the earth who wish to see this problem solved, should become directly responsible for the development of the desert areas.
My third suggestion is this. Recent events have indicated that the United Nations should have a police force to keep peace in the world. I will not extend this point, but, as we have realised this week, the time has passed when Britain can be the policeman of the world. In fact, no one nation should attempt to police the world. If there is to be an international police force at all, then it should be under an international authority like the United Nations.
The final suggestion I would make is this. The United Nations should have the direct function of aiding a number of the smaller countries which, as they move towards self-government, are not in a position to establish a viable economy. There are scattered about the earth to-day 30 small islands whose populations are seeking self-government. Almost immediately Nauru, which has been administered by Australia, New Zealand and United Kingdom, will become independent. Its population is 3.000. Is it to become a member State of the United Nations? There is the more fantastic problem of Pitcairn Island, which also is moving towards independence. Its population is 88. What is to happen to these small islands, seeking the status of independence which obviously are so utterly unable to maintain themselves? Some of them may become federated; some are too isolated even to become federated.
Membership of the United Nations is not only a matter of privilege and of rights, but also involves obligations and duties which these very small populations could not be expected to fulfil. I want to suggest that these small islands—and there are nearly thirty of them still in the British colonial system—should come under the direct responsibility of the United Nations. We at one time had a trustee system, but they will not wish to be regarded as wards of a trustee council. Therefore I ask my noble friend Lord Caradon to consider the suggestion of establishing a Committee for
530
the International Association of Self-governing Islands, so that they might be given technical aid, economic aid and advice about administration; so that they might have the sense of becoming self-governing and at the same time have some association with the authority of the United Nations. They may not be eligible to become member States of the United Nations, but I should like to see them participating in its Agencies in all their activities. If the United Nations will now pass to this fourth stage—that is to say, the stage of not merely being a debating forum and of intervening in a rather cautious way, but of becoming an international authority with direct responsibility for dealing with these problems—then the United Nations will move forward to much bigger and greater things even than the contribution which it has so far made.
7.57 p.m.
LORD COHEN OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, at the outset I wish to joint with others in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, on a most remarkable, brilliant, fascinating and imaginative speech. I should like also to thank the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, for his distinguished speech, which gave us a sober assessment of the current status of the United Nations and its Special Agencies, and their potentialities for the future peace and welfare of the world One thing that struck me forcibly was that throughout all the speeches to-day there has been no element of controversy about the fact that it is in our own enlightened self-interest, despite our present difficult circumstances, to continue to support to the utmost the work of the United Nations and its Special Agencies.
My special interest, of course, is in the World Health Organisation. As the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, told us, we are living in a shrinking world. The truth is that to-day no country is so far in time from another that it is not exposed to the diseases which may occur in those countries, Every plane that lands in this country, every ship that docks here, may bring with it a carrier of a grave infectious disease which might spread in epidemic form in this country. We have had experience in this country within recent years of smallpox, and cholera is even now close to the gates of Europe.

531
How do we protect ourselves, and what role does the World Health Organisation play? It plays the most important role by its international quarantine regulations, to which most Governments adhere; and if disease breaks out in a country, then the World Health Organisation immediately radios every country in the world telling them of the outbreak of infectious disease. It also immediately flies out to the affected area the specially skilled personnel, and the equipment and medicaments which may be necessary to control the disease. In addition, it publishes weekly an international epidemiological report, which gives us in every country the facts about what is occurring throughout the world. That is why we are often warned of the coming of an epidemic in this country of, for example, influenza. These International Sanitary Regulations are reviewed regularly—in fact they are at present being reviewed. But what the W.H.O. is trying to do is not simply to have quarantine at ports and airfields, but also now to have it on railways and on inland waterways, wherever there may be considerable movements of population.
But, of course, international quarantine is not the only measure which the W.H.O. takes; nor, indeed, is it anything more than a holding measure against severe infection. For lasting protection we must seek to eliminate disease at its source, and this means—and this is the W.H.O.'s main aim—the eradication of foci of infection in endemic areas. As time is passing rapidly, I shall quote only two examples. The first is smallpox. Despite the fact that we know how to control smallpox, there are still 100,000 cases of smallpox reported annually to the W.H.O. The disease is endemic in South-East Asia, in Africa and in South America, especially Brazil. Some countries have struggled successfully against smallpox. In 1962, Burma initiated a national campaign of vaccination so that by 1966 no cases of smallpox were recorded in Burma. But, of course, smallpox persists, and the W.H.O. has launched a world-wide campaign for its eradication.
One must recognise that there are, of course, difficulties. First, one must have an effective vaccine, which means that in
532
the Tropics it must be stable, it must be freeze-dried and it must be of a sufficiently high calibre. Secondly, there are difficulties of transport; and there are great difficulties of surveillance in some tropical countries. But there are new tools: for example, there is a new method of administering vaccine by a jet instrument which can vaccinate 1,000 persons in one hour. This is now being used in Brazil and in Africa. Of course, the W.H.O. undertakes the emergency supply of vaccine and of skilled personnel to any country which may be threatened by an outbreak of smallpox in its neighbourhood.
Take, secondly, malaria. Vast sums of money are spent on controlling malaria, and as a result millions of lives are saved and millions of man-hours are retrieved. We know that malaria can be eliminated. After all, in this country malaria was very common in earlier centuries—indeed, until the 19th century. But it was virtually eliminated, except for an occasional sporadic case in this country, towards the latter end of the 19th century. In the United States thirty-five years ago there were thousands of cases of malaria. By 1946–47 the disease had been eradicated from that country.
In 1955 the W.H.O. undertook a worldwide eradication scheme and 12 years later in 1967, half the population of the world which had previously lived in malarial areas was now protected. Ninety per cent. of the population of India was protected. In some countries, such as Ceylon, malaria was completely eliminated. But it still persists in Africa, in South-East Asia and in South America, and the W.H.O. is endeavouring to eliminate this disease. It fights on because it knows that prevention costs less than cure. Perhaps I may just quote very briefly one example of this.
In Greece, before 1950, £500,000 was being spent each year to purchase quinine—the amount used was in fact one-fifth of the total world's production of quinine—for the treatment of malaria. In 1956 they instituted a campaign to control the malarial swamps; they destroyed the mosquitoes with D.D.T. and gammexane, with the result that within a few years malaria had been completely eliminated. Not only were there no deaths, but a great deal of fenland was reclaimed and the productivity of labour

533
in Greece was doubled. Those are two examples of what the W.H.O. has achieved—not all that it wants, but still very successful in considerable measure.
But the Organisation still has major problems, and they fall under two heads. The first is to improve environmental health in developing countries. No-one who has seen the primitive sanitation and methods of sewage disposal in some of the developing countries can be surprised that one in four hospital beds throughout the world are occupied by those suffering from water-borne diseases—typhoid, cholera, dysentery and bilharzia. The W.H.O., of course, prefers clean water and proper sewage disposal to paying for medicines, and so it plans in many countries to build public health departments; to staff them at first with consultants from the United Kingdom and the U.S.A., but hoping later so to train the native personnel that they can take over. It sends out consultants for other purposes.
It also has fellowships which can be gained by natives of a country, so that they can travel to other countries and improve their knowledge of preventive medicine. Your Lordships may well have seen in this morning's Times, that the W.H.O. has given a large research grant to the University of Aberdeen for a world problem, which is to record and monitor the side-effects of drugs, so that we shall be freed from any recurrence of a hazard such as thalidomide.
The second problem is that health needs hands. We speak of a shortage of doctors in this country when we have one doctor to 1,000 of the population. But there are many areas in this world which have one doctor to 50,000 or more of the population; and they are even worse off for nurses and dentists. So the W.H.O. plans medical and nursing training, and for the purpose makes available consultant staff and equipment and other facilities; and here again the long-term aim is staffing by natives. This has happened in Makerere, Ibadan and elsewhere. If Governments cannot solve their own problems they can come to W.H.O. for the help of consultants in special fields. They will then undertake, with the resources of W.H.O., to try to solve the problem, or at any rate launch a demonstration which will help the natives of the country to solve it. And again, of course, it attempts to introduce the simple approaches and
534
techniques which will solve the problem for them.
My Lords, I have mentioned only, say, half a dozen enterprises of W.H.O. Those of your Lordships who know the work of W.H.O. will know that in 1966 it supported over 1,200 enterprises, of which some 242 were directly concern ed with the United Kingdom or its Colonies or the Commonwealth. This leads me to one important point which I wish to make, and that is the financing of W.H.O.
As your Lordships know, like all other Special Agencies of the United Nations W.H.O. is an independent body, and it raises its own funds. It has four main sources for what is called its integrated international health programmes. The first is its budget, which it receives regularly by direct contributions from the member States. This is on an agreed percentage basis, and the total income under the regular budget is about £23½ million a year, of which this country donates about £1½ million and our Commonwealth another £1½ million, which is a fair proportion considering our size. The second source is technical assistance from the United Nations Development Programme and from the Pan-American Health Organisation. Together, they contribute about £11 million. The third source arises from joint venture; with UNICEF, the United Nations children's organisation, to the extent of about £7 million; and then there are some voluntary health contributions which amount to about £2·7 million. So the total budget is about £45 million.
In the 1968 programme and budget, which has just been printed, there are listed, in a small supplement to that budget, some 500 projects for which Governments have requested support, and these have been initialled by the regional officers of W.H.O. But, alas! there is no money for them. They would cost about £5 million. Therefore, W.H.O. is trying to improve its resources. It is not standing wringing its hands and asking, "What is Britain doing today?" it has decided to establish W.H.O. Foundations in major countries. They are established in the United States, in Canada, in Switzerland, in Ceylon, in Japan and in the United Kingdom, and I have the honour to be chairman of this latter one. These will work under a Federation of W.H.O. Foundations established in Geneva; and

535
we have been given a most generous grant of some 400,000 dollars by the Kellogg Foundation to provide seed money for these W.H.O. Foundations for a period of three years.
There can, I think, be little doubt, certainly from my personal experience, that one of the major ambassadors for peace and good will in developing countries is providing them with the means, in personnel, in equipment and in medicaments, to relieve their suffering, to prevent disease and to promote health. So that, although this is a somewhat inauspicious time, the Foundations hope that they will attract generous gifts, for all of us stand to gain from the promotion of health overseas. Where health is concerned, no nation is an island unto itself.
8.16 p.m.
LORD COLLISON: My Lords, I join with your Lordships in thanking my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder for initiating this debate, and I apologise to him for not being in my place when he opened it. I am sure he will understand the commitment that kept me away.
Within the United Nations family there is one Agency for which the trade unionists of the world have a great affection. We of course support the work of the United Nations, the mother Agency, and what is done by all the Agencies, but the I.L.O. is in special favour among the workpeople of this country and other countries, for reasons which I shall explain. I have a personal interest, because since 1960 I have had the honour of being an elected member of the governing body of the International Labour Organisation. Indeed, I have been going to Geneva for 14 years, at first as adviser to the British workers' delegate, my late friend Sir Alfred Roberts. Of course, I am very much involved in the work of the I.L.O. and am very sure of the importance of that work.
Perhaps for that very reason I am a little sensitive, but I feel that the work of the I.L.O. is not well known in this country or in the other countries of the world. I know, for instance, that most farmers, and indeed most people, know something about the Food and Agriculture Organisation. I know that most doctors are familiar with the World Health Organisation, and that most teachers could
536
give you a lecture on UNESCO. But so far as the I.L.O. is concerned there seems to be a vacuum. This may be because most of us receive our information through the Press and the radio and television, and, to be quite honest, the I.L.O. does not always have the dramatic impact which the other members of the United Nations family have. An old and experienced trade union journalist friend of mine once described the I.L.O. as, "Worthy, but not newsworthy", and I think he was about right. For that reason, I am glad that this debate is taking place, as it allows me to say a few words about the I.L.O. I would mention, too, that in 1969 the I.L.O. reaches its fiftieth year of life, and extensive arrangements are being made to celebrate that anniversary, both in Geneva and throughout the world. I hope that we in this country shall play our full part when the time comes, and that this event will do much to increase knowledge about, and give publicity to, the work of the I.L.O.
The United Nations family contains a number of Agencies, but the I.L.O. is unique in two respects. First, it was established in association with the old League of Nations, and is the only Agency of the League which survived the Second World War. The second point of uniqueness is that among United Nations Agencies it is the only one which has a tripartite structure. I believe that this second fact explains in great part the first fact: that it has survived the Second World War because it is firmly based on this tripartite, democratic structure. For that reason it has always been healthy, since its discussions and deliberations are taken after full and uninhibited discussion by the representatives of Governments, employers and workers.
The trade union movement played a large part in bringing the I.L.O. into being. Both before and after the 1918 Armistice, organised labour pressed for the creation of permanent machinery for the adoption and enforcement of international labour legislation; and at an international allied trades union conference in 1916 a clear call was made that the Peace Treaty should contain labour guarantees proclaiming the national and international rights of labour. As a result, at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 it was decided to

537
set up a Commission on international labour legislation composed of Government representatives and of representatives of management and labour. From these beginnings the International Labour Organisation was born.
The Preamble to its Constitution clearly outlines its objectives, and a few words from that Preamble are worth reading. It says:
"Whereas universal and lasting peace can be established only if it is based upon social justice; and whereas conditions of labour exist involving such injustice, hardship and privation, to large numbers of people as to produce unrest so great that the peace and harmony of the world are imperilled; and an improvement of those conditions is urgently required: as, for example, by the regulation of the hours of work, including the establishment of a maximum working day and week, the regulation of the labour supply, the prevention of unemployment, the provision of an adequate living wage, the protection of the worker against sickness, disease and injury arising out of his employment, the protection of children, young persons and women, provision for old age and injury, protection of the interests of the workers when employed in countries other than their own, recognition of the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal value, recognition of the principle of freedom of association, the organisation of vocational and technical education and other measures;
"Whereas also the failure of any nation to adopt humane conditions of labour is an obstacle in the way of other nations which desire to improve the conditions in their own countries;
"The High Contracting Parties, moved by sentiments of justice and humanity as well as by the desire to secure the permanent peace of the world, and with a view to attaining the objectives set forth in this Preamble, agree to the following Constitution of the International Labour Organisation."
The Constitution contains provisions for the tripartite conference of member-States once a year. The member-States send four delegates to the Conference: two Government representatives, one employers' representative drawn from the most important employers' organisations, and one workers' delegate. A number of advisers are also taken; and it is interesting to note that where a question concerning women is on the agenda it is a requirement that among the advisers there shall be at least one woman. The work of the I.L.O. is dictated by Conference, organised and controlled by the governing body. The governing body is comprised of 24 Government representatives, 10 of whom come from the States
538
of the greatest industrial importance, 12 employers and 12 workers.
It is quite impossible to cover fully the work and achievements of the I.L.O in the time I can permit myself this evening. It would be unfair to the House. I can only briefly point out that largely the work falls into two categories: first, the traditional function of the I.L.O. for which it was established, the creation of international labour standards; and, second, addition to that important work which still continues, the assistance given, particularly to developing countries, in the field of technical affairs. The I.L.O. does a tremendous amount of work in this direction. I ought to say, I think, that a Convention is an international Instrument and it is fully debated by two meetings of the technical committee of the Conference and can only be confirmed by the Conference by a two-thirds majority.
Of course, this ensures that there is sufficient flexibility within a Convention to enable it to be ratified by a suitable number of States. There has to be this flexibility. It is a requirement, for instance, to take into account local climatic conditions, the degree of organisation of labour in the countries concerned, and so on. It is interesting to know that over 3,300 Conventions have been ratified since 1919. I think it is also interesting and a matter of some pride, to be able to say that the United Kingdom have ratified 65 Conventions. Only France, with 79, Belgium, with 66, and Italy, with 66, have exceeded the number of applications undertaken by this country. So the I.L.O. does give hope to the whole world, and to the developing people of the world in particular, because the fact that a Convention is there gives them a target to aim at, even if at the moment their country has not ratified it.
My Lords, I turn briefly now to the other side. The work in the field is of tremendous importance. I would say in this connection that the budget of the I.L.O. continues to increase because costs continue to rise and we want to expand our work. The total of the 1968 budget is 24,836,091 dollars. I have the job of leading for the workers' group on the financial committee of the I.L.O. I am going there on February 6 to what is called the budget session. I have to

539
negotiate hard with the Governments in particular, but also with the employers; and I so often feel frustrated because of the difficulty of extracting enough money from Governments to enable us to expand our work as we would wish. I have been somewhat heartened by what I have heard this evening, but I hope it is understood—I know we have difficulties in this country, as they have in the U.S.A. and elsewhere—that I would plead with the Government of this country, as I plead with the Governments of others, to be generous in their attitude to the I.L.O. to enable it to complete its work.
My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder in the sense that I would have said much more if I had had the time and had it been courteous to do so. I realise that it is not. I have, I hope, been able to say a few words about the I.L.O. in which I and my colleagues believe so much. I would add one word. There is another important aspect of the I.L.O. It is the one place in the world where employers, workers and Governments sit down and negotiate together. It is a place, too, where we do not have to talk politics, we do not have to use the platform for propaganda purposes, wherever we come from in the world, whatever our political background. It is done—and I regret it—but, on the other hand, here we are dealing with practical matters of concern to the people of the world, things that are really outside this kind of ideologically political approach. Because it builds a bridge between nations and between people, I believe the I.L.O. to be one of the most important, if not the most important, place in the world. Certainly, it is a most important agency of the United Nations' family.
8.30 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, at this late hour, after three late nights, I propose to be very brief. I should like first to join in the congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, on the wonderfully impressive exposition, backed by his intellectual attitude, of his experience and the wonderful amount of knowledge which he brought to his views on this subject. I made one or two notes when the noble Lord was speaking, and one was that when we of the Colonial
540
Service handed over the Flag, we did not hand it to the United Nations but to separate nascent nations; and I very much doubt whether they, having appreciated that freedom, would be prepared to surrender it completely to the United Nations, however attractive that organisation may be made.
The noble Lord referred to the need to re-write the Charter of the United Nations, which no doubt is quite true. He dismissed the authors as having legislated for a world that had passed away. That is very true, of course, but they were also people who thought it worth while to die for views which have now, perhaps unfortunately, passed away—or many of them have. Another thing which struck me was what the noble Lord said about the oath rejecting all loyalties except to mankind. My Lords, I could not accept that as a desirable thing. I believe that one's first loyalty, particularly if one is in a Government position, is to the people of the country concerned, and only secondly to mankind. There is a good deal of logic in that view, because if you do not look after your own people they will not be in a position to help mankind; you are merely qualifying them for the ultimately desirable thing.
My Lords, I was brought up on the principles of Lord Lugard, which were: in the case of a Governor, first the people of the country of which you are temporarily in charge, and then mankind. I have never lost the feeling that that is the right priority. I also believe in the motto:
"Grant I may need no aid from men,
That I may aid such men as need."
My Lords, I believe that an enlightened nationalism (though that also perhaps is not a very popular view to-day) is the greatest force for progress in the world, and I should regret seeing the United Nations' entering in any way into political power. The less they have to do with politics, the better.
I was much impressed with what the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, said about the proposal that the seabed and all the wealth hidden there should be reserved for the benefit of mankind. That is one of the many idealistic views which, if you bring them down to industrial facts, would require a great deal of expert management and capital expenditure,

541
which I hope would not be the job of the United Nations. We talk a great deal, and there has been a great deal of talk to-night, about the future. I believe in taking care of the present, in which case the future is apt to look after itself.
I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, say, among other things (and may I at this moment interrupt myself to say with what great pleasure I listened to him, as I have done for many years past, and the eloquence which becomes him so much whatever the subject with which he may be dealing), that 80 per cent. of the resources spent on the Special Agencies were for international economic development. I was delighted to hear that, and I can only say: Long may it be so! I happen to have strong views on the subject of the role of the United Nations in the world and the desirable limitation of any attempt to give the United Nations increasing powers as an embryo World Government, whatever that may mean.
At this moment I should like to mention (this is the one discordant note in the roans of praise poured out this evening, but it is just as well to get the balance straight) that the United Nations is not always right and not always very creditable in what it does. I would refer to the disgraceful treatment meted out by the United Nations to the South African Government over the question of South-West Africa. It was, I thought, particularly undesirable because the only hope of a happy future and better conditions of living for the people of that territory, the only hope they have ever had in all their history, is a continuation of South African government. The question also of the British Government's treatment of South Africa was dealt with last night, when a vote was taken; so there is no need to say any more about it.
I do not wish these views in any way to obscure my respect for the United Nations Special Agencies which in my opinion represent the most laudable activities, and about which I have no special contribution to make in this debate. To my mind, Her Majesty's Government should give all possible support to such activities which, after all, are aimed at making the world a better place in which to live. But this is a very different matter from the aspiration
542
to build behind and above that barricade of good works a sort of infernal machine, with the ultimate power of a world dictatorship. I regard that as a dream which would rapidly develop into a nightmare, and my excuse for making even these few remarks in this debate is the ominous evidence already present of a desire to interfere in the domestic affairs of certain nations under the false plea that they are dealing with a threat, a menace, to world peace.
If I have interpreted their aims rightly, the Special Agencies are based on the willing consent and co-operation of the nations to whom their aid is extended, without any strings of political power attached. And the success of the activities of the Special Agencies can only be hampered by those who aspire to impose world rule upon reluctant mankind. It is not an inspiring sight, in my view, to contemplate men pontificating about human rights at the United Nations Headquarters: men who often represent nations in whose home countries there is such an absence of freedom of speech, thought and action as would be calculated to bring tears to the hard eyes of the Statue of Liberty. I wish the Special Agencies every possible success in their work.
There is another point which has not been mentioned to-night—that is, that all the real power of to-day surely rests outside the United Nations in the hands of the two super-Powers. Moreover, the voting organisation of the United Nations is, to say the least, a curious system. One man, one vote, may or may not be a good idea, but I think that one nation, one vote, makes very little sense outside a debating society.
The excursions of the United Nations into world affairs have up to date had a rather large proportion of failures. The most noticeable has been the Congo. The world has generally been governed in its various countries by small cliques, powerful well-knit groups at the centre of power. I can only say, Heaven forbid that we should deliberately try to create such conditions with a world background with no means of dismissing a group that we cannot control in these circumstances! In human affairs we ignore at our peril human nature. But human nature does not change. I remember some years ago talking to the late Sir Charles Darwin

543
about the book he wrote, The Next Million Years. I asked him why he had called it The Next Million Years. He said, "I called it that because in no period less than a million years would any change in human nature be perceptible". I think that one cannot leave out human nature, however big an idealist one may be.
Originally the ideal democracy was a system whereby there was to be the least possible interference with local and individual liberty. We are doing away with that with our passion for centralising power and authority, but that can be limited under an electoral system. In my view, if we have a world government, we inevitably breed a dictatorship and a world of virtual slaves with it. Whether the United Nations will grow into a world order or collapse into chaos is open to anybody to express a view about. Prediction is perilous, but I see no enduring values which could make such an organisation beneficially develop into a government of mankind. Perhaps that is the feeling that makes some men want to conspire to break up the world and remould it nearer to their hearts desire. Of course, the trouble is that they may smash it, and there will be no rebuilding it. They would need a United Nations, but possibly it would not be there.
I have no doubt at all that outside the pressure groups in the United Nations there are idealists who are anxious to build this perfect organisation of government to maintain peace on earth. But I think that they ought to remember the story of the king who planned to build the most beautiful palace on earth, but who on digging the foundations found the ruins of a palace which had been built by a former king, on each stone of which was inscribed the lines:
"After me cometh a builder.
Tell him, I, too, have known".
It is very ambitious to think that we can build an organisation which will stand all the tests of time. No man can foresee what the United Nations may or may not develop into. I do not wish to deny that the United Nations has done a great deal of good, especially through its Special Agencies. What it can do in future to help in bringing peace, order and happiness to the world may be very great, but one thing I am sure it will not
544
bring—it will not bring in a World Government.
8.46 p.m.
LORD CARADON: My Lords, the hour is late and it is difficult to attempt to comment on the wide range of speeches made. I have found them fascinating, and I am greatly tempted to pursue a number of matters which have been raised. I must resist that temptation, however, and I am sure that noble Lords will fully support me in that resistance.
I would say, first of all, that I was delighted to be able to hear the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, speak. He was one of the most distinguished colonial administrators of his generation, and I, in a humble way, followed him in a number of territories and sought to build on the solid foundations which he had established. I am sometimes a little surprised to hear and read his speeches in your Lordships' House, and I look back to the days when in a number of territories he introduced some very progressive Constitutions. When he eventually left our Colonial Service, full of honour and distinction, he was wise enough to join my Party. I am sorry that he is now on the other side of the House, and it seems to me that many of his observations dim somewhat the brilliance of a record which those of us who served after him so admiringly remember.
I shall not attempt to follow him into a number of the matters which he raised, but perhaps I may take one as an example. The noble Lord spoke of one country, one vote, but to suggest that the United Nations is based on one country, one vote, is a delusion. It is not based on reality. Power in the United Nations, as we know, rests not with the General Assembly, capable only of making recommendations. I would claim that every country, even a small country, has a right to be heard. Power is concentrated in the Security Council and is further concentrated in the hands of the four veto-carrying Powers. I would certainly say that the frustrations and failures of the United Nations are not due to the small nations' expressing their opinions by their speeches and their votes: they are due most certainly to the great Powers.
As I said earlier, there is nothing wrong with the United Nations except the

545
members. Naturally we think that it is the members who do not agree with us, but I dare say that there are various views on that. I myself consider that the principle of the Charter, by which all nations shall have a right to speak and right to vote in the Assembly, whereas they have no power to make decisions in regard to world security, is sound, and I would defend that right. People who speak about weighted voting in the Assembly and about the variation of the Charter are first of all not going to achieve their purpose, because there is not going to be any major change in the Charter in the foreseeable future; and secondly, I think they would be misguided to attempt it.
I was greatly delighted that we could finish this long debate, which must touch on so many different subjects, with two authoritative statements from two noble Lords who are probably the best qualified men in the world to speak on their subjects. It is well that we should be brought back at the end of this debate, in which we have covered so much ground, to listen to the discussion which has been carried for us to-day by the noble Lord who speaks to us about the World Health Organisation and the noble Lord who speaks to us about the International Labour Organisation. I think that at the end of the day we wanted a reminder that the family of the United Nations is engaged on practical, essential and progressive work. We could not have listened to two better speeches in this stage of our proceedings. I greatly appreciate what the two noble Lords said.
I think all I can do at this stage is to take maybe the headings that stand in my mind and say a sentence or two on each. But there is one subject on which I feel an obligation to reply possibly at slightly greater length, because several noble Lords have spoken with great passion on it. It is a subject of which I will admit I was ignorant when I heard them speak, but I should like them to listen to the explanation which is provided, and I should like them at least to think it over. I would not expect them to accept immediately what I say, but I would ask them to think about it and we will discuss it at some subsequent time.
I refer to the question of the World Health Organisation Board. Your Lordships
546
may remember that my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder dealt with this, followed strongly by others, including my noble friend Lord Crook. I must say that it is a great delight to me to see my noble friend Lord Crook here. We have certain people who are, I might say, monuments in the United Nations, who we feel are part of the Organisation, and we should expect the noble Lord to come to New York as he goes to Geneva regularly doing the work for which he is greatly respected throughout the whole organisation, because we know him to be a man of absolute integrity and absolute fact. He supported, too, the case put to us on the World Health Organisation Board.
It is perfectly true that the United Kingdom are among the sponsors of a resolution. I look, first of all, to see whether our company was respectable, at the other members of the sponsoring group, and I am bound to say that they do not seem to me particularly reactionary or misguided: Mexico, New Zealand, Nigeria, Panama, the Philippines, Italy, Germany, France, Canada, Brazil, Australia, Argentina and the United States of America. If we are wrong, there are several others who are wrong with us.
The resolution makes a proposition. I should explain that the existing provisions of the World Health Organisation constitution, whereby members of the Executive Board must be persons "technically qualified in the field of health", remains absolutely unchanged. The Board's qualifications to take decisions on medical matters on technical grounds will therefore not be impaired in the slightest. The Board's constitutional duties remain completely untouched. The sole change proposed is to add the privilege that the members of the Board represent the Governments by whom they are designated. In practice, the members of the Executive Board, who are senior civil servants, and sometimes Ministers, already reflect their Government's views when political, administrative or financial considerations are at issue. By the way, the United Kingdom is not a member of the Board. We hope that it may be very soon restored to the Board, and we shall be represented when that happens in exactly the same way as we were before, and by the same man, Sir George Godber, the

547
Chief Medical Officer at the Ministry of Health.
The point of the Amendment is that it strengthens the authority of the Board when dealing with such matters, and brings the World Health Organisation constitution into line with the other major Specialised Agencies, whose Executive Boards or Governing Councils are composed of Government representatives. This is appropriate, since the Boards have increasingly to deal with matters relating to financial and administrative practices and the programme of co-ordination. At the same time, the World Health Organisation will be changing over to the more efficient and economical system of biennial instead of annual budgets. This is the right moment, therefore, to make clear in the constitution that the Executive Board remains available as the continuing organ in which Government views can be made known between Assemblies.
We do not see why the proposed change should lead to greater national or sectional pressure being put on the Director-General than hitherto. Moreover, the system whereby members of Executive Boards or Governing Bodies are Government representatives exists in the other main Specialised Agencies and has not destroyed the integrity of their international stance. I trust, therefore, that noble Lords, who obviously feel very strongly about this matter, and who are cerainly free to raise the matter with me again if they wish, will realise that the change proposed is to bring the World Health Organisation, for reasons which on the face of them seem to me to be sound, into line with the practice in other Specialised Agencies. I do not think it would be regarded as a disgraceful act, or that it would justify perhaps the strong language that I have heard from behind me in the course of this debate.
I will turn to deal more shortly with the question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, on the Food and Agriculture Organisation. I would seek to summarise the situation which I do know, unlike the particular matter of the representation on the World Health Organisation Board, which was not familiar to me before it was raised. On the question of the Food and Agriculture Organisation, Dr. Sen, one of the great men I would say of our generation, who has
548
been in charge of this organisation for a long period, has rendered magnificent service. But I think that we in this country remember him particularly perhaps for the "Freedom from Hunger" campaign which he inaugurated and in which our country took a leading part in the world. We all respect Dr. Sen.
But there came a time—it often happens in organisations—when, after the first twenty years it was necessary to look again at the whole structure of the Food and Agriculture Organisation. The task was wisely undertaken, I think, by an independent board, of which Sir John Fletcher-Cooke was the deputy chairman. A very thorough job was done. It is perhaps not altogether surprising that Dr. Sen, at the end of his period of office, disagreed with some of the proposals which were put by the board. What is the sensible thing to do? To allow the new Director-General, Dr. Boman, of the Netherlands, who is to carry responsibility in future years, to work with the special committee established which is to report in October of this year. And the changes will not be introduced until next year. I think therefore there is nothing very revolutionary or surprising about this. At the end of an era led by, as I say, a man of outstanding ability it was necessary to review. The review was carried out to make the changes. They are not being made in a hurry. Our own policy is fully reflected in the decisions so taken, and our own representative has played a leading part.
I must say here something about the most fascinating subject of the deep-sea bed. I dare say that if this debate is remembered at all it will be remembered as the seabed debate, and I thank my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder most warmly again for having brought this subject to our notice. I am not going to comment on it in detail now. As your Lordships know there was established in the last Assembly a Commission to undertake a review of all aspects of this question. This country is represented on that body, and we will play our full part, most certainly, bearing in mind the considerations that have been mentioned here in this debate.
We sometimes hear sneering reference—not here, of course, but elsewhere—to the smaller nations of the world, and the

549
suggestion that it is only the great nations that can make contributions in matters of great consequence. I like to go back in my mind to the remarkable enterprise and initiative shown by Ambassador Pardoe of Malta in the last Assembly—one of the most striking things that has been achieved since the United Nations was established. He had a small delegation of probably not more than three senior officers in the New York office, without the backing of a great Government and opportunities of research behind him. He brought up a subject which was not popular. There were various considerations. People were not altogether happy that it should be brought forward. The Ambassador of Malta insisted that it should, and then with great skill and persuasion he convinced all concerned, including the Soviet Union—which is not easy—to go with him on the definition of the terms of reference of the body he wanted us to set up. He carried it through, and in the end obtained a unanimous vote, 99 to nil, in the General Assembly. That is a magnificent example of what can be done, and it may well be that in bringing this matter to the notice of the international community and insisting it should be carried through—it does not go through merely by insisting; you have to work for it—and getting a unanimous vote, one man of a small country has been able to alter the whole prospect of the world. I make no further comment, except again to express my admiration for a small country and a brilliant Ambassador.
We can spend a lot of time talking about population, and on this subject I listened to what was said by many noble Lords, including, particularly, the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier. I agree with him. I myself went to the Population Conference in Chile, and indeed made the opening address. It was a breakthrough, as the noble Lord suggested, because this was the first time that such a conference had been held, or could be held, in Latin America. It was much to the credit of President Frey that he should be prepared, with a certain amount of attack directed at him, to allow this world-wide conference to meet in his capital. I would not attempt to say more about the whole problem, which has been very well brought before us this evening.
I would just say this. I had the privilege on Human Rights Day, December
550
10, to speak for 17 nations in the Economic Council of the United Nations. Those 17 nations were that day signing the Population Declaration. Your Lordships will remember that on Human Rights Day last year 12 nations, not the most powerful in the world—India and Yugoslavia, I remember, were among them—signed a Population Declaration. I think it is one of the historic documents of the world. They pledged themselves and their Governments to work for the purposes of an amazing document, not yet sufficiently known. The following year 17 Heads of State on Human Rights Day, December 10 last, including our Prime Minister, came forward to sign the Declaration. I was privileged to speak for the 17 nations, including the United States of America. Now, therefore, there are 29 signatories, representing a third of the population of the world, who have pledged themselves to a Declaration which I believe will be famous in history. So we have made some progress. I have no time to go into detail, but I believe that all the machinery of the United Nations and its Agencies is gradually being brought into operation to have an effect on this which, I agree, is certainly one of the most urgent problems, if not the most urgent problem, in the world.
I will say one word on organisation. Several matters were raised about reorganisation of the United Nations Secretariat. A major reorganisation is just being undertaken. The Secretary-General found that having 23 or 24 under-secretaries, all with direct access to him, does not work—naturally, it does not. He is now providing that there shall be 11 under-secretaries, who will have the senior positions, and then there will be the second rank of under-secretaries. It is a new organisation, fully approved at the last Assembly and now being put into effect. I am glad to be able to tell my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder that the article which he read in this morning's Guardian is not accurate. I will not accept the fact that in the senior hierarchy of the United Nations there should not be a British representative; and I have no reason to think there will not be.
There is one other point I must make to correct a misapprehension. The noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, in a speech which to all of us who work in

551
the United Nations was full of wisdom and the knowledge that comes from having served there, said we had dropped the process of Parliamentary representation in our delegation. That is not so. I am glad to be able to assure her that, on the contrary, far from dropping Parliamentary representation, we now have a stronger Parliamentary representation than we have ever had before, including myself as Resident Minister, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell. We have had also the very great benefit of a Member of the other place who has been carrying the great load of the Fourth Committee on colonial questions through the last Assembly, and to whom I owe a great debt. He has done a very fine job for us. He is a Member of Parliament who has been prepared to go for three months, without a break, to New York, which is not easy, as many of your Lordships will know. So, on the contrary, we are very anxious to maintain our Parliamentary representation and, if possible, to increase it.
I should also like to say that it is not actually true that all the recruitment is delayed and prejudiced by geographical distribution. In, for instance, the United Nations Development Programme, which is, I think, the biggest single effort of the whole U.N., the selection of experts is made on the basis of merit and not on the basis of nationality. Incidentally, I would say that our country provides for the expert assistance of the United Nations a greater number, a greater proportion, than any other country in the world.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, I was thinking of the central staff.
LORD CARADON: I think in the United Nations Central Secretariat it is so. But, as I say, it is not so otherwise, to my certain knowledge, because I served under the United Nations Development Programme. I also say to the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, that the reform of the United Nations Charter will not happen. The Russians are perfectly frank about it. They say that we were lucky to get it in 1945 and we probably should not get it now, and we had better make the best of it. I do not complain about the Charter.
552
We can make the Charter work, of course. If there is the will to co-operate, almost anything can be made to work, but if there is no will then nothing will work. It is unreal to think of abolishing the veto. If we do that, no super-Powers will be in the Security Council, willing to hand over their powers to a committee, when they have a vote of one. This is an essential part of their contract and it will be maintained, and all we can do about it is to work day by day to try to get a better understanding. I think there is now a better understanding between East and West and, God willing, we shall one day have a better understanding between North and South.
I must also make some reference to Lord Ritchie-Calder's terrifying picture of the aid going to the tapeworm and not to the developing countries. The noble Lord knows very well, but I should like to say to your Lordships, that the main reform we have made in the past two or three years in our overseas development aid from this country is that the greater part of our loans are now made interest free. I am glad we can claim to lead the world in giving our aid interest free so that we do not have to ensure that our money is not going to feed the tapeworm.
I was struck by the speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell. Although we work together day by day and see each other every day in New York, unfortunately I never hear her speak because we work in different places. I am happy to have personal confirmation of the high opinions I have heard from everyone else about her speeches. When she got halfway through her speech I was concerned—was she attacking the whole concept of the United Nations? Of course she was doing nothing of the kind. What she was doing was to show us that if we are unable to deal effectively with the problems of race they will poison everything else, and if we cannot deal with that problem I do not believe there are any other problems in the same category. Indeed, they are all wrapped up with the problems of population and of poverty.
Regarding the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Soper, I will merely say, on disarmament, that in the United Nations disarmament can proceed only step by step, from the Test Ban to the

553
Outer Space Treaty, to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, to the Latin American Nuclear Ban. That is the way to proceed. If there were no progress I should be alarmed, but there has been progress, and we hope it will not be long before the Non-Proliferation Treaty is a fact.
I was asked especially to say something about Gibraltar and the deplorable resolution passed in the Assembly. The reasons for that vote were various and many of them were quite irrelevant to the issue of Gibraltar, but it was some comfort to us that a number of Commonwealth countries stood boldly with us. In close consultation with the peoples of Gibraltar, we did not hesitate to condemn the resolution in forthright terms. In all our policies we have sought to be guided by the sound principles of the Charter: that the interests of all the people should be paramount. That is the principle which guides us, and with more than 750 million of the people in the Commonwealth now in independent countries the principle has been tested and tried and found to be sure and true. It is a principle which we have declared and which we have sought to carry out without discrimination, as much in Rhodesia as in Gibraltar, as much as in any other country for which we have had a colonial responsibility to discharge.
I should like to make one reference to the subject of the new nations, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. I was interested in what he said and, in passing, on the question of what the Secretary-General calls the "micro-States". We do not want to see smaller countries enter the United Nations. I believe there is to be, as the noble Lord suggested, some new thinking, as to how we can deal with these 30 to 40 small territories round the world which maybe do not wish to become members of the United Nations. The island of Naura does not wish to come to the United Nations, although they are now independent. This is a separate problem. I am glad the noble Lord has drawn attention to it. We are pursuing consideration of it. I would say, in passing, that I think the whole United Nations system draws its strength and value from the fact that the great Powers now no longer can have it all their own way; they have to consider and win the support of the general membership. That is an important development.
554
That is the part to be played by the new nations. Although I say the power of veto lies with the four Permanent Members, no Permanent Member can get any positive proposal approved unless he carries the Afro-Asians, Canadians and Danes, the other members of the Council.
Finally I would say this. I like controversy. I do not think we should be afraid of making this a matter of Party controversy if necessary, but I do not believe there is any great need for it. The noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, quoted Sir Alec Douglas-Home and what he has said from time to time. I worked with him when he was Foreign Secretary and often sat through long meetings of the General Assembly at his side, and there is no one for whom I have a higher personal respect. Sometimes I think he adopts a somewhat belligerent tone which is misleading as to his intention. I read his speech in Oxford the other day and I could find little to object to. He made a speech at Berwick which was interpreted as an attack on the United Nations. I do not think he intended it to be. As we work in New York in a delegation led by Members of this side of the House, I should hope we can feel we carry the support not only of one Party but of this noble House.
9.16 p.m.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, I am not going to detain your Lordships. I want to say "Thank you" to everyone who has made this debate a very remarkable occasion. We have covered an enormous amount of ground, as one could have foreseen from the scope provided by the Motion. I should not like to think that I should end this debate with the one discordant note I have ever struck with the noble Lord, Lord Caradon. I still do not accept the retreat from the principle. I am going to leave the last word in this debate with a man for whom I have the most profound respect, one of the greatest international civil servants who ever lived, Dr. Brock Chisholm, the first Director-General of the World Health Organisation. The World Health Organisation has been uniquely fortunate in all its Directors-General. This is what he said—what I call his "farewell to the old guard", his valedictory to the organisation:
"The Executive Board, to be able to fulfil its highly important role as technical adviser

555
to, and executive organ of, the Assembly, is composed of members responsible to the Assembly alone, not to Governments or to any other bodies. In most instances the Board has lived up to its responsibilities. Many members have scrupulously honoured them, occasionally even in the face of heavy pressure of religious and political groups. Others"—
meaning members of the Board—
"on the other hand have on occasions clearly represented special interests, regional, national or other—and a very few have appeared to be acting under instructions or external pressures. Any such failure of members of the Executive Board to recognise their exclusive responsibility to the Assembly represents the greatest possible threat to the integrity of the organisation".
This I endorse, with the kind of enthusiasm with which the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, was apparently reproaching it.
"It is absolutely essential that the Assembly should be able to feel complete confidence that the advice which it receives from the Executive Board is based on technical considerations and entirely free from national or group interest of any kind of degree. Nothing short of complete world-mindedness is acceptable in any member of the Executive Board."
Those are Dr. Brock Chisholm's views, and I leave the last word with him. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

MILITARY AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT
9.20 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the present methods and results of procurement of military aircraft. The noble Earl said: my Lords, may I start by saying, particularly owing to the lateness of the hour, that I consider it something of a compliment that the Leader of the House should be personally replying to this Unstarred Question on the procurement of military aircraft. May I take this opportunity of adding my congratulations on his recent appointment.
As the noble Lord will probably recall, this Question has been on and off the Order Paper ever since last November, and although a good deal has happened since that time, and I and my noble friends Lord St. Oswald and Lord Caldecote, have had to re-write our
556
speeches at least twice to keep up with events, I greatly hope that to-night the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, will be even more forthcoming than usual when he comes to reply, for the subject of military aircraft procurement is, as he well knows, causing the deepest concern and despair to the Royal Air Force and the British aircraft industry.
The frequency with which policy changes are made, and cancellation after cancellation of projects are announced, not only has undermined the confidence of those concerned with procurement in Britain, but has literally shattered the confidence of our potential customers abroad. The hard truth to-day, with this record of cancellations over the past few years and the vacillation of British policy on the future of the British aircraft industry, is that I believe the position has been reached where no country is prepared to risk its own security by placing an order for a British military aircraft project only to find that it is later cancelled.
One of the chief weaknesses in the present system of procurement, as I see it, lies in the process from the time the strategic and tactical requirement of a military aircraft project has been laid down by the Royal Air Force and their advisers, to the time that that project reaches its production stage. During this intermediate stage—and perhaps I should advise the House that I take my information from the Zuckerman Report of 1963, and from various friends in the industry—the full specification of the project is threshed out by committee after committee of civil servants, by experts after experts, and now by Government Department after Government Department.
Whereas one welcomes the thoroughness to which every project is subjected before large sums of public money are committed, the weakness of the process appears to lie in the appalling lack of decision during this period and, of course, arising from this lack of decision, the long and irritating delays in time. Also, there is the tendency for the specification of the project to be so enlarged and complicated in committee that ultimately it proves too expensive for the contractor to produce and is cancelled.
How one streamlines and improves this process, while retaining the safeguards for the public purse, I do not pretend to answer to-night; but what is obvious, even to an outsider like myself, is that unless the process is drastically streamlined British projects in the future will suffer the same fate as those in the past, and the public purse will continue to pay out large sums in cancellation charges. I believe it is urgently necessary for the Government to correct the faults that seem so apparent at the present time.
Many of us over the last few weeks will have read a number of leading articles in the Press on the cancellation charge of military projects. It is an interesting fact, and not, if I may say so, a political point, that the Minister of Defence has broken a number of records since he has been in office. During his three years he has cancelled five major aircraft projects and will, after the settlement of the F.111 charges, have dipped into the public purse and paid out well over £300 million in compensation, and there is not even a single altimeter to show for it. Secondly, the Minister has produced more White Papers and revised White Papers than any previous Minister; and, lastly, he has put his shirt on two horses, the A.F.V.G. and the F.111, both of which have failed to complete the course. It is not, I think he would agree with me, a proud record.
But the latest cancellation is to my mind the most damaging of all. It is, of course, the F.111. As the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, himself stated last Tuesday, not only is this a body blow to the pride and effectiveness of the Royal Air Force, and not only will it cost this country an enormous amount in dollars on cancellation charges, but, even more important, it will cost the country in the future a sum that can never really properly be evaluated. It is the future American orders that British aircraft firms might have won but for the feeling of prejudice which might arise from this cancellation. This feeling of prejudice could well spread both in the military and civil markets.
There are four questions I should like to ask the noble Lord to-night on the cancellation charge of the F.111. First, can he give us an estimate of the likely total cost of the cancellation, bearing in
558
mind the terms of the cancellation clause in the original contract? Secondly, will these charges be reduced? Because at the time of cancellation the performance of the aircraft had not reached anywhere near the stage of the guaranteed performance. Thirdly, before the cancellation took place was Australia consulted as to whether they would like to take on the British order, as they had no fixed ceiling price in their own contract? Finally, was the figure indicated last night by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, of £4·3 million per aircraft the total estimated cost of the aircraft, or was it a good deal less?
I should like briefly to turn to the military projects which have so far escaped the Government guillotine. I should like to ask the noble Lord for more information about the Harrier. This brilliantly designed aircraft has suffered, in my opinion, from the unaccountable delay of the Government to announce a firm order for the Royal Air Force. Instead of placing a firm contract, the Government have, as I understand it simply given the financial go-ahead for production. Such action, in my opinion, not only loses the chance of valuable publicity for the Harrier, but it the eyes of potential buyers abroad it must seem that if the British Government are not themselves prepared to place a firm contract, then the likelihood of cancellation must be "on the cards".
I should like also to ask the noble Lord about the British V.G. project, in the light of Mr. Healey's television interview last week. The noble Lord no doubt will recall that Mr. Healey seemed to indicate then that our future security would rest in the mid-1970s largely with our American friends giving us protection with their long-range strike reconnaissance aircraft. This, anyway, was the gist of what he said. Would the noble Lord to-night confirm that, if we can find no partner to join us with the V.G. project, we are prepared to go it alone? If not, what is the Government's contingency plan for equipping the Royal Air Force for a long-range strike reconnaissance aircraft when the Canberras are phased out? I should also like to ask the noble Lord, if he has time, to give information about the Jaguar and to say whether or not the project is proceeding satisfactorily in relation to time and cost.

559
Further, could the noble Lord confirm if there has been any escalation in the cost of the Phantom project?
The policy of the Government on military aircraft procurement vitally affects the British aircraft industry. This great industry, which is one of only three aircraft industries in the world capable of actually designing and producing sophisticated modern aircraft, has suffered tremendously from Government policies in the past. Cancellation of projects has caused a severe loss of confidence among potential overseas buyers. Now, the industry is faced with a Government policy of collaboration often with European partners one-tenth its size. Experience of collaboration over military aircraft projects, with the notable exception of the Jaguar, has not been a happy one. Problems of design leadership, and even problems of mutual trust in the partners, occur. I hope very much that in future the Government will see it as their clear duty to give the industry every encouragement and to safeguard their interests, particularly their interests in regard to design leadership, when collaboration is arranged. I hope also that they will not only seek European collaboration, but also international co-operation with Australia, New Zealand and Canada. It has been estimated that over the next twelve years the potential market for military aircraft in Europe alone is over 6,000 aircraft, and I hope that to-night the noble Lord will re-affirm the Government's support of the aircraft industry in winning a share of this market.
The procurement policy of military aircraft for the Royal Air Force l as never somersaulted so many times as it has in the last three years, and although it may be argued by the Government that the Royal Air Force are, and will be, equipped to meet their commitments, it must seem to many people that it is, in fact, the commitments that have been tailored to meet the equipment. The Government's policy on military aircraft procurement is not a happy one, and tonight I do not envy the noble Lord in his job, particularly as an ex-Minister for the Royal Air Force, of trying to defend this unworthy policy.
9.31 p.m.
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: My Lords, in accordance with our usual custom I
560
must declare an interest in the subject of this debate, as I am connected with an aircraft company. It is very tempting, in debates of this kind, to use them to pay off old scores, to climb on hobbyhorses and to make Party points. But I will do my best to resist all those things because this is not in any way a petty matter, nor is it a Party issue.
Some people might think that this was a rather inopportune moment to debate the military aircraft procurement problems. I do not think so at all, and we are greatly indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for instigating this debate. For I believe that this is a really serious national problem and also, as I hope I shall show later, a European problem. I agree wholeheartedly with the comment made about two years ago by the Plow-den Committee, when discussing the problems of the industry. They said:
"We cannot afford to admit defeat in this particular industry, while hoping that solutions will be found in others. Rather we must seek a solution here which may also have more general application."
That is as true now as it was when that Report was written.
I should like to spend a few moments on looking at the past, for it is from there that we must learn the lessons for the future. Following the very substantial rearmament at the time of the Korean troubles, there was a period of tremendous enthusiasm for new projects. The development work-load increased rapidly, and little or no effort was made to estimate the capacity of industry as a whole to meet that load. The first danger signals of bad planning arose, and in Government and industry the estimators and the cost controllers were overwhelmed by the technical enthusiasts. All this resulted in rising costs and long delays, and there followed a time, which might be called the period of the search for solutions, which was perhaps ushered in by the 1957 White Paper. It diagnosed correctly that there were unhealthy trends, but it prescribed the wrong remedy and very nearly killed the patient.
Then in the early 'sixties there were the first big mergers in the airframe and engine industries. They rightly demanded the formation of stronger units, and these were formed on very sound principles. Those mergers were carried through by agreement, on the promise of better planning and a steadier work load. There

561
was at that time rising confidence in the industry and in the Services. There was a determination to profit by past errors, and there was, apparently, a growing appreciation of the importance of cost. But the scene, unfortunately, was still dominated by technical enthusiasts. At that time, for instance, the specification and so the cost of the TSR.2 was allowed to escalate. Performance, in fact, was still paramount.
I think we can say that that phase continued until about 1962, and then we entered what might be called the age of indecision, of vacillation and wasted opportunities—an age which extends, I am afraid, to the present. The Conservatives failed at that time to take decisions till far too late in many important areas. They set the bad example of beginning to buy large quantities of aircraft from the United States when they ordered the Phantom, and this "Rake's progress" of purchases from America has been continued by the present Government. But to be fair, and to the credit of the Government and Party of noble Lords opposite, they have set an example in taking the first steps for effective European co-operation in the co-operative development of military aircraft. So much for the past.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I do not want to interrupt my noble friend, but the fact is that the Anglo-French variable-geometry project was not set in motion by the present Administration at all. It was set in motion by Mr. Julian Amery, when he was Minister of Aviation.
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: My Lords, I accept that correction, but I think it is fair to say—one gives credit where credit is due—that the Jaguar is the first really effective co-operative military aircraft project. We must be fair in your Lordships' House.
My Lords, there are many complex issues involved in this, and we must avoid the temptation to go into too many details. However, there are a few broad conclusions which we can draw from the past. First of all, there are three undeniable facts. Nowadays, virtually any specification of performance can be met if sufficient money is made available. This is a new factor in the last 15 years. Since money is not unlimited, the specification
562
must be limited to control the expenditure. In other words, the performance, the time and the cost of any aircraft project are closely linked together. You cannot give equal priority to cost and to performance at the same time. In the past, performance and time were paramount. Now, I believe, we have to make cost and time the first considerations.
Secondly, my Lords, the period from conception of a new aircraft to its delivery into service is some seven to ten years. The basic political cycle is, unfortunately, only four to five years, with very considerable perturbation at shorter intervals. Because this is very often not appreciated, apparently, many wrong decisions are taken, and many valuable resources are sorely wasted by attempts to alter development policy to fit in with short-term changes in political thinking. Thirdly, the development of any airborne vehicle, such as an aircraft, is of a different order of cost and difficulty from any other engineering project. There are many reasons for this, which we have not time to go into to-night. There are reasons of space, weight limitation and the very complex systems of engineering involved. Because of the very high cost and the difficulty, if we are to get good value for money, these considerations demand long production runs; and this points to the great advantages of European co-operation in these expensive projects and, perhaps even more important, the acceptance of market size as one of the prime considerations when the specification is being determined.
I believe that these three factors account for the vast majority of the difficulties that have beset us since the war in the procurement and development of military aircraft. The ability of the British aircraft industry to meet the specifications that have been demanded from them, is not, I believe, in question, and I do not think that any industry has a better record of producing first-class aircraft than the British aircraft industry. The trouble has all too often been that the specification has been wrongly drawn.
Those, my Lords, are in my view some major points in the diagnosis of our problem. What, then, is the cure? I think we must first appreciate that the most effective combination of design, development and production experience

563
rests in industry, and that it is industry which can achieve the most cost-effective solution to the Service's problems. I believe, therefore, that if we are to exploit to the full this knowledge and experience in industry the problems of the Services should be given to industry at the earliest possible stage. Do not give industry a specification which is half-way towards a solution of the problem. Give industry as early as possible the problem that the Service wants to solve. Tell it the cost limitation on development and production; and give it the freest possible opportunities to exploit its experience. Do not hamstring it by saying that it may not have this or that industrial partnership, whether national or international. Tell it clearly what time-scale is required; and allow it—indeed, encourage it—to take full account of export potential. I believe that if that were done we should get much better value for money; industry would be completely involved in the project from the start, and they would be able to put forward the most economic and effective way of solving the Services' problem.
Secondly, let the Government do their long-term planning; let them order equipment on the best information available on what the requirement will be when the equipment goes into service. Let there be no question of cancellation in the future, provided that the specification is being met. Resist the temptation to abandon any project for reasons of short-term political expediency or re-assessment of a requirement many years ahead which may well alter again back to the original requirement.
Thirdly, as I have already said, to ensure value for money spent on very expensive developments, it is essential to ensure that there should be a long production run. It is very doubtful whether the British home market will ever be sufficient to achieve that. It is therefore of great importance to encourage a greater and greater European market. This is not at all easy to achieve because, unfortunately, every country wants to develop its own aircraft in each field, and this leads to excessive European competition. If that goes too far then, in my view, the European aviation industry will be killed stone dead, and by 1980 it will be totally dominated by the American industry.
564
It is true that, ideally, each European specification would be met by a single country with the other countries buying from the producer. This has been found to be impracticable in the past, and I do not believe that we can get to this situation in the near future. Thus we have to go (and have gone successfully in the case of Jaguar) to co-operative development by two or more countries with the hope that other countries will buy in large numbers. The objective, of course, must be to make such collaboration as efficient and effective as the development would be if it had been carried out by a single company. But however effective development is, it will be pretty useless if there is no market for it at the end of the road.
My Lords, I believe that it is of tremendous importance that the Governments of European countries should accept the principle that European-developed products should have some priority in meeting defence requirements. Some people will say that to achieve that state of affairs is totally impossible before we get together as a single European political unit. If that is true, then I am afraid that the prospects for a continuing, viable and independent European aviation industry are bad—because we are not going to get together politically in Europe within the next, I would guess, ten years. Time is not on our side. If we do not get together within a short time to avoid excessive European competition we shall lose a very large part of the market, which the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, suggested was of the order of 6,000 military aircraft. We shall lose a large part of that market to the American companies.
If that happens, I believe that we shall have taken an irretrievable step towards the domination of the European aviation industry by America. I would urge the Government to take the initiative in calling a conference of European Governments to look into what can be done to take a further step forward in agreeing common European specifications for military aircraft. I believe that if they did that they would be surprised at the response they would get. It may be said that industry ought to take the initiative in this respect. Already this has been done to a large degree. A.I.C.M.A., the Western European Aviation Trades Association, has already had a number of

565
meetings and has set up working groups to investigate what can be done to improve the efficiency of European collaboration and to investigate other similar matters. But in the long run, of course, Governments are the customers for military aircraft, and all these activities will be of little avail unless the Governments can agree on common specifications for European military aircraft.
My Lords, I believe that it is of great interest to this country, and to Europe as well, that we should solve this problem of the efficient procurement of military aircraft. If we fail, we shall fail in the civil field, too. Europe will lose the important advantage of a stimulating, growing and exciting technological industry, in which Britain is very well equipped to play a leading part and earn her just and valuable reward.
9.46 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, after the previous two days of long and, for the Government, punishing debate, I intend to say very little of what could be said on this subject. Moreover, I am, if possible, even more reluctant than usual to rub salt into the wounds—partly self-inflicted though they be—of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. Many on this side of your Lordships' House who count themselves as warm friends of the noble Lord had reason to be proud of that friendship on Tuesday, when he bore himself with a dignified humility rare in our political breed. I hope that he will take my congratulations on his promotion to his new office as read.
Having said that, my Lords, I must also say that one of the less desirable political phenomena of our epoch is the inexpungible smugness of the Secretary of State for Defence. It was once said of a leading politician that he had a great deal to be modest about. Mr. Healey has nothing whatever to be smug about. Seldom can any senior Minister have handled his stewardship more deplorably in three-and-a-half years. I understand than, in a broadcast earlier this week he excused himself for his repeated contradictions in policy by implying that when it came to breaking pledges he was merely a cog in the machine. My Lords, if that be so he is a very slippery and poorly engineered cog, not able to obtain any real purchase on the driving parts of the machine
566
of Government. I understand that in the same broadcast Mr. Healey also said:
"I learn more as time goes on …"
It must be the most expensive tuition that any British subject has ever been given at public expense, utterly eclipsing any saving to be made by the postponement of the higher school-leaving age.
The Labour Party, when in Opposition, taunted and growled at what they called our squandering of money on projects later cancelled. Government supporters still refer sneeringly to £84 million spent on Blue Streak. Yet Blue Streak is to-day serving the technological purpose of this Government as part of the experimental satellite launcher—par: of their handsome inheritance from the previous Government. Their squanderings, their cancellations, have been gargantuan. According to figures given a little earlier by my noble friend, which I shall not repeat, within weeks of taking office they had scrapped £195 million-worth of endeavour on TSR.2 and £2l million-worth on P.11–54—to name only two out of the products included under his figure. They have since been cancelling, or failing to provide, the replacements for what Conservative policy would have provided had the Conservative Party remained in Office. The Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft, once the core of Mr. Healey's air defence policy, fell through seven months ago. With my noble friend, I should like to know to what extent and in what manner this project is being carried forward without French participation. Together with my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, I was dismayed by the innuendo that this project was not going very well and might be dropped.
I should also like to know what the cancellation costs will be for the F.111K, the Chinook helicopters and the 10 cancelled Buccaneers. Could the noble Lord also tell us whether these costs are included in the advertised savings announced by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence, or whether the savings will be reduced when the cancellation costs are paid—as they will have to be paid. In truth, as my noble friend Lord Kinnoull said earlier when he put down this Question, before the Recess, there was a good deal more to say about

567
aircraft procurement, because a good deal more aircraft were apparently being procured.
One way of avoiding the sort of searching and no doubt discomfiting Questions put down by my noble friend is to cancel all weapons. We know that there is a strong body of the Government Party which would like to do just that. I hope that the noble Lord the Leader of the House, with his new power and strength within the Government, is aware of the extent to which we rely upon him to protect what remains of our defence, both in men and in weapons. We count upon him to do this so long as the present Government remain in office. He could then count upon us, and in particular upon my right honourable friend Mr. Enoch Powell, with an easy mind.
9.52 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the course of this debate has only confirmed to me the total unsuitability of Unstarred Questions when in the hands of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, for his kind remarks. If I reply in kind to his later remarks, I am confident that our friendship will not be damaged. I must confess that I was very shocked.
I am going to address most of my remarks to the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, because I think that it is a waste of time to talk to the other two noble Lords. When the noble Viscount made a very innocent remark which might smack slightly of praise of the Government, that drew the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, furiously to his feet.
LORD ST. OSWALD: Misplaced praise.
LORD SHACKLETON: I know that it is intolerable to say anything in praise of this Government. I had thought that the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, put down this Question with the desire to obtain information and that I should not be called upon, in his words, "to defend an unworthy policy". I would say to the noble Earl, as I have said before, that this is not a suitable subject for an Unstarred Question. On the last occasion he said that he had got into trouble because he went outside the terms of the
568
Question. But I understand that an Unstarred Question, like any other Question, is designed primarily to obtain information, although it does give rise to a debate. I think that this is a matter which your Lordships' House will have to consider more closely. None the less, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, because it will enable me to say something about the procurement of military aircraft. And because I thought that this Question was put down seriously for information and not for Party political purposes, I will do my best to answer his points.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, this Question was put down seriously. I thought that I asked some serious questions, and I hope the noble Lord will give me serious answers.
LORD SHACKLETON: Most certainly. Until I heard the noble Earl, there was not going to be a single word of Party politics in my speech. I shall try to follow the standard set by the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote—and I hope that this will not cause trouble for him. Of course, things have advanced since the noble Earl read the Zuckerman Report, which was published in 1961 and not in 1963. If he was two years out of date in that, it is not surprising that he is two years out of date on the developments that have happened in recent years.
I should like to say something about methods. This is a subject to which, as an Administration, we have paid great attention, and I must make clear that the previous Administration, dissatisfied with the results, had understandably also paid attention to this. The noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, gave a description of the changes and the vacillations, and I must confess that since my time as a Minister I have been extremely sympathetic to previous Governments. But it is true that the aircraft industry has suffered as a result, and as one of those who believe in the importance of the aircraft industry, I am very anxious to say something about the procedures which are now yielding very much better results.
The procedures which were in force when we took office had stemmed from the recommendations of the Zuckerman

569
Committee, which reported in 1961. In April, 1964—and let me make clear that this was in the last days of the previous Government—a group of senior officials from the Ministries of Aviation and Defence were appointed to review how these procedures were working in practice and to examine the whole field of development cost estimating and control. They went most thoroughly into this subject and studied the practices both of Government and of industry, because clearly there was a need to improve the understanding and co-operation and to achieve greater efficiency. Case studies were conducted for the group in individual companies by industrial consultants, and we received throughout the most willing co-operation from industry. I should like to pay tribute to industry for the co-operation that we received. As a result, much valuable information was collected which had not been previously available.
The Group reported at the end of 1966. Their report contained a number of important recommendations. Some of these referred to organisation and training within the Ministry of Aviation—now the Aviation Group of the Ministry of Technology. We have accepted these recommendations, and are now implementing them. We accepted the Group's recommendation that more attention needs to be paid to the training of those concerned with project management, which has been steadily growing up as an important procedure. I remember taking part in some of the discussions. It is a very interesting field, the horizontal organisation versus the project management approach. But there is no doubt that the project management approach is the right one, and I am sure the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecott, would endorse this. We have instituted a two-weeks' residential course in project management techniques, and all members concerned with this vital job are going through the course as quickly as possible. It is also attended by industrial representatives. It is clear that the efforts put into this training are already having a considerable influence.
The Group endorsed the principles of project management as laid down in the Zuckerman Report, but came to the conclusion that too little emphasis had been placed on the project study phase
570
of a development; that is to say, on the phase of project definition before proceeding to prototype acquisition. The noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, will, I hope, agree that this is the crucial stage (I listened to what he said on certain aspects, and will deal with them) in which plans and estimates are drawn up and on which approval for full development is based. The Report recommended—and we have accepted this—that before full development is authorised there should be a more extensive project study, including a full investigation of new techniques to be employed. This has two objectives: first, to identify major technical obstacles earlier on, when there is still enough flexibility to make design changes; and, secondly, to ensure that the main programme consists principally of engineering development; which can be more reliably programmed and controlled than research work.
Nobody knows this better than the British Aircraft Corporation and the noble Lord himself. This approach has important implications for industry and we have had discussions with the S.B.A.C. and the Electronics Engineering Association about the implementation of the Report's recommendations. Here again, we are very grateful for the full co-operation we have had from these bodies.
The rephasing of the work resulting from the extension of the project study will not increase the overall development time-scale. Indeed, we may be able to reduce the very long time that it now takes to put a new idea into service because we shall be able to go ahead with greater confidence. We believe also that these new procedures will enable us and contractors to have increased confidence in the estimates produced at an early stage of a project. Thus there will be greater opportunities for incentive contracting during development, and in this way we shall be working towards one of the aims of the Plowden Report.
The investigation also showed that, while some companies have installed effective cost-control systems, and are employing advanced management techniques (and the noble Lord will realise it will be embarrassing if I say his company had, and did not mention those who had not, but we are thinking particularly of the major companies who are very well

571
ahead), there remains a need to set out in definitive form the principles which should normally govern the management of complex development projects. To meet this need a Handbook of Procedures based upon the Group's work has been drafted. This and the Group's Report, following the discussions which we have had with industry, are now being prepared for publication.
The Handbook of Procedures is not intended to be mandatory but to recommend standards of best practice. Many firms already have systems which meet these standards; and one has watched the development, the original network analysis, critical path analysis, working up to Pert techniques and refinement of those techniques, which are fascinating and again involve, especially when it comes to costs, extensive use of computers. It is quite an exciting thing to see how these aspects of new technique under good project management, under good management, do succeed. Many firms have systems meeting these standards and we hope that as many more contractors as possible will adopt them.
More recently—and again this arose from the Plowden Committee—we have had the Elstub Committee, who are going further into the whole subject and to recommend measures to improve the competitive efficiency of the industry. The Ministry of Technology and the aircraft industry are each represented by four members, and there are also two independent members, in addition to the chairman. The Committee are making good progress. They have been very active. They have had 20 meetings, some of them at factories of the major airframe and engine companies, and there is evidence coming, written and oral, from outside bodies; and they are employing consultants. I am afraid it is too early as yet to report on this, but I have discussed and found out something about it, and we are very hopeful that it is progressing well.
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that, is he satisfied that these new procedures will avoid the appalling delays that tend to occur at the end of studies before full development is put into practice?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I appreciate that here questions of Government policy, and the whole question of Government, may be a factor in those delays. But I have noted the point. It is no use going ahead and then having a very great delay in placing the orders. This is a matter that I will deal with in relation to the Harrier. I think the noble Viscount will not want me to deal at length with some of the other aspects of this problem of the equality of information, which is a matter we have discussed before and on which talks are going on. We understand that there are two points of view in this, and we hope that they will come to a satisfactory solution.
I was interested in the further point the noble Lord made with regard to what I should have said was a little bit of a simple approach, of saying to industry, "You do it". I do not think we should be able to go as far as he wants. There is a heavy responsibility in these matters. But, none the less, I think that, as cooperation develops and there is better understanding, we shall in fact succeed a good deal better than we have done in the past. It is of course a fact that we have succeeded a good deal better, and in this matter I am not seeking to make a Party point. I am not trying to claim the credit for this Government, although I think one could; and indeed if I followed the tone of the other two noble Lords I think it would be appropriate to do so. But I am trying to take this seriously and I should like to discuss the three legs of our military aircraft programme policy, and try to give the noble Lord some of the answers to his questions, although I am afraid I did not understand them all.
First let me deal with the projects which we are doing on our own; secondly, those that we are doing in collaboration with France; and, thirdly, our purchases from America—in which, of course, they are incorporating large amounts of British equipment, particularly in the case of the Phantom. Dealing first with our national developments, there is the Harrier, the world's first vertical take-off close support aircraft. It is a further development of the P.1127 which, as your Lordships know, has been flown previously as the Kestrel by the tripartite squadron. The performance of this aircraft, both in vertical take-off and landing, and in short

573
take-off and landing, is really remarkable. It opens up a whole new concept of close support. I am glad to say that the development programme is going well. Seven of the aircraft are already flying, and the programme is well within the costs and time scales estimated over 2½ years ago. Sixty of these aircraft are being ordered for the Royal Air Force, together with ten two-seaters. We also believe that this aircraft—and this is something in which I have been extremely interested—will sell widely abroad. A year or two ago there were doubts about this, but recent most encouraging events suggest that there are now real prospects with regard to this aircraft.
The noble Lord asked me whether a contract had not been placed for the Harrier. Contractual negotiations have been in progress for some time with Hawker Siddeley Aviation for the development and supply of this Hawker 66 Harrier aircraft. Meanwhile—and I know this may sometimes have a hollow ring to noble Lords, but I am absolutely sure this is so—the company has all the contractual cover they need to press forward with the programme. Agreement has practically been reached, but we are still some way apart on price, and surely it is right that this should be properly negotiated. But I want to stress this, because I think it is important, when we have good prospects and some successes to talk about, that we should do so, in the interests of the industry and of this country.
There are some other main national developments. First, there is the Nimrod maritime reconnaissance aircraft. On this occasion I will refrain from making the old joke about the obsolescent aircraft it is replacing. This is a development of the Comet, using the Spey Mark 250 engine. It will be the most advanced strike aircraft of its kind for this particular role. There are many other national production programmes—Lightnings, Buccaneers, Wessex, Wasp and Sea King helicopters. I will go on to the new aircraft in a moment. These aircraft have achieved good export sales and are providing valuable employment and foreign exchange for the country. Military aircraft exports totalled nearly £70 million last year, and we are very confident (although I agree it is dangerous to be confident) that the new
574
programmes which we have authorised will achieve equally good and indeed, we hope, better export records in the future. Let me make clear that this is to the credit of the industry as well as the people who work in that industry.
I now turn to the second leg of our programme, that of our collaboration with France. Before I do so, I should like to say again how much I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, who stressed the importance of getting European countries together for the production of new military aircraft. It is not, of course, as well he knows, quite such a simple matter, however obviously desirable it is, but it is the right policy, and that is our purpose. Again, he has made this suggestion of a European Conference and he has reinforced his arguments. This has been suggested before, and it has been the opinion of my right honourable friends that it was premature; and I ask the noble Lord to believe that this was a decision based on their judgment. But, none the less, I will convey to my right honourable friends what the noble Lord has said. His presidency of the I.C.M.A., which I believe he has just completed and which we all know he carried out very successfully, gives him the right to express opinions on this subject. I would say again that conferences are not much good unless you prepare the groundwork.
I would now say a little more about co-operation with France on military aircraft projects, which started in the middle of 1965 and represented a step forward of enormous significance. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald—although he need not have been quite so enraged with his noble friend—that I ant prepared to acknowledge that some of these ideas developed under the previous Government. I am very anxious to preserve fairness of approach, notably lacking from the noble Lord. Following the agreement with the French in May of that year, and as a result of two-and-a-half years' intensive work between the Governments and the industries concerned, we have reached the point where we can begin production of the Jaguar strike/trainer aircraft. I cannot remember whether the noble Lord mentioned that it was an old aircraft. There have been many ideas on the drawing board and some quite advanced studies, but the fact is that it has been

575
further developed, and now B.A.C. have made significant improvements to the original designs. I think the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, can confirm this.
A very important supplement has now been signed between my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence and the French Minister for Defence. As noble Lords know, there are to be 400 Jaguars—200 each. The first flight is due to take place this Spring, and it is really great evidence of the success of the development phase and of the faith which the two Governments have in the project that the production agreement has been signed for so many aircraft at such an early stage. This really is satisfactory progress within the space of two-and-a-half years.
We had hoped that the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany would join us and the French in the programme. This was one of the matters discussed between the Secretary of State for Defence and the German Minister of Defence. The German time-scale—and this, again, is the problem that has bedevilled us so often in Europe and in NATO—does not admit of a tripartite coproduction programme. But we still hope that the Germans will manufacture the Jaguar under licence. It is worth noting, since I am trying to give this picture of a successful industry producing saleable products of use to our own Service and exportable, that it is already being developed and produced in five versions for us and the French—the British and French strike versions, the British and French trainer versions and the French naval version. Equally, versions could be developed tailored to the German requirement. We hope that this may become a symbol of successful European collaboration.
I would just say something very briefly about the helicopter package. This is going well. Co-operation between Sud Aviation and Westlands, and Rolls Royce and Turbomeca is working well. The first project is the SA.330 which has an increased payload and is air portable; the second is the SA.340 required for communications and basic training. Then there is the Westland WG.13. The design lead in the airframe is being taken by Westlands, whereas in the case of the others it is the French. But, of course,
576
the development and production is equitably shared between us, and we and the French are developing and producing some £200 million worth of helicopters. This is a partnership which we hope will project far into the future, and certainly as far ahead as we can see. I might just mention that in all these projects, wherever possible, we are employing fixed incentive price contracts at every stage of the programme.
Noble Lords referred to the variable-geometry strike-interceptor aircraft. As your Lordships know, the French felt obliged to withdraw from this project in the middle of last year, for financial reasons. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, asked what we are now doing in this field. The position is that the project study at B.A.C. (Warton) is continuing, and the design team is studying variations in costs, complexity and time scale, so that we shall be able, we hope, to interest other countries with a similar requirement. It is most impressive to go to Warton. I wish that many of my colleagues in all political Parties could visit Warton and see something of the work and the enthusiasm. But I am sorry—I do not wish to mislead noble Lords—that I can make no undertaking about this. I can only express my personal hopes. We are having talks with other countries to see whether there is scope for collaboration in the development and production of an advanced combat aircraft, whether employing variable geometry or not, for the mid-1970s and beyond.
I cannot answer the noble Earl in regard to his perfectly fair question as to what is the replacement of the variable-geometry plane, which has been described as the core of our aircraft programme. Clearly, there is going to be hard thinking and hard work on this, and certainly talks are going on, in particular with the Germans, on this. We think that there might well be a substantial market for this sort of aircraft, and certainly the Ministry are giving full support.
Let me turn, quite briefly, to that part of the programme which has been most disputed, the procurement of aircraft from America. I will not repeat what I said about the F.111 and the extent of the blow. But I think I must say something about some of the figures of cost.

577
I must confess that I totally fail to understand the noble Earl's calculation of £4·3 million. Did he say £4·3 million?
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, was simply quoting what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said last night, when I think he quoted one hundred aircraft—saying that if we bought one hundred aircraft it would cost us £430 million. So I divided accordingly.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, of course we are not going to buy one hundred aircraft. But, whatever weird calculation the noble Earl may have made (and many people have been making these rather weird calculations) the fact is that my noble and learned friend was referring to the cost of the programme over the whole period. This includes supports, spares, United Kingdom research and development, running costs, air crews, petrol, oil and lubricants. I am sure that when the noble Earl buys a car he does not, in calculating its cost, add the price of the petrol over the next ten years. It has been most notable in all our discussions on this that there is a great danger in calculating in this way, and I shall be glad, the next time the noble Earl puts down an Unstarred Question, to give him a little help on the financial side, because I assure him that his assertions are wrong. I am sure he would not think it right to include, for instance, the pay and the cost of training of the pilots of the aircraft, expensive as this may be.
LORD ST. OSWALD: But if the noble and learned Lord Chancellor chooses to pick a high figure in order to demonstrate what a huge saving is being made, surely it is open to my noble friend to use that figure to demonstrate the cost it would have represented.
LORD SHACKLETON: If my noble and learned friend is explaining the cost of a programme over a period, it is no good just doing simple sums and translating them into the unit cost of the aircraft, including the cost of petrol, oil, spares, and so on. It was not, of course, the intention of my noble and learned friend to mislead. He was giving an indication of the total savings, not the cost of the individual aircraft. I should be very happy to pursue this matter with both noble Lords at a later date.
578
What I cannot say—and I have no intention of saying at the moment—is what the cancellation charges are. I must say, first of all, that I still believe it is a fine aircraft. Secondly, we are about to embark on negotiations on the cancellation charges, and I ask noble Lords to believe that, although the estimates have been fairly given in the totals, it would not be in the public interest at the moment for me to go into those particular costs.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, there was one specific question that asked; namely, have the estimated cancellation charges been set against the advertised savings?
LORD SHACKLETON: Yes; I assure the noble Lord that they are included in the general pattern. They are estimates, but they are to the best of my knowledge as accurate as we can get them. I an almost certain that I am right on this, but if by any chance I have gone wrong I will immediately let noble Lords know.
The noble Lord also asked about the effect on our offset contracts. This is a complicated business, and I give to the noble Lord that the cancellation of the F.111 is damaging in that respect. But of course, it is not related merely to the F.111, but to all our expenditure for American weapons—Polaris, Phantom, Hercules—against the expenditure in the United Kingdom. But I take the noble Lord's point, which is perfectly fair, and I should not wish to go into more detail about this matter.
I should like now to turn to the Phantom, the only major aircraft which was ordered by the previous Government. This is one aircraft, I fear, where costs, as is made clear in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, have gone up. We have discussed this before. It is a very fine aircraft, but there is no doubt that the Anglicising which was decided by the previous Government has greatly added to the cost. The noble Lord probably has not had time to read the last report of the Public Accounts Committee, but he will find it all dealt with there. As I myself read it only recently, I should not like to go into this matter now. The main increase is partly the reduction in numbers, although the total number we are ordering for both the Services is slightly more than the ones which

579
were originally ordered for the Royal Navy only; and there is the great problem of matching British engines and equipment with American airframes. It would seem so simple to Anglicise but, as the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, would confirm the costs somehow seem to mount.
I do not think I would go very much fruther beyond saying that the aircraft is promising. The development programme has been subject to some delay, but the first aircraft are expected to be delivered to the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force in March and April this year and they will be steadily coming off the production line.
I will not go into further detail about the C.130. Again, we know that this is coming steadily on. I agree with the noble Viscount about the importance of cost-effectiveness. I think I have already partly dealt with this aspect, but I am sure we shall have to look further at this question of closer contact, particularly in the formulation of operational requirements. I have heard this so eloquently argued by members of the aircraft industry, and I am hoping that now what was in the first instance just a gleam in the eye of a research scientist or an airman will result in working much more closely together. Of course, there is very good co-operation now, and I hope that the noble Viscount will confirm this. I was very impressed by the extent to which the Air Force servicing people work right in the factory, influencing design in small ways with regard to servicing.
I had intended to end on an entirely non-Party note. I hoped that we should recognise that the Air Force is certainly going to have some very fine aircraft, notwithstanding the loss to which I have referred. The great bulk of their programme is intact. But I really must say something to the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald. I really cannot again go over those dreary debates we had about the cancellations of previous aircraft. The most important thing is that the Royal Air Force are now getting a number of advanced aircraft years sooner than they would have done if we had stuck to the aircraft for which the noble Lord's Government argued.
Also, I really do resent his reference to my right honourable friend the Secretary
580
of State for Defence. He says that he did not hear the broadcast. If ever a man was talking honestly and truly on that occasion, facing very difficult music—and I happened to see this broadcast—it was my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. It is certainly not for me to defend him at great length, but I have a very high regard for him. I know that he has been heavily involved in a number of very difficult decisions, which all of my right honourable and noble friends have had to take. Perhaps I will attribute this charitably. It is after dinner, the noble Lord was upset by one casual remark of the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote. But I must say on this burning rhetoric of his, in which he used words like "inexpungible" or something like that, that I really think it would have been much better if he had not written that.

RHODESIA
10.27 p.m.
LORD ALPORT LORD ALPORT rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether there has been any initiative from Mr. Smith Which might indicate a wish to resume negotiations for a settlement since the Commonwealth Secretary's statement on Rhodesia on December 12, 1967. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to take this opportunity of thanking your Lordships for the opportunity to ask this Question, in accordance with your procedure. I have no knowledge as to what the Answer may be, but if, as I assume, there has been no sign from Salisbury of a wish for further negotiations since Mr. Thomson's return, I am taking this opportunity to set out my reasons for thinking that an initiative should be made now.
Since I returned from Salisbury and the visit I paid there at the request of Her Majesty's Government, I have done my best to avoid public comment on the Rhodesian problem. I do so now only because I do not think much time remains before the final break takes place between Britain and Rhodesia. If anyone has anything to say which he believes may be practical and beneficial, I conceive it to be his duty to speak up now—and even now it may be too late.
On my return to London in July, I made a long verbal report to the Prime

581
Minister and the Commonwealth Secretary. I see no reason to alter my appreciation of the situation as a result of what has occurred subsequently. I am a witness at first-hand of the strong desires of people of all races in Rhodesia—I believe a majority of people of all races—for a negotiated settlement with Britain; a settlement which must involve give and take on both sides but which would accord, on the one hand, with the principles accepted by both Parties in the United Kingdom, and which would, on the other, contain proper safeguards for the future of their country as the stable and civilised community which Rhodesia represents to-day.
When U.D.I. took place, I thought and said that there could be no agreement between the Rhodesian Front régime and any British Government. I now believe, as a result of "Tiger" and of the strong impressions which I received in Rhodesia last year, that an agreement could be reached which would be acceptable to Britain and which would have the support of a majority of all races in Rhodesia. Your Lordships are well aware that, as in the "Tiger" document, the problem falls into two main parts: agreement on the terms for a future Constitution and agreement on the means of a return to legality.
Although, like everyone else, I was disappointed at the outcome of the Commonwealth Secretary's visit to Salisbury last November, it did in fact achieve one very important result: it isolated the points of disagreement on the Constitution which then and to-day stand in the way of progress towards settlement. Those points are three in number. The first, and by far the most difficult—a breaking point, so far as the British are concerned—relates to the composition of the Senate and the Legislative Assembly and the representative character of the blocking quarter (that is, the 25 per cent. of the members) who would have the power to stop the passage of legislation designed to be racially discriminatory or to prevent the gradual enlargement of African political rights. Mr. Smith maintains that this quarter should comprise Chiefs and elected Africans. The "Tiger" proposals ensured that, quite apart from the existence of representatives of the Council of Chiefs in the Senate, the blocking quarter would consist of members, whether themselves
582
African or European, who were for the most part elected by and responsible LO the African population.
My Lords, the whole of our experience of political reality in Africa, and indeed in Asia, and the recent precedents neighbouring countries to Rhodesia, like Malawi and Botswana, support our point of view. Chiefs have an important part in the life of the tribes over which they preside. Their office may have an almost mystical significance. They have administrative responsibilities and a minor judicial role; but they are not regarded in Africa as a whole as being the political representatives of their people. I think it is extremely significant that Sir Seretse Khama, whose hereditary chieftanship was far more important and influential that any Rhodesian chieftan, relics nom not on traditional but on elected status for political leadership in Botswana. The same applies to Chief Leabua Jonathan in Lesotho vis-à-vis the traditional position of Moshoeshoe III. I can think of nowhere in Central or Southern Africa where the Chiefs are regarded as being fully representative politically by Africans who may nevertheless regard them and their offices with great respect.
If they—that is to say, the Chiefs—aspire to act in this capacity, the capacity of political representatives, then let them offer themselves as candidates for election to the Senate or to the Legislative Assernbly, as has happened elsewhere in Africa. By adding elected status to their traditional role their prestige would be immensely strengthend, and I know at least two Rhodesian Chiefs who would make admirable members of the Legislative Assembly. If there is to be a settlement between Britain and Rhodesia, ii must be one which can mobilise the confidence of thinking Africans as well as safeguard the interests of other races in the country. It means having what is now called "credibility". The British Government would not be doing a service to Britain or to Rhodesia if they agreed to the inclusion of a piece of constitutional mechanism which throughout Africa would be regarded simply as a device to prevent 4 million Africans in Rhodesia from achieving over a period of years, perhaps over a full generation, what any reasonable man would regard as being their legitimate political aspirations.
On the other hand, the inclusion of a blocking mechanism against discrimination does not mean that it operates in such a way as to procure the premature transference of power from European into African nationalist hands. I accept, and I think Rhodesia would be right to accept, that no British Government wishes this to happen. Equally, I believe—and I think that the Rhodesians would be right to believe—that whatever may be the composition of the membership of a post-Independence Rhodesian Parliament, the blocking mechanism should be in the hands of the elected element which is representative, for the most part, of the African majority of the population. The composition of the Senate and of the Legislative Assembly, and the precise nature of the blocking mechanism is still, I think, a potential subject for negotiation in the light of the latest talks between Mr. Smith and the Commonwealth Secretary. I suggest that these negotiations should be held now.
My Lords, the second matter raised by Mr. Smith in his talks with Mr. Thomson was the whole principle of cross-voting. This is no occasion on which to go into the complexities of this constitutional device. I merely say that it is important to the long-term future of Rhodesia—which on Mr. Smith's own admission must one day move towards majority rule—that the Europeans and Africans who during the next ten, twenty or fifty years comprise the membership of the parliamentary institutions of the country should learn to look both to its black and to its white citizens for support. It should be remembered, in Rhodesia at any rate, that the founding fathers of Rhodesia believed in this principle; and I personally believe that it is more important to the white minority than it is to the black majority in the context of modern Africa. Here again is a matter for one further attempt to reach a negotiated settlement. There is, I believe, scope for agreement and compromise.
Thirdly, Mr. Smith objected to the proposed system of appeals against discriminatory legislation to the equivalent of a Rhodesia Supreme Court and, subsequently, to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council which was included in the "Tiger" document. Personally, I do
584
not believe that in this present day and age a system of constitutional appeals from an independent Commonwealth country to the Judicial Committee is an effective or acceptable safeguard for political rights. On the other hand, I should have thought that the majority of Rhodesians, proud as they are of their own judicial system, would have agreed to constitutional appeals being heard by the equivalent of a Rhodesian Supreme Court. If they have had some inspiration from the political evolution of the United States, then there is a precedent which no-one need be too proud to follow. Again, here is a matter in which compromise would be possible, not involving the abandonment by either the British Government or Mr. Smith of the really important elements in the policies which they have so far advanced. The completion of agreement on the Constitution is, in my view, an essential first step towards any substantive settlement.
My Lords, in the case of these three features of the original "Tiger" agreement—or proposals, if that is what Ms. Smith prefers to call them—there is room, I submit, for sincere negotiation involving some give-and-take on both sides. I believe that if no further attempt at negotiation were made now, public opinion in the not so distant future would condemn, for a want of statesmanship and generosity, the party to this conflict which refused to make or respond to a new initiative.
Now, my Lords, let me turn to the second part of the "Tiger" document, which is in fact actually Part III though there is no disagreement of the principle enshrined in Part II. Part III deals with the process of a return to legality. A great deal has happened since the detailed provisions of the return to legality were discussed on H.M.S. "Tiger". It is my personal view that the procedures proposed then can now be greatly simplified without abandoning in any way the principle which formed the basis of British policy. Indeed, I think that the simplification is highly desirable, if any agreement about a return to legality is to be understood and not suspected by the average European Rhodesian to be a trick.
Mr. Smith indicated to me last July, and has now announced publicly, that

585
he intends to hold a general election this year. I believe that to symbolise a return to legality for the purpose of this election Mr. Smith should make his request for the dissolution of Parliament to Sir Humphrey Gibbs. He would thus recognise the constitutional position of Sir Humphrey as Her Majesty's representative in Rhodesia. I do not believe that Mr. Dupont would allow his personal interest and position to stand in the way of an acceptable and workable settlement, or of the recognition of the position of a Rhodesian of long standing like Sir Humphrey Gibbs who is universally admired by members of all Parties, here and in Rhodesia.
My Lords, I believe I am right in saying that under the 1961 Constitution a period of up to four months may elapse between the dissolution of the Rhodesian Parliament and the holding of a subsequent election. During those four months it would be possible to give an opportunity of registering to anyone who would be entitled to vote in accordance with the 1961–62 franchise legislation. If the African elector failed to register inside this period then, frankly, the responsibility must be his.
There should also be appointed during this period, a Commission, chosen from the Privy Council and appointed by the British Government, on an analogy with the Cobbold Commission, to carry out an assignment for which it would have two clear and straightforward terms of reference: first, to report to Her Majesty's Government as to whether the election had been conducted in such a way as to reflect fairly the views of those registered and entitled to vote; and secondly to ascertain the views of those, being citizens of Rhodesia, who were not qualified to vote under the 1961–62 franchise legislation.
It would be for the Commission to decide whether any continuing censorship, or system of detention under emergency powers, or the use of any intimidation by political Parties, prevented the results of the election from fairly reflecting the real opinions of the European and African electorate. Equally they would, under the second term of reference, be responsible for giving effect to the British Government's Fifth Principle. I know that their task would be difficult, but I am
586
quite certain that Her Majesty's Privy Council in Great Britain contains men and women with experience and integrity which would enable them to face and fulfil this task with objectivity and success.
During this process I envisage that there would be no relaxation or intensification of the sanctions system, and so far as Rhodesia was concerned there would, I assume, be no modification of its claim to independence.
At the end of this process—that is, when the results of the election were available and the Commission had reported—one of two situations would exist. On the one hand, if the result of the election was in favour of the Constitution agreed between Her Majesty's Government and the Rhodesian régime, and if at the same time the Commission had reported favourably, then steps would be taken forthwith by Britain to lift sanctions. And since a new situation would have arisen, Britain would proceed immediately to seek release from the NIRMAR obligation as a preliminary to the formal recognition of Rhodesian independence. If, on the other hand, the electorate in Rhodesia failed to endorse the Constitution and the Commission reported adversely in accordance with either of its terms of reference, then sanctions would continue and would be intensified, and there would be nothing, apart from force, to prevent a second phase of illegal independence from being instituted or the situation from moving inexorably to what would be both for Britain and for Rhodesia the bitter end.
I have no doubt that this would involve the declaration of a republic, the eventual withdrawal of Sir Humphrey Gibbs and the cutting of all ties with Britain. It would also mean the continued outlawry of Rhodesia in the international field. If this is what must be the end of this unhappy episode, then so be it. But I believe that along the lines I have sketched lies a chance—a real chance—for both Britain and Rhodesia of achieving an honourable solution which would avoid what both—the Rhodesians in particular—have good reason to dread.
I do not want your Lordships, or anyone else, to suppose that I have any inflated ideas about the influence that

587
someone like myself, a private citizen, can bring to bear on the achievement of the solution of a complex and emotionally highly charged problem. But I believe that if there is the will here in Britain and if there is the will there in Rhodesia, a settlement along these lines would be possible.
I have said in a recent article in the Rhodesian Press, which curiously enough was not censored, as I have said in broadcasts to Rhodesia, that the initiative to break the present deadlock should be taken by Mr. Smith. I understand, however, the Rhodesian attitude to this sort of situation pretty well. They do not psychologically find it easy to take such an initiative. I say, therefore, that even if there is no sign from Mr. Smith in Salisbury, then Her Majesty's Government should make the next move for the reopening of substantive negotiations without delay, it being clearly understood that this is not a sell-out by Britain or a cave-in by Rhodesia, but an attempt—a last attempt and a genuine attempt—to reach an honourable settlement of a problem which, in my opinion at any rate, unless it is solved, cannot fail to end in tragedy.
10.48 p.m.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, at this late hour I do not intend to delay the House for more than a few minutes. I think that my noble friend Lord Alport has rendered an immense service tonight. I agree with every single word he said. I am on my feet only because I was in Rhodesia recently—in fact, I got back only four days ago. I saw Sir Humphrey Gibbs. I was careful not to see any politicians and that they did not mind. I was staying with a cousin of mine in a farm 80 miles from Salisbury, miles away in the background of Rhodesia. I am bound to say that the farmers were more concerned with the drought than with the economic crisis. And this I must say to your Lordships: I found no racial tension at all. We were in the back of beyond, but I was told, and believed it and did it, that I could go out at night anywhere I liked, with absolute, total personal safety. That is the position there.
Economic sanctions as they are at present being applied will not bring down
588
Rhodesia. Her Majesty's Government thought that they would. I think Her Majesty's Government are mistaken, and probably they are coming round to that view now. These sanctions as at present applied are a ceaseless irritant, driving us further apart from all the people of Rhodesia—not only white, but coloured. The proposal that I made in the debate the day before yesterday is that the sanctions should be called off. They are "no go"; they are no good. Rhodesia is being driven into the arms of South Africa as a result of the sanctions themselves and also as a result of our embargo on the export of arms to South Africa for the defence of our own shipping as well as their own defence. It could result in the creation of a South Africa which would be hostile to or separated from us, and could bring infinite damage, politically and economically, both to South Africa and to ourselves.
I say, therefore, and here I echo my noble friend, Lord Alport, that I think it would be wise to call off the sanctions, and then—and to this I attach immense importance—state our terms and proposals for a political settlement much more specifically than they have yet been stated. I would base them, of course, on the "Tiger". I would give them in much more detail. You cannot settle everything on a battleship or a cruiser in 24 hours. I would not impose a time limit. The one mistake that the Prime Minister made on the "Tiger", in my view, was the imposing of this time limit. I think that really got Rhodesia's back up. They should have time to consider in detail the proposals that we have to make, and then, if necessary, to negotiate about them. I am sure that this is the last chance, but I believe with my noble friend Lord Alport that a solution and settlement could be achieved now. But it really is the last chance. The alternative is to see the Rhodesians not being beaten by economic sanctions, but driven more and more into the arms of South Africa, and a kind of cold war between ourselves and South Africa as a whole.
My Lords, do not have any illusions. A settlement is desired tremendously in Rhodesia by the whites and by the coloured people equally. They all want to see a settlement of this problem. There was, to my mind, no doubt about that. I did not talk to the politicians, I talked

589
to the chaps, which is much more important. I talked to the farmers, to the businessmen and to everybody that I could get hold of, and I am sure that they all passionately desire a settlement. I also think that there is still an immense fund of good will for this country in Rhodesia. After all, they fought gallantly and valiantly for this country during the war. But if this business goes on, if these sanctions go on—and they are causing a good deal of hardship to Rhodesia—it seems to me inevitable that we shall drift apart to a point at which no settlement is possible.
I therefore beg Her Majesty's Government—and I agree with my noble friend Lord Alport that it is for them to take the initiative—not to miss this last chance of stating quite clearly, and in more specific terms than they were stated in the "Tiger", the terms they would be prepared to accept, and also that they are prepared to give the Rhodesian Government time to consider these terms and to clear up any obscurities that may remain. My Lords, I feel very strongly about this, because I feel the sands are running out and that this may well be our last chance, as the noble Lord, Lord Alport, said.
I said much of this the day before yesterday. Of course I may be wrong; I do not know. But I dealt at least with a subject which is not unimportant. My speech was "killed" stone dead by the Press, for the first time in over forty years of Parliamentary life. Now if I thought that Her Majesty's Government were responsible for that I should be quite happy,—
LORD SHEPHERD: We are not as strong as that.
LORD BOOTHBY: —because I could have a "bash" at them. But I know very well that Her Majesty's Government were not responsible in any kind of way. And I say, quite sincerely, that the Press, who are always talking about the de-dine of Parliament, are more responsible for that decline than any other organisation in this country, for the disgraceful way in which they report the debates in both Houses of Parliament. I would much rather have had my speech smashed altogether, as I did, than have it massacred, as the speech of my noble friend Lord Gladwyn was massacred in The Times the day before yestreday.
590
I do not want somebody up in the Press Gallery to pick out half-a-dozen sentences which have no relevance to the main theme of a speech, and none to each other. That makes bad worse. I am old enough to remember the old days when Parliamentary reporting in the Press was good; the days when Sir Colin Coote was political correspondent of The Times. I would much rather have a sketch of a Parliamentary debate written by an intelligent man who knew what it was all about than these little snippety sentences which have no relevance to each other or to the general theme of a deba.:e and which make nonsense of the whole business. And I say to the Press that if they are complaining about the decline of Parliament, it is very largely their own fault, because their reporting of Parliamentary proceedings in both Houses is an absolute disgrace to this country.
Well, I do not know 'whether I am in time to get that into the Press, but I hope so, because they deserve it. The reporting of the Parliamentary debates is disgraceful, and that is the main reason why Parliament has—in their opinion—declined. They write pompous leading articles saying that we count for nothing and then they make such a mess of our debates that they are bound to bring down the repute of Parliament all over the country. Here we have had a very brief debate to-night, but Lord Alport's speech was of supreme importance. Will they report it? I doubt if they will report it at all. If they do, they will take three sentences out of his speech which have no relevance to each other, and then expect the public to understand what has been said.
But I say to Her Majesty's Government, with all sincerity, that I believe that if they take the initiative they do have a last chance—and I think it is the last chance—of a settlement with Rhodesia which will be agreeable to both sides; and I have considerable authority for making that statement, and the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, may perhaps guess the source. I think there is a real chance left if Her Majesty's Government will take this initiative. I very much hope they do, because Rhodesia does not want to break with this country; but if we go on like this she may be compelled to do so and have no alternative.
10.59 p.m.
LORD NOEL-BUXTON: My Lords, I take my noble Leader's hint that even an Unstarred Question is not an occasion for general debate. I appreciate that at this hour it is for me to say extremely little, and also to say I am immature enough not to know that any Questions could lead to debate. Also at this hour it is too late to talk at length on a subject which, I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Alport and Lord Boothby, is of supreme importance. I, too, have been in Rhodesia in this day and age—within the last ten days on Rhodesian soil. I think that one should simply say that one noted that it was expressed in Her Majesty's Speech that a settlement with Rhodesia should be come to. I feel that most earnestly. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, I saw most of the senior members of Mr. Smith's Cabinet. I have paid previous visits to Rhodesia, but in a week in Salisbury I had, as it were, a week at university, with everybody, including Mr. Smith, speaking very openly and at length, and I do not think people would speak at length to an extremely back Back-Bencher unless they thought it was relevant to do so.
As Lord Alport's Question specifically mentions the Commonwealth Secretary's Statement I should like to report the Salisbury view of his visit. I gather that Mr. Thomson made a very satisfactory impression in Salisbury, but after all, although it is only 15 hours' flying at 650 miles an hour, it is in the Southern Hemisphere and misunderstandings can easily happen. What has worried Mr. Smith, and perhaps Mr. Dupont, particularly is that they understood (and I am only expressing what they said to me) that on leaving Salisbury neither Mr. Thomson nor the Rhodesian Government would say anything further without consultation, either by telephone or by personal meeting. In a sense they regard Mr. Thomson's Statement of December 12 as a sort of disclosure—and the word "disclosure' was said in a mood of nearly meaning betrayal. I know that is just their side: and the other side, obviously, is that the Rhodesian Prime Minister himself was going about, saying that there were extremely few differences between the Mother Country and his Government, which of course is not true either.
592
The main worry, which I completely share with Lord Alport and Lord Boothby, is the great risk of the two countries as such drifting apart, and that it is terribly late in the day—one must have the faith not to say "too late". I felt a very great good will towards the Mother Country. It is not a quarrel with Crown or country but, let it be plain, with a succession of Governments—not just with this Labour Government; and my personal view, for what it is worth, is that we should accept them without any interim period.
It may well have been thought at the time of U.D.I. and when sanctions were imposed—in fact I understand that is the only reason why mandatory sanctions have been imposed—that such a country forms a threat to world peace. Who can say that that is true of Rhodesia after two and a half years? Here are the people in their offices, the equivalent of Whitehall; here is a sensible régime which feels lost and discontented, as indeed so many of us do in the Mother Country, and I personally feel that the ball is in our court. The "Tiger" talks broke down, and it is up to the British Government to say specifically what they are prepared to do and to settle for. After all, the Rhodesians are only just you or me gone overseas, the great percentage of them post-war settlers, and in this family quarrel I think we must show all the tolerance we possibly can.
11.5 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I recognise the importance of this occasion. The noble Lord, Lord Alport, who has opened this discussion, went with the good will (and more than the good will) of our Government, to Rhodesia and has reported back; and what he has said tonight must be taken in a very serious way. Therefore, in my comments upon it I want to be as responsible as I can. I find it a little ironical that we should be having this debate, which I believe is of great significance between this country and Rhodesia, with five Members on the other side of the House, five Members on this side, and one Cross-Bencher. But despite the small attendance, after a very heavy week, I have no doubt that every word that is uttered in this debate tonight is going to have some significance so far as the solution of this problem is concerned. Therefore, I am going to speak very carefully.

593
The second thing I want to say is this. I do not suppose that any one of us wants the situation between Southern Rhodesia and this country to persist. Certainly those who take the view which I hold recognise that if it goes on without a solution there will be a tendency in Southern Rhodesia itself to move more towards the South African system of apartheid, which we all deplore, and that there will be a tendency in Southern Rhodesia to extend still further the system of segregation and suppression and potential apartheid which has unfortunately been in its recent legislation. And none of us want that.
Thirdly, I think all of us recognise that the situation in Southern Rhodesia itself is not only dangerous for Southern Rhodesia, but dangerous to the nature of a white and black conflict which could spread over the whole of Southern Africa with appalling results. Therefore, every one of us, whatever our view may be about the Southern Rhodesia situation, will want to find a solution of this problem.
I want to say at once to the noble Lord that I should like to see this issue submitted to the people of Rhodesia itself, and I welcome the proposals which he made upon these lines. But if this issue is to be submitted to the people of Rhodesia there must be a lifting of the present restrictions on freedom of speech and the rights of political parties in Southern Rhodesia; and there must be a release from detention and imprisonment of the leaders of the African parties who have been suppressed. Otherwise, any presentation of solutions to the peoples of Rhodesia will be unreal, because of the censorship of the Press, because of the restrictions on free speech and the restrictions on political organisations which are there. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Alport, to recognise that I am trying to find a solution of these problems, which I believe depends on a decision by the Rhodesian people. But if there is to be a decision by the Rhodesian people it must be under free conditions in which they can express themselves.
The fourth thing I want to say is this. It is not only Her Majesty's Government who are now involved, and it is not only the illegal Smith régime in Southern Africa. The whole of the Commonwealth is involved. A most definite promise has
594
been made to the Commonwealth countries and, therefore, if we are thinking of new proposals which are to be made to Southern Rhodesia, it will be most important that one has the confirmation of the other member States of the Common-wealth to which we have given pledges.
The last point I wish to make is this—and, believe me, though I hold strong views on this question, I am trying to speak in a responsible way. We have had a debate to-day on the United Nations. I will tell your Lordships the greatest impression which was made upon me by that debate. It is that in this country we may be seeking a solution of problems which may be very real in the political context within our own nation, but are quite unreal in the context of world opinion. We had the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, who indicated to us that on the Commission which is dealing with human rights almost everything that is urged by a representative of this country is rejected be cause they feel that we are not standing for human rights, particularly in relation to Southern Africa.
One of the great nightmares of these latter years of my life, in the light of what I have been struggling for through my years, is that there may be an appalling racial conflict in Southern Africa. While I would make almost any contribution to prevent that, I say that we must be most careful at this moment that we do not take steps which may seem to bring an easy and early solution of these problems but which, in actual fact, will only arouse greater problems in the future, because we shall have lost the confidence not only of the people of the Continent of Africa, but of peoples all over the world who believe in the principle of racial equality.
11.14 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I would first of all express the appreciation of Her Majesty's Government, and I am sure that of all Members in both Houses, for the services that the noble Lord, Lord Alport, rendered to Africa, to Central Africa in particular, for some weeks last year in his efforts to provide a glimmer of light in regard to a reconciliation between the Governments of the United Kingdom and Rhodesia. I say "reconciliation between the Governments"; perhaps I should correct that and say

595
"between the Parliaments", for in the end this is a matter for Parliament. I stress this point, since I am conscious that in my own Department, which I have joined only recently, I have a responsibility to see that the voice and the will of the people of dependent territories is clearly expressed when constitutional advance is involved. It is not for us to impose progress; it is for the people to accept it voluntarily.
I could answer this short debate in three ways. I could restate the Government policy in this matter. In fact, I would in practice be restating the Conservative Government's policy, that of the previous Administration, since in broad outline their policy is identical. I could restate that policy, but I do not believe that any useful purpose would be served this evening in the context of what we are seeking to-day. The position is well known and Parliament has endorsed it. I could seek to answer all the very detailed and thoughtful points, or points of considerable importance, put by the noble Lord, Lord Alport. At this time of night, and in view of their importance, I think that this would be unwise. I intend to look at them and to read them in detail. I express the hope that men and women, politicians or ordinary men in the street in other countries, will read those words with care and thought, and will accept the spirit which clearly lay behind them and which, I believe, is in all our hearts
596
in this matter. If those words could go out from this House, then I hope that that will be possible.
I will leave it there, my Lords, but I will say that we have made it abundantly clear, particularly in the last Statement which was made by my right honourable friend the Commonwealth Secretary on his return from Rhodesia, that the door is not closed and that we in this Government—and I believe that this is the will of Parliament—will not close that door. Whether we can take an initiative, in view of the previous initiatives—particularly the one which followed the visit of the noble Lord, Lord Alport—is a question to which we shall have to give serious consideration. I am convinced, knowing my colleagues, that if there was a genuine glimmer of light, whether it be through officials or Ministers, it would not be the will of Parliament that Her Majesty's Government should not seek to approach that light and to turn it into something we all wish to see. Therefore I hope that the suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Alport, to-night can become a subject of debate and thought amongst Members of Parliament in other Parliaments apart from ours, and also among officials and Ministers. I give the noble Lord my assurance that we, for our part, will look at his suggestions with the greatest seriousness and sympathy.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes past eleven o'clock.