Sitting of 5 November 1968

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

  MINISTERS OF THE CROWN
  The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address as follows:
  I have received your Address praying that the Secretary of State for Social Services Order 1968 be made in the form of the Draft laid before your House.
  I will comply with your request.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

  SELECTION
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That Mr. Hugh Delargy, Mr. Harold Finch, Mr. Harold Gurden, Mr. Clifford Kenyon, Mr. Kenneth Lewis, Mr. Francis Pym, Mr. Harry Randall, Mr. George Rogers, Mr. Thomas Steele, Mr. John M. Temple, and Mr. Wilkins be members of the Committee of Selection—[Mr. Harper.]
  Debate arising; and objection being taken to further proceeding, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  MINISTRY OF POWER

    Electricity Prices (Large Consumers)
    Mr. J. H. Osbornasked the Minister of Power what is the outcome of his Department's study of special electricity prices for large consumers.
    The Minister of Power (Mr. Roy Mason): The possibility of special electricity prices for large consumers is the subject of continuing study by the electricity supply industry, in consultation with my Department. The industry's tariffs already confer considerable advantage on consumers with large and economical loads.
    Mr. Osborn: When are we to know what the tariffs will be and which are the industries concerned? Presumably aluminium, chemicals, and perhaps steel, are the industries. When are we to have a definite statement placed before the House on what is the policy?
    Mr. Mason: There is no specific study as such. I should remind the House that the statutory responsibility for fixing electricity prices rests ultimately with the boards in consultation with the consultative councils.

    Thermal Power Stations (Coal Firing)
    Mr. J. H. Osbornasked the Minister of Power what proposals he is now considering for the construction of coal-fired thermal power stations.
    Mr. Mason: The C.E.G.B. are constructing or commissioning some 20,000 MW of coal-fired plant. No additional proposals are under consideration at present.
    Mr. Osborn: Although what has been constructed is welcome, what is to be the future of the coalfields in the East Midlands and Yorkshire? Is there not a possible continued use of coal for coal-fired thermal power stations?
    Mr. Mason: What is most important is that coal is produced at the right price

    665
    so that the C.E.G.B. can use it in large quantities for many years to come. By 1974, 75 per cent. of the plant will still be coal-fired.
    Mr. Swain: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the coal-mining industry reduced its production costs by 2s. 6d. per ton to industrial consumers last year and that if this process is continued until 1975 coal will compete favourably in price with nuclear energy or natural gas?
    Mr. Mason: Of course I hope that by 1971, at the end of the transitional phase, output per man-shift and increases in productivity will be such that we shall have a hard core of long-life mines and a robust and efficient coal-mining industry.

    North Sea Gas (Conversion Programme)
    Sir B. Rhys Williamsasked the Minister of Power if he will make a statement on his consultations with the Gas Council on the problems involved in the conversion of consumers to North Sea gas.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. Reginald Freeson): The main conversion programme began this year and about 250,000 consumers have been dealt with. The Gas Council have informed my right hon. Friend that a small number of consumers have suffered real inconvenience, but the boards are trying hard to overcome initial difficulties so that the operation is carried out smoothly and efficiently.
    Sir B. Rhys Williams: Is the Minister aware that there is widespread public feeling that insufficient has been done to inform consumers, particularly domestic consumers, of their rights? What steps does he propose to take to rectify that?
    Mr. Freeson: That is not my experience. I have been around a number of Gas Boards, and I am aware of the tremendous efforts which are being made to organise excellent public relations and information services on this matter. If the hon. Member has a particular case in mind, no doubt he will get in touch with us.
    Mr. David Watkins: Is my hon. Friend aware that considerably more than 30
    666
    million appliances will have to be converted? Is he satisfied that the Gas Council is geared to this immense task without causing too much inconvenience to consumers?
    Mr. Freeson: In a massive operation of this kind, there is bound to be some inconvenience, considering the large number of consumers involved, but we are satisfied that the Gas Council and the boards are well organised for this purpose. There are proposals to strengthen the central organisation in connection with the absorption of natural gas.
    Mr. Emery: The Minister said that a small number of consumers had been inconvenienced. What number does he mean by "a small number?"
    Mr. Freeson: I am not in a position to quote the specific figure.

    North Sea (Exploration Wells)
    Mr. Hall-Davisasked the Minister of Power how many wells have been drilled in the North Sea since 1st January, 1968; how many of these were extension or proving of existing fields and how many were new exploration; how many new exploration wells have produced positive results; and how many of these are likely to prove capable of commercial development.
    Mr. Freeson: Seventy-three wells have been completed since 1st January, 1968. Ten were drilled to prove earlier finds and 30 were new explorations. The remainder were production wells. Two exploration wells discovered gas, but further drilling will be required to prove their commercial value.
    Mr. Hall-Davis: Will the Minister now publish a revised estimate of total reserves?
    Mr. Freeson: We have no reason to do so.
    Mr. Eadie: Is my hon. Friend aware that the vast capital expenditure involved in all of this is now being challenged? Is he aware of an article which appeared in the Financial Times to this effect? Is he also aware that quite a lot of other indigenous resources are available to us in this country, and will he examine this whole question and the vast capital expenditure involved from the point of view of the economy in general?
    Mr. Freeson: It is implicit in the White Paper on Fuel Policy that there will be a continuing study and revision as and when required of any estimates and figuring in that document As for the rate of absorption in relation to the capital investment programme of the industry, we have no reason to revise our ideas at this stage.

    Fuel Requirements
    Mr. Kelleyasked the Minister of Power what reassessment he intends to make of the estimate of the fuel requirements of the nation as set out in Command Paper No. 3438 of November, 1967.
    Mr. Emeryasked the Minister of Power when he will be able to inform the House on his first retrospective look at the estimates in the Fuel Policy White Paper.
    Mr. Mason: As I told the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) on 24th July—Vol. 769, c. 151—the monitoring of energy developments is part of the normal work of the Ministry. I will, of course, tell the House if it should lead to any change of policy.
    Mr. Kelley: Is the Minister aware that the statement made at the weekend to the effect that the Government were able to reappraise the enegry situation in Britain has received universal welcome in the coalfields? Will he now go further and ask the National Coal Board to suspend any further pit closures on economic grounds until this reappraisal has been completed?
    Mr. Mason: On the question of closures, we will be heeding the recommendations of the regional planning chairman and will be determining quite soon what the deferment programme should be for the winter months.
    Mr. Emery: As the right hon. Gentleman claimed on 12th July that he was urgently engaged in his first retrospective look at the White Paper, surely now, four months having passed, we should be given an answer.
    Mr. Mason: I am now studying the matter as a result of that retrospective look. I met the chairmen of the nationalised industries at Sunningdale. There are later Questions on this issue.
    Mr. Palmer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the White Paper has still not yet been discussed and approved by the House?
    Mr. Mason: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and not for me.
    Mr. Shinwell: My right hon. Friend talks about informing the House when changes are made. Does that mean in future that he will not make decisions when the House is in recess instead of making them when the House is in session, as he did in the case of the decision about Seaton Carew?
    Mr. Mason: It depends on the urgency of the matter—[Interruption.]—and what the decision is designed to do. In the case to which my right hon. Friend referred, we were anxious to get 300 men at work by Christmas on the nuclear site.

    Sunningdale Conference
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Minister of Power whether he will make a statement on his recent Summit fuel conferences at the Civil Defence Staff College at Sunningdale, Berkshire, with the National Coal Board and other nationalised fuel industries; and to what extent he has been able to reach an agreed policy for the coal user between the National Coal Board and the Electricity and Gas Boards, and others.
    Mr. Lubbockasked the Minister of Power if he will publish the documents submitted by him to the Sunningdale Conference; what decisions were made at the conference; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Laneasked the Minister of Power in what respects he proposes to alter the Government's fuel policy as a result of his recent conference at Sunningdale; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Bostonasked the Minister of Power if he will make a statement on the recent talks he had with the chairmen of the fuel and steel industries at Sunningdale.
    Mr. Croninasked the Minister of Power what consideration he is giving to

    669
    reviewing the Government's policy for coal in the light of his recent conference at Sunningdale with the heads of the State fuel industries and the British Steel Corporation.
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Minister of Power if he will make a statement on his reappraisal of national fuel policy following his recent discussions with the heads of the fuel industries.
    Mr. Mason: The Conference at Sunningdale was the first meeting under my chairmanship of the Minister of Power's Co-ordinating Committee, in which the chairmen of the nationalised industries, for which I am responsible, came together for collective discussion on matters of common interest. At this meeting we took the opportunity, as part of the Ministry's continuing work on fuel policy to review developments in the energy sector since the publication of the White Paper, and to discuss the programme for further work on energy problems. The meeting was also concerned with broader general questions of relations between the Government and the industries.
    It was not intended to reappraise policy as such, or to reach new policy decisions, and none were taken. The papers and proceedings of the Conference are confidential.
    Sir G. Nabarro: That is a very unsatisfactory Answer. Can the right hon Gentleman assure the House that the long-standing hostility between the heads of the gas and electricity industries and the Chairman of the National Coal Board was resolved under his harmonious chairmanship, or does this hostility still remain?
    Mr. Mason: I found all the chairmen to be most reasonable and co-operative throughout the conference.
    Mr. Lubbock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when his predecessor refused to publish documents submitted to the Selsdon Park Conference, he was forced to disgorge them by the Committee on Science and Technology? Would it not be a good thing for the right hon. Gentleman to publish the documents in this case without being forced into doing so by another Select Committee? Would he agree that it would also be a better
    670
    idea to carry forward the estimates in the White Paper on fuel policy, rather than to revise those which have already been made, by adding another year's figures at the end?
    Mr. Mason: I do not like the threat underlying the hon. Gentleman's question about my being forced to reveal papers. On the occasion of the Selsdon Park Conference, drafts were before the chairmen in relation to the 1967 White Paper on fuel policy. On this occasion the two or three papers before the chairmen where on entirely different matters and were, therefore, confidential.
    Mr. Lane: In view of the importance of keeping down steel prices, what steps is the right hon. Gentleman taking to at least reduce the competitive disadvantage of the steel industry in terms of the price it must pay for fuel compared with its international competitors?
    Mr. Mason: That matter was not a subject on the agenda of the Sunningdale Conference.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that this House is entitled to information which is bandied about between the chairmen of nationalised industries and my right hon. Friend? Is it not the case that if my right hon. Friend is not forthcoming in this regard, a Select Committee of this House will ensure that it gets the information to which it is entitled?
    Mr. Mason: I fully appreciate the point of view of my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock)—
    Sir G. Nabarro: What about me? I started it.
    Mr. Mason: Hon. Members will be fully aware that if threats of this kind are to be made and if Select Committees are to search for papers, it is understandable that in future those who prepare papers for these round-table conferences will always have these matters in mind.
    Mr. Emery: As the Minister must appreciate that all of industry makes budgets and forecasts as a result of the White Paper on fuel policy, will he say categorically that the Selsdon Park Conference did not revise the budgets and

    671
    forecasts, and so enable industry to know exactly where it stands?
    Mr. Mason: That is true. It did not revise them, although there was a matter which perturbed the Chairman of the N.C.B. As I said, the other chairmen were co-operative and responsible throughout the conference and appreciated his difficulty; and we are prepared to look afresh at the new trends in coal.
    Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Is my right hon. Friend aware that rumour might result in disturbing stories being sent out to the public, so bringing a tremendous amount of fear to the hearts of the miners? Will he now publish the evidence which was arrived at at that conference, and so make us all aware of the facts?
    Mr. Mason: It would not help matters to publish such evidence because it has nothing to do with the matter before us. I said that the chairmen appreciated the position of the Chairman of the National Coal Board in relation to the recent rundown in manpower figures. Because of that, we are looking afresh at the trends in coal.
    Several Hon. Members—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Irvine, Question No. 11.
    Sir G. Nabarro: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's Answer, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the adjournment.
    Mr. Speaker: Such notice should be given more quickly.

    Underground Cables (Research)
    Mr. Bryant Godman Irvineasked the Minister of Power what discussions he has had with the Electricity Council with regard to increasing the level of its appropriation for research, particularly into the possibilities of placing 132 and 225 kilovolts cables underground.
    Mr. Freeson: My right hon. Friend will shortly discuss with the Chairman of the Electricity Council their general programme of research, but we believe they have the right order of expenditure
    672
    on underground cables generally and on high voltage in particular.
    Mr. Godman Irvine: Would the Parliamentary Secretary tell us any other organisation which is trying to keep abreast of a technological field and which spends less than 1 per cent. of its annual revenue on research? Now, with a substantial profit, is this not the moment to reconsider it?
    Mr. Freeson: It would be more correct to consider the actual figures. I understand that approximately £300,000 is spent specifically on underground cables and that a substantial part of the £700,000 which is being spent on high voltage direct current transmission and superconductivity is also related to undergrounding.
    Mr. Hall: Would the hon. Gentleman not look again at the amount of research devoted to the particular problem of placing cables underground, before the countryside becomes irretrievably ruined by the mass of pylons and overhead wires?
    Mr. Freeson: I, and doubtless other hon. Members, would appreciate it if a little less colourful phraseology were used. I have no doubt—I am as concerned as anyone here about the countryside—about the responsible attitude which the C.E.G.B. seeks to take. The last complete year's figures available show that about £6 million was spent on amenity in addition to commercial costs by the Board.

    Investment Policy
    Mr. Ridsdaleasked the Minister of Power whether he will make a statement on future investment policy in the gas, coal and electricity industries.
    Mr. Freeson: This is as stated in White Papers Cmnd. 3437 and 3438.
    Mr. Ridsdale: But is the hon. Gentleman not being rather inflexible in this policy? Does not the rapid expansion of gas investment during 1968–73, both on conversion and on capacity, render the subsequent large investment in electricity rather unnecessary?
    Mr. Freeson: The hon. Member could not have heard my Answer. I

    673
    referred, quoting the White Papers concerned, among other things to the White Paper on Fuel Policy, which lays down the guide lines for investment, and we are sticking to them.

    British Steel Corporation (Capital Return)
    Mr. Biffenasked the Minister of Power what is the target return on capital employed he proposes to set for the British Steel Corporation; and how this compares with the estimated current return.
    Mr. Freeson: My right hon. Friend has not yet settled a financial objective with the Corporation. In 1966–67 the nationalised steel companies' return on capital employed was 1·9 per cent. after depreciation but before tax and interest.
    Mr. Biffen: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that utmost priority must be given to the determination of a return of interest? Could he say whether, in the pursuit of economic excellence, it is the intention of his Ministry to relate that return to the most profitable rates of return of North American and European steel manufacturers?
    Mr. Freeson: The position is as laid down in guidelines in the White Paper on the Nationalised Industries, Cmnd. 3437, to which I have referred. To quote from it, the targets which we will be seeking to reach as soon as possible
    "…should reflect sound investments and pricing policy and not vice versa."
    That is a policy to which we shall adhere.

    Steel Prices
    Mr. Biffenasked the Minister of Power what proposals he has received from the British Steel Corporation seeking to raise the prices of its products; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Freeson: None, Sir; but the Corporation's major price review is nearing completion and my right hon. Friend expects to receive their conclusions before the end of the year.
    Mr. Biffen: When making those considerations, will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the present rate of return of the British Steel Corporation is ludicrously low if it is to finance its capital
    674
    investment to any degree at all out of retained profits? Would he also ensure that any price increases are so organised as not to discriminate against the substantial private sector which still operates in the British steel industry?
    Mr. Freeson: Those words are noted on the record, but I cannot anticipate the Corporation's conclusions, which will be presented to my right hon. Friend.

    Aberfan Inquiry (Recommendations)
    Mr. S. O. Daviesasked the Minister of Power what progress has been made by Her Majesty's Government in implementing the recommendations of the Aberfan Tribunal of Inquiry.
    Mr. Mason: I shall review progress when I move the Second Reading of the Mines and Quarries (Tips) Bill on Thursday.
    Mr. Davies: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind, whatever transpires on Thursday, the appalling cost which the people of Aberfan have had to face, and that no further cost should be expected from them—as otherwise his Bill will be strongly opposed?
    Mr. Mason: As I said, I cannot anticipate my review on Thursday, but no doubt my hon. Friend should feel extremely grateful that we have made progress and that the Bill is before us this week.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side are glad of the Government's intention to deal with the tips at Aberfan? How much money, however, has been spent on this tip between the disaster and now? Have we to wait for the passing of the Bill before any further work can be done?
    Mr. Mason: The original Question had nothing to do with the Aberfan tip, but with the Bill which is before the House. I believe, however, that £600,000 has already been spent on the tip since that time.

    Sheffield Rolling Mills Company
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Minister of Power what is the reason for the retention by the British Steel Corporation of a 45 per cent. holding in the privately-owned Sheffield Rolling Mills Company.
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Minister of Power (1) whether, before approving the application by the British Steel Corporation, he will make it a condition that the Corporation shall have a 51 per cent. holding in the proposed new steel company, Sheffield Rolling Mills Limited;
    (2) if he will make a statement on the official discussions which have taken place with the Trades Union Congress Steel Consultative Committee about the proposed formation of Sheffield Rolling Mills Limited and which involve the transfer of publicly-owned assets worth £3 million to the private sector of the steel industry.
    Mr. Mason: I am satisfied that the general arrangements agreed for Sheffield Rolling Mills Ltd., are in the interest of the nationalised steel industry, although I will not give final approval until satisfactory detailed terms to give effect to them have been worked out. I have agreed to send the T.U.C. Steel Industry Consultative Committee a paper setting out the position.
    Mr. Ridley: But since this company is to be returned to the private sector, can the Minister explain why the taxpayers' money is to be spent on investments in it? He must give a reason for spending public money. What is the reason for this 45 per cent. holding in an ordinary private company?
    Mr. Mason: Because the Tinsley Park Bar Mill comes under the B.S.C., the B.S.C. wants to safeguard its interests and it is satisfied that its 45 per cent. interest will do just that.
    Mr. Hooley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the contribution of the private sector to this venture is, to some extent, on their own admission, in the form of obsolescent plant and equipment, while the contribution of the public sector is in the most modern plant in Europe? Would it not be more equitable to the taxpayer, who has already paid for this plant, if a majority holding in the new company were held by the British Steel Corporation?
    Mr. Mason: The Tinsley Park Bar Mill has never worked above 50 per cent. capacity, and has been making heavy losses in recent years. The B.S.C. is satisfied with the suggestion that it shall
    676
    have the managing director and two directors as well on the new company and that its interests will be safeguarded.

    Helium Supplies (North Sea)
    Mr. Lubbockasked the Minister of Power what information he has about the proportion of helium in each of the natural gas fields discovered in the North Sea; and if he will undertake a study to ascertain the probable cost of extracting this helium, and the potential market for it in cryogenic laboratories.
    Mr. Freeson: All natural gas supplies in the North Sea contain a very small proportion of helium. Detailed information is reported to me by the licensees, but it is confidential. With regard to the second part, I am looking into this with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology.
    Mr. Lubbock: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Does he appreciate that all the liquid helium used in cryogenic laboratories must be imported from the United States and Canada and that, if it were feasible to extract the material from the North Sea, we would achieve a substantial import saving?
    Mr. Freeson: The point is taken, but on present information—I stress those words—the cost of extracting helium from the North Sea would, it seems, be more expensive than our present imports.

    Fuel Consumption Forecasts
    Mr. Speedasked the Minister of Power what estimate he has made of the percentage of coal in total fuel con sumption in 1971, and of the tonnage which this will represent.
    Mr. Freeson: Estimates of coal consumption were published in the Fuel Policy White Paper (Cmnd. 3438).
    Mr. Speed: Does that reply mean that, notwithstanding Brookings, the E.I.U. and other reports, the present rate of run-down will be maintained?
    Mr. Freeson: We have no reason at this stage to revise the forecast announced in the White Paper.

    Electricity (Pylon Routes)
    Mr. Bryant Godman Irvineasked the Minister of Power whether he is

    677
    satisfied with the operation of the existing procedures for prior consultations between his Department and the Central Electricity Generating Board on pylon routes; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Freeson: The Board consults local planning authorities and other bodies, not with the Department, and my right hon. Friend is satisfied that these procedures work well.
    Mr. Godman Irvine: Has the Parliamentary Secretary taken into consideration the fact that on two occasions this year those procedures have not worked in that the appeals were rejected? Does not this indicate that he should have another look at the matter?
    Mr. Freeson: The whole object of having independent appeals procedure is to ensure that a view is taken independently of the industry and the appellants on either side. The Minister cannot get involved in procedures because he is in a quasi-judicial position at the end of the day.

    Gas Industry (Capital)
    Mr. Emeryasked the Minister of Power how much of the new £1,600 million capital provided for the gas industry has already been taken up; and what proportion of the borrowing power it is estimated will be used in the current fiscal year and the fiscal year 1969–70.
    Mr. Mason: £1,600 million is the total of the old borrowing powers and the new borrowing powers granted under the Gas and Electricity Act, 1968. The Gas Council and boards have not yet taken up any of their new £400 million borrowing powers.
    Mr. Emery: If the views in the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries concerning North Sea gas are accepted, would the Minister not consider that the total borrowing power ought to be looked at again and that there ought to be some reconsideration of it? Will he consider the whole matter in the light of the Select Committee's Report?
    Mr. Mason: I do not see any reason for reconsidering this in the light of the Select Committee's Report. I do not know to what specific recommendation the hon. Member is referring, but on the whole the Select Committee's Report is
    678
    fairly favourable and it has established so far that there are 25 years' supplies of North Sea gas at the rate of 3,000 m.c.f.d. and this is coming along as planned.
    Mr. Palmer: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that control of this vast expenditure should be in the hands of the Gas Council? Is it not a matter of general interest, particularly in view of natural gas, to the fuel industries generally?
    Mr. Mason: I scrutinise rigorously investments of all the boards each year.

    Gas Industry (Cable Laying Powers)
    Mr. Laneasked the Minister of Power whether, in his forthcoming legislation on the structure of the gas industry, he will consider empowering it to lay electric cables as part of total energy schemes.
    Mr. Freeson: My right hon. Friend has no such proposal in mind at present.
    Mr. Lane: In view of the very high thermal efficiencies achieved by some of these schemes in the United States, has the Minister any plans in this Session to get rid of some of the rigidities in structure of our nationalised energy industries?
    Mr. Freeson: That is a rather different question from the question about power to lay cables. If we are to look at this question it should not be considered solely from the point of view of one of the fuel industries, for there is an interest in this right across the board.

    Continental Shelf
    Mr. Bostonasked the Minister of Power what progress he is making in his study of the future exploration of the Continental Shelf.
    Mr. Freeson: It has just begun.
    Mr. Boston: I welcome my hon. Friend's statement. Can he give an idea of how long the study is likely to take and whether he will be publishing the results? Does he envisage announcing changes in the licensing procedure before the present arrangements come to an end in 1970 and 1971?
    Mr. Freeson: This is a subject which is part of a study which has just begun.

    679
    There is time available, as the licences do not fall due until 1970 and 1971, so I am sure that we shall be able to come up with the answers well before then.
    Mr. Emery: Will the hon. Gentleman say a little more about licences which have not been let, particularly as there is some comment that he should be encouraging the oil companies to begin drilling in the Irish Sea, the Bristol Channel and, indeed, the northern part of the Continental Shelf?
    Mr. Freeson: This is one of the matters which will have to be considered as part of the study. There are a number of factors to be taken into account, not least the objectives set out in the Labour Party's recent study document on this subject.

    Electricity Generating Capacity
    Mr. Palmerasked the Minister of Power what is the margin of surplus generating capacity likely to be attained by the Central Electricity Generating Board in the coming winter; if the level is such that power cuts will be avoided; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Mason: The Central Electricity Generating Board expects to have a margin of about 20 per cent. over the maximum demand in average cold spell weather. This should be fully adequate.
    Mr. Palmer: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, although we should congratulate the C.E.G.B. on this very excellent result, this now presents an opportunity to the Board to take out of service some of its really old plant and hence increase the general efficiency of the British electricity supply system?
    Mr. Mason: Yes, and as the new plant is coming into commission the Board is taking advantage of the margin to do exactly that.
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: Can we take the right hon. Gentleman's answer as disposing of the rumour that night storage heater costs are to be increased?
    Mr. Mason: I should want notice of that question.

    New Power Stations (Report)
    Mr. Palmerasked the Minister of Power when he expects the Committee
    680
    headed by Sir Alan Wilson to inquire into the causes of delays in commissioning the new power stations of the Central Electricity Generating Board to report.
    Mr. Mason: I hope to have the Committee's report by early next year.
    Mr. Palmer: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that this Committee, which is a little inbred in its membership, will give him a really impartial and penetrating report on this very serious problem?
    Mr. Mason: Yes. The Committee is treating this very seriously. I do not accept my hon. Friend's view that the Committee is inbred. It has already met twenty times and is still collecting evidence and visiting power station sites. I shall have its report by the turn of the year.

    Seaton Carew Power Station
    Mr. Willeyasked the Minister of Power what steps he is taking to ensure that the construction of the Seaton Carew power station provides maximum employment for persons in the North-East.
    Mr. Mason: The Central Electricity Generating Board's specification provides that the contractor should make the maximum use of all suitable local labour and should give consideration to placing sub-contracts with local firms where appropriate.
    Mr. Willey: Is my hon. Friend aware that it was a disappointment to the North-East that we did not get the contract? In view of the importance of getting work of this character to the North-East, will my right hon. Friend ensure that this provision is fully carried out?
    Mr. Mason: I will certainly watch that. As my right hon. Friend knows, Babcock English Electric Nuclear Limited got the contract. Seventy men are already on the site. There should be several hundred employed by mid-winter.
    Dame Irene Ward: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the date when it was decided to call for tenders?
    Mr. Mason: I could not give that offhand, but if it is perturbing the hon. Lady I will write to her about it.
    Mr. Shinwell: Can my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that men

    681
    who have been made redundant in my constituency as a result of the closure of pits because of the action of the Coal Board, with the consent of the Government, of my right hon. Friend's Department in particular, will be re-employed on the site at Seaton Carew?
    Mr. Mason: No doubt some of them will be, but most of the unemployed in my right hon. Friend's area are construction workers and not miners.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Will my right hon. Friend give special attention to the facilities available in the switchgear industry for this very important contract on Tyneside?
    Mr. Mason: No doubt that will be taken into consideration by the contracting company.

  COAL

    Pit Closures
    Sir B. Rhys Williamsasked the Minister of Power what estimates he has made of the value of capital that will have to be written off in the period 1968–69 within the coal industry as a result of pit closures.
    Mr. Freeson: Of the £129 million written off from the Reserve Fund in the N.C.B.'s 1967–68 Accounts about £38 million was for pit closures expected in 1968–69.
    Sir B. Rhys Williams: Is the hon. Member prepared to lay before the House the plans for pit closures expected this winter?
    Mr. Freeson: That is another question.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Minister aware that in my constituency, where there have been extensive pit closures, they are advertising for coal miners? Would he comment on that?
    Mr. Freeson: I hope that the advertising and recruiting campaign will be effective, but it is not germane to the Question.

    Mining Industry (Production)
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Minister of Power whether he will make a state-
    682
    ment on the undertakings he has given to the National Coal Board, and the National Union of Mineworkers, for future production arrangements for the coalmining industry and reduced rate of pit closures; and whether he will now publish, as amended, the Government's White Paper on Energy Policy.
    Mr. Mason: I have given no such undertakings, but I am studying recent developments in the industry.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Has not the right hon. Gentleman perceived that in the first 42 weeks of this year the massive number of 50,000 men left the coalmining industry, reducing its labour force by 13 per cent., so that the rate of output of coal has declined by no less than 8 million tons a year? Is he satisfied with that calamitous rate of depreciation of our most important basic industry?
    Mr. Mason: I have also noticed that output per man shift has increased faster than we anticipated and that the number of industrial disputes in the industry this year is the lowest on record.
    Mr. Swain: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the 1967 White Paper natural gas, oil and nuclear energy were given guaranteed markets? In any review of the 1967 White Paper, will my right hon. Friend make it compulsory for these three industries to compete on equal terms with the coal-mining industry?
    Mr. Mason: I will, of course, give consideration to any suggestions made by my hon. Friend.

    Pricing Policy
    Mr. Speedasked the Minister of Power if he is yet ready to make a statement on the pricing policy of the National Coal Board.
    Mr. Freeson: No, Sir.
    Mr. Speed: Is it the Minister's intention that the N.C.B.'s present pricing policy will continue to result in the closure of long-life, marginally profitable, high-output coalfields?
    Mr. Freeson: That is another question, but we do not expect the results of the study referred to in the Question before the end of the year.

    Pithead Costs
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Minister of Power what is currently the long-term marginal cost of coal at the pit head.
    Mr. Mason: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on 26th July.—[Vol. 769, c. 261.]
    Mr. Ridley: Will the Minister confirm that it is the Government's policy that nationalised industries should charge prices related to long-term marginal costs? Would he further confirm that in the case of the Coal Board these prices are very different from those which are in fact being charged?
    Mr. Mason: Long-run marginal costing is being studied in the current review of the N.C.B.'s present structure, but the hon. Member should be aware that forecasting in this industry is terribly complex because it is subject to a great deal of change and depends on assumptions about productivity, rate of extraction, and, as this is a labour industry, also on the cost of labour.

    Scotland (Pit Closures)
    Mr. Gordon Campbellasked the Minister of Power if he will make a statement on the proposals for pit closures in Scotland in 1969.
    Mr. Mason: The programme of colliery closures for 1969 is in the process of being formulated by the National Coal Board. It has so far announced the closure of Roslin Colliery and that the results of three other colleries are such as to put their future in jeopardy.
    Mr. Campbell: What action is the Minister taking with other Ministers concerned to make special arrangements for redundant miners in view of the fact that the total number of jobs of all kinds in Scotland has fallen by more than 20,000 since 1964?
    Mr. Mason: Apart from the tremendous work which Ministers are putting in to make sure that alternative employment is available, we recognise that the outflow from the mines may be faster than we can install or erect new employment. Therefore, we introduced the over-55 scheme and 33,000 miners will benefit
    684
    under that scheme. This is easing the situation.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend say which three pits have their future in jeopardy? What progress has been made in providing alternative jobs in the areas designated as special development areas consequent on pit closures?
    Mr. Mason: On the S.D.A.s my hon. Friend should address his Question to the Board of Trade. The three pits concerned are Blair, Auchincruive and Kennox. No other closures are contemplated in the winter.
    Mr. Eadie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Roslin Colliery is in my constituency and that this is the second pit closure in my constituency in a very short time? Is he aware that these closures are causing concern among miners not only in my constituency but all over Scotland?
    Mr. Mason: I am fully aware of anxieties about pit closures because there have been five in my constituency. I do not think I can take it much further than that. We shall be dependent on chairmen of regional planning committees letting us know where a pit closure will cause or aggravate high unemployment rates in the regions and they will be considered for deferment.

    Brookings Institution (Report)
    Mr. Alisonasked the Minister of Power whether he has considered the proposals for a slower run-down of the coal industry made in the Brookings Institution study, Britain's Economic Prospects, extracts from which have been sent to him; and what steps he plans to take on the proposals.
    Mr. Mason: The energy section of the Brookings' Report was written before the publication last November of the Fuel Policy White Paper. The Report fails to recognise that more is being done now to slow down the contraction of the coal industry than has been done by any other Government.
    Mr. Alison: Does the Minister appreciate that the Brookings Institution Report throws at least some reasonable doubt on the wisdom of the Government's proposed rate of run-down of economic

    685
    pits between 1970–75? In view of the fact that the run-down will have catastrophic results in the Yorkshire Coalfield where there are very few alternative employment opportunities, will he give the coal industry benefit of doubt on the Report?
    Mr. Mason: No, I will not. As I said, the Brookings Report came out before I the Institution had available the analysis we made and the papers we prepared for fuel policy. There have been three independent reports since 1966, the P.E.P., the E.I.U. and the Brookings and they all came to different conclusions.
    Mr. Ridley: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that if the Government pursued their own policy of adopting long-term marginal costing for coal the price of coal would go up and the rate of decline in the coal industry would therefore increase?
    Mr. Mason: That is not necessarily true, but we shall wait to see what the Coal Board says about long-term marginal costing when it has put forward its new pricing policy.

    Smokeless Fuels
    Mr. Alisonasked the Minister of Power if he estimates that winter output and supplies of smokeless fuels will be adequate to meet demand.
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Minister of Power if he is aware of the difficulties in many parts of the country in obtaining supplies of anthracite and other smokeless fuels; what statistics are available for the demand and supply of such fuels; and what steps he is taking to improve the supply.
    Mr. Freeson: My right hon. Friend is aware of difficulties in some parts of the country in supplies of particular smokeless fuels. Discussions have been held between producers, British Rail, merchants and the Department, and the National Coal Board has told my right hon. Friend that it is increasing supplies of smokeless fuels, particularly anthracite nuts.
    Supply and demand figures for smokeless fuels appear in the Ministry of Power's Statistical Digest. Weekly disposals
    686
    and merchants' stocks of anthracite and boiler fuel are also published in the Ministry's Weekly Statistical Statement.
    Mr. Alison: What will be the position in regard to more specialised smokeless fuel such as "Home-fire" or "Bronowski Bullets" as they are sometimes called? Does the industry show the same wide-eyed optimism as the National Coal Board about these fuels or does it take a more moderate view?
    Mr. Freeson: I will ignore the rather wide-eyed adjective used by the hon. Member and say that there will be difficulties as I have indicated this year, but the N.C.B. and the merchants think that they can master the difficulties and that there will be sufficient supplies available.
    Mr. Roberts: Is my hon. Friend aware that many people are dependent for cooking facilities on some of these fuels and if the clean air policy is to have any meaning these fuels will have to be readily available?
    Mr. Freeson: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. A tremendous effort is being made in consultation with the various parties to whom I have referred to get the matter reconsidered for this winter and to ensure that there are no difficulties in future.
    Dr. Gray: Is my hon. Friend aware that some of my rural constituents have been cooking on Aga stoves for 20 years and this is the first time that they have not been able to obtain Phurnacite? Will he look into the matter and act quickly?
    Mr. Freeson: If my hon. Friend will give information to the N.C.B. and merchants they will pursue the matter.

    Redundancy Payments (Appeals)
    Mr. David Watkinsasked the Minister of Power what plans he has to establish an appeals procedure for dealing with applications for benefit under the Redundant Mineworkers (Payments) Scheme, 1968.
    Mr. Freeson: My right hon. Friend has agreed with the unions the establishment of local committees to examine disputed cases, and is discussing with the Department for Employment and Productivity how we might call upon the

    687
    personnel of industrial tribunals as advisers in such cases.
    Mr. Watkins: Is my hon. Friend aware that the National Coal Board appears to be interpreting the Order very narrowly and legalistically and not in the spirit which I am sure was intended by hon. Members who supported the Order in the House? Can we be assured that borderline cases will be given very adequate attention by the very welcome machinery which my hon. Friend is setting up?
    Mr. Freeson: It is not for me to comment on particular cases across the Floor of the House. I only hope that the machinery to which I have referred will be set up soon so that disputes can be solved through it.

  SCHOOL MEDICAL SERVICE
  Dr. Winstanleyasked the Prime Minister if he will transfer responsibility for the school medical service from the Department of Education and Science to the Department of Social Services.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I see no case for doing so at present.
  Dr. Winstanley: Does the Prime Minister recall that the school medical service was set up at a time when there was a very real financial barrier between many children and the doctors, that this barrier has now largely disappeared, and that there is therefore a need to reassess the rôle of the school doctor and to try to bring him into closer contact with the general practitioner and other services instead of leaving him in his present position of damaging isolation?
  The Prime Minister: I do not accept the phrase "damaging isolation", though I recognise that there is disagreement within the hon. Gentleman's own profession on this question. As the hon. Gentleman will know, a very high proportion of school medical officers are medical officers of health or on the staff of medical officers of health, so the service is integrated with the community in that way. Also, quite a high proportion of them are general practitioners.
  Mr. Pavitt: Will my right hon. Friend take it from me that there is a duplica-
  688
  tion and waste of very valuable medical manpower in this field? If he cannot transfer this service at the moment, will he have consultations with the two Ministers concerned to have a study made in the hope that we shall have a more rational approach?
  The Prime Minister: I will certainly discuss it with my two right hon. Friends. This matter has been kept under review on a number of occasions. It can be looked at again at any time, though I do not accept that there is a waste of medical manpower by the present situation.

  PRIME MINISTER OF NORTHERN IRELAND (DISCUSSIONS)
  Mr. Juddasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on his consultations with the Government of Northern Ireland concerning recent events in that territory.
  Mr. Whitakerasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on his recent talks with the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland.
  Mr. McNamaraasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his talks with Captain O'Neill.
  The Prime Minister: My discussions with the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland covered five main areas: the local government franchise, allocation of housing, recent events in Londonderry, the Special Powers Acts, and the appointment of a Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration in Northern Ireland. We agreed to report back to our colleagues.
  Mr. Judd: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that there is widespread feeling in Great Britain that there is much in Northern Ireland that is an affront to the standards of democracy and human rights which we like to take for granted in Britain and that he will have all possible support in any action he thinks it necessary to take?
  The Prime Minister: Without associating myself with the particular words used by my hon. Friend, I can say that I am well aware, and the whole House is aware, of the very great feeling in the

  689
  House, not entirely on this side of the House, and the feelings and the reasons for these anxieties were very fully represented to Captain O'Neill and his colleagues.
  Mr. Whitaker: By when may we expect universal local franchise in Ulster, and by when may we expect a multi-religious body to investigate allegations of religious discrimination impartially?
  The Prime Minister: With regard to the local government franchise, the current expectation is that this would take some little time, because it would be waiting until after the very necessary and complicated system of local government reform. We have represented that it is urgent that the local authority franchise should be got on with now, because the principles underlying one man, one vote, the company vote and the rest on the franchise are just as applicable whatever the form of local government boundaries or local government units there.
  Mr. McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when this subject was discussed yesterday we had no refutation of the allegations made against the Ulster situation other than a vicious and monstrous personal attack upon my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt)? Did the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland give any firm undertaking about the reforms that he is likely to introduce and name any firm date other than some of the vagueness that appeared in some sections of the Press this morning?
  The Prime Minister: Both Captain O'Neill and I will be reporting back to our colleagues. It will be then a matter for decision how this matter will be carried further forward. Captain O'Neill can be in no doubt about the contrast we are able to point to between the handling of these matters in the recent demonstration in London and what happened in Londonderry recently. I am proposing to send to Captain O'Neill the report by the three hon. Members of this House which came to me. It is right that this report should go to Captain O'Neill, because Northern Ireland has the full responsibility in these matters of internal law and order and I think that this report should be seen by them. I think that the whole House would feel more confidence
  690
  in the administration of that particular incident if the Northern Ireland Government were to appoint an impartial inquiry into what happened.
  Mr. Heath: Does not the Prime Minister agree that, if progress is to be made in Northern Ireland in the way which most hon. Members want, this can be done only by supporting those in Northern Ireland who are pursuing a moderate policy, and that to do otherwise is only to play into the hands of extremists, with results which may well be very damaging for both Northern Ireland and this country?
  Second, I refer to the list which the right hon. Gentleman read of subjects discussed with Captain O'Neill. He did not mention the Constitutional Commission proposed in the Queen's Speech. Was this discussed, and, if not, what was the reason for not discussing it?
  The Prime Minister: On the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, I very much agree, and I think that the whole House will, with what he said. Many of us on many occasions have paid tribute to the reforming liberalism, as far as it has gone, of Captain O'Neill; it ought to be encouraged to continue. On the other hand, we cannot get into a position where his vulnerability to pressures from the extremists referred to by the right hon. Gentleman could be used as an occasion for blackmail and could be used on occasion where we failed to press for the reforms which are necessary. If Captain O'Neill were thrown over, or what he is trying to do were thrown over, by extremists, we should ourselves need to consider a fundamental reappraisal of our relations with Northern Ireland. Meanwhile, therefore, he should be encouraged in pushing on with reform as fast as he can.
  Now, the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's question. We did not discuss the Commission about the constitution with Captain O'Neill at this stage. It will be discussed later. We spent most of the time discussing matters which are really urgent in relation to decisions which have to be taken now.
  Captain Orr: Will the Prime Minister agree that, in so far as there exists any real or alleged religious discrimination in the allocation of houses or employment, by far the best answer is to build

  691
  enough houses and to create enough employment? Will he assure us that Her Majesty's Government will continue to give the maximum financial support to the Government of Northern Ireland for these purposes?
  The Prime Minister: The simple answer to the problem raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman is to stop the discrimination. I welcome the progress made in the number of houses built in Northern Ireland over the past few years, just as, I am sure, the hon. and gallant Gentleman will welcome the unprecedented financial assistance which this Government have been giving for that and other purposes. However, if there were a general acceptance of standard rules for allocations, on the basis of a points system or something of that kind, in each local authority, the allocation of houses would be far more automatic and would not be subject either to discrimination or to suspicions of discrimination.
  Mr. Thorpe: Is the Prime Minister aware that some of us regard the proposed Commission on constitutional reform as sufficiently important to merit debate in the House, which is why we had a debate yesterday, though, unfortunately, we were not supported by the Opposition?
  I accept the confidentiality of the Prime Minister's talks with Captain O'Neill, but will he confirm that it is his view that all people in the United Kingdom may enjoy equal human rights in the immediate and foreseeable future even if they live in Northern Ireland?
  The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will understand that we are about to enter into consultations. We should start the consultations here first, before we have discussions with the Government of Northern Ireland, but we shall then discuss the matter with the Government of Northern Ireland and with other relevant bodies and authorities. However, there are certain matters, as I said last week in the debate on the Queen's Speech, which are too urgent to wait for consideration by a Constitutional Commission, including those raised by the right hon. Gentleman himself. For example, discrimination and the question of the Special Powers Act, for which we
  692
  bear international responsibility, are matters which must be discussed urgently.
  Sir Knox Cunningham: Will the Prime Minister condemn attacks on the police, whether they occur in Grosvenor Square or Londonderry, and condemn any Member of Parliament who encourages such attacks?
  The Prime Minister: I shall certainly not respond to the latter part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's question. That is what this House exists for—not least, abuses of power by the police or anyone else.
  Mr. Chichester-Clark: The right hon. Gentleman misunderstood my hon. and learned Friend's question.
  The Prime Minister: I could not hear the first few words, but I think I heard the last. If the hon. and learned Gentleman was referring in his first few words—he will correct me if I am wrong—to attacks on the police, I am sure that the whole House will join the Leader of the Opposition in the tribute paid to the London police last week. We shall pay tribute whenever it is due. But we must also comment on brutality when there are signs of that brutality. If I did not understand the question aright, I shall be glad if the hon. and learned Gentleman is given leave to repeat it.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister has asked the hon. and learned Member for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham) to put his supplementary question again. I call him to do so.
  Sir Knox Cunningham: I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker. Will the Prime Minister condemn any Member of Parliament who encourages attacks on the police, whether in Grosvenor Square or in Londonderry?
  The Prime Minister: I am sorry; there was so much noise that I did not quite hear it. I thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman was referring to attacks on the police in the form of Questions or in the form of statements. If he was referring to anyone, be he Member of Parliament or anyone else, who stimulates provocation to the police, whether in Grosvenor Square, Londonderry, or anywhere else, all of us would

  693
  condemn that, irrespective of whether the instigator was a Member of Parliament or not. I am sorry that I did not understand the question in the first place.
  Sir Knox Cunningham: I am obliged.

  WESTERN EUROPEAN UNION AND COUNCIL OF EUROPE (PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS)
  Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Prime Minister whether, in future, when re-appointing those delegates who have attended conferences such as the Western European Union and the Council of Europe, he will publish their attendance records at such conferences for the time for which they were previously appointed.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. But previous attendance is one of the factors which is taken into account in selecting delegates.
  Mr. Lewis: I thank the Prime Minister for that full and expected reply.

  RHODESIA
  Mr. Winnickasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the latest position on Rhodesia.
  The Prime Minister: I have nothing at present to add to the statement I made on 1st November, 1968.
  Mr. Winnick: If legal independence is in due course given to the Rhodesia Front, is it not obvious that one of the certain effects will be the breaking up of the Commonwealth, apart from other effects nearer at home?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I think that this would be difficult for a number of members of the Commonwealth, but I indicated last week some of the realities in the situation. We should all be sorry to feel that any member of the Commonwealth valued the Commonwealth link so lightly as to leave it on account of an agreement with Rhodesia, if that becomes possible, in relation to the six principles. It is relevant to tell our Commonwealth friends that what they have sought to insist on in relation to Rhodesia it is equally their duty to insist on in relation to Gibraltar, where, I am sorry to say, despite the declared wishes of 99·9 per
  694
  cent. of Gibraltarians, they have voted for Gibraltar to be handed over to Spain.
  Mr. Thorpe: Will the Prime Minister confirm that one of the great values which many of our fellow members of the Commonwealth attach to continued membership of it lies in the fact that it is multi-racial? Will he confirm or deny that he has been given advice that a settlement on the basis of the "Fearless" proposals would result in at least four members leaving the Commonwealth?
  The Prime Minister: I cannot give any credibility to that newspaper report. I am aware of the strong feelings of a number of members of the Commonwealth—more than four, in fact—but not to the extent of seeking to leave the Commonwealth if this were done. The multi-racialism of the six principles is the very basis on which successive Governments have insisted simply because it is multi-racial and will ensure majority rule in Rhodesia.

  GERMAN CHANCELLOR (COMMUNICATION)
  Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister what communication he sent to the German Chancellor in September about Anglo-German collaboration; what reply he has received; and if he will make a statement.
  The Prime Minister: My letter was confidential, but I can tell the House that it dealt generally with the need and the opportunities for closer European cooperation and the part that our two countries could play in this. A reply has not yet been received.
  Mr. Marten: Can the Prime Minister hazard a guess as to why a reply has not yet been received, and will he take the House a little more into his confidence on this important matter? Does he, for example, equate it in any way with the Debré proposals made yesterday at Brussels?
  The Prime Minister: I think that the reason why no reply has been received is that things have moved on a good deal since the letter was sent. There is continuing contact between my right hon. Friend and the German Foreign Minister. These matters will be further discussed

  695
  when I visit Germany in the New Year. There was no relation between this correspondence and the most recent proposals of M. Debré.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: How does the Prime Minister explain that West Germany, although she lost the war, is lending us money and is in a better financial situation than we are? Is it because Germany is spending less of her national income on armaments?
  The Prime Minister: It is a fact that Germany has been spending a lower proportion of her national income on armaments than has this country, although with the defence proposals which have been endorsed by the House, our percentage will fall to an equivalent of that of similar countries in Western Europe. Other big factors have been not only that Germany has had a continual inflow of refugees from East Germany but also that after the war, because of the damage, the West Germans carried through an enormous programme of reinvestment, rebuilding and modernisation. Some 20 years later we are only beginning to catch up with the investment in and the modernisation of British industry.

TANKER AND CARGO VESSEL (COLLISION)
Mr. Alan Lee Williams (by Private Notice)Mr. Alan Lee Williams (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make a statement on the collision between a petrol tanker and a cargo vessel at Crayfordness on the River Thames in the early hours of this morning.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Neil Carmichael): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply.
The collision occurred in patchy fog at 12.30 a.m. at Erith Rands, just off Crayfordness, between a 10,500 ton Japanese cargo vessel and a small 350 ton motor tank barge. The Japanese vessel suffered superficial damage, but the barge was overturned. Of the barge's crew of five, three men were picked up, but two are still missing.
The tank barge was carrying 380 tons of motor spirit, but, apart from over-696
turning, the vessel suffered only superficial damage and there was no fire or explosion. She has since been beached. A small amount of petrol escaped, but this would not cause any pollution because in view of its nature any escaping fuel would have quickly dispersed and evaporated. The fire service and the port authority's pollution officer are at the scene of the accident. Salvage experts expect to right the barge within 24 hours.
My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has ordered an immediate preliminary inquiry into the incident under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894.
Mr. Williams: Is my hon. Friend aware that some anxiety arises from the fact that a number of the small tankers do not carry radar? Can he confirm whether this ship was in receipt of radar? Can he say whether there is any danger at all in the Rainham area as a result of seepage of petrol?
Mr. Carmichael: I have no details about the radar. The preliminary inquiry will certainly find out and will let the Board of Trade know. My hon. Friend asked about the danger. We understand from the fire authorities that there is little danger, but as a precaution they have stopped the welding which was going on in a nearby ship further down the river.
Mr. Webster: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that we on this side of the House wish to express our sympathy with the relatives of those who lost their lives? Will the findings of the inquiry be published? Does not this accident bring to light the danger arising from tankers which suffer such disasters in coastal waters? Is it not time that we reconvened the International Convention for the Prevention of Oil Prevention? Would the hon. Member make a statement on this aspect of the matter, bearing in mind the "Torrey Canyon" disaster?
Mr. Carmichael: This is a slightly different matter from the "Torrey Canyon" disaster. The inquiry which has been ordered by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will, I hope, bring to the notice of the Department some of the questions which the hon. Member asked.

697
The question whether the matter is ultimately made the subject of a public inquiry is one for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
Mr. Murray: My right hon. Friend has given an assurance about the seepage of motor spirit. Can he say whether the authorities further down the Thames, such as Gravesend and Tilbury—bearing in mind that the tide turned about an hour ago and is now ebbing—are taking any precautions, just in case?
Mr. Carmichael: The experts who are on the job dealing with this accident are well acquainted with the facts of the Thames. The salvage officers are there hoping to make an attempt at the first tide to right the barge. The fire authorities, who are also there, and who are experienced in accidents of this kind, are standing by and giving their expert advice. From the advice which we have from the experts on the spot, it seems that everything is being taken into account to avoid any possibility of a spread of this tragic accident.
Mr. McNamara: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, apart from this unfortunate accident, the general run of these petrol spirit tankers is such that they are model craft, well built, and that the danger of seepage from such unfortunate accidents as this is very small?
Mr. Carmichael: That is quite true. The standards of these tankers are renewed from time to time. Such unfortunate accidents as this provide new information which allows my right hon. Friend to stipulate new specifications for them. I can assure my hon. Friend that as much care is taken in these specifications as is revealed to be necessary by use and by such unfortunate accidents as periodically occur.

NEW MEMBER SWORN
Joseph William Ashton, esquire, for Bassetlaw.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
  QUEEN'S SPEECH

    DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS
    [FIFTH DAY]
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [30th October]:
    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
    Most Gracious Sovereign,
    We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.
    Question again proposed.

  ECONOMIC SITUATION
  3.38 p.m.
  Mr. Speaker: Mr. Iain Macleod.
  Mr. James Dickens: On a point of order. May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether you have decided to take for a Division the Amendment standing in the names of 53 hon. Members, dealing with the economic situation?—At end add:
  "but humbly regret that the Gracious Speech fails to reappraise the Government's post-devaluation economic strategy, by mobilising our immense resources abroad to protect sterling and repay our foreign creditors and, thus, to provide for more rapid economic expansion at home, to improve the inadequate rate of investment, to annul the cuts in social services expenditure, to remove prescription charges, to further restrict the export of capital and, above all, to resume full employment."
  May I respectfully ask you to consider that this Amendment should be taken for a Division tonight? On a previous occasion—on 7th November, 1967—I endeavoured to persuade you to reconsider your decision to take an Amendment standing in the names of 45 hon. Members, dealing with the economic situation. I then indicated that in the Parliament of 1946 it had been the practice to take back-bench Amendments during the King's Speech of that year. You replied on that occasion that the great issue which prevented you from dealing with the matter in the way in which Mr. Speaker Clifton Brown dealt

  699
  with it then was the fact that eight days had then been given to the debate on the King's Speech against six days last years and five days this year.
  May I draw your attention to the fact that a reduction in the number of days given to the debate on the Address gravely diminishes the opportunities of back-bench Members to put forward Amendments of this or any other nature? May I also remind you that in the Parliament of 1930, during a six-day debate on the Loyal Address, Mr. Speaker Fitzroy, your distinguished predecessor, accepted for a Division a backbench Amendment moved at that time by Mr. Fred Jowett and seconded by the present Lord Brockway? It was taken to a vote on that occasion.
  I feel, too, that the question of the allocation of time for debates on the Address, while an important consideration, is not of crucial significance. I am putting it to you, Mr. Speaker, for your consideration, that there is a very strong case for saying that the amount of time taken up in debates by moving an Amendment and by having a Division on the Amendment at the end of the debate is not in itself significant.
  Moreover, Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to the number of Members who have signed this back-bench Amendment, 53 in all, a very high figure, eight more than the figure last year, a figure exceeded on only three occasions since 1946. I am suggesting to you—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We have an important debate ahead. I am not questioning the hon. Member's right to put the point of order, but I hope that he will do it briefly.
  Mr. Dickens: I conclude briefly, Mr. Speaker, by saying that I think there is a very strong case for stating that when over 50 hon. Members signed a backbench Amendment you might wish to consider this as being a qualitatively different matter from other back-bench Amendments commanding lesser support. I should be grateful for your guidance on this very important point of procedure.
  Mr. Speaker: May I say, first, that the number of days given to the debate on the Queen's Speech is not a matter for Mr. Speaker.
  700
  If I do not rule at length today it is because I ruled last year on this issue very carefully, very thoughtfully and very sympathetically.
  The selection of Amendments is a matter of special difficulty for the Chair, and for that reason no subject receives fuller or more careful consideration by Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, after several days of general debate on the Address, I called on the Official Opposition to move their first Amendment, and, as I then stated, I have selected the second Official Opposition Amendment for today's debate. Clearly, only one Amendment can be debated at one time. To enable other Amendments to be debated, it would be necessary, and, indeed, theoretically possible, for the first Amendment today to be disposed of, and the remaining Amendments on the Order Paper could then be called, provided always that we had not reached 10 o'clock.
  As the House knows, its practice does not contemplate this process in this kind of debate. It does, however, during the Committee stage on Bills, and even there the process of selection of Amendments has usually to be applied so as to get through the business within the limits of the Parliamentary timetable. As I have previously explained to the House, this practice as followed by the Chair does not prevent the expression of many points of view in the course of a debate, even though only one Amendment, that of the Official Opposition, has been selected. Most of the viewpoints which are expressed in the various Amendments on the Order Paper, including the hon. Gentleman's own Amendment, might have been canvassed in the general debate—indeed, I have already called seven of the hon. Members whose names are attached to the hon. Gentleman's Amendment—and some may still be canvassed by hon. Members who catch Mr. Speaker's eye.
  As I reminded the House last November—I quote my own words then:
  "As one who zealously wishes to protect the rights of minorities in the House, may I point out that this does not mean that Amendments put down on the Order Paper serve no purpose. Although the occasion does not permit their selection, the viewpoints expressed by those hon. Members and their supporters who put them down are stated on the Order Paper. Hon. Members may follow up those viewpoints in debate if they catch Mr. Speaker's eye. I have tried as far as possible, and I shall try today, to see that every point

  701
  of view expressed in an Amendment on the Order Paper has an opportunity of expression in debate. "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th November, 1967; Vol. 753, c. 847.]
  This, incidentally, I have done this year, and this I shall do today. Mr. Iain Macleod.
  Mr. Thomas Swain: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My Amendment on the Order Paper, to add, at the end of the Question,
  "but humbly regret that the Gracious Speech contains no reference to the setting up of an independent inquiry into the costings of the energy-producing industries, with particular reference to nuclear energy and natural gas or to a comprehensive review of the 1967 White Paper on Fuel Policy."
  will, no doubt, receive the same Ruling from you—attached to it are the names of a number of hon. Friends of mine and my own name—that it will be dealt with, in your wisdom, through the selection of speakers.
  May I respectfully suggest to you that there are more than 50 names attached to the Amendment in my name, but up to now, in this long debate, only two hon. Members have had an opportunity of reflecting the views expressed by 50 hon. Members as stated in the Amendment?
  Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that equally difficult to the task of selecting Amendments is the almost impossible task of choosing speakers. I have said before that there are something like 629 points of view seeking expression in the debate on the Queen's Speech. I try to be as fair as I can. Mr. Iain Macleod.
  Mr. Iain Macleod Mr. Iain Macleod (Enfield, West) rose—
  Mr. Peter M. Jackson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you not agree, Mr. Speaker, that hon. Members were very confused by the Ruling that you gave on the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens)? Would you please explain to the House the circumstances which would lead you to accept a back-bench Amendment?
  Mr. Speaker: No, because that has not arisen yet. Mr. Iain Macleod.
  3.46 p.m.
  Mr. Iain Macleod: I beg to move, at the end of the Question, to add:
  "but humbly regret that few of the proposals in the Gracious Speech have any relevance to
  702
  the declared intention of strengthening the economy."
  The Amendment is a statement of fact which, I should have thought, would claim general assent. It is deliberately drawn wide enough to include as many as possible of the points of view that have been put on the Order Paper, including the one put forward by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens), to which I shall refer in due course.
  There is a good deal of ground to cover, and perhaps, right at the beginning, I could say that there are a number of subjects which are of great importance, but which I do not intend to cover in my speech. They include special drawing rights, the question of third country sterling, the important debate now going on about money supply and its importance in the handling of our economy and, except in passing, the Basle Agreement.
  We hope very much that it will be possible to have an opportunity—we should prefer in Government time—to debate some of these matters, some of which are not controversial but all of which are of very great interest to the House. Naturally, I shall deal in my speech with some of the matters that have caught the headlines since our Amendment was tabled.
  I start, however, by discussing the problem of unemployment. The October figures show—and we are all glad to see it—although a small numerical increase, what may be an important seasonal drop, and that certainly is very welcome indeed. The facts, however, are very rough and must be put bluntly before the House.
  During the 13 years in which there were Tory Administrations there were, as I have previously reminded the House, eight months in which the seasonally adjusted figure of the wholly unemployed—which, of course, is the key figure—went over 500,000; eight months in 13 years. The October figure completes the eighteenth consecutive month under the present Government in which that figure has been surpassed. November will be the nineteenth, December will be the twentieth, and so on.
  I cannot believe that any hon. Member in any part of the House does not realise the significance of these figures. Clearly, they are the worst since 1940. Month by

  703
  month the particular month has been recorded as the worst figure since 1940. These figures call in question, as some Amendments specifically do, the commitment of the present Government to full employment. We recall very well the statement made by the Prime Minister on 20th July, 1966, when almost casually it seemed in response to a supplementary question he let drop the phrase about 1½ to 2 per cent. after all the shake-out and after the redeployment and the rest of it had taken place. There can be no doubt that, in a matter which has been raised by many hon. Members below the Gangway, Sir Leslie O'Brien, when in Rio de Janeiro, thought that he was declaring—and, in my view, was declaring—Government policy.
  I will assume for this part of my speech, although I will challenge it later, that the euphemisms offered by the right hon. Lady the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity for her comment last week are accurate. She said that what had been done by the Government was a touch on the tiller, a slight flexible adjustment here and there. The truth is that up to £100 million is being taken out of consumer demand, that this is a classic exercise of the classic pattern of deflation stop-go, that it is designed to create unemployment and that it is the clearest possible indicator, first, that full employment is no longer a matter of great significance to the Cabinet, and, secondly, that it is really a searing comment upon the scale of deflation to which we have become accustomed that even an expansion of the figure by up to £100 million seems as if it were unimportant.
  Now, in October, even after the seasonal change, which I have welcomed, the unemployment figure, seasonally adjusted, is 551,000. The figure in February, 1963, with which hon. Members opposite made such play then and since, was 549,000 seasonally adjusted. Therefore, the position is mildly worse even than at the height of the 1962–63 winter.
  This part of my speech at least is non-political. I want to draw attention to the position of the Northern Region. In October, 1968, the total number of unemployed in that region was 4·8 per cent. But the figure for male unemployment was 6·2 per cent. That compares with a total of 4·2 per cent. and a male
  704
  unemployment figure of 5·2 per cent.—a whole point less than at present—in October, 1967.
  Lord Beeching has challenged the accuracy of seasonally adjusted figures and seems to believe that it is odd that, in two consecutive years after adjustments have been made, the summer figure is higher than the winter. I would have thought that if one ironed out the seasonal fluctuations, in roughly half the years, the summer figure would be higher than the winter because the figures would then be affected by such matters as interest rates, trends of world trade or trends of trade in other countries which are not necessarily directed to factors in this country as to whether it be June or January.
  Looking back over the 18 years in which we have had seasonally adjusted figures, I find, as one would expect, that in 10—roughly half—these summers, the seasonally-adjusted figure has been higher than that of both the preceding and the succeeding winter. Perhaps in another debate the right hon. Lady will take up this interesting point. I see no reason to think that seasonally adjusted figures are inaccurate, but the Government cannot have it both ways. They cannot claim that the figures are inaccurate and yet pray in aid an improvement in the figures, as the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade did on Friday.
  Secondly, I am concerned particularly with the effect on the Northern Region, but, of course, there may be others. I make it clear that I do not think there is any case for general reflation and I am sure that I carry the Chancellor of the Exchequer with me on that. But when we look at some figures in relation to male unemployment in a whole region, there may well be a case for selective regional reflation in such areas, and I ask the Chancellor to turn his mind to one or two possibilities of labour-intensive works, such as minor works, which are always valuable and have a swift effect in mopping up unemployment.
  Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware of the announcement made of works of this nature for the northern area?
  Mr. Macleod: Indeed, I am. I am also aware that the latest figures I have given show in that area, in which the hon. Gentleman lives and with which he

  705
  is concerned, a continuing and deteriorating trend. I would have thought that he would support me in the case I am putting in this part of my speech.
  One of the levers of regulating demand that the Government are supposed to operate is the prices and incomes policy. I find the Government's devotion to this compulsory policy absolutely astonishing. Almost everyone is against it. The Labour Party conference was against it by a majority of 4½ to 1; the Tory and Liberal Party conferences were virtually unanimous in opposition to it. It has been politically disastrous for the Government, and they know that very well.
  But the interesting point is: why, in face of: hat, and of the evidence that it does lot work, do the Government go on with it at all? The answer is that they have to. It is not anything as crude as a condition, but it is an understanding that they will pursue this policy and is one of the reasons why the Government have so little room for manoeuvre. After all, if this be a sovereign remedy for us, it is very odd that all the countries which urge it upon us too do not try it for themselves. It would be an excellent thing it the Government would abandon the legislation, since, quite clearly it does not work.
  I want to consider the failures of judgment of both the Chancellors of the Exchequer in four successive Budgets. I simply record their hopes and forecasts, year by year. The previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, now the Home Secretary, said, on 4th May, 1965:
  "I expect to see us well on our way towards balancing our payments in 1965 and completing the process in 1966. "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th May, 1965; Vol. 711, c. 1083.]
  On 1st March, 1966, he said:
  "Our aim is to achieve external balance over a two-year period—that is, by the end of 1966…and we are well on the way"—
  same phrase—
  "to achieving it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1966; Vol. 725, c. 1105.]
  By 9th September, 1966, the years 1965 and 1966 had been abandoned.
  As for 1967, he said:
  "…on the basis of our revised policies, I am looking forward not merely to a bare balance, but in fact, I hope for a surplus."
  706
  In fact, it was one of the largest current account deficits in our history. But on 7th July, 1967, he said:
  "I still see the prospect of a substantial balance of payments surplus in 1968."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th July, 1967; Vol. 750, c. 1695.]
  The present Chancellor has been a little more cagey in his forecasts, but he made himself clear. According to The Times of 26th September last,
  "Whitehall now expects that this year's balance of payments deficit will exceed £500 million, but a £250 million surplus is expected in 1969. Ministers concede that the post-devaluation programme has slipped six months behind schedule…"
  This puts an interesting light on the Prime Minister's election pamphlet at Huyton in March, 1966, which stated:
  "A new Labour Government's action will strengthen our financial position and make sure that never again do we drift into debt."
  How did this happen? They were wrong in 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 and they have altered their forecasts for 1969. In part, it has been a plain refusal to acknowledge the obvious and, in part, it has been a sort of drunken optimism—of always painting everything in the brightest possible light.
  To illustrate this, the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, the present Home Secretary, whom I am glad to see in his place, produced last year's Budget, which we will never forget, in glowing terms. It was all "steady as she goes", with £500 million to £562 million of Supplementary Estimates to follow. The very first question asked in the Third Report from the Estimates Committee was for an explanation of this, and the answer included this remark:
  "A certain amount of it is probably due to the fact that Estimates were drawn very tightly last year and this emerges from the very large number of comparatively small items that have come in".
  An Hon. Member: Cooking the books?
  Mr. Macleod: I would not go as far as that. I have called it "drunken optimism". If everything had conceivably gone right—this is the basis on which the figures were submitted—it would have been just possible for those estimates to have worked. But in the light of the facts as we know them, the figure of Supplementary Estimates is not at all surprising.

  707
  Exactly the same illustration occurred when the present Chancellor of the Exchequer made his announcement in the summer about the Basle Agreement. He went out of his way to emphasise that it was not a loan. The guidance to the newspapers at the time was that it was unlikely to be drawn on. There was no mention of drawings in the White Paper when it was finally published in October, 1968. But when I asked the right hon. Gentleman a supplementary question on this score he said—this should have been in the White Paper—that 600 million dollars had been made available to us.
  I take the judgment of the Governor of the Bank of England on both parts of the Basle Agreement. He said at a bankers' dinner:
  "Under the agreement the United Kingdom will be assuming a large addition to her burden of overseas debt falling due for repayment within the next ten years. But without an agreement the immediate burden of conversion of sterling balances could well have been so great as to be insupportable, leading to chaos".
  That is, in itself, part of the continuing condemnation of the Labour Government. There is not a single important economic action that they have taken since October, 1964, that they wanted to take, whether it was devaluation, any of the deflationary measures, the end of our rôle east of Suez, Basle or their handling—a subject to which I shall come—of what has been called the spending spree. The answer from the Labour Government is always that they could not think of anything else to do. It is their entire failure to keep any sort of options in Government open that has been one of the main criticisms we have brought against these two Chancellors.
  There are, in a sense, three policies before the House. There is the policy of the Tribune group, signed by 53 hon. Members, which I can summarise fairly by saying that they would liquidate many of our assets overseas and go for maximum growth and minimum unemployment at home. There is, secondly, the policy of the Government—of devaluation, deflation and stop-go. Thirdly, there is the policy which we have been putting forward consistently in these debates—of direct taxation reductions,
  708
  savings boosts and a drive on Government expenditure.
  Both the Chancellor and the Prime Minister in recent speeches have said that one cannot call for increased expenditure in any sphere, even if balanced by savings in another, and yet call for lower taxation. That proposition is absolute nonsense. If the economy is at all normal, nothing is easier, and during the 13 years during which we were in power, we reduced taxation rates by £2,000 million a year, and, at the same time, increased in real terms the value of the social services, both local and national.
  We know, of course, what has gone wrong since 1964. Growth has disappeared. It is easy to make a calculation, whether one takes the last six years of Conservative rule or the six years of the National Plan, which had a rather similar target, and compares them with what has happened. If we make an allowance for the remaining years, at current prices, assuming a 3·5 per cent. growth rate, between 1968–69 and 1969–70, the difference between the Tory or National Plan proposals, if they had been achieved, and what the Labour Government will achieve is very nearly £10,000 million. That is the cost of Socialism and that has been the cost over these years.
  Mr. John Mendelson: In view of the various policies which the right hon. Gentleman says are before the House, and which he has attempted to summarise, would he tell us whether he is still continuing, as he has done for the last two-and-a-half years, to encourage the Government to tread the rocky road of deflation? Where does the Tory Party stand? What policies would the right hon. Gentleman pursue?
  Mr. Macleod: Had the hon. Gentleman listened to my remarks, he would be aware of my view on deflation. I said in categorical terms that there is no case for general reflation. I do not urge that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I do not believe that there is a case for general reflation. I said—and this is within the recollection of the House—that in some regions, and I identified the Northern Region, there may be a case for selective regional reflation. That is fair, and I stick by it.

  709
  I come to the announcement on hire purchase, which is the latest—it is not really the latest, because school meals takes that position—or the penultimate of 40 deflationary statements made in this Parliament. I have an indirect interest in this matter, which, in accordance with the tradition of the House, I declare once more.
  The Chancellor will recall that in his Budget speech he considered, and rejected, altering the position in relation to what is called terms control in this sphere. He said that the Budget was concerned with an 18-month to two-year strategy and that to alter terms control would not be compatible with his objectives. Clearly, particularly if we have slipped six months, which is now admitted, we are still in the same time-scale.
  It is equally clear that the Chancellor's arguments, which I accepted as valid at the time of the Budget, must be valid today. Thus, would the right hon. Gentleman tell us why, if the main objective is to push production towards exports, he has included furniture in these proposals? Hon. Gentlemen opposite will recall the howl of fury that used to go up from them, and their cries about the young marrieds and the others. They will be aware that there is little export content in this sphere.
  As for the motor car industry, I had hoped that it was common ground between the parties that this industry needed a strong home base from which to operate and from which to continue its brilliant exporting achievements. It is ironic in the extreme that the Government picked to move the Address the hon. Member for Birmingham, North-field (Mr. Chapman), who made a plea on behalf of his constituents which, if he had only known, had already been answered against him.
  The question of the restrictions up to £100 million calls into question a large part of the Chancellor's Budget judgment. We have said consistently that he has quite under-estimated the strength of the spending spree in this country. From this Box in January, I urged upon him at the time of the cuts the use of the regulator. Other commentators rightly urged that this should have been used last November at the time of devaluation
  710
  itself. To take a typical commentator's argument, Mr. Michael Shanks, in The Times of 18th March, argued that the Chancellor had lost about £200 million by not acting earlier. I agree. In the regulator debate, perhaps our best on the Finance Bill, at least a dozen hon. Members from this side urged the same action upon the right hon. Gentleman.
  There were many forecasts. I remember particularly the excellent ones done by the Sunday Telegraph at the time which openly challenged the figures upon which the Treasury were relying. Even three weeks ago my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) asked the Chancellor, in a supplementary question:
  "What is the right hon. Gentleman's answer to the charge that the main reason for the disastrous gap which has appeared between the forecast and the reality was his own blind refusal to face the facts of devaluation during the wild spending spree which followed? "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th October, 1968; Vol. 770, c. 178.]
  That was exactly right. That was three weeks ago. The Chancellor, in the Budget, in the regulator debate, on Third Reading of the Finance Bill and in answer to my hon. Friend, still said that consumption was moving as the Government had expected and forecast at the time of the Budget.
  There is now a serious situation in front of us. There is something like a flight from money going on in this country. If saving is a habit—it is on this that we have based our savings proposals—then be very sure that spending is equally a habit. We can see clearly the disastrous results of the actions of the Chancellor and his predecessor simply by looking at the savings ratio, what is called the residual calculation. During the last Tory year, it was 8·5 per cent.; in 1965, 81 per cent.; in 1966, 7·8 per cent.; in 1967, 7·6 per cent.; and in the first two quarters of 1968, 7·4 per cent. We have not got—unless the Chancellor has them; presumably he has not yet—later figures, but, clearly, what he has done is cause an alteration in the spending and, therefore, in the saving habits of the people. Very much of this lies at his door because of the lack of judgment in not acting immediately upon devaluation.

  711
  I do not wish to pass even briefly from this side of the argument without saying a word on what one might call the brighter side, in particular exports. They were sluggish for some months. Now, they are moving above the main forecast and probably above the higher forecast, and that is excellent news. I welcome every single export order that I see.
  On the other hand, the import propensity remains very high, worryingly high, and everybody may have underestimated the natural propensity to import. If so, we have a more serious task before us than we thought. I put to the Chancellor one point which I do not necessarily expect to be answered. I understand that he has—touch wood—closed his mind to import controls, and I agree with him. But is his mind equally closed to any restrictions upon import credits, perhaps on the pattern of the Italian system? I do not know whether he would like to comment on that point.
  The facts which I have illustrated showing a continuing attack on the Chancellor's judgment of the spending spree, certainly for the whole of this year, and, for those who were wise enough to see, even from devaluation and November, show clearly that the Chancellor's judgment has failed him in this matter. That is one of our charges. My right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), commenting on the President of the Board of Trade's statement last Friday, said that it called into question the Budget judgment—I have dealt with the spending spree side of that—and also the position of Ministers. I should like to comment on the second point.
  The Times leader yesterday took the view, with which I agree, that the true issue in this matter is not a question of timing. I have made no comment or complaint about that; it is not the business of a Government to time their announcements to suit the Opposition, and it never has been. Nor do I believe that Bassetlaw is the main point at issue. We think that Bassetlaw, which we last won in 1924, was a brilliant result, and we are more than content with the majority of 250 in the next Parliament which it indicated. The real issue is not the by-election or timing. The real issue is whether Ministers told the truth.
  712
  I have been to some trouble to find out the precise context of the question which was asked of the First Secretary of State. This was:
  "Mr. Chairman, in one of today's papers, it is reported that an economic freeze is on the way. A yes or no answer, please. Is it true?".
  I quote from the Sheffield Telegraph of the next day:
  "…Mrs. Castle, speaking at Retford town hall, said briefly and bluntly: ' There is no economic freeze on the way.'"
  The Times verdict on that is as follows:
  "It cannot be justified by sematic distinctions between an economic crisis and a touch on the tiller. It was liable to mislead. It has left many people with the impression that it was intended to mislead."
  That is one comment, but the First Secretary knows very well that there were others, in much blunter terms, read by about 10 million people in the country. I have them here, but will not read them. I could, by reading them, get on record in HANSARD, in particular, a word which we are not permitted, as hon. Members, to use in debate, but the First Secretary must be clear that if there is nothing to add to her flurry of jejune statements, then judgment must be given by default.
  For some, the verdict will be that what she said was misleading, but for many—I am one—the harsher judgment must be the true judgment. We must be clear about the distinction between the two charges. It is the Chancellor's economic judgment which I have challenged. But I believe that the Prime Minister and the First Secretary of State have fallen below the standards of this honourable House. We know—we have always known—that there are incompetent Ministers in this Administration, but I put it flatly on record that the Prime Minister and the First Secretary have shown by their conduct last week that they are quite unfit to hold Ministerial office.
  4.20 p.m.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Roy Jenkins): Mr. Speaker, the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) announced on Friday, via the Evening Standard, that his speech was to be one of his fiercest ever. When he tried to quote me he was reduced to

  713
  quoting from The Times. When I read things like that in the Evening Standard I have a pretty good idea where they come from.
  If the right hon. Gentleman gave less attention to building up his speeches in advance they might come as less of an anti-climax when he actually delivered them. It is perfectly clear that what he intended to do today was to make a few typical points of destructive, certainly not constructive, criticism—in the early part of his speech not a single word of constructive economic proposal emerged—and then to ride them off at the end with a few sentences of bile against my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the First Secretary of State.
  But the right hon. Gentleman struck a somewhat more muted note than the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath), whom we are all glad to welcome to his first economic debate for seven months. The right hon. Gentleman cancelled the last one altogether and at the one before he had a very pressing engagement, as we remember—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a fierce debate, but it need not be a noisy one.
  Mr. Jenkins: The right hon. Member for Bexley—[Laughter.] I do not see why right hon. and hon. Gentlemen should laugh when the name of their Leader is mentioned. This is a very extreme and not altogether respectful reaction from the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls).
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: If the right hon. Gentleman is starting off with personalities, he will have nothing left to which to descend—and he usually goes pretty low—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We must debate seriously.
  Mr. Jenkins: I will get on with the greatest pleasure as soon as right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite stop making a noise.
  The right hon. Member for Bexley—I hope that I can mention his name this time—appeared on Friday to be whipping himself up into a frenzy across Shropshire. In speech after speech which was reported he accused the Government. Of
  714
  what did he accuse them? Apparently of deceiving the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and of misleading the electors of Bassetlaw. Those were the charges.
  The first charge does not begin to stand up. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a holding statement on Wednesday—[Laughter.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The Opposition spokesman was heard in comparative quiet. [Interruption.] Order. The House will be equally fair to both sides.
  Mr. Jenkins: —such as any Prime Minister would have made in the circumstances, such as many have made before, and he said absolutely firmly that we would take measures when they needed to be taken. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House also made it clear that a statement would be made when it was ready. What my right hon. Friends said was totally compatible with an early announcement such as my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade made on Friday.
  On the second charge, I am amazed that the right hon. Member for Bexley had the brazenness even to mention it. Is my memory wrong—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."]—or was he Chief Whip in February, 1956, that famous occasion referred to by my right hon. Friend on Friday morning? Then, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, we had a whole range of measures: not merely hire-purchase restrictions, but the abolition of investment allowances, a general credit squeeze and a great number of others. There had been three by-elections, admittedly not the day before, but three days before. Why had these by-elections been held on the Tuesday—a rather unusual day—and not on the Thursday? I will tell the House. Because on the Tuesday, but not on the Thursday, the stale register could be used—with all that was involved in that—with 3,500 postal votes in Taunton alone.
  Who moved the Writs for those by-elections, selecting the day with loving care—[Interruption.]—to get the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) returned by a majority of 657? I think that the right hon. Gentleman may have regretted that at times in the last year. Who moved the Writ selecting this day

  715
  so as to use the stale register but the right hon. Gentleman?
  I agree with my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State that the right hon. Member for Bexley has been not only frenzied, but hypocritical. I agree with her that there is not a word to withdraw in her Bassetlaw remarks—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—or in the Prime Minister's reply in the House or in the answer of the Lord President of the Council. No one in his right senses would think that a Government should announce in advance that they were to lay an H.P. Order—even the right hon. Member for Enfield, West admitted this—and no one with any idea of the meaning of words would call what we have done an economic freeze—[Interruption.]
  We will continue to enjoy—and I will come to this a little later—a rapid rate of growth—[Interruption.] Certainly we will, and I will give some figures. Therefore—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I must ask the House to control itself.
  Mr. Jenkins: The third statement with which I agree is that of the Parliamentary correspondent of The Guardian on Saturday, that this has all been a storm in a cup of very weak tea; and not even the right hon. Member for Enfield, West has been able to put any strength into it this afternoon.
  I therefore turn to a more interesting point which was made, not unnaturally, by the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) on Friday morning. He suggested, in what I think for him were uncharacteristically hyperbolic terms, that the alteration of hire-purchase rates
  "calls into question the whole Budget judgment…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st November, 1968; Vol. 772, c. 345.]
  The right hon. Member for Enfield, West is a bit more cautious. I gather he said that they called into question part of the Budget judgment, thus endorsing that this was a most extraordinary view for the Deputy Leader of the Conservative Party, who shared collective responsibility for all the decisions of the late 'fifties and early 'sixties, to put forward.
  Let us look briefly at the record. We had hire-purchase changes in July 1955.
  716
  That presumably disposed of Lord Butler's Budget judgment. We had them again in February, 1956, so that disposed even of his after-thoughts in the autumn Budget of 1955. We had them in December 1956, which disposed of Mr. Macmillan's Budget judgment. We had them in May, 1957, only six weeks after that Budget, which disposed of Lord Thorneycroft's Budget. We had them in September, 1958, which disposed of Lord Amory's judgment, and again in October 1958, which doubled disposed of it.
  We had them in late April, 1960, three week after the Budget, which treble disposed of it. We had them in January 1961, which quadruply disposed of it. There were four lots in a year, and I always understood that Lord Amory was supposed to be the embodiment of stable policies at the Treasury. Then we had them again in June, 1962, eight weeks after the Budget, which presumably disposed of the judgment of the right hon. and learned Member for the Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd). Then there was a pause and they were not used by the right hon. Member for Barnet, which, no doubt, explains why he showed such enthusiasm about the subject on Friday morning. We know what a mess his mastery inactivity during 1964 left to be cleared up.
  Mr. Nicholas Ridley: If the right hon. Gentleman had been at Bassetlaw last Wednesday night, and had been asked the same questions as his right hon. Friend the First Secretary was asked, would he have given the same answer?
  Mr. Jenkins: I have never known anything less productive than being—
  Hon. Members: Answer.
  Mr. Jenkins: I shall—
  Sir Gerald Nabarro: Do not run away from the question; answer it.
  Mr. Jenkins: I shall answer the question if the hon. Member for Kidderminster—I am sorry, I always forget that the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) is not exactly where he was 15 years ago. I shall never lay claim to choose the same words as my right hon. Friend did, but I should certainly say without any question that if I had

  717
  been asked whether there was to be an economic freeze I should most certainly have said, as she did, that there was not to be one.
  The view of the right hon. Member for Barnet is extraordinary, not only in relation to his colleagues, but to the sense of the matter. To suggest that any act of demand management between Budgets is a confession of failure is really the biggest nonsense that I have ever heard. It shows a totally irrational fixation on the annual rite of the spring Budget. There is no magic in April or even in March. Moreover—and I say this frankly and seriously to hon. Gentlemen opposite, some of whom no doubt will greet it with the hoots of uncomprehending laughter to which one begins to get accustomed—all Budget judgments are wrong to some extent. The best one can hope for is that the errors will balance themselves out, and this is partly the case this year.
  Some things have gone better than we expected, some worse. Exports are better, imports are worse. Prices are better, at least lower than as expected, and consumption, partly as a result is higher, which in a sense means worse. But productivity is higher and growth is greater. Unemployment was a little worse during the summer, but now shows signs of significant improvement.
  The individual Budget forecasts of last March are more open to criticism—I choose my words carefully here—than is usual, not because they were more wrong—rather the contrary—but because they were more explicit. I published much more than had ever been done before, and I intend to go on doing so. I did so because I thought that it would contribute to a more intelligent understanding and debate, and I believe that this has been the case, even though not all hon. Gentlemen opposite show a desire to participate in it. The inaccuracy of individual forecasts, which I never thought could be avoided, in no way alters the fact that the main Budget objective that of moving towards a big and continuing balance of payments improvement, shows every sign of working out.
  The improvement in the third quarter on current and capital account combined will, I believe, prove striking. While the individual components
  718
  may be different, I think that the underlying trend should also be favourable in the fourth quarter. This underlines the outstanding difference between nearly every previous tightening of hire-purchase controls, and our measures last week.
  The previous ones were almost all taken against the background of a deteriorating balance of payments situation. They were reactions to a worsening economic prospect. Last week's measures, on the contrary, were taken against the background of improving trade figures, stronger sterling, and an improving balance of payments prospect. We took them not in a desperate attempt to turn the position round—there was no need for that—but to underpin and accelerate an improvement which was already taking place.
  The right hon. Member for Enfield, West tried to make a certain amount of the fact that in my Budget speech I deployed certain arguments against using hire-purchase controls at that time. So I did, but if he assumed that meant that I was throwing away the weapon for all time he is much more foolish than I believe him to be. I said that I thought there had been enough changes for a single year. I did, but that year is now well past. There has been no change for more than 11 months, and as, under successive Governments, and very largely under the Governments of hon. Gentlemen opposite, whose record I have mentioned in this respect, there have been 18 changes in 12 years, this must be reckoned a substantially above-average interval for changes.
  I said that it was a measure which worked quickly and that then after six months or so its effect fell away, and that was not the sort of measure for which I was then looking. I then had all the fiscal measures at my disposal, and I was laying the basis of a two-year strategy. Now I want a limited, quick-acting measure, and the fact that its effect will be declining after about six months is no disadvantage. It will enable me to resurvey the position and take decisions one way or the other at the time of the Budget.
  I said then that I did not want to put further restrictions on the home market of the motor industry. I did not, at that time. I wanted to see how it

  719
  reacted to the increased Purchase Tax, the increased licence duty, and the higher petrol tax. We have seen that. We have seen production up by 16 per cent. in the first nine months of this year compared with the same period of last year. We have seen production for export up by no less than 38 per cent. during this period. We have seen pressure on the industry greater than at any time since 1964. We have seen long waiting lists for cars, both at home and abroad. We have heard Sir George Harriman, whose most revealing remark was quoted by my right hon. Friend on Friday.
  The motor industry chiefs are singing a different note now. They always do whenever their home market is squeezed. Let us not forget that Sir Donald Stokes, for whose industrial leadership I have the greatest respect, said on the evening of Budget day that he could see "practically no future in the motor industry"; the Budget, he thought, was un-realistically harsh. An increase in 16 per cent. in production and 38 per cent. in exports is not bad for an industry with no future. I have not the slightest doubt that without the Budget measures the industry would never have achieved its export performance in recent months and that would have meant much harsher measures this autumn, for we just cannot afford a motor industry of anything like its present size, unless it is very strongly export orientated.
  Captain Walter Elliot: The right hon. Gentleman is quoting a percentage figure for increased exports. Is this a percentage of value or of volume? If it is of value, what is the volume?
  Mr. Jenkins: It is of volume, which, I think, underlines the force of my case.
  Captain W. Elliot: What is the percentage of volume?
  Mr. Jenkins: This is volume. I have given the percentage of volume.
  Sir Donald Stokes, I believe, was wrong in March and I believe that his fellow motor chiefs are wrong today. I have a high respect for the motor industry and a great interest in it, for my constituency is very much dependent upon it. But I do not believe that the industry need fear this change. Sir George
  720
  Harriman's remark on 28th April is well worth repeating:
  "Our dealers abroad are crying out for cars and our order books are full for months to come. Our problem is to turn out the vehicles fast enough."
  It is suggested that the industry itself does not allow home demand to influence its level of export supply. Even assuming that this were wholly so—I am bound to say that I feel some scepticism about it—it ignores an important factor, which is the level of our car imports. Their share of the home market was 9·5 per cent. in August, compared with 7·3 per cent. in the first quarter and 7·6 per cent. in the second.
  A rise here has a bad effect on our import levels. Inevitably, also, it causes our own manufacturers to be constantly looking over their shoulders at the home market, when they should be concentrating on the export drive. The new restraint will bite at least as hard on imported models as on home-produced ones.
  Some of the other considerations apply to the other categories of goods involved. The motor industry has not been singled out. Of the estimated reduction in hire-purchase debt it will provide only 50 per cent. of the total. Furniture and other durables will provide the rest. In almost all cases demand has been strong recently and in most there is a substantial import content.
  This leads me back to another false assumption, as I believe it was, underlying part of the speech of the right hon. Member for Enfield, West. If it was right to do this now, he implied, it must have been wrong not to have done it at the time of the Budget. This is false, for two reasons. The first is that it is nonsense to expect that what is necessary in early November should always be apparent in March. This, if accepted, would be a recipe for almost complete immobilism, and this is not at all how I see the sensible development of economic policy. Nor is it the way the right hon. Gentleman then saw the situation.
  I tried to follow the right hon. Gentleman closely and I apologise if I have got him wrong. He almost stated in his speech that in our debate on the regulator in Committee on the Finance Bill, which, I agree with him, was one of the best

  721
  debates we had then, he indicated to me that I ought to have been thinking of using the regulator, that I ought to have been taking more demand out of the economy.
  Mr. Iain Macleod: Purely on a question of fact, when I made that reference from this Box it was in the debate, as the right hon. Gentleman will find, in January on the cuts. That is when I first suggested that the regulator might be used.
  Mr. Jenkins: Clearly, the right hon. Gentleman knows what is in his own mind, but I do not think that he is right in what he said to the House half an hour or so ago, because he specifically referred to the debate on the regulator during our discussions on the Finance Bill. I remember that he said that he thought that it had been a good debate. That stuck in my mind. He then went on to say, "We then urged the importance of the regulator because we were worried that the Budget objectives would not be achieved".
  I remind the right hon. Gentleman that on 13th May, admittedly under some pressure, which is always necessary if one is to get anything approaching a clear statement of economic position out of the right hon. Gentleman, he told the Standing Committee which was considering the Finance Bill that he thought I had gone too far. He said this:
  "My view is that on the whole the Chancellor has taken too much out of the economy, but I do not propose and I have never have proposed"—
  he could have said that bit again—
  "to identify that more closely, and time alone will tell."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 13th May, 1968; c. 719.]
  More important, however, than this is the fact that even if I could have foretold the future with perfect accuracy, which I would never begin to lay claim to, I would still have regarded it as right to have used the hire-purchase control in the autumn and not in the spring. We now have a much higher level of export demand than we had then, one which I believe we can further exploit. The right hon. Gentleman always pays great attention to the unemployment figures, and he spoke about them at great length and in considerable detail this afternoon. To make sure of avoiding any adjustments in
  722
  the autumn, I would have had to go in for over-kill in the spring, which I did not do. The inevitable result of an even bigger Budget before the export demand had built up would have been heavier unemployment during the summer change-of-gear period.
  That, indeed, would always be liable to be the result of an "annual fixation" carrying with it the view that room must be left in the spring for all eventualities throughout the coming 12 months. Now, however, I believe that the prospects for the economy are such that a growing buoyancy will continue in spite of last week's restrictions.
  In this connection, perhaps I may deal with some of the doubts in the minds of some of my hon. Friends. They see this measure, as I believe they see nearly everything else at the present time, as a return to deflation. I do not agree with them. Let us look at some of the main factors. Between August, 1967, and August, 1968, the last month for which we have figures, industrial production rose by approximately 6 per cent. In manufacturing industry, it was up by 7½ per cent. There is every indication that the trend has since continued and perhaps accelerated. As a result, we expect that the figures for growth this year which I gave in my Budget are likely to be exceeded.
  Productivity rose fast in the spring and early summer and this contributed to keeping the unemployment figures up. However, the unemployment position is now changing rapidly, and I believe that it is changing rapidly whatever side of the controversy about seasonal adjustment one came down on. Between August and October there was a drop of 34,000 in the seasonally adjusted figure of wholly unemployed. I am convinced that the fall is continuing and probably gaining momentum. Unfilled vacancies show an equally strong movement. They have been increasing for some time, and are now as high as in the early months of 1964, a period of marked upswing.
  All this is in itself very desirable, but my primary duty is to see that this incipient boom is channelled in the right direction—towards exports and investment. Without that, it will do us no good and will endanger future employment prospects more than all the hire-purchase restrictions in the world.

  723
  The prospects offered by investment and exports are good. So far, investment has played little part in the pickup, but the indications for the future are very favourable. Industrial development certificate approvals have been rising. The latest investment intentions inquiry of the Board of Trade points to an upswing in the remainder of this year, with a very strong rise in 1969, leading to a volume of outlay up by perhaps 10 to 15 per cent. on the 1967–68 level. The C.B.I. survey fully confirms this, and shows investment intentions nearly up to the two strongest years of the decade.
  Exports, on the other hand, have already been rising strongly. In the third quarter, the volume of goods sent abroad was 7 per cent. higher than in the second, and 15 per cent. higher than a year earlier. On the latter comparison, the sterling value increase was much greater—about 25 per cent.—but I think that the volume gives a truer guide.
  Nor do I see any reason why the trend should not remain encouraging. We have had a rapid growth of world trade so far this year, and it may be that so far we have been benefiting from this more than from the competitive edge of devaluation. There may be some decline in the growth of world trade over the next six months or so, although the United States market now shows signs of holding up better than was expected a few months ago, and Western Europe should continue to go ahead. If there is an overall decline in export growth, we should be able to compensate for it by a small increase in our share of world trade. Devaluation certainly offers us this possibility, and the reports from individual industries give no reason to doubt its reality.
  The general climate is, therefore, one of substantial buoyancy, accompanied during August and September by a rapid move towards the elimination of our deficit. In addition, the Basle agreements have given a new stability to sterling, and October was a month of considerable debt repayment, which we were able to accommodate, combined with a substantial repatriation of capital to the United States on account of the Thorn deal, with only a very small loss to the reserves. It was one of the best months we have had for a considerable time.
  Mr. Peter Hordern: Can the Chancellor say how much has been drawn on the Basle agreements?
  Mr. Jenkins: No, Sir. It is never the practice to do that, and it would be wrong to retreat from the practice. But I would tell the hon. Gentleman that the drawings have been smaller than I expected when I replied to one of his right hon. Friends some time ago.
  Mr. Iain Macleod: How much less?
  Mr. Jenkins: Substantially.
  None of this means that we do not have a long way still to go. We need, and I am determined to get, not a balance but a very substantial surplus.
  I do not think that I need comment on the effusions, for such I think they were, made on this subject by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) last night. He said that it was absolute nonsense to talk of needing a surplus. Those effusions were in even sharper contrast with the remarks of the right hon. Member for Bexley last week, when he gave an exaggerated view of the surplus we need, than with my own thought. I think that I can leave the right hon. Member for Bexley to deal, or perhaps not to deal, with the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West on this point.
  Mr. Edward Heath: Will the Chancellor then say what surplus is required month by month to the end of 1971 to repay the indebtedness we have incurred, or, if not month by month, just give the repayment figure to 1971?
  Mr. Jenkins: I have said that we need to work towards a surplus at the rate of about £500 million a year as quickly as possible and to keep it there.
  Mr. Heath: Answer.
  Mr. Jenkins: That is a perfectly reasonable answer. If the right hon. Gentleman does not think that it is an answer, he is entitled to his view. It is the answer I have given, and it is my firm view, to which I stick, that if we achieve it we can, as a result of that and other factors, perfectly well manage our debt repayment. Therefore, I dismiss what the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West had to say on the matter, and I leave it to the right hon. Member for Bexley.

  725
  I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) is not in his place. I mentioned that I would refer to him this afternoon. I see that the right hon. Gentleman is now entering the Chamber; I congratulate him on his perfect sense of timing. He has recently made some excursions, after a fairly long pause, into fiscal and economic policies. They seem to me to be in the sharpest possible contrast with what the Leader of the Opposition has said.
  The Leader of the Opposition has announced that he cannot tell what he will find when he gets into office, and that he must, therefore, be cautious. But such caution apparently does not worry his right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire, who, after all, speaks with all the authority of an ex-Prime Minister. He can obviously see into the future much more clearly and with much more confidence. He has probably been consulting his old economic advisers, Messrs. Bryant and May.
  Sir G. Nabarro: Balogh and Kaldor.
  Mr. Jenkins: At Kettering last Monday evening, the right hon. Gentleman announced that in the first month of a new Conservative Government, taxation would be reduced. But the right hon. Member for Bexley said at Blackpool:
  "That is why I repeat again to you today my pledge: we shall make no promises which we cannot be absolutely certain we shall be able to fulfil."
  I wonder who that "we" included. Presumably not the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. But equally, presumably, the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire was included. He surely is part of the magic circle.
  I therefore ask the Leader of the Opposition to tell us quite clearly whether his right hon. Friend's statement at Kettering about taxation reductions in the first month of office of a Conservative Government counts as one of his absolutely certain pledges. I willingly give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Sir Alec Douglas-Home Sir Alec Douglas-Home (Kinross and West Perthshire) rose—
  Mr. Jenkins: Before the Opposition Chief Whip gets too excited, I will, without hesitation, give way to the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire, and shall be very glad to hear what he has to say, but I very much hope that this will not enable the Leader of the Opposition subsequently to avoid answering the question.
  Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Although I do not recollect my speeches quite as well as some right hon. Gentlemen, if I remember correctly I said that the reduction of taxation following the pledge of my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) would be one of the first acts of a Conservative Government.
  Mr. Jenkins: That quotation, which I read very carefully—[An HON. MEMBER: "From where?"] From the Financial Times. The quotation from the Financial Times was, I repeat:
  "…in the first month of a new Conservative Government taxation would be reduced."
  I would like to know—[An HON MEMBER: "Where is the cutting?"] The cutting is not here, but I checked it extremely carefully this morning. The hon. Gentleman must take serious points. I wrote the words down this morning from the Financial Times of 29th October.
  I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not deny it if he had said it, but, if he did not say it, he was seriously misreported, and if he was so misreported I imagine that he would like to put it clearly on record, not that he cannot remember what he said but that he did not make this promise.
  Sir Alec Douglas-Home: As the right hon. Gentleman recognises, how could one make a promise about the first month of a Conservative Government? If I had said the first months of a Conservative Government I should not be so very far out. What I think I said was "One of the first acts."
  Mr. Jenkins: The right hon. Gentleman's remarks, which I assure him were widely read and noted, even if not by himself widely read and noted, gave an impression a great deal more precise than that which he has now given, but I am glad that he has withdrawn or corrected this, and I accept without hesitation what was his meaning.

  727
  The Opposition, with a prior build-up of publicity, chose deliberately to concentrate this debate on a narrow party issue which has awakened no echo in the national Press nor I believe in the public at large. They preferred to announce that this was the great issue of the debate. Admittedly, they are not pretending it now, because they allowed the whole thing to die after the speech of the hon. Member for Enfield, West, but the public has only to realise the vast build-up which the Opposition went in for before and their charges against the Government in this respect have fallen completely flat.
  I am amazed that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bexley, in his speech on Friday—he presumably will not say that he was misreported—allowed himself to get into such a state of frenzy about this. It seemed to me to come most inappropriately from the biggest by-election rigger of all time. At Blackpool, the right hon. Gentleman also announced that the process of democratic government could not survive the return of another Labour Government. He meant by this—"If people do not vote for me they do not believe in democracy". That would be a most dangerous and presumptuous thing for any party leader ever to say.
  But it is worse than this, because this piece of smugness and hypocrisy comes from a leader of a party which has presided happily over everything that has happened in Northern Ireland for the past 45 years. If the right hon. Gentleman believes that he alone is the guardian of everything that is important in democracy, and that everything that has happened there has been correct, this is self-deceit on a scale very unusual even for him.
  Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the House will give me a moment of silence I will announce the next speaker. Sir Gerald Nabarro.
  5.10 p.m.
  Sir Gerald Nabarro: The Chancellor of the Exchequer is not blessed with a very good memory. A few days before the 1966
  728
  General Election he was chosen by his party to represent Labour on a party political television broadcast in the Midlands. I was chosen by my party to represent the Tory view, against him. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] Indeed, why not? At least, my constituency elected me by a much larger margin than the right hon. Gentleman's constituency elected him.
  The significant thing about our controversy on television, in Birmingham was that the whole of the economic accusations made by the present Chancellor against the Tory Party rested on the financial dyspepsia of 13 years of Conservative rule and the constant chopping and changing which he alleged took place in hire purchase regulations. He claimed that a Labour Government, with extraordinary financial foresight, would never indulge in economic or financial dyspepsia of that kind. They would always anticipate events; they would grasp time by the forelock; it would never be necessary to create unemployment for economic reasons.
  So, when the Chancellor today wishes on my hon. Friends and myself the alleged sins of altering hire-purchase arrangements many times during our 13 years of rule he is conveniently forgetting the whole of his own past political history, for he climbed to power on the back of these accusations, that Labour would always do so much better than the Conservative Party. In fact, they have in four years done far worse.
  When the right hon. Gentleman twitted my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) with the unemployment figures at 550,000 approximately, the Chancellor conveniently omitted to tell the House that 120,000 of those unemployed have been out of work for more than nine months and have no prospect whatever of finding work under Labour policies in the foreseeable future. They are the deliberately created Labour hard core of unemployment. It is now the policy of the Labour Government to maintain an increased and increasing pool of unemployed for the purpose of serving their economic policies. Not a squeak of denial comes from the benches opposite.
  An Hon. Member: They are asleep now!
  Mr. Peter Mahon Mr. Peter Mahon (Preston, South) rose—
  Sir G. Nabarro: No, not now.
  The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Richard Crossman): Oh.
  Sir G. Nabarro: I will give way in a minute. The Secretary of State for Social Services is the most arrogant Member of the House. He never gives way.
  I want to address my comments to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens) and his 52 colleagues. I will give way to the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Peter Mahon) when I have finished my remarks to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West. There could not be any more savage indictment of his Government's policy than the wide-ranging and penetrating Amendment to the Motion for the Address which he has put down on the Order Paper:
  "…that the Gracious Speech fails to reappraise the Government's post-devaluation economic strategy, by mobilising our immense resources abroad to protect sterling and repay our foreign creditors and, thus, to provide for more rapid economic expansion at home, to improve the inadequate rate of investment, to annul the cuts in social services expenditure, to remove prescription charges, to further restrict"—
  that is a horrible split infinitive; it ought to be "further to restrict "—
  "the export of capital and, above all, to resume full employment."
  Never in the annals of Queen's Speeches was there a more savage indictment of the policy of a Government than that which has come from the 53 rebels on the benches opposite. Why have they neither the spunk nor the guts to vote against their own Front Bench tonight? Why will they troop obediently into the Lobby behind the Chancellor, in spite of their brave words on the Order Paper? I hope that the hon. Member for Lewisham, West will answer that question in due course. Now I will give way to the hon. Member for Preston, South.
  Mr. Peter Mahon: The hon. Member seeks to indict the Government on the score of unemployment. Will he explain how he reconciles his opinions with the fact that I am able to hold my head high in my constituency because unemployment is 1·8 per cent., which is the lowest that it has been for a very long time?
  Sir G. Nabarro: Of course, it is patchy. The hon. Gentleman is lucky.
  730
  However, he should not boast to his less fortunate colleagues. He should be consoling them and offering to go to their aid. He should be castigating his right hon. Friend the Chancellor for his deliberate creation of these pools of heavy regional unemployment, in various parts of the country, due to failure of economic policies.
  Mr. Swain: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, on numerous occasions when his own party was in office, the hon. Gentleman, who was then the hon. Member for Kidderminster, threatened to abstain from voting or to vote against his Government, but, unfortunately for the House and the country, he took the pill before the moment came?
  Sir G. Nabarro: The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) was not here in those days. If he cares to do a little modest research, he will find that probably I voted against my own party far more than he and the great majority of his hon. Friends have ever voted against theirs. I do not boast. That is a matter of historical fact. The hon. Gentleman needs a researcher.
  I pass, then, to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which, as I observed last weekend, having regard to his policies, is characterised by smug complacency and a failure to recognise the horrible post-devaluation drift in our financial and economic affairs.
  The right hon. Gentleman talked today of buoyancy in the economy. The whole of our economic troubles under Labour have sprung from our failure to balance our overseas trade. But I must have regard to any improvement which has been secured in our visible trade balances post-devaluation. There is no evidence to support the Chancellor's view that these visible trade balances are improving. Over the first nine months of this year, they are actually worse than they were over the first nine months of 1967.
  The official figures obtained from the Board of Trade show that, in the first nine months of 1967, the deficit on the visible trade account was £540 million and that during the first nine months of 1968, the deficit was £547 million. Comparing nine months this year with nine months last year, we are worse off by £7 million, measured as an aggregation

  731
  over the nine months. It is true that, at the end of the third quarter, in the month of September, 1968, there was an upturn. That was on a single month's figures. But it is very dangerous to gauge a trend on a single month's trade figures.
  Notwithstanding the huge additional taxation imposed in this year's Budget, rising £1,000 million, all the inconvenience which springs from harsh controls and economic and financial measures imposed by the Government during the last year to secure a balance in our overseas trade, and only that factor, all have been brought to nought by the results of the last nine months. I refute for myself and, I hope, for my party the Chancellor's statement that the economy is buoyant and that progress is being made towards balance in our overseas trade. My judgment is at least as good as his. My advice is at least as good as his.
  On the occasion of the television broadcast that we did before the last election, when the right hon. Gentleman would not let me speak for longer than a few seconds without interrupting me, so impatient was he, I said, "Stop muttering, Roy", and I reduced him to silence.
  Mr. William Hamling: Who is arrogant now?
  Sir G. Nabarro: I am repeating what is on the record. The hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) probably was electioneering and not listening to the broadcast. If he consults the records, he will find that dialogue between the Chancellor and myself.
  I am advised by the business community. The Chancellor is advised by Treasury bureaucrats. Almost unfailingly, the Treasury is wrong in most of its advice.
  Mrs. Renée Short: Hear, hear.
  Sir G. Nabarro: I am glad to have the support of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short). British industry, trade and commerce are much more likely to be right in their judgment.
  I pass now to another factor of our economic affairs which is immensely important. I reminded the Chancellor
  732
  earlier of a fact of which, apparently, he is unaware. Whereas, in my former incarnation as hon. Member for Kidderminster I was concerned largely with carpets and motorcar workers, I am much more concerned now with motorcar workers and agriculture. However, I have as many motorcar workers in my constituency as the Chancellor has in his, and I am very concerned about the affairs of the industry, because what he has done in hire-purchase matters will not help my constituents. It will probably make their prospects worse and put quite a lot of them out of work.
  The other factor of constituency interest and wide national interest is agriculture. Here, the Government have failed even more than in other spheres. When the Prime Minister made his statement on 16th January about public expenditure, I was fortunate enough to ask one of the first supplementary questions from this side of the House. At a distance of 10 months, it bears repeating. On that occasion I said to the Prime Minister:
  "Is he aware that British agriculture, in the form of its spokesmen, the N.F.U.s, has estimated imports' saving of £250 million a year given realistic prices instead of the present debased prices? Why did the Prime Minister deliberately omit any reference to agriculture, and its huge import saving potential, from his lengthy statement?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th January, 1968; Vol. 756, c. 1601.]
  The Prime Minister then delivered an answer which covered half a column in HANSARD and admitted, in a half-hearted kind of way—as he has few farms in the Huyton division of Lancashire—that there are important import substitution possibilities inherent in a policy of increased output of British food, and he told me to wait until the February Price Review was published.
  All the agricultural Members on this side of the House, together with myself, waited for the Price Review, expecting that real incentives would be given to the farming community to raise a great deal more food. In fact, a policy called selectivity was said to be pursued and price advances said to compensate for devaluation, in a total of £52 million, were given. During the ensuing period, farm output has risen hardly at all, but imports of food have risen by nearly 1 per cent. Farm output is said to have increased by 5 per cent. post-devaluation, although I can find little or no evidence of it.

  733
  I hope none will deny that if we continue to run a deficit on visible trade account of more than £500 million it is madness to continue to import hundreds of millions of pounds worth of excess foreign food which, largely, could be grown in this country, provided the British farmer is given realistic incentives to produce more and an end is put to the dumping of foreign food on British farmers at artificially low prices.
  I hope that the Leader of the House, who is to reply—speaking with all the authority of a former Minister of Agriculture—will tell the House what progress has been made in this policy of import substitution, about which the Prime Minister made such great play on 16th January and which, so far as I can tell, has not been brought to fruition.
  I coin the Chancellor's phrase, used in a speech which he delivered some months ago. It is one of those statements of a problem to which no effective solution has been advanced by this Government. He said that exports are inadequate and that imports are excessive.
  Mr. Jenkins: When?
  Sir G. Nabarro: The right hon. Gentleman does not remember saying it? I have not brought the exact reference with me but that is the effect of his words and I am sure that he will not quarrel with that interpretation of the position that has existed in recent years. Our exports have done very well since devaluation. I do not dispute that. But, we are selling many of our manufactured goods at far too low prices on the world's market as a result of devaluation. Goods which were highly competitive before devaluation have now been artificially debased in price, post-devaluation, and we are selling them too cheaply—notably goods which have a high content of scientific and technical skills, embraced in the sophisticated finished product.
  What we have made no progress with, is a reduction in imports by the policy of import substitution, the greatest single contribution to which can undoubtedly be made by British agriculture.
  Mr. Peter Bessell: The hon. Gentleman is making a valuable point, and I agree with him, but will he say how he would control the dumping of
  734
  artificially subsidised goods on the home market?
  Sir G. Nabarro: By two methods; first, by the substitution of a policy of import levies for the present policy of subsidies—my policy would raise the prices of foreign imported food, thereby making it less competitive with home-produced food—and, secondly, by a vigorous implementation of the anti-dumping powers already possessed by the President of the Board of Trade. Those two replies are impeccable.
  Mr. Iain Macleod Mr. Iain Macleod indicated assent.
  Sir G. Nabarro: Even my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West is nodding his agreement.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: Does not he usually do so?
  Sir G. Nabarro: No, he does not always do so.
  Much of my speech has been directed to strong support for the Amendment tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends, humbly regretting:
  "that few of the proposals in the Gracious Speech have any relevance to the declared intention of strengthening the economy."
  I shall march through the Lobby this evening, in support of that Amendment, with enthusiasm and alacrity. I invite the 53 Socialist rebels opposite to succour me and sustain me in that Lobby, thereby denoting to their own leaders the futility of the Government's policies and the absence of any Socialist content in those policies.
  5.26 p.m.
  Mr. Douglas Jay: In the characteristically modest speech to which we have just listened there was no practical suggestion whatever. The only suggestion made was that this country should impose import levies on foodstuffs—which would do the utmost harm to our national economy. The speech of the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) contained no constructive suggestion that I could detect. The only constructive suggestion made by the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) was hastily withdrawn, as I understood it, which means that so far we have not had a very practical

  735
  contribution from hon. Members opposite.
  Only those who mistakenly regard economic forecasting as an exact science will object outright to the Government's taking further measures to restrain spending this winter. I question to some extent whether it is wise to impose a new limit of a 40 per cent. down payment on cars, because of the pronounced effect that it had on the motor industry on the winter of 1966–67. Even after devaluation a strong case has to be made out for that. But nothing said today has disproved the case for some sort of restraint.
  But if it has to be done there is all the more reason for anxiety about the present level of unemployment, especially in development areas. If new curbs are necessary there is surely all the stronger case for more vigorous action than we have already in the development areas. I hope that we shall not become complacent with the present levels of unemployment, and that the disappearance of the phrase "full employment" from the Queen's Speech is nothing more than a variation in the Queen's English. Unemployment, seasonally adjusted, seems now to be tending to fall, but the true figure for October, total registered unemployed, non-seasonally adjusted, is 2·4 per cent. in Great Britain and 7·1 per cent. in Northern Ireland. This is too high by any long-term standards, and represents a continuing waste of national resources. We have fewer people employed in Britain today than we had one year ago or two years ago, and we cannot be content with that.
  It means that in the development areas—although the gap between them and the national average has been narrowing in the last few years—the total is still much too high. With the national average at 2·4 per cent., the true figure today in Scotland is 3·6 per cent., in Wales 3·9 per cent. and in the Northern Region, 4·8 per cent.
  Do not let us forget that, as I would judge, the real grievance in Scotland and Wales today which provokes all the talk of devolution and all the rest of it is lack of employment comparable to what we have in the South of England. People in those parts of the country would be even
  736
  more grateful for more jobs than they are for more Royal Commissions. The Government are, therefore, in my view, quite right to have set aside another £10 million for immediate public investment schemes in the development areas. I hope that they will push on with them quickly and get them going while this winter's unemployment is still with them.
  There are, however, two other things which I believe that the Government should do now. The first is to launch a new advance factory programme in these areas and in the pit closure areas in particular—for instance, in West Cumberland, where the situation is very acute. We had four advance factory programmes between 1964 and the summer of 1967, but we have had none launched since. It is fortunate that we started those four when we did in view of the present pit closures and the rundown of the coal industry. The figures show that those programmes have proved a success.
  Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: In what the right hon. Gentleman says about advance factories, do we not have to bear in mind the fact that a large number of the advance factories announced in the programmes to which he has referred are currently standing empty? There are 15, for example, in Scotland alone. How many more can we have in addition to those standing empty?
  Mr. Jay: The hon. Member is quite wrong, as I was just about to explain. The figures show that of the 124 advance factories approved in those programmes, 98 have already been completed, nearly 80 have been allocated to firms and more are being allocated week by week at a quickening rate. The hon. Member's figures are out of date.
  I know that the Board of Trade now has what it calls a rolling programme by which a few factories are started in areas where others have been let, but we have had only 12 of these in the last 18 months. It is, therefore, time to launch another major instalment of this successful programme, to get building this winter and to locate the factories in the most needy areas.
  Secondly, the Government must, I believe, firmly and emphatically resist the pressure for a relaxation of the industrial development certificate control in the congested areas. There could be no

  737
  worse folly, at a moment when development area policy is at last really beginning to yield results, than to weaken the i.d.c. control. We could spend hundreds of millions of £s on grants in those areas, but if we weaken the control we will spend all that money and not produce any effective results.
  It is perfectly natural that industrialists in the congested areas—and the Midlands in particular—should periodically protest about these controls and, indeed, that the C.B.I. should do its job and convey those protests to the Government. Many people do not realise what a very large number of i.d.c.s are given in the congested areas in any event wherever a strong case can be made. To weaken further than this and to loosen the control altogether would wreck the recovery which is now beginning in the Northern Region and in Wales and Scotland.
  Looking at the Queen's Speech as a whole, I do not criticise the Government—I do not think that even the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South would do so either—for giving the main priority at the present time to national solvency. We all know that this is the first need if anything is to be achieved. I would, however, be far happier about the Speech, and I believe that the Government would recover a good deal more support in the country, if their economic measures were balanced by rather more progress in social reform and, in particular, some advance towards greater equality in the distribution of property. It is perfectly possible to move forward on both those fronts at the same time, and there are some measures aimed at the wider ownership of property—for example, through more saving—which would help industrial effort also.
  Since 1964, many improvements have been made by the Government in social benefits, and more are promised, but for a Labour Government which has been in office for over four years it seems to me that remarkably little effort has been made to achieve a fairer ownership of property. Indeed, the ownership of property may even be getting worse. I know that we are rather vaguely promised a wealth tax—quite understandably, not in the Queen's Speech—and that I have always supported. There is, however, an even stronger case for tightening
  738
  even more effectively our existing inheritance taxation.
  To tax capital which a man has inherited is even more obviously justifiable than to tax what he has saved, which will always be somewhat more controversial. Yet there are still many notorious loopholes in our estate duties, the worst of which I regard as the 45 per cent. rebate on the tax rate which is given for property in agricultural land. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is present, because I sincerely hope that he will not let another Budget go by without putting that one right.
  Nevertheless, it is not enough to cream off into the public revenue some of the really large estates. What is equally important and would help the national economy in every way would be to enable the mass of wage earners and salary earners to save regularly in such a way that they can build up some reserves of their own.
  At present—I do not know whether hon. Members are aware of this figure—there are 34 million accounts in the Post Office Savings Bank and the Trustee Savings Banks. I apologise for mentioning the Post Office. Yet the number of people owning equity shares, even now, is probably only about 2½ million as compared with 34 million. This means that over 90 per cent. of the adults in our population are saving on a fixed-interest basis, very largely at 2½ per cent., while a minority of under 10 per cent. are being protected against falling money values by sensible investment in equities which show a long-term rise in values. This has always seemed to me to be fairly near to a swindle on the great mass of small savers. It means that we still have two nations in investment.
  Mr. Michael Alison: In moving on to this point following his earlier discussion of a tax on accumulated or saved wealth, at what point does the right hon. Gentleman propose to avoid the tax on the sort of wealth which he now wishes to encourage the working man to save in equities, for example?
  Mr. Jay: At a pretty high level. I am, however, now making a different suggestion.
  With the two Stock Exchange booms of the last 10 years, this two-nation situation may mean that the distribution of

  739
  property has got worse. By tar the best and most practical way which I commend to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to start putting this right—although in addition to other measures such as the hon. Member has mentioned—would be for my right hon. Friend to authorise the Post Office to launch a Post Office Savings Bank unit trust, investing in equities on the general lines of the already successful Trustee Savings Bank Unit Trust.
  I know that there are special investment departments in both the Post Office Savings Bank and the Trustee Savings Banks, and these are admirable in themselves, but they are not enough. What is needed is an instrument which would enable the 34 million people now depositing in the Post Office and the Trustee Savings Banks to get the chance of putting small amounts regularly into a reasonable spread of equity shares. Of course, the ordinary City unit trusts cannot supply the complete answer, either, because they do not, like the Post Office, offer a counter in every town where the ordinary man is used, as a habit, to paying in his savings regularly.
  I believe that the Chancellor would find support from the National Savings Movement itself for this sort of proposal, and, indeed, it could be operated through the existing National Savings Movement machinery.
  It would greatly benefit the small saver—steadily as time went on. It would almost certainly tap new savings as the attraction became generally known, and might divert quite a bit of money from bingo halls, perhaps, and it would offer a new supply of capital to industry. It seems to me that, over time, it would really begin to even out the distribution of property in this country in a way in which almost nothing else can. I really hope that the Chancellor will seriously examine this proposal between now and the next Budget, when, I hope, this will attract him. For unlike most of the dilemmas and nightmares which confront him every day, this proposal ought to help both social progress and economic advance. And, indeed, it might even be popular.
  5.41 p.m.
  Mr. John Biffen: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Batter-
  740
  sea, North (Mr. Jay) has acquainted the House with an argument he has very persuasively given to a wider public through the Financial Times over recent weeks, and I am fairly certain that more will be heard of it when we come to the Budget. At least there is this consensus between him and this side of the House, namely, the very great anxiety for a very striking recovery of the level of savings in this country. No doubt one of the most disturbing things from the Chancellor's point of view has been the diminution in the amount of our national income now being saved, and the fear that, may be, there has been a very real flight from money and particularly from any money which is invested with Government. For, if this be so, it means the ability of this Government genuinely to borrow on the market is very severely limited indeed. That was certainly the consequence, it seems to me, which was borne out by the I.M.F's consideration of our economy. Whether we like it or not it seems to me these are considerations which are most clearly governing the Chancellor's Budget strategy.
  However, I do not want to look ahead, albeit through a glass extremely darkly, at the kind of debates we may be having some months hence. This is a debate about the Queen's Speech and the Loyal Address in reply. There is something felicitous and endurable about the Queen's Speeches, because they always end with the remark that "Other Measures will be laid before you". One knows perfectly well from past experience, with all Governments and particularly this Government, that many of those Measures which dribble out during a year are sometimes because they are thought to be improvements on Budgetary techniques, and sometimes with a sense of some embarrassment; but one thing is certain, that we shall have a whole series of Measures of economic consequence laid before us during the coming 12 months which were not revealed in the Queen's Speech. Indeed, we have already the hire-purchase changes, one of the earliest indications of this financial and fiscal flexibility.
  I should like to keep my remarks brief and, therefore, narrow, and touch only on these hire-purchase regulations, and I should like the House to share with me these questions: whether some kind of

  741
  restraint is necessary; if so, whether the hire-purchase restrictions were the most suitable form of restraint; whether the timing of the restraint, in particular in strategical terms, was justified; and whether there was some element of deception in the particular enterprise which has excited the House and the country over the last few days.
  I must confess, and I do so with some temerity in the physical presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), that I do not share his—I thought—qualified gloom about the level of demand in the economy. I would have thought that on the whole we are seeing a fairly booming economy in the United Kingdom at the present time, and I believe that there is a developing picture of rising demand.
  Quite a lot of comment has been made about the export performance. What I often think is a more helpful guide is the index of export orders of the engineering industry, which indicates a rising total of exports, and these are statistics of engineering export orders which obviously will become part of a manufacturing process in the months ahead. The index shows that between December, 1967, and August, 1968, the volume of exports has risen from 162 points to 170 points. To my mind, this gives very encouraging prospects of a high level of engineering activity derived from exports during the coming months.
  What, I think, is even more important has been the evidence recently made available by the Board of Trade in the Survey of Industrial Building and Approvals. I quote from the Board of Trade Journal, which shows that the average rate of 27·6 million square feet so far this year shows a marked increase of 26 per cent. compared with the 1967 average, and is now considerably higher than at any time in recent years. The point I would emphasise is that these are approvals and this will mean that they will be put into effect in the coming months. I think that this gives one some ground for hoping that through exports and industrial investment the pressure of demand on the economy during 1969 will be quite significant. There are plenty of other indicators, including the C.B.I's own comments on the acute, developing shortage of skilled labour, which point
  742
  to the fact that we could be in difficulties in the economy. I am taking into account mentally that public authority capital expenditure is supposed to fall off at the beginning of next year.
  Therefore, I have no hesitation in believing that some restraint was absolutely essential, and I am glad that the Government took measures of restraint on consumer expenditure. Indeed, the whole philosophy of their Budget was that domestic consumption had to be restrained.
  On the second point, whether or not the hire-purchase regulations were the appropriate form of consumer restraint—that I would favour—I have very great doubt. When the President of the Board of Trade made his announcement in the House on Friday his hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Macdonald) put what I thought was a particularly pertinent question when he asked:
  "Why does he not rather seek to restrain the amount of credit available to finance companies so that they may exercise restrictions by distinguishing among the credit-worthiness of their customers?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st November, 1968; Vol. 772, c. 349.]
  There is no doubt that one of the consequences of the hire-purchase regulations is that they bite selectively and harshly, and particularly at the rates which are now imposed, and this was a point touched on by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North. I find that the evidence of the motor industry's economic development committee puts this point particularly persuasively, and I should like to remind the House of paragraph 37 which says:
  "Since the changes in the hire-purchase regulations are such a significant factor in causing instability in the United Kingdom motor market, particularly in the last three years, it is worth noting that far less use has been made of this form of economic control in the leading Continental countries. In Germany and Italy, except for the period from December. 1964, to January, 1966, there have been no Government regulations on hire purchase."
  My fear it that consumer spending will not be so much restrained by hire-purchase regulations as deflected into a pre-Christmas spending spree. We all know that Christmas is a time of high levels of consumer spending, particularly in respect of foodstuffs and beverages. I

  743
  do not want to elaborate on this too much, but the emphasis given to foodstuffs consumption pre-Christmas tends to be in what is known as fancy foods, which are very largely imported foods, and in beverages, in respect of which need I say any more than that there is a very substantial degree of importation of wines? Let hon Members think of the enormous boost always given to cigar sales at Christmas. Was there ever an industry so cyclical unless it was the fireworks industry, if I may work in that highly contemporary allusion?
  There is no doubt that the import content that could be involved in the deflection of consumer demand deriving from the hire-purchase restraints could give a boost to imports, which on the Chancellor's own reckoning was an area of weakness in his calculations. He emphasised this when he said—I thought it was a rather defensive gesture—in respect of the domestic consumption of motor cars that rather less than 10 per cent. are imported. He was trying to say that it would have some effect on imports. But it seemed to me that the deflection of expenditure that one could foresee arising from this would be to areas where the import content would be much higher than 10 per cent.
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: The hon. Gentleman may be right when he speaks about the effect of the hire-purchase restraints on certain industries, but surely there are other cases where there will be nothing like as serious a deflection to Christmas shopping. For instance, when one buys a £300 car one spends only £100, but when one spends £100 on Christmas shopping, that is the total.
  Mr. Biffen: I accept that the hon. Gentleman is trying to drag me into the muddy waters of micro-economics to discuss the multiplier effect. I will stick to my own argument. Doubtless he will have the chance to advance the nuances of the multiplier effect. I weigh it and discount it.
  I do not want to run away from this. If I say I believe in restraint but do not particularly favour hire purchase, I accept that I must answer the question "What kind of restraint would I have preferred?". I say without hesitation
  744
  that it would have been the Excise and Purchase Tax regulator, particularly as that was one which in respect of certain classes of wines, for example, could have had a very clear impact upon at least a sector of our goods which are imported. Who knows, it might have given an opportunity to bring some tax justice so that the unit alcohol content of Scotch whisky would no longer be at a disadvantage compared with imported fortified and table wines. I make that point out of respect for my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne).
  If I answer the second of my questions by saying that I believe the restraint was necessary and that it should have come with the Purchase Tax regulator, I should like to consider whether in the broad strategic sense this has been a case of good timing.
  The Chancellor was anxious to pretend, I thought in a fairly bland way, that in his world things on the whole move predictably and even if the plusses and minuses were there, on the whole they all balance out and present a fairly satisfactory picture. This is the kind of optimism which, while it might make a good debating speech in the House of Commons, is fearfully frightening for the many commentators who watch the course of economic management of our country, persons outside this House and persons in the International Monetary Fund.
  The Chancellor was very anxious to limit the discussion as to whether it had been discussed early in the year or during the Committee stage of the Finance Bill. But the last occasion when the House discussed it was a good deal later, just before it rose, on the Third Reading of the Finance Bill. On 4th July the Chancellor said:
  "On consumer spending, therefore, the measures have begun to bite, and the effects are beginning to show up in the indicators. These effects should become more pronounced in the coming months as we adjust to a new level of consumer spending".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th July, 1968; Vol. 767, c. 1790–1.]
  He was not just wrong; he was dead wrong. It was not as though there were no voices raised in that debate saying, "Now is the time you should be increasing consumer taxation and doing this if only to restore confidence in case there

  745
  is again pressure on sterling". Goodness knows, we now realise that that is what has occurred. We realise, for example, that had confidence been restored by some action by the Government in the closing period of July it might not have been necessary to have the financial Munich of the Basle Agreement. If measures had been taken then, I believe they would have obviated the necessity for the measures that we are taking now. I believe that the restraint has been, in the strategic sense, badly timed because it should have been carried out earlier.
  My last point is whether there was deception. My right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) dealt with this admirably when he said that we do not expect in this vale of tears Governments to make unpopular announcements for the benefit of the Opposition. So I will not engage in comparative morality. I think I should win. It is just generosity that is preventing me from doing it. I would merely say that it is all very well but the Prime Minister has need of credibility, particularly in respect of the Rhodesian talks, for example. Anyone reading the Prime Minister's remarks when he was very skilfully examined by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition can only conclude that on that occasion the Prime Minister showed cleverness beyond the call of intelligence.
  I think a much more serious question is whether the right hon. Lady the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity was deceiving herself. My right hon. Friend—I do not blame him—suggested that she knew what it was all about and was pulling a fast one. That is quite a generous, maybe, interpretation. I have a harsher one, and that is that she doss not know what it is all about and that she genuinely believes that the Government strategy is one in which domestic consumption is not expected to suffer as a result of the devaluation strategy. This could be the most serious thing of all.
  No one who either heard or read the brilliant speech by the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Walden) in the Standing Committee on the Finance Bill will have any doubt about the latent schizophrenia between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the First Secretary of State. This is very serious indeed, be-
  746
  cause only this afternoon the Chancellor of the Exchequer was enumerating some of the advantages, some of the things that had gone well, and some of the things that had gone badly. He said that prices had been kept down. That is a good point. He said that consumer expenditure had gone up. That is a bad point. But they are related. What is a good point on the one hand that has an immediate consequence that is a bad point; it can only give rise to immense puzzlement.
  Every time the Government succeed in making a marginal brow beating of the private sector not to proceed with pricing policies which it believes to be in its commercial interest it adds to the Chancellor's difficulties of dealing with the level of domestic consumption. The seriousness of the situation is that the right hon. Lady really believes that it is the rôle of her Ministry and of the Government to bring about a situation in which the public consequences—in terms of public expenditure and private living standards—of devaluation are not to be experienced. Recently, in the presence of the Chancellor, Sir Leslie O'Brien said:
  "All I will add now is that none of us concerned with these matters"—
  referring to the management of the economy—
  "can afford to make mistake."
  It is late in the evening for the right hon. Lady to indulge in her own good-natured self-deception. We all suffer from that. Certainly the Chancellor suffers, and it was unfortunate that, when responding earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), the right hon. Gentleman did not take the opportunity of distinguishing more clearly the fact that he does not share her illusions.
  6.2 p.m.
  Mr. Joel Barnett: The one thing to be said in favour of the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) is that in an economic debate he can generally be relied on to speak about economics, which cannot be said of many hon. Gentlemen opposite. I was somewhat surprised to hear him say that he believed in restraint. I always thought him to be a Powellite freebooter, but I am glad to note the change.
  Mr. Biffen: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to misrepresent me more than is tolerable in these circumstances. If I had chosen this occasion to debate the levels of public expenditure, I would then have chosen to reduce the levels of tax reduction. I would have done my own Morecambe. I was proceeding on the assumption that we have levels of public expenditure which have been decided and proceeded upon and which, unfortunately, cannot be changed. In other words, I was being realistic.
  Mr. Barnett: The hon. Gentleman has made my point. He said that he would control this, that and the other. I had thought him to be a freebooter. Now he says that he is a freebooter in controlling the economy, but in his way.
  The hon. Gentleman made the interesting comment that the hire-purchase restrictions might have a deflecting effect on consumer expenditure in the pre-Christmas boom. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) corrected him in one regard. Another is that while there is some truth in what the hon. Gentleman said, one must bear in mind that for importers the problem of stocks for pre-Christmas booms does not arise in the last few weeks pre-Christmas because their buying must be done many months before that period. Thus, the dangers of which the hon. Gentleman spoke can be over-stated.
  I wish to comment briefly on the hire-purchase restrictions introduced last Friday morning. I completely accept that the decision to announce them on Friday was because of the Bassetlaw by-election. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I have never doubted that. This is one of the human frailties that I accept in political life and I am surprised that so much has been made of it.
  I object, however, to the manner in which hon. Gentlemen opposite have treated this event—the hypocrisy inherent in what has been said by them—because it is obvious, from what the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) said, that he at least accepts that there should not be any reflation. Whether or not there is an amount of deflation in this piece of hire-purchase restriction, it is certainly not so great as to warrant the sort of comments made
  748
  by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West and the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), particularly the latter right hon. Gentleman who said on 1st November:
  "…his statement"—
  referring to the words of the President of the Board of Trade—
  "calls into question the entire Budget judgment…".
  That was as nonsensical a comment as one could get from a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, particularly when he added:
  "Second, and more serious,…the statement calls into question the personal honour and truthfulness of Ministers…".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st November, 1968; Vol. 772, cc. 345–6.]
  That is nonsense, and hon. Gentlemen opposite know it. Such remarks are unworthy of them. The trouble is that remarks of that kind do not just debase and hurt opponents but debase the whole of our political life and standards. They do the maximum possible harm because the public knows that they are humbug. If the decision to which I referred was taken by the Government for the reasons which I have stated, it is possible to criticise it without all this cant and humbug from hon. Gentlemen opposite. They cannot expect to be taken seriously when the best they can do is the sort of speech made by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West today.
  The right hon. Gentleman made yet another critical analysis of what has gone wrong, of the guesses that were made but did not turn out to be right and of the forecasts that have proved to be incorrect over a period of time. We should not be surprised when forecasts are wrong. In economic terms, it is surprising if any economist ever gets a forecast right. It is a matter of making variously better or worse-informed guesses. That is all we have had from the right hon. Gentleman.
  Anyone making guesses and forecasts about the economy is as likely to be wrong as right or right as wrong. The margin of error must necessitate a regular adjustment of any judgment, budgetary or anything else, and I would have thought that most of the more serious Front Benchers opposite would accept that. As a non-guesser, I am prepared to take the average of all the various

  749
  economists' guesses and from that reach the conclusion that we are not going to get a surplus next year of anything like the figures that have been bandied about. I suggest that we will have a surplus next year of about £200 million.
  The hazards of forecasting, particularly on the total of current and long-term capital account, are such that it is impossible to be even as accurate as that because fluctuations in capital outflow alone are enough to make impossible any guesses about what will be the total balance, deficit, or surplus in a given year. For example, in 1961 there was a surplus on net capital outflow of £68 million. In 1964 there was a deficit of £370 million. When one is faced with wide variations of this order in capital outflows—let alone what can happen on current account—one appreciates the hazards of making forecasts about a balance of payments surplus or deficit 12 months from today.
  My complaint is not that the Chancellor guessed wrong but that we are in danger of not seeing the wood for the trees. We are in danger of becoming bemused by balance of payments deficits and surpluses—so bemused as almost to lose a sense of objectivity.
  The Chancellor is constantly repeating the need for a surplus at the rate of £500 million a year. The Leader of the Opposition treated us to a somewhat idiotic statement on 30th October, when he said:
  "…we need not an improvement so that there is still a deficit of £30 million a month, but a surplus of trade of £40 million a month continuously for at least 40 months; and a surplus of invisibles has to be added to that…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th October, 1968; Vol. 772, c. 25.]
  The surplus of invisibles is running at the moment at a rate in excess of £240 million a year, which means that the right hon. Gentleman was saying that we need a surplus on balance of payments of about £720 million a year for 40 months.
  If he really believes that, he is welcome, but I do not know how he can also believe that he can reduce taxation and maintain full employment—which is what the right hon. Member for Enfield, West implied—and increase investment along with a continuous surplus of £720 million a year for 40 months. It was an
  750
  incredible statement and I should be interested to hear tonight whether that is still the official view of the Opposition.
  Returning to the Chancellor's idea of a steady surplus of £500 million, I do not believe that we could maintain such a target anyway. Indeed, at this point, I am in some agreement with the speech yesterday of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). I query the need for such a surplus. It stems from a commendable and understandable desire to reverse the trend whereby we have been living beyond our means, on hire purchase, as it were, but it is possible to go too far the other way.
  We are almost approaching the old-fashioned Victorian view of debt, that all borrowing is evil. We certainly borrowed too much as a nation in the past and have spent money which we have not earned, but it does not follow that, as a nation or as individuals, we should take an eternal vow never to borrow again until we have paid every penny we owe. This is impossible any way—
  Mr. Hordern: Is not the difficulty that we said that we would repay, and within a very few years?
  Mr. Barnett: The hon. Gentleman can make his own speeches about what we did or should have done and what we said or should have said. He is happy making his party political points: I prefer to stick to the economic points.
  There is nothing wrong with borrowing—in moderation. Of course, if we were prepared as a nation and as individuals to put off all spending until we had paid every penny of debt, it would be very simple. If the nation would accept that sort of view, we should have no problems. Everyone would exercise self-restraint and Governments would have no problem, but the nation is not prepared to do that. It is prepared to spend some of its earnings of tomorrow today. There is nothing wrong with that. There is no evil in getting some pleasure today from tomorrow's earnings. Many wealthy people think that it is terrible because they have never had that problem, but ordinary working class people are prepared to work harder tomorrow to get some pleasure today. I do not

  751
  blame them, and Governments should not blame them.
  It is this, which individuals are doing, which adds up to our national situation, but I see nothing evil in borrowing in this way. In practice, anyway, it would be impossible to resist the blandishments of creditors if one wanted to cease all borrowing. An apt comparison in industry is that a creditor does not want a customer to stop all borrowing and buying until he has paid his debts, since that would put the creditor out of business. Equally, he would not want him only to borrow and never to repay, which is what we have been doing as a nation for some years.
  His ideal would be a customer whose debts were commensurate with his resources and also of a size which had adequate security and could be serviced. This is particularly apt, because we now have a more realistic exchange rate, we have adequate security for our debts and we can service them. What our creditors would not want and would not allow would be for us to reduce the size of our debts too rapidly. Certainly £500 million a year for 40 months, let alone £720 million, is a rate which other countries would not stand. So we should stop talking about the impossible and set our sights on a smaller target. We should stop talking about massive repayment of debts—[Interruption.] If I am contradicting something which the Government previously said and am therefore saying that they were wrong, I am prepared to do so and to concede to the hon. Member, who is calling from a sedentary position, that the Government were wrong, if that is what he wants to hear.
  I believe that we need to work for a small but consistent surplus, and that then we would find, as in industry, that it was not a problem of keeping creditors at bay but of preventing them from lending us more than we wanted to borrow. This is the problem, rather than finding the enormous sums which we hear about to make the massive repayments which would be needed if we were to repay all our debts. This may sound odd to those who know that our nation has not been paying off its debts at all for years, but anyone who knows anything about creditors in industry will know how astonishingly quickly they change from pressing
  752
  for repayment to being quite happy that one is in a sound way and allowing one not only to maintain a debt but to increase it.
  If one accepts this thesis, it should be taken together with the unexpected stability of the two-tier system of gold, which looks like being more long-term than was ever thought—even though it is not perhaps as stable as one would hope, it seems to be much more enduring than anyone dared to hope when it was introduced—and it should also be seen together with the arrangements made at Basle. Incidentally, the House has been somewhat churlish about that settlement. It has paid no compliments to the Government, and I should like to do so. I believe that there has been some controversy about whether credit should go to the Financial Secretary, the Bank of England, or Treasury officials. I do not mind who it was—I imagine that everyone involved had something to do with it—but that arrangement, from which I hope we will move on, will help us to move away from the impossible previous situation of short-term borrowing, which left us with the volatile debt position we have faced since 1964. I hope that we can move on further from that so that we can get away from the whole idea of sterling as a reserve currency.
  With this stability, we can get to a higher rate of growth than we have known for some time, and without any major measures which would simply mean increasing next year's surplus say, from £200 million to £400 million, which would not solve our problems but could create even greater difficulties.
  There are still two inhibiting factors on balance of payments. The first is on defence which is still far too high for comfort, particularly in the dollar cost of equipment. When we talk about all the statistics of balance of payments we exclude purchases and dollar payments for defence equipment as if these were irregular payments, but these payments to the United States for equipment, far from being irregular, are very regular. They are likely to become even more regular. They should be included in all our statistics and show how clearly we are spending too much in this field.
  The second point on the inhibiting factors of balance of payments is the question of private investment abroad. I

  753
  am not in favour of taking over the whole portfolio of investment made as some of my hon. Friends want to do. Without going into too much detail, it would mean replacing creditors who cannot compel us to do what we would not want to be doing at present. But I am very much in favour of action to prevent the continuing outflow of capital. I am sure that in the year 2000 our successors will look at this period of our economic history and think that we have been crazy. On the one hand, we have been restricting growth and causing unemployment here at home because of balance of payments deficits while, at the same time, boosting that deficit on private capital invested abroad.
  Look at the figures. In 1958 capital investment abroad, both direct and portfolio, amounted to £310 million. In 1967 it amounted to £424 million. The outflow in the same 10-year period was £3,286 million. This was at a time when we had stop-go in this country and were restricting growth and deliberately causing unemployment. This is absolutely crazy. Capital investment here during that same period amounted to £2,573 million. Nevertheless the net deficit on capital outlay was of a very hefty nature. And looking at all the evidence available, the capital investment in this country, or the greater part of it, would certainly continue if we restricted capital investment abroad because the two things do not necessarily or wholly go hand-in-hand.
  I certainly do not argue that we should completely stop capital investment abroad. That is not possible anyway. Reddaway, in his interim report, despite the provisos he made, made quite clear that some investment is more valuable than others, but he went on to give some figures, despite many qualifications in which he found that on average the initial yield on investment of every £100 was just £9. That seems too high a price to pay for restricting growth and causing unemployment at home. I hope that the Government will now give serious attention to the whole question of capital investment abroad.
  I conclude that if we can cease our obsession with the need for a surplus at the rate of £500 million and if we can forget prices and incomes legislation—I am happy to see that we seem to be forgetting the legislation on incomes—and if
  754
  we can couple this with action to prevent capital outflow, we can look forward to a greater degree of economic stability than has been known for many years.
  6.24 p.m.
  Sir Henry d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: I think it is almost exactly four years since on this same occasion of the debate on the Address I had the honour of following the hon. Member for Hey-wood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) who then made his maiden speech. I believe I congratulated him on an agreeable speech, as it was, and said that I looked forward to hearing him again. Time has gone on and I do not think I would have praised it exactly in those words if I had then known what was in store for me in debates in the Finance Bill Committee and on the Floor of this House.
  The hon. Member said that he did not go so far as his hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens) but I think he should examine his speech textually very carefully with the aid of a spy-glass to see if there is any difference between the hon. Members' views. They are sitting very happily together, and, because this is a debate in which many hon. Members want to take part, I do not wish to create any rift between those allies.
  In his reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in his best form, but he at any rate contributed one phrase to our language. There has always been the difficulty, Mr. Speaker, of which you more than anyone else are aware, that we cannot use the word "lie" on the Floor of this House. I believe the late Sir Winston Churchill spoke about a "terminological in-exactitude". Now the Chancellor has produced a new phrase for us. We might also conjugate it like this: I was misreported, you were inaccurate and he—the right hon. Gentleman referring to the Prime Minister—made a holding statement. This is new Parliamentary definition, which we shall be able to use again.
  The hon. Member for Heywood and Royton said that we had been rather grudging in our attitude towards the Basle Agreement. On the other hand, my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) characterised

  755
  it as "a Munich". I feel that I must spend a few minutes on this matter. In 1922 the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Stanley Baldwin, in company with the then Governor of the Bank of England, Mr. Montagu Norman, concluded an American debt settlement with the United States authorities which won universal approval. I believe it was criticised at that time only by the Daily Express and Sir Charles Addis, chairman of the Hong Kong Bank. Everyone in the City and in politics thought it an admirable agreement. It provided that we should repay the entire sum borrowed from the U.S.A. for war purposes over 60 years plus 3½ per cent. interest regardless of any payments we might or might not receive from former allies in Europe in this connection. This was not a settlement but a capitulation. I shall try to show that the Basle Agreement is also a capitulation.
  I should not particularly wish to dwell on this had I not had the opportunity of hearing at the bankers' dinner the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Governor of the Bank of England who were freely exchanging tributes to each other's powers of navigation when the ship to which they referred was to all intents and purposes beached on a sandbank. It was an occasion for decent humility, not for boasting. There is nothing to be proud about in a complete surrender.
  What was the position before the agreement to which the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton referred in such tender terms? There were holders of sterling here perhaps to a total of £4,000 million—I would not know the exact amount—and technically speaking they were entitled to convert their sterling balances on payment into foreign currency. As the White Paper says, this became acutely difficult in the second quarter of last year when there were substantial withdrawals—depletions, I think is the word—of £230 million in our gold reserves due to this other happy phrase, "diversification of sterling balances".
  With £1,000 million nominally in gold, a steady drain of £230 million a quarter could not be tolerated. This, of course, came about primarily as a result of the agreement made by the Chancellor with
  756
  the Hong Kong Government who immediately after devaluation came to London and said, "We shall take all our money away unless you give us guarantees for the dollar content of our sterling balances." Again, one does not have figures, but the example of Hong Kong was contagious. All the other holders of sterling balances said, "Now you must give us a guarantee."
  What is the agreement? We have drawing rights to repay anything from one-fifth to a quarter of our liabilities, and those rights exist for a maximum of three years. I understand from some of the exchanges across the Floor that they are already being used. When the Chancellor made his announcement in July I said that, while we wished him well in his negotiations, to the extent that they were successful they would represent a transfer of our debts from creditors over whom we had some control to creditors over whom we had no control. The right hon. Gentleman advised me to wait and see. I did, and now we all see the result in the White Paper.
  There might have been a tenable argument for telling our creditors that we had a standby of about a quarter of our liabilities, and would therefore give them a guarantee on a quarter of their deposits, and that they should make the best of that. But we have given them a guarantee for 90 per cent. of their deposits. It is clearly physically impossible for us to meet this guarantee from the resources made available to us by the standby. I suspect that the size of the standby—2,000 million dollars—was, roughly speaking, arrived at because in the eyes of the people who knew about our financial situation, which I do not pretend to know about, it was approximately the amount of our as yet uncommitted reserves. In other words, we were pledging our gold reserves in advance as and when the standby is drawn. We have to arrange the repayment over 10 years, in hard currency, to an institution or country over which we have no control.
  I wonder what the price of that was. One thing that has taken place to which no one has drawn attention is the end of something we learned about at school. I am sure that the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton is familiar with "the bill on London". We learned at school that one of the great advantages

  757
  of being at the centre of a trading empire was that simply by having knowledge of customers abroad one could finance movements of goods from, say, Burma to France, and make the arrangements in London to deal with the shipment. This meant that one could make sure that it was shipped in a British ship and insured with a British insurance company. "The bill on London", which was a classic phrase showing the advantages of a trading empire, has now come to an end. A regulation has been passed that no trade not touching the sterling area can now be financed from London. I do not argue that the system of the bill on London was not open to abuse. I dare say that some people got some extra credit by means of it, but I am sure that there were great advantages to it, both to the British shipping lines and to the insurance companies.
  I have a question which I hope the Chief Secretary—whom I congratulate on his new appointment—will ask his right hon. Friend to answer. Was the withdrawal of the facilities of the bill on London a spontaneous action by the London authorities, or was it in any way a condition of the granting of the Basle credit? The whole matter has been treated very quietly. No attention has been drawn to it, and I have noticed no Parliamentary reference to it. I should be very relieved if I could be given an assurance at the end of the debate that this action was taken entirely by our authorities on their own initiative for the advantage of this country.
  It is relatively easy to criticise an agreement once it has been made. But this is not an agreement; it is a capitulation. One of the points about which the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens) and his friends are concerned is the amount of British investment money now being invested in such places as Australia. British pounds in London have no dollar guarantee, but if a British individual sends £100 to Australia that sum has a theoretical dollar guarantee. In other words, simply by transferring his funds from London to Sidney or Melbourne any capitalist in this country gets what is virtually a dollar guarantee for the funds he has transferred.
  The Australians are very sensitive about this. The mere threat of the withdrawal of British investment from
  758
  Australia caused severe tumbles in the Australian market. I should have thought that in negotiating with the Australians we might have made a condition that if the guarantee was given, it would not apply to transfers made after such and such a date, but this has not been done. That is why I characterise the deal as a capitulation.
  We have given a guarantee which we are not in a position to carry out, and we have given it for the whole of the debt. My hon. Friend the Member for Horncastle (Mr. Tapsell) used the word "humiliating" in a Motion, and I share that view. It is humiliating to give a guarantee which one cannot carry out. And there is a bit more to this. We read in the White Paper that it is hoped that the funds drawn from London on the basis of the standby will be deposited with the Bank for International Settlements at Basle. That is really saying "We do not like the way you keep your books in London." When a company is in trouble and the shareholders complain, there is a demand for an investigation of the accounts.
  I can best sum this up by saying that any shareholder who sees that Cooper Bros, are looking into the firm's books had better get out, unless he wants to be caught on the dance floor after the music has stopped. Here we are suffering the special humiliation of the holders of sterling being told, "You can take your money out of London, but you must put it in the Bank for International Settlements", which is only an office. We have now reached the moment when the accountants are looking us over. The next stage can be to put in a receiver.
  What will be the situation when my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) and his colleagues take office in two years' time? The 2,000 million dollar standby will be ex-exhausted, the bill will be coming in. The remedy, in business terms, is to get rid of the board of directors and the chairman, and I hope that the electors will take this to heart.
  6.40 p.m.
  Mr. James Dickens: The speech of the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid), despite its totally unconvincing ending, was a typically thoughtful contribution to our debate which made

  759
  some interesting points about the Basle Agreement. I have the gravest reservations about that agreement. In my view, it opens up for this country immense problems for the 1970s. I think it deplorable for a country which has immense assets abroad, now totalling over £11,000 million, to deliberately pursue an economic policy which inhibits growth, creates unemployment and pursues a demonstrably unfair incomes policy for the sake of borrowing £835 million from the Bank for International Settlements. I make my position on that perfectly clear.
  Instead, I again urge the Government to take steps to liquidate the dollar portfolio as part of a carefully phased exercise, and to use the revenue from that source to underwrite the more volatile short-term sterling balances, both the official and the unofficial balances, and to start the repayment of debt to the I.M.F. and other creditors.
  Tonight, on what is very close to the first anniversary of devaluation, the House turns its attention to the Government's economic policy. I shall not go over the alternative economic policy which I have outlined in some detail on several occasions in the past. I shall summarise the argument and bring various aspects of it up to date, but I shall speak mainly about some of the effects of the Government's policy, particularly on unemployment and the social services.
  In passing, I must express my surprise at hearing the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), for whom I have some respect, congratulate his right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) on what I thought was a rather disreputable attack on the personal integrity of some of my right hon. Friends. Those of us on this side who have differences with the Government on economic policy have always confined those differences to matters of policy, and we have never sought to argue the case on personalities.
  The right hon. Member for Enfield, West has, alas, left the Chamber. It is a pity that he has, for it will not do for him or any other member of the Opposition to complain about the present level of unemployment. He was a member of two successive Conserva-
  760
  tive Cabinets which deliberately put up unemployment to well over 600,000, in the winter of 1958–59, and again in the winter of 1962–63. Moreover, he and his party are backed financially by the those who make up the Industrial Policy Group of British industrialists and businessmen, who are now openly urging the deliberate creation of a permanent pool of unemployed in Britain of 2 per cent. and more. Indeed, they have said in their very first pamphlet that full employment should no longer be regarded as a major item of policy by political parties.
  It is time the Opposition came clean on this matter. What level of unemployment do they stand for? Do they support the Industrial Policy Group? Are they in favour of the permanently higher level of unemployment which we are now experiencing in Britain for the first time since 1939, or are they not? The House and the country are entitled to know.
  The Government's attitude towards unemployment is an extremely serious matter, too. Full employment is a basic principle of the Labour Party. Yet we are entering the third successive winter with the prospect of 600,000 of our fellow citizens out of work. We on this side find that prospect, as a permanent feature of British economic life, utterly intolerable. We watch with the greatest anxiety the way the Government are reacting now to the many pressures being put on them from sources at home and abroad. For example, the Bank for International Settlements, which arranged to underwrite the official sterling balances in the recent Basle Agreement, in its most recent annual report openly attacked the policies of British Governments in the 1950s and 1960s for creating an over-full employment level of demand, as it put it. If that is not urging a higher level of unemployment now, I should like to know what is.
  We have also had certain remarkable statements recently attributed to members of the Government. On 21st September, the Business News section of The Times reported that
  "Mrs. Barbara Castle said the acceptable"—
  note the word "acceptable"—
  "figure of 2 per cent. unemployed would be achieved 'as our export drive gathers strength'."

  761
  I raised this matter privately with my right hon. Friend yesterday, and she went to great pains to deny the report. I fully accept that. Obviously, her position would be one of great difficulty if it were felt that, as a leading member of the Government, she had succumbed to the present propaganda. It was, perhaps, shall we say, a Freudian slip on that occasion.
  Not only is the present level of unemployment serious as it is, but it is becoming a chronic feature of the economy. In July, 1966, there were 108,000 adult males aged 18 and over out of work for eight weeks or longer. The corresponding figure on 9th September this year had grown to 265,000. This is intolerably high. Unemployment is not so evident, perhaps, in prosperous Lewisham and South-East London, but for people living in South Wales, the North and Scotland the figures are frightful.
  The Government must get rid of the idea that they can run the country at a rate of economic expansion of 3 or 4 per cent. per annum, taking unemployment simply as a balancing factor in the equation. There must be an early return to full employment, and the rate of economic growth must be increased to a level between 5 and 6 per cent., which, taking account of the rapid increases in productivity, is the very least we must attain to bring the level of unemployment down to about 425,000.
  But let this be clear. Those of us who have signed the Amendment to the Address on this occasion are saying—I certainly am—that we utterly refuse to accept that there is any advantage for this country in having about 400,000 people avoidably unemployed today or throughout this winter.
  Mr. Hamling: Is my hon. Friend saying that: the Government are deliberately creating unemployment and that the total of unemployed now is avoidable?
  Mr. Dickens: I am saying that the figure of 550,000 presently out of work contains within it, according to the best estimates which the Department of Employment and Productivity can provide, about 400,000 who are avoidably unemployed. I say also that the Government's policy since 1966, and, I regret to say, since devaluation, has been to pur- 762
  sue an economic strategy which allows for a permanently higher level of unemployment.
  I turn now to the central question of the Government's economic strategy. I supported the devaluation of the pound in November, 1967, as the first step which this country had to take to reappraise our financial position in the world for the remainder of this century and beyond. On the first Monday after the announcement of devaluation, I said at Question Time to the present Home Secretary that devaluation must be supported by a package of measures designed to readjust this country to a new world financial rôle, that it was not only nonsense to go on maintaining the world military rôle which the Government were then seeking to maintain but nonsense also to go on trying to uphold a world financial rôle and, in particular, to put the interests of the City of London in the international economy before the long-term interests of British industry.
  Now, the Government have taken some steps to reassess our world position. I give them full credit for their decision in December and January last to effect a military withdrawal from east of Suez in 1971. I said then, and I say now, that that was a step of great historical importance.
  Mr. John Lee: But three years late.
  Mr. Dickens: But, as my hon. Friend points out, three years too late. If this step had been taken in 1964–65, Britain would now be getting some of the benefits in terms of reduced foreign exchange spending.
  It is true initially, after devaluation, the Government tried to go for something like a new economic policy. The House and the country should know that the present Prime Minister was arguing privately for a rate of economic growth of 6 per cent. We have lost all sight of that, at least in 1968. The Bank for International Settlements, the International Monetary Fund, the Treasury, and the financial establishments here, quickly knocked my right hon. Friend off that argument. The consequence is that we have settled for a much lower rate of economic growth this year, with all its accompanying dangers for the country.

  763
  What do we put forward as an alternative policy? I have argued this in some detail in the past. Perhaps the most concise statement of our position is contained in paragraph 188 of the recent and wholly admirable Economic Review published by the Trades Union Congress. I should perhaps explain that the General Council of the T.U.C. were arguing in this paragraph about the consequences of reflating the economy. For only by reflating the economy this year, by having a planned reflation of domestic demand and a much higher level of public investment, can we get unemployment down. The paragraph says:
  "The General Council accepted that reflation of the economy would bring with it risks on the balance of payments front. They reached the conclusion that it would be possible to contain these risks, given determination by the Government to adopt radically new attitudes to the use of such measures as import controls and the use of the dollar portfolio. But, more fundamentally, they took the view that to restrain expansion indefinitely would have been not only to postpone a solution but indeed to aggravate the basic problems facing the economy."
  That is the position in a nutshell.
  Let us take the first point for which the General Council argues. If the Government were to decide to reflate the economy, to go for a much higher rate of economic growth in 1969, thus encouraging a much higher level of in vestment, particularly in the private sector, thus reducing unemployment, what other steps would they have to take? The very first measure would be to protect the present vulnerability of the £ sterling as an international reserve and trading currency by bringing back the exchange controls which the Tories dismantled in the 1950s; by, if need be, suspending sterling convertibility; by, if need be, too, freezing some of the more volatile sterling balances. Of course, this would cause uproar in the City and outrage in the Treasury.
  But these are, from a Socialist point of view, attractive incentives. I put it to my right hon. Friends that short of taking these steps they will be faced with an economic policy over the next decade. With deflation and foreign borrowing as the two main pillars of their policy.
  What if we were to take a look at our vast resources abroad? We occasionally get the impression in these economic
  764
  debates that we are a poor, weak and enfeebled country. Nothing of the kind. At the end of 1967 Great Britain's external assets amounted to £21,000 million. Our total external liabilities, excluding private investment in this country, amounted to about £14,000 million. Of the £21,000 million of external assets, some £11,000 million was made up of private investment abroad. For example, the portfolio investments have greatly appreciated in value in recent years and now total £4,250 million as against £3,000 million in 1962. Why on earth go to the bankers to borrow money when we have these immense resources available?
  Mr. Bessell: I think that the hon. Gentleman has put his case a little unfairly. He says that there are £21,000 million of assets abroad. I agree that this is the figure. There are £14,000 million in terms of liability, excluding the amount in private sector investment. We must add the two together to arrive at a fair assessment, if he chooses to take the second as a basis of credit for his argument.
  Mr. Dickens: I would have thought not. Private investment in this country is a liability only in the most narrow bookkeeping sense. No one seriously argues—not, I think, the hon. Gentleman—that there is any question of withdrawal as to the bulk of this money. On the contrary, the present indications are that the trend is going the other way. All our anxieties are about the increasing rate of private investment in Britain.
  However, if we were to take a decision to liquidate our dollar portfolio, we should not use it in the way that the Chancellor propounded at the Labour Party conference at Blackpool, in some obscure way to secure a standard of living that we have not earned. That is not a proposal which I have ever advocated, nor have I any recollection of those who urged the proposal on the Chancellor ever arguing this point of view. On the contrary, we would take, concurrently, many other measures to get the balance of payments right. I repeat, we would use the revenue as part of a carefully timed exercise to protect the currency, to buy out the more volatile short-term sterling balances, and to repay some of our foreign debts, with fair compensation to existing holders.

  765
  The second thing we would do—here I take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett)—would be to put a restriction on the outflow of private capital to advanced countries in the sterling area. My hon. Friend dealt with this point at some length. I will confine myself to saying this, and I say it in the presence of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I will give way to him willingly if he has any new statement of Government policy to make in this respect tonight. It is not for the lack of any urging on my part that he has not had the opportunity of doing so earlier.
  I asked my right hon. Friend yesterday to review again the Government's policy on the export of private capital from Britain to Australia, South Africa and other advanced countries in the sterling area. Unfortunately, there still has been no response from him, despite the fact that in the first six months of this year we exported £348 million of capital, the highest figure in any six monthly period since records were first kept in this form a decade ago. It is much worse than the figure for the first six months of 1964, which was £220 million; and that, I would remind the Chancellor, was the year of the £800 million deficit.
  I recognise that this is a sensitive point. I put it to my right hon. Friend that the days turn into weeks, and weeks turn into months, and this tremendous strain on the balance of payments continues. When does my right hon. Friend intend to take action on this critical matter? I urge him to look at this again as a matter of urgency and to recognise that Britain cannot afford any longer to be a mainstay of capital supply for racialist, Fascist South Africa, on the one hand, or Australia, on the other.
  In particular, it is time that the Government paid special attention to the very heavy outflow of capital to portfolio investment in Australia, much of which has been going to Australian gold mining shares, iron ore shares, and so forth. We have now got to the stage where unit trusts are openly advertising as one of their major features that they will invest a substantial proportion of their portfolio in this sort of investment abroad. This nonsense has got to stop, and the sooner it stops the better for Britain's economy.
  766
  In the course of this year we on this side of the House have become accustomed, unhappily, to the fact that the Government, in their desire to pander to the most reactionary financial elements in Europe, have whittled away some of the basic fundamental principles of the Labour Party. By "reactionary financial elements" I mean, for example, the Bank for International Settlements which in its last annual report dealt with the British economy and called for a higher level of unemployment, for cuts in public expenditure, for a really effective incomes policy—and we all know what that means—and for new trade union legislation, in terms that sound almost identical to those used by the Tory Party.
  I tell the Chancellor that we are getting very tired of watching some of the principles which the Labour Party has always stood for being eroded. In January we had the cuts in education, the disgraceful decision to postpone the raising of the school leaving age, the mean decision to withdraw the milk supply from children in secondary schools, and the contemptible decision to reimpose prescription charges.
  I tell my right hon. Friends that when we look over the last year and also witness what happened in the House yesterday over the cuts in the school meals service rightly described in The Guardian this morning as a mean and inept cut designed to meet the Treasury's passionate desire for candle ends, we are bound to ask when these cuts will stop. When will it be recognised that our social services are inadequate, that we are spending less per capita on them than, for example, free enterprise America? When will we see that these are not sacred cows, that they are to many of us basic elements in the policy we were elected to this House to carry out and, above all, they are elements that we are determined to defend? For we are not prepared to see full employment or our social services being lost in a welter of complacent reactionary humbug emanating from the Treasury, from Washington or from Basle.
  7.2 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Bessell: I hope that the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens) will forgive me if I do not follow his argument too closely. I am bound to say in passing, however,

  767
  that I find his case in respect of Britain's apparent overseas wealth somewhat difficult to accept.
  In the interjection that I made I pointed out that the hon. Member had agreed with the published figures of overseas assets of £21,000 million compared with an overseas liability of £14,000 million if private investment is excluded. His reply was that it was reasonable to exclude the liabilities to the private sector on the ground that there was no chance of its being withdrawn. I think that is true only in so far as Britain remains economically stable. In any case, it is not the kind of accountancy that I should like Her Majesty's Government to follow. I say that, with respect, because I believe that it is a false way of presenting the picture to the House.
  I much preferred the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Hey-wood and Royton (Mr. Barnett). I believe he is absolutely right to emphasise that there is no need to talk in terms of surpluses of £500 million and more per annum. I do not think we should set our targets at such unrealistic figures. I believe, with him, that we can as approach the problem of Britain's international and national economic difficulties in realistic terms and at the same time not be afraid of repayment of our international obligations, if necessary over a very long period.
  I do not want to dwell on these points, although they are ones that fascinate me, and it is a long time since I had an opportunity to take part in a debate on economics. There are only three matters upon which I want to touch, and I intend to do so briefly as I do not want to deprive other hon. Members of the opportunity of taking part in a very good debate.
  First, I refer to the additional hire-purchase restrictions, announced by the President of the Board of Trade on Friday. I accept that it is all right for the Opposition to kick up a hullaballoo about this announcement. I thought, too, there was substance to some of the points that were put forward regarding the manner in which the announcement was made, although I should not be able to accept the argument that was put to the House by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), who, I
  768
  thought, became rather dramatic at the end of his speech in suggesting there had been a deliberate attempt to mislead the House. I certainly acquit the Leader of the House of any such intention on this or any other occasion.
  I do not think that it would have been responsible of the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity, upon a public platform, to have answered the question, in the manner in which it was put to the House by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West—"Is a further credit squeeze on the way?"—with other than "No". If she had answered "Yes" there is not the slightest doubt that the following morning there would have been an appalling run on our reserves, and it would have affected the whole of our present economic position.
  I think that the right hon. Lady was put in a very difficult position. If she knew—I do not know whether she knew or not—that there was to be an announcement about hire-purchase restrictions the following day, I think that she was still right to answer in the way she did. Whatever may be said about these restrictions, the fact remains that it cannot be said that this is another credit squeeze. It may be an extension of the restrictive measures which the Government have felt it necessary to impose, but it is certainly not by any wild stretch of the political imagination a new credit squeeze.
  Having said that, I do not want to leave the subject without emphasising the dangers which I believe exist in any policy which results in over-deflation. I agree with the right hon. Member for Enfield, West that it would be folly at this stage to commence a general policy of reflation, although I think he was right to mention that there are certain areas of the country where a certain amount of reflation could be justified and this is necessary for the general economic health of the country. He mentioned the northern areas. I also would mention the South-West. But, also, I think there is a danger, if we are not to start reflation, in pursuing a policy of deflation which is too keen and which can have certain very serious long-term results.
  One short-term consequence of deflation, on the credit side, is an improvement in the balance of payments, which we are already seeing. This follows from

  769
  an improvement in our export performance, which all of us welcome. I wish very much that there could be a decline in the amount of our imports. However, I believe that the general trend is one which can cause some quiet confidence.
  On the debit side, a policy of this sort inevitably results in something which is repugnant to many of us; an increase in unemployment. It results, too, in a degree of regional hardship which is out of proportion to the rest of the country. It is this which I believe the Government have failed to tackle as realistically as they should in conjunction with their present programme.
  If we take the long-term consequences of a deflationary policy, unemployment is not very easily corrected, but, of course, there is also a danger to the Government's own policy of redistribution of labour because, as I have said, the areas that suffer most are the under-developed regions. There is also the problem of the hampering of technological progress. This is something which has not been referred to previously in the debate but I believe the Government should bear it in mind.
  The risk to our exports is real. It is all very well to talk about depressing the home market but, even on the Chancellor's figures, given on Friday, there has been no increase in the actual amount of consumer spending at home in the last part of this year compared with the latter half of last year. If we are to embark upon the dangerous course of restricting home spending, one of the risks is not only short-term unemployment but that it will make us less competitive in exports because of inevitable increases in prices which must result from lower rates of production.
  These are matters upon which there is a good deal of agreement on both sides. I believe that however finely the arguments may be balanced, there is considerable uneasiness about any policy which puts deflation upon deflation. I would prefer to see the Government at this stage—with full recognition of the problems they confront and of the need to maintain the steady growth of exports and to restrict imports as far as possible—use the regulator or to introduce perhaps for a short time some form of sales tax—and here I speak for myself and not perhaps for my party—both of which
  770
  would have immediate consequences and might produce the kind of results the Government believe are necessary to stabilise the economy in the long term.
  One thing which bothers me more than anything else about the Government's economic policy is the absence of what I would describe as a long-term strategy. I have said that there is a danger resulting from deflation upon deflation, that there is a danger to the regions which is especially acute in parts of the country like Cornwall. But the most serious danger from the Government's present policy is the absence of the essential, long-term planning of which we have had little evidence either in the Chancellor's speech today or in the speeches he has made on previous occassions.
  I know that the Government pin much of their hope upon Britain's eventual entry into the European Economic Community. But, in the present situation, this is not as realistic a hope as some would wish. Again I speak for myself. But whether we do get in or not, one thing is clear: the Government, irrespective of the party they represent, should do some contingency planning.
  It is a matter of concern to many hon. Members and to business interests here and in North America that the idea of an open-ended free trade area, not as an alternative to British participation in Europe but as part of a grand strategy of reducing trade barriers, is not being examined more closely either here or, at the moment, in Washington.
  A number of studies and investigations have been carried out by responsible organisations in the United States, Britain and Canada. These include various papers which have been published here by the Atlantic Trade Studies Group, together with the extremely valuable contribution by the British-American Committee, and in particular the National Planning Council of America, the Centre for International Studies in New York, and several other less significant bodies.
  One thing clearly emerges. Whether or not we get into Europe, it is right that there should be some coherent policy followed by the countries of the Western and, indeed, of the Eastern bloc if they should join with us, which will enable a continuing reduction of tariffs to take place. I do not believe that any member

  771
  of my party would disagree with me in saying that the policy of any responsible Government should be directed towards a gradual reduction of tariff barriers. This is the very basis of international good will and trading.
  If we look at this proposal for an open-ended free trade area comprising the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Japan and E.F.T.A., it is worth looking at the attitude adopted towards it by responsible opinion in the United States. We know that, in this country, there are many adherents to the proposal in commerce, banking and politics.
  I would like to mention a few of the organisations with which I had discussions in North America during the summer, since this may serve to show the genuine interest that there is in the proposals. These organisations include the British-American Chamber of Commerce, the National Foreign Trade Council of America, the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Importers' Association, and representatives of companies like General Electric and Macey's Stores together with the International Chamber of Commerce and various banks which it would perhaps be indiscreet to mention here. I also had discussions with representatives of the Department of State as well as with politicians.
  One thing is clear to me. There is no absence of sympathy for the broad concept and there is certainly a willingness on the part of responsible opinion in America to look at the proposal, subject to Britain taking an initiative. This is understandable because the Americans do not want to be accused of creating policies for their neighbours. In this situation, as was said to me at the State Department, and as I said in an interjection last Thursday, if Britain wanted this kind of policy to be examined, they would certainly examine it, but the initiative would have to come from us. This is an important factor which the Government should take into account in considering their future economic development of the country in association with our partners.
  This does not cut across the intention of Britain to enter the E.E.C. because one hopes that an open-ended free trade
  772
  agreement would include the Community. In the same way, I would not wish to imply that there is a desire on the part of the United States to hinder us from pursuing our application to join Europe. On the contrary, it is America's desire to do all it can to assist us in that course if that is our wish. It was made clear to me at the State Department that the present United States Government supports to the full the British policy of applying for membership. But today a Presidential election is being held and, in a few hours, there will be a President-elect elected by the American people.
  Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: Not necessarily.
  Mr. Bessell: It is true that there may be a hung election, but out of today's voting a new President will emerge, as my right hon. Friend will concede. Surely, when a new President takes office and appoints his Administration, it would be useful for Her Majesty's Government, perhaps privately, and not necessarily in any public sense, to suggest that the proposal for an open-ended free trade area should be investigated in depth. It should be examined in the light of our present economic conditions, of America's own economic problems and of the success of the E.F.T.A. partnership, which would make a particularly useful guide to any policy which might emerge from investigations of this sort. This is something which I would commend to the Government in considering future strategy for Britain's economy.
  7.20 p.m.
  Mrs. Renée Short: I was interested to hear the suggestion of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) that a sales tax should be introduced. I think of this as a horrid Common Market innovation which he would not want. A sales tax has recently been introduced in France. It has had a catastrophic effect on the cost of living, which was already high as a result of the Common Market. To consider the introduction of a sales tax or value-added tax on everything we buy, including food, is something that we could not contemplate; at least, I hope that a Labour Government would never contemplate it.

  773
  I was also interested in what the hon. Member for Bodmin said about an open-ended free trade area. Having looked at the Gracious Speech very carefully to see what the powers that be said on the vexed question of entry into the Common Market, and having seen the usual genuflexion in that direction, I say to my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench; is it not time that we stopped this? We are continually taking a humiliating and undignified posture in knocking on a perpetually closed door. We are debasing ourselves in trying to persuade them to take us in when we know perfectly well that neither West Germany nor France wants to take us in. It is not in their interests to let us in, or to make life easier for their main competitor.
  To set one group of the Six against another in support of our application causes a great deal of difficulty and embarrassment to them. We have had proof, as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) said, that the Common Market is an ineffective, capitalist set-up, wasteful in the extreme. We have seen what has happened in agriculture. Some Common Market countries are now in such a state of over-production that they are talking of feeding back dairy produce to cattle and deliberately contaminating food in order to sell it more cheaply. This is obscene and a dreadful indictment of a useless capitalist organisation. Surely we want no part in it.
  I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends how they can in their hearts contemplate taking this country into such an organisation. We have an efficient and effective agricultural system, with splendid farmers and growers who ought to be alerted to the danger that lies ahead if we enter the Common Market. My message to the farmers and growers of Britain today is to get lobbying hon. Members opposite. They cannot lobby many hon. Members on this side since not so many represent farming constituencies, but it is high time they started to lobby those hon. Members for whom they voted.
  I am sure that the president of the Asparagus Growers' Association, who I am pleased to see rising to make a bow so that everyone shall know I am speaking
  774
  of him, will agree that in his pan of the country there are some fine producers and growers. What does the Gracious Speech say about agriculture? Very little. Yet we debated before the Summer Recess the N.E.D.C. report on the possibilities of import savings in agriculture of approximately £220 million. That is not to be sneezed at. We ought to encourage our farmers and growers to make that sort of saving.
  Sir G. Nabarro: If the hon. Lady would permit me to intervene, while reaffirming everything I said in my speech earlier, I must correct her. I hold the honorary position of vice-president of the Vale of Evesham Asparagus Association. I explained these matters thoroughly to everyone in the Vale of Evesham before I was elected and I have since looked after them continuously. I am in favour of breaking off the Common Market application now—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have too many interventions now. All hon. Members here have been sitting all day wishing to speak. Mrs. Short.
  Mrs. Short: I stand corrected on the hon. Gentleman's honorary title. I apologise if I made a mistake. What I said about the activity on the benches opposite on behalf of the farmers and growers was not directed to him but to those who have been in favour so far of our application to go into the Common Market.
  Our economic situation shows a great deal of improvement in certain directions. I am delighted that our export figures have improved. We need still larger markets, which we must go out and get. There is a great potential for our exports in Eastern Europe and Latin America. We could well take a leaf out of West Germany's book and work harder at finding more outlets for our manufactured goods.
  Economic and political considerations should not prevent us from investigating an open-ended free trade area, and I would like my right hon. Friend to deal specifically with this tonight. Why can we not hedge our bets and have an alternative proposal? We are spending a large amount of taxpayers' money, money which has been contributed by millions of people who are, in fact, opposed to

  775
  going into the Common Market. The fact that we had a six line whip in the House does not mean that the country as a whole is in favour of our entry. There are many people who are opposed to it for various reasons.
  Mr. Stanley Orme: Increasingly so.
  Mrs. Short: Increasingly so, since they can see the economic and political disadvantages which will result. It is totally unacceptable to me, as an opponent of entry into the Common Market, that my money should be spent in supporting Common Market front organisations. If this is known, it will be totally unacceptable also to millions of other people. At least a similar effort should be put into examining the alternative. This application has failed. It failed when Mr. Macmillan tried, and this was held against him. It failed when we tried. We must now look energetically and with sincerity into the viable alternative. We cannot go on for ever knocking at the door and claiming that there is no other solution. Here is a solution, here is an alternative, and my right hon. Friends should investigate it.
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor drew attention rightly to the improving export situation. It started off rather disappointingly after devaluation, but the level is now about 17 per cent. above the 1967 level. However, just as I find it hard to understand why the Government continue to knock on the door of the Common Market, I find it extremely difficult to understand their continued refusal to deal with the rising level of imports, which seems to be a permanent feature of the economy.
  Why are my right hon. Friends unwilling to take steps to deal with the problem? It is as equally wrong economically as the rising level of capital exports, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens) spoke so eloquently earlier. The West Midlands is the powerhouse of the country, and an enormous number of very good engineering firms export far more to more diversified markets than they did three or four years ago. Their efforts are being undermined by the rising level of imports and the Government's refusal to take steps to deal with it. As
  776
  long ago as last May, the National Institute warned the Government to prepare a scheme of import controls. Has it been done? Has thought been given to it in the Treasury or the Board of Trade? If it has not been done, why not?
  Obviously none of us would support an overall cut down of imports. It must be selective and, if it is, it can be done without upsetting either G.A.T.T. or E.F.T.A. regulations. Clearly, we cannot clamp down on raw materials which are needed for industry, because that would interfere with the export drive. For the same reason, we cannot cut down on imports of base metals, timber and industrial paper, but we could save on non-essential food imports by adopting the system of agricultural substitution that I mentioned, in which our farmers and growers are only too anxious to co-operate. We could save on imports of manufactured and semi-manufactured goods. We are still importing enormous quantities of useless manufactured goods and other goods which we could manufacture ourselves and so go some way to reducing the present level of unemployment.
  After the speeches made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister before the 1964 General Election, why do we continue to import fruit machines? Even £20 million a year saved on them would be £20 million on the right side. But when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor was asked about them at the Labour Party conference in Blackpool, he dismissed the matter in one sentence of his reply to the debate on import controls. He said something to the effect that the Government were not prepared to consider it. But that is not good enough when imports have continued to rise for years and have been endangering our tremendous export effort.
  Mr. Bessell: The hon. Lady knows that I agree with much of what she says, but, if we are to impose restrictions on imports, how can we hope to increase our exports to the countries from whom we are buying?
  Mrs. Short: That is why I say that our controls must be organised very delicately. Imports need a tender touch, and any controls must be selective. I hope to indicate how it could be done without

  777
  discriminating against countries or groups of countries, so that no retaliation against us would be called for.
  Clearly, we do not want to set up a difficult administrative organisation, because that is not worth the candle. It would whittle away any advantage that we gained, and no one wants to see an army of civil servants employed to operate import controls. There have been proposals which would not entail a great deal of administration. It has been suggested that would-be importers should have to tender for licences in much the same way as Treasury bills are issued. Firms which needed goods most would get them. I am told that the whole system could be worked on a computer and done with the minimum of effort. Alternatively, for a certain period the Government could say that imports must be paid for at the time of ordering and, with the exception of goods essential for industry, allow no bank credits for imports. That would have the effect of cutting down imports and, if we could save £100 million or £150 million plus the savings which are possible in agriculture, a vital contribution would be made to our balance of payments position.
  I do not want the House to infer that I think that this is necessarily a simple exercise. I appreciate that it requires much thought. I am asking my right hon. Friends to give thought to it, because it is worth it. The returns would be considerable. The less that we do it, the more we shall continue along this foolish and Gilbertian path of working hard to improve our exports and not getting the benefit of them while we allow imports to rise.
  7.36 p.m.
  Mr. Nicholas Ridley: The hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) made an impassioned plea for more free trade in the North Atlantic area; indeed, she wanted to join such an association. She spent the rest of her speech adumbrating ways of unfreeing trade and making it impossible for anyone to want us in any free trade area, if she had her way. However, she touched on the problems of the supply of money, and later in my speech I will follow some of her remarks about that.
  778
  The central theme of the debate has been the management of demand, and I approach the question from a slightly different angle. It is that of mounting Government expenditure.
  Since 1964, the Labour Government have increased total Government expenditure by 50 per cent., from nearly £9,000 million to nearly £13,250 million a year. That includes the Government's investment, which has gone up by nearly half, from £1,100 million to £1,700 million in this year's Estimates.
  I do not want to criticise in my speech the mounting Government expenditure. Of course, I criticise it greatly, but that is not the point that I wish to make. My point is that the rising capital investment by the Government has not been financed by any other means than wishful thinking.
  The demand management calculations are done in relation to revenue expenditure. It has been assumed for many years that capital expenditure looks after itself because it is borrowed on the market from the public. In fact, the record of the Labour Government shows that about half of the money that they have lent has come from borrowings abroad, about another quarter has come from the banks, and only the remaining quarter has come from the non-bank public. On top of that, massive tax surpluses have had to be applied.
  What worries me is that this item of Government investment can only grow. I wrote to all the chairmen of the nationalised industries now in existence, and I have fairly accurately computed the growth of Government investment in the nationalised industries in the next few years. In 1963–64 it was £1,028 million, for the current year it is £1,890 million, and four years hence, on the basis of the existing nationalised industries, it will be about £2,100 million. But the Government are adding many more nationalised industries. We are told that the docks will be nationalised as well as the Transport Bill industries and that many others may follow. The growth of Government capital investment is becoming a very menacing thing.
  Non-industrial Government investment is another matter. Schools, hospitals, roads, houses, and the more frivolous amenities like playing fields, swimming baths, town halls and new offices—all

  779
  these items of Government capital expenditure are starved. Our road system is very much out of date. Is there an hon. Member who can honestly say that his local education authority is satisfied with its allocation of school building money? Where are the new hospitals? We know that our hospitals are a disgrace. As for the amenities, I had the greatest trouble getting any loan sanctions, or any money at all, for good projects in my constituency.
  We find ourselves in a dilemma in wanting to see these good causes provided with the proper resources while, at the same time, keeping down Government expenditure. Many of my colleagues have found this to be a difficult position, which the Treasury Bench, with great skill, has done its best to exploit. It is always throwing back at us the allegation that we are advocating things which will cost more money while, at the same time, we are saying that we want to reduce taxation. But if Government services were properly handled Government capital investment would be a great deal higher—and it is my opinion, supported by the Brookings Institute, that it will be a great deal higher in the next two years—and every kind of public investment must rise considerably.
  How are we to finance this? The worst possible way is that by which the Labour Government have financed it. The Home Secretary, when Chancellor, printed more money than any other Chancellor in history. He has earned the title of "Printing Jim". Last year he printed £1,450 million. In the word "print" I include the increase of money supplied by all the different techniques at the Government's disposal. That is the reason for the persistently buoyant demand, and it is incredibly stupid to keep having to increase taxation and hire purchase, and all these little clawbacks with one hand while the Treasury is pumping money into the economy with the other hand.
  It is as though we were dealing with a flood by organising a bucket chain. The best course to adopt is to stop the breach in the river bank. We must deal with the matter at the point of supply, and not always try to mop up the water that is swilling around our houses. The policy of creating money to fill the gap should be eschewed by both parties. It results
  780
  in inflation. It causes us to impose this unpopular prices and incomes policy, which most hon. Members reject. It causes us to carry out endless deflationary operations to pick up the money which we have just released into the economy. This is no way to finance public investments.
  The next source of finance is genuine borrowing. To the extent that the Government can win back credibility and achieve some genuine borrowing from the non-borrowing public we may be able to manage to deal with the problem. But to do the things they would have to do would be more than they could swallow. They would have to abolish the distinction between earned and unearned income; they would have to stop talking about unearned income in such deprecatory terms; they would have to reduce the level of indirect taxation to a point which it could not afford; they would have to put all kinds of savings incentives in the way of the people—and even then they would experience great difficulty, during the transition period from over-taxation to the situation in which people had enough of their own money in their pockets to be able to save.
  I hope that all these things will be done, but if they are not, it does not help to attempt to solve the problem of financing Government capital expenditure. So we come back to the need for a solution, provided we do not borrow abroad or, as the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens) argued, liquidate our overseas investments in order to spend here. Eating the seed corn is the best way to describe his Amendment and the policy that he announced in his speech.
  But in default of this we come back to taxation. This was the reason for the massive increase of £932 million in this year's Budget. It was because the present Chancellor acknowledged that hi predecessor had failed to borrow and therefore had had to go for increased taxation in order to meet the growing total of Government investment. This is intolerable. The levels of taxation are too high. They are impossible to increase still further, so I submit that the Chief Secretary is faced with a real problem. He cannot increase taxation. He cannot, without eating so many words that he would get serious indigestion, increase

  781
  savings by a large amount, and he is faced with the need to cut back Government investment. The only way in which he can do this is to reduce the commitments of the Government. The Government: have taken on too many programmes themselves. It is not possible for them to provide 50 per cent.—as it is at the moment—of the nation's services and to tax people enough to find the capital needed for those services.
  This is true of modern technological industries like telephones, steel, electricity and gas. Why should taxpayers be asked to produce the capital for these growing industrial concerns? The sum required in respect of the Post Office is £2,000 million and in respect of North Sea gas, £2,400 million over the next three years. These vast sums will have to come from Income Tax.
  These large sectors of public control have become too great, and the dilemma which faces the Government can be expressed in the question, "Where shall we make the cut?" The only thing they can do, if they want to regain financial solvency, is to make a cut in some area which gives back the control of the relevant services to private finance. I know that that is a very unpalatable truth for Socialists. It is unpleasant to feel that the Socialist machine is clogged and overburdened. But the main cause of our economic malaise is the greatly overburdened Socialist capital expenditure, which is not matched by finance from any recognisable source.
  7.48 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) pointed out the dilemma that his own party is in in trying to match its increasingly generous statements with the kind of public expenditure that it wants. Hon. Members opposite find themselves unable to foot the bill. This is the dilemma of hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is a general problem, and one that is likely to stay with us until some time in the future when the economic growth rates that we have seen in the last few months have become a more permanent feature of our economy. It is then that we can start spending.
  We have consistently failed to estimate accurately the long-term nature of our
  782
  economic problem. It is one of the problems that have arisen with the end of the Empire. The Empire, that we had for so long, brought with it immense financial advantages. These have now gone, and we have not made the transition from a great Empire to a country that is off the shore of Europe, somewhere between Europe and the United States. It is because of this lack of adaptability that we have suffered in the recent past and, unfortunately, it will require from us perhaps rather more effort in the future than even the pessimists have recently estimated.
  The advantages, as I see them, which came from the Empire were largely those deriving from the ability to control the economies of so many countries to our advantage. One can say that it came to a head round about the year 1960, which at the time was called Africa Year, when so many countries in Africa became independent and we ceased to control their flourishing economies to our advantage.
  This point can be highlighted by comparing over the years the main places to which our exports went. In the inter-war years, from 1920 to 1938, 40 per cent. of our exports went to the Commonwealth. In the 1950s, the proportion had risen to 47 per cent. Last year, however, the figure had fallen to 29 per cent.
  If, therefore, the rate of exports to the Commonwealth during the inter-war period was a rate which might reasonably be expected, it can be said that between £500 million and £1,000 million of exports has been permanently lost to us. To me, this is one of the most important factors causing the economic difficulties with which we are faced. It is why further adjustments still have to be made to overcome our difficulties.
  Our great advantage in those countries was the ability to organise their tariffs in our favour, to organise trade agreements with countries, particularly in Africa, in our own interest and against the interests of such countries as, for example, Japan, and whereby people from this country organised the buying habits of those countries and were able to place orders with the country which they knew—Britain. They knew the industrialists in Manchester and Birmingham and placed their orders here. Even

  783
  at this late stage, we still have an advantage as a hangover from those days. Some of the people in the buying positions in those countries are still friendly disposed towards and know the manufacturers in this country slightly better than they do those of Germany and Japan. However, this advantage is waning. It would be wrong if we failed to assume that we had reached the end of that long decline that went with the end of empire, though some temporary benefit still remains.
  The end of empire also produced another great disadvantage for us in the matter of defence. In the inter-war years, from 1919 to 1938, Government expenditure overseas—a large part of which was defence, but there were other items, too—amounted to an average of less than £3 million a year. In 1967, that figure had risen to £449 million. This again is closely tied up with the end of empire, because before the war those countries paid for their own defence, their own embassies and the troops based on their own soil. They also raised their own forces which contributed to the defence of their countries and there were various other offsetting agreements.
  That came to an end and the time when the Commonwealth was becoming less of an asset to us was strangely the time when we started spending more on defending it. We therefore had a declining advantage coming from the Commonwealth and an increase in the expense of servicing that Commonwealth.
  When we compare our overseas Government expenditure of £449 with West Germany, which makes a surplus, with Japan, which makes a surplus, with France, which achieves an approximate balance, and most other countries which achieve something near to a balance, we see that those trading competitors of ours have enjoyed enormous advantages, whereas we have been saddled with two great burdens. One is the end of our trading agreements based upon the Empire and the other is the defence of that Empire.
  The transition is still not complete. It is essential to understand the long-term nature of the problem arising from the end of empire; otherwise we may still fool ourselves that we have discovered the solutions. The point is that so much of our manufactures, even today, are
  784
  based on the sale to the Commonwealth of certain kinds of goods. The transition to the newer kinds of markets is still not complete and has yet to be made.
  As to the present situation, I believe that the Government, whose decision to devalue I fully supported, have tended to make too much of their rôle in the world monetary sphere also. As an example, things like import quotas could well have been introduced in 1965, or in 1966. They might even be marginally of use today if we were to tot up the balance of advantage on the one side and the balance of disadvantage on the other side and make a rational decision of this kind rather than a decision based on international obligations and its effect on the world community.
  We have today a situation in which British trade, although of importance, has nothing like the overriding importance that it had years ago. We are in a world with vastly wider markets and many more countries interested in obtaining the kind of trading patterns that we regarded as almost uniquely ours only a few years ago.
  We should not need in these days to think from outdated positions of world power status based on empire. As a result of this kind of thinking, we saw the reluctance to consider devaluation because of its suggested impact on so many other countries, whereas, as we have seen, its impact was nothing like as much as was expected. It has been rather absurd that a country which has depended so much on its world trade was unable to have the right exchange rate. If there is one thing which is crucial for a country which depends upon trade, it is that its rate of exchange should be right. That was the fundamental reason for devaluation.
  I see this kind of readjustment coming not only in trade and industry, but also in the attitude of the Government to the real problems before us which arise from the liquidation of the Empire.
  In all their economic thinking the Government should test entirely on its merits any argument which is put forward. They should think rather less of its impact on the world at large, and less of the retaliation which our rather reduced rôle makes increasingly unlikely.

  785
  The present position of the Government is that they are proceeding on the basis of letting devaluation work. It is not a long-term strategy, but an interim strategy. The strategy is to let devaluation work to restrain consumption as much as one can, to try to keep incomes down as a result of the prices and incomes policy at the same time being realistic and being prepared to settle at best whenever a threat comes to the advantages which we hope to obtain from devaluation.
  The policy is that of keeping unemployment at a level of between 2 per cent. and 2½ per cent., both to keep wages down as well as to keep consumption down, as well as to transfer numbers of people from one firm to another. We also see the initiatives being shown to help industries to rationalise, to move towards larger organisations. All these are valuable, though they are limited compared to the economic problems ahead of us.
  This policy of the Government is essentially a very simple one, but it is for a limited period. It is essentially a transitional policy to take advantage of devaluation. Soon, sometimes towards the end of next year probably, we will start to look at the long-term strategy, and it is about this strategy that I feel most keenly, because this is the time when we must reassess our attitudes to growth, reassess our attitudes to expansion in the light of how we have seen devaluation work.
  There are those who say we should immediately strive for the economic growth which was hoped for when the Labour Government were returned in 1964, but there are some new theorists arising row who are saying that there is no such thing as an understanding of economic growth, that these are theories which have yet largely not been invented, that the Government cannot proceed on the basis of an assumption that there is a consistent theory of economic growth, and that they should proceed cautiously, moving step by step, always aware of the problem of the balance of payments, that for Britain, an old-established industrialist corner of the Anglo-Saxon world, this is our lot, and that there is no theory that can disprove it.
  I find this impossible to accept. I believe that no Government can be
  786
  neutral in this matter. It may well be that there is no fully satisfactory theory of economic growth—I am sure there is not at the present time—but if the Government must take a view on this, then the view must be optimistic. I myself would sooner fail in an optimism of this kind than take an alternative pessimistic view which underrated the British people because there is no theory that substantially provides an answer.
  There is still a case to be put for economic growth based an expansionist policy, based on an expansion leading to increases in productivity. It is essential that economists should come to terms with this although one cannot prove this, and one has only one's personal experience to demonstrate it, from experience at each factory, when there is an increase in production or productivity.
  The instance I would like to choose is one which concerns me closely and typifies so much of the way in which industrial changes are made as a result of Government policy. I would cite the occasion when I was in charge of a machine shop which was producing 20 compressor bodies a day. There came a time when things were going well and we were selling well, when the machinery of the company was inadequate to produce more than 20 compressor bodies a day and as a result there was a threatened bottleneck in production.
  What happened was something that everybody knows happens. Immediately we got together to see what could be done. In this case the result was that we had a complete analysis of what could be done and how much we could produce as a result of various methods, and we concentrated our thought and attention on that, and production was increased to 30 a day. It is not often that one finds that kind of concentrated attention, but it is not untypical of what happens. Of course, there were consequential savings in costs and also there were certain advantages in design; but that was incidental.
  This is the kind of thing that happens whenever the pressures of demand operate upon a factory. I visited fairly recently a large machine tool firm, and one of the things I found was that it is an extraordinarily difficult thing to sell a machine tool on the basis that it is going to improve productivity. It is extremely difficult to sell a machine on the basis

  787
  that output will be improved. It is easiest to sell when demands are such that a firm needs increased capacity. That is the time when one can get in with modernising equipment and many great advances in productivity and design. It is when pressure of demand comes upon a firm that the firm produces new ideas, gets new machinery and produces the goods which are cheaper as a result.
  The reason I have dealt with this so fully is that I believe that we still need growth based on expansion of demand, and I expect that at the present time there is not likely to be an opportunity of this, mainly because we want to see the effects of devaluation and to make sure that we do not interfere with this in any way. But we have to get our long-term sights organised so that we gain the real performance for which most of us came to this House, and make sure that the prosperity of this country is increased in the way we said it would be increased, in a way which will distribute the prosperity to the people as we said it would be distributed. It is because of this hope that I very much hope the Government's present measures will succeed.
  8.8 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Hordern: I have, as always, listened with the greatest interest to the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and, in particular, his contribution this evening on the long demise of the Empire, and his thoughts about growth. It was in marked contrast to the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett). Generally it is very difficult to put a pin between the two hon. Gentlemen. I thought that the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Heywood and Royton was extraordinary for one who, I understand, is chairman of the back-bench Labour Finance Committee. It was not so much that he agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens), the Isaiah of the Tea Room, but the fact that he said that not only was it unlikely that we should achieve the necessary scale of surplus on our balance of payments but that it was wrong that we should even attempt to do so.
  Mr. Barnett: I should like the hon. Gentleman to quote me correctly. I specifically said I disagreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens), and I said that, on the rate of surplus, I agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) that we did not need—indeed, it is wholly wrong—to go for a rate of surplus at £500 million, or, as the Leader of the Opposition was saying, about £720 million a year.
  Mr. Hordern: My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) was talking in terms of a floating exchange rate, and I did not hear the hon. Member speak about that.
  We are faced with specific commitments, which must be repaid to our creditors by 1975—commitments which have all been undertaken by the present Labour Government. I urge the Financial Secretary to press on the Leader of the House that in his reply he should make it clear that the Government have every intention of honouring the commitments which they have undertaken under the various loan arrangements.
  It would be difficult to pick one cardinal error among the very many errors for which the Government have been responsible in their handling of economic affairs, but I suppose that it could be the fact that from the moment the Government took office there has been a dual control of the economy—and it has been dual control not in the sense of a united control but in the sense of a split control. First, we had the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown). Then we had the Prime Minister—and I ignore his creature, the Secretary of State at the Department for Economic Affairs. Now we have the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity. All these have spoken with different voices, and all have contradicted the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the time. One spoke of expansion and another spoke of sacrifice. As to the third, it is impossible to believe that anyone other than the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity could have replied in that way to the question put at the by-election. She talks of "a

  789
  touch on the tiller". In fact, we are faced with precisely the same conditions as those which we endured in the July, 1966, measures, and I do not believe that they could be described as a mere "touch on the tiller".
  The job of the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been made almost impossible by his colleagues. Indeed, it is virtually impossible anyway, given the Government's economic policy, for the trouble is that the boat has become waterlogged and it is failing to answer to the tiller at all, and that is the Chancellor's fault. He has always done too little, too late. He should have produced these hire-purchase restrictions almost a year ago, when we urged him to do so. Above all, he should have set about reducing Government expenditure sharply instead of allowing it to rise this year, as it will, by 10 per cent. in money terms.
  We have the worst of almost every world—high unemployment, a credit squeeze, stupid restrictions on travel and on the financing of overseas business and a low level of industrial investment. Despite everything which the Government have thrown at commerce and industry, both are making higher profits now, but as yet there is no signs that industry is increasing its investment. Despite the C.B.I. forecast of investment intentions, those who have direct experience of the machine tool industry, as have many hon. Members opposite, know that there is no significant upturn in the level of orders as yet. This makes the situation very serious, because even if investment in manufacturing increases by 15 per cent. next year, it will still be from a very low base, because investment has declined by 5 per cent. in each of the last two years. Mr. Catherwood said the other day that the level of investment in 1969 would certainly be quite inadequate to take up the increase in the volume of exports which we need to produce a £500 million surplus.
  That, surely, is the crux of the whole matter. The base from which our exports arise, manufacturing industry, is too small compared with that of our competitors and it is being increasingly overwhelmed by the public sector. Taking the growth of fixed asset formation, for example, the public sector now subsumes about 50 per cent. compared with 44 per cent. four
  790
  years ago. I do not take the view—very few people do—that all public expenditure and investment is ipso facto harmful. I merely point out that we cannot export the production of public investment and that it is exports which we need. Yet in order to make room for exports, it is always the private sector which is hammered and never the public sector.
  What is so particularly nauseating about the Government's handling of the situation is their refusal to accept responsibility for this situation and also for the methods of financing this high level of expenditure. Not only is the level of Government expenditure too high, both absolutely and proportionately, but the method of financing it relies as much on the printing press as it does on genuine borrowing. It is the Government's refusal to curb the growth of the money supply which has produced these latest restrictions, and much else besides. In the year before the election, up to March, 1966, the money supply increased by over £1,000 million, double the largest increase in any year up to 1960. In the second quarter of this year alone, the money supply rose at an annual rate of 9·9 per cent. I guess that the seminar—I like the word as a description of what took place—between Mr. Polak of the International Monetary Fund and the Treasury was a great deal more practical than it was academic and theoretical. Not that I do not find the academic argument particularly fascinating with the debagging of the neo-Keynesians by the Chicago school.
  But however fascinating, there is no need to argue in a vacuum. What is there exists for all to see. For there is another country with more or less the same population as ourselves which over many years has consistently achieved higher production, much higher wages and a smaller increase in costs than we have, as well as a continuing surplus on balance of payments—to such a degree that it has already revalued once and is being pressed to revalue again because of what is described as the German problem. I understand that it is to repay its loans under Marshall Aid.
  Surely we can cast aside economic theory and judge by practical experience. This is a country in more or less the same position as Britain and it has made these great achievements by operating a

  791
  market economy, as opposed to a centrally directed economy, and a liberal economy as opposed to a collectivist economy. It is a country which has no part at all in its strategy for a prices and incomes policy. It has pursued a strategy of active denationalisation and non-interference in the private sector. It is a policy and country which the Socialist Party in Britain must do their best to pretend does not exist.
  For our part, I would say that although Germany is not a country which we need necessarily to emulate, it is a fact that the practices which the Germans follow entirely accord with what a Conservative financial policy should be. On the contrary, the Labour Government have used the economic system of a banana republic—the siesta, the sombrero and manana: "Double your money while you sleep."
  I do not know whether the I.M.F. will exert stricter monetary control over this country. What I do know is that the primary fault, the level of Government expenditure, will never be reduced by this Government and by these men. The answer is that both should go.
  8.19 p.m.
  Mr. William Hamling: May I first say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what a great pleasure it is for me to speak in the House for the first time under your Chairmanship and to wish you a long and very happy stay in the Chair.
  The speech of the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) is to some extent an echo of one or two earlier Conservative speeches, and they are, I submit, shot full of contradictions, because the Conservatives want the community to spend more money in various ways while at the same time they want to reduce the amount of money which the community is spending. This is a kind of split-mindedness to which I will return.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens) made a deplorable speech. He began by saying that he would not make a personal attack on Ministers and proceeded to make what I can only describe as the most damaging attack that could be made on any Minister at any time. He accused my right hon. Friends of the worst kind of inhumanity. He said that the Labour Government were deliberately creating
  792
  unemployment as an act of Government policy. I can think of no act by any Government which would be more inhumane and cruel. Indeed, if my hon. Friend believes that the Government are deliberately creating unemployment he should resign from the Labour Party. If I thought that, I would resign because I could not belong to a party or support a Government who had that as their aim.
  My hon. Friend went on to use other expressions of opinion which I could not regard as anything but a personal attack. He talked, for example, about the Government's "complacent, reactionary humbug". I put it to him and other of my hon. Friends who hold his views that they must say where they stand in relation to the Government.
  I will not spend too much time on my hon. Friend's speech because I wish to come to the main burden of my remarks, which is an analysis of the comments of the Opposition Front Bench. One of our difficulties is that we must spend so much time rebutting that sort of attack made by my hon. Friend and others of my hon. Friends that the Opposition are able to get away with murder. Internal disputes in the Labour Party help hon. Gentlemen opposite. My hon. Friend made a 22-minute speech of which only four minutes were devoted to the Opposition and 18 minutes to attacking the Government.
  What advice would my hon. Friend have given to the electors of Bassetlaw had he been invited to address them? Would he have spoken to the complacent humbug of the Labour Government? Would he have told them that they are deliberately creating unemployment? I ask my hon. Friends who have tabled an Amendment to the Address why the electors of Bassetlaw or any other constituency should vote Labour if that is what my hon. Friends believe? Who would have defended the Government at Bassetlaw if my hon. Friends had been called on to undertake that task?
  As a result of this sort of Amendment, the Tory Party, both in the House and in the country, can get away with murder. The searchlight of public inquiry and opinion is never put on their policies. How much time has been spent in this debate analysing the terms of the Opposition Motion? The answer is very

  793
  little. Hon. Gentlemen opposite can get away with talking a lot of contradictory nonsense because their remarks are not subjected to real examination.
  Some of my hon. Friends spend so much time attacking their own side that the Tory record is forgotten and Tory policies are not examined. By this means my hon. Friends are helping to elect the next Tory Government. The Government's case is going by default. We are told, for example, by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) of the dishonest attitude of my right hon. Friends over the so-called freeze. There was a lot of synthetic indignation in the right hon. Gentleman's closing remarks, and the same can be said of the comments of the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath), whose synthetic indignation is normally almost hysterical.
  We have had by-elections in other mining areas. Pit closures most damage the Labour cause in mining constituencies. Were there no pit closures announced just before various by-elections in other mining constituencies? Of course there were, and there were in this case. Increasing Purchase Tax on motor cars from 33 per cent. to 40 per cent. is not worth a halfpenny compared with pit closures from the point of view of the Labour cause in mining constituencies.
  We want less of this damned nonsense from hon. Gentlemen opposite. Let us not worry too much about what the Tories were doing when they were in office. We know precisely what they did, and if there is any dishonesty and deception now, it is in the speeches which Conservatives are making. They call for reductions in Government expenditure and the same day call for increases, too. One need only consult the Notice Paper to see the many Questions tabled by hon. Gentlemen opposite asking for increased expenditure on the National Health Service, education, universities, roads in their constituencies, housing and allowances for private occupiers of houses to spend on repairs. They have the nerve to talk about reductions in Government expenditure when all the time they are demanding that the Government should spend more. They demand bigger agricultural subsidies and then have the cheek to complain about Government expenditure.
  794
  Hon. Gentlemen opposite speak with two voices and they can get away with it because their record and programme are not sufficiently analysed. For example, when trying to explain what the official Opposition Amendment was all about, the right hon. Member for Enfield, West talked about a cut in direct taxation. He did not say that if the Tories were in power they would also increase indirect taxation, with the result that the lower-paid would have a worsened standard of living. Unfortunately these things are not said.
  Another example of this split-mindedness and dishonesty on the part of the Conservative Party came from one of the Tories' main speakers at the Bassetlaw by-election. He was the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), who is certainly no friend of any scheme to give Government assistance to the development areas. The right hon. Member for Enfield, West complained today that the Government were not doing enough, yet so many in his party feel that the Government do far too much in that direction.
  Many hon. Members opposite think that the Government should not interfere, that there is too much public investment. Therefore, presumably, they would side with the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West and not the right hon. Member for Enfield, West. This also is an aspect of Tory party policy which is not sufficiently examined. If public opinion and scrutiny were given to their policies, that opinion would have a completely different aspect.
  If the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West were to be followed, it would mean that the North would die and the South-East wax fat and even more prosperous. But that is not the voice which we heard this afternoon. The country is entitled to know what is the real voice of Tory policy in this regard. We know, for example, what big business says about expenditure on education, hospitals and housing—that the community is spending too much. If they had their way, we would cut down tremendously on education.
  What does the Front Bench say? Question after question last week and this week was directed towards asking for more money and giving the impression at by-elections that the Government

  795
  are not doing enough and that, if the voters voted for them, they would get more, when we know what their real paymasters are saying behind the scenes. We know that the voice of big business and high finance, the real voice of the Tory Party, wants huge cuts in public expenditure. In this debate, too little time has been spent analysing the real policies of the Conservative Party.
  We had from the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) the other night on television an argument about the social wage—a very pleasant and engaging argument, at least on television. But in real political terms, it means that we would spend less on housing, education and hospitals if the social wage were reduced. More would be put into personal consumption. That is what the argument is about, and put in human terms, it is not so nice and cosy.
  The Tory Party has been saying for the last four years that public expenditure is out of control. What is the major thing that they would do if back in power? They would increase defence expenditure by many millions. Then they have the cheek to talk to us about reducing Government expenditure. They would not reduce it in that direction. They could only decrease the total if they decreased expenditure on education and social services even more than some of their spokesmen suggest.
  The Opposition Amendment is dishonest and deceptive. I will throw back at them their charge that my right hon. Friends have been deceiving the country. They themselves deceive the country every day by pretending that they believe something and are putting forward policies for which they do not stand.
  8.33 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Alison: I think that the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling), for whom I have a great regard and with whom I often debate, was jumping the gun and straying from the Queen's Speech in anticipation of being on the Opposition benches attacking Conservative policy when we are in government. In other words, he moved right ahead to when the whole preoccupation will be with Tory policies. It was a long way from the Queen's Speech. If he has found fault with the Opposition in allegations
  796
  that we always want the best of all possible worlds at no cost, I am sure that he will agree that, if he is in opposition on these benches in a few months or years, he may be prone to exactly the same shortcomings and sins of omission and commission. So I hope that he will not be too anxious to throw stones.
  I want to concentrate on a new trend which I detected today in the Chancellor's approach to forecasts. He seems to be getting touchy and irrational on the subject. Economic forecasts are extremely important and it is not a question, when the Chancellor makes a forecast, of something like a bet on who will win the American Presidential election and that, whatever the outcome, it does not affect us directly. Treasury forecasts are crucially important, because they are followed by a pulling of levers and we are all tremendously affected.
  It is not good enough for the Chancellor to suggest, as he seemed to do today, that if one gets a forecast wrong that does not matter because what one loses on the swings one can pick up on the roundabouts. The result would be catastrophic, and it has been catastrophic. It suggests that it does not matter if, for example, export performance does not come up to expectation provided that some other component or final demand compensates for the shortfall. This seems to be one of the arguments put by the Chancellor about fundamental mistakes in forecasting.
  It is no defence of wrong forecasts to say, "We publish our forecasts". The fact is that those forecasts existed, published or unpublished, and if they were wrong they led to wrong decisions. If the Government go on being as wrong as they have been, the only remedy is for them to get out of the area in which they forecast so ineffectively. They should diminish the area in which they have to forecast if the forecasts are to be so disastrously wrong.
  Then there is the stage which follows forecasts. One of the staggering things we have found since the Socialist Party came into power is not only the enormously increased area of Government interference, but the utterly perverse effect of economic decisions which they make and the levers which they pull. On the general question of employment, perhaps the blackest mark against this

  797
  Administration is that the Government of planners and full employment specialists, as they claim to be, have succeeded by the year 1968 in having something like 100,000 fewer men and women in the employed labour force than when the Tories left office in 1964. That is almost staggering, but it is a fact.
  This is against a background of an increase in the population of one million. It is almost breath-taking that the Government have not only failed to maintain employment in step with the growth of population, but have actually gone in the opposite direction. More and more British brains and brawn have become available since 1964, but fewer and fewer jobs have been found for them. This is surely a crippling indictment, or it should be if people have eyes to see.
  Within the sectors where employment has continued—I shall not say increased—one finds again the most perverse and irrational results of Socialist economic manipulation. In June, 1965, which I take as the first peak month of employment alter the Socialists came into office, there were just over 9 million people employed in manufacturing industry and in the same month in the service industries there were just short of 9,700,000. This was the pattern of employment when the Socialists came to power. Two years later, in June, 1967, the latest date for which figures are available, after two years of Socialist planning—the National Plan, Selective Employment Tax and the whole gamut of incentives to try to shift resources out of the service industries to manufacturing industries—we find an utterly perverse and contrary result. There has been an actual drop in employment of 150,000 in manufacturing industry and an increase in service industry employment of 80,000.
  That is precisely the reverse of what was expected and designed. It appears from the way that the Government are running the country as if there is a chimpanzee in Downing Street to whom a bucket of paint and a canvas has been given, and members of the Government sit back to see if any rational result comes from the splashings.
  Whatever happens, it is absolutely the reverse of what the Government sought to do. They have succeeded in massively diminishing employment overall. Within
  798
  the diminished total they have succeeded in giving a substantial boost to employment in service industries and a crippling diminution to employment in manufacturing industries. What is the point of a Government who not only get their forecasts wrong but who when they press the button to get the green light get the red light, and when they press the button to get the red light get the green light?
  Some people would assert that on the manufacturing side it does not matter so much, in that it could be argued that the decrease in employment in manufacturing industry has been counteracted or was designed to be counteracted, by a growth in capital employed in manufacturing industry, so that capital was being substituted for labour in this sector.
  There is again the ludicrously perverse result that exactly the opposite has happened. In 1966, the base year of the present Administration, the level of investment in manufacturing industry was £1,233 million, at 1958 prices seasonally adjusted. One year later, in 1967, the figure had dropped to £1·176 million. This year it is running at the rate of £1,118 million. This is a drop of £115 million or getting on for 10 per cent. in investment in manufacturing industry.
  Against the background of the substitution of investment grants for investment incentives, and of the Selective Employment Tax, which was designed to inhibit and restrict growth in the service industries and correspondingly to give a boost to manufacturing industries, there is the utterly perverse and contrary result of a steady drop in manufacturing investment.
  Incidentally, this calls into question the whole range of special investment and other measures of assistance which is being given to manufacturing industries in development areas. Here I must tread cautiously because some hon. Members have constituencies which are involved. The Prime Minister quoted the figure of £250 million a year rather proudly in the speech he made on the first day of our debate on the Loyal Address. He referred in a rather cavalier way to the mere £18 million which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) spent in 1964.
  But even with the expenditure of £250 million in the development areas, the

  799
  level of regional unemployment has without exception moved up in all the development areas, in spite of this fantastic increase in special assistance compared to the last year in which the Tory Party was in office—that is, the time when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was responsible. One must question whether the £250 million which is going into the development areas, apparently simply increasing potential demand in the economy whilst doing absolutely nothing to increase supply to requite this demand, is having any effect other than increasing the money supply. This seems to be one of the basic causes of the problem which the I.M.F. team has come over to look at.
  In the development areas there is rising unemployment and decreasing production, against the background of the staggering rise in this universal, undiscriminating, hand-out assistance to selected areas. To see how ludicrous it is, it is only necessary to reflect that Yorkshire and Humberside, which is a "grey" area and enjoys no special assistance, have more men unemployed than either Wales or the South-Western areas; yet we get nothing. The whole system is totally irrational and fails to produce any of the desired results.
  What worries one about the trend of the Government's failure in their forecasting and in their failure to pull the right lever to produce the designed result is that we are confronted with a most serious situation instead of the Utopia—the golden fleece—which has been held out before us. We are now told that the great leap forward is coming, that the export-led boom is on the threshold. If that really is so, industry is in a poor position to take the leap forward, particularly because of the serious cut-back in investment to which I have referred. Indeed, the signs of the time for a great leap forward and an export-led boom fill one with all the forebodings which might, in retrospect, have been felt in 1964 as one looked ahead to the deficit that year.
  As the Chief Secretary is aware, no doubt, the stock-building figure is now very worrying. I think I am right in saying that manufacturing stocks, by which I mean fuels and raw materials, fell by £160 million in the six months up to March, 1968. If a drop in manufac-
  800
  turers' stocks of that scale as recently as up to March, 1968, is the background against which we are to expect a substantial leap forward in manufactured exports, the import bill which will be generated by a significant rise in industrial activity based upon manufacturing for export become breath-taking. It will certainly be a great deal larger than the huge stock-building boom which occurred in 1964. Against the background of a serious drop in investment, we shall not only have a huge inflow of fuels and raw materials to give industry its launching pad for the export-led boom but, more than that, we shall be bound to have a huge inflow of capital equipment. This is already happening in electricity generating equipment and electrical machinery.
  To return to the question of forecasting, against the background of the further cut which he was bound to make and against the sort of demand level which we have now, with the pressure on sterling and all the rest, the Chancellor was quite wrong yet again to give us his euphoric view of prospects round the corner. It is the wrong psychological medicine to offer the House. He must know that his investment forecasts and projections of an upturn in investment are questionable, to say the least. I quote here from the current October issue of the broadsheet issued by the Department of Economic Affairs, which refers rather wistfully to what has happened to investment. In the concluding paragraph of the piece on investment prospects this is what we read:
  "Forecasts supplied in November/December 1967 indicated an expected rise of 5 per cent. in the volume of manufacturing industry's investment between 1967 and 1968, compared with a drop of 4½ per cent. between 1966 and 1967."
  This expected 5 per cent. increase, however, did not happen. The broadsheet goes on rather coyly to say:
  "However, the continued fall in manufacturing investment in the first half of 1968 creates some uncertainty about the timing of the upturn"—
  one of the most delicious and "dodgy "question-marks hung over an official forecast that one could possibly find.
  Yet the Chancellor solemnly tells us today that the investment boom for manufacturing industry is only just around the corner. Against the background of

  801
  the new restrictions on hire purchase which we have just had, it is extremely unlikely that we shall have it, but, if the boom does come, it will be in imports of investment goods because British industry will be loo ill-equipped to produce them.
  This is the great indictment against the Government. Their forecasts were wrong and the levers which they pressed produced perverse effects. The sooner the Government leave the economy alone and we have industrialists and businessmen running it, the better and healthier it will be for Britain.
  8.49 p.m.
  Mr. John Cronin: The hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) made an interesting though somewhat polemic speech. He seems to take a rather lugubrious view of the country's prospects altogether. He made the point that there has been a decrease of employment in manufacturing industry, but he did not add that there has been an increase in the production of manufacturing industry. Plainly, what employment there has been is often put to more effective use under a Labour Government than it has been hitherto.
  This is a rather difficult debate in which to speak, because the course is uncertain. Nobody knows exactly what will happen in the immediate future. I am delighted to see here my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury whom I congratulate on being in the Cabinet, which will be a better place for his being there. I am sure that although he is taking note of our views with care he appreciates that it is difficult to give advice at this stage. We are advising my right hon. Friend the Chancellor rather as we should advise a man who is half way across a tight rope. It is difficult to know exactly what to tell him. One can only wish that all will go well.
  I think that so far the Chancellor is doing a very good job. This is shown to some extent even by the criticisms made about him in recent months. A short time ago there was a fear that unemployment would be much greater. More recently there has been a fear that there would be more inflation. That rapid change of criticism between the two extremes suggests that he is going along roughly the right course.
  802
  But I should not like the Chief Secretary to think that I shall speak entirely in praise of everything that has happened. The school meal cuts in the past few days were an example of the Treasury at its worst. The saving is paltry, and it gives the impression that the Government are depriving some school children of their meals. It is not a happy political gesture. Perhaps it would have been helpful if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science had specified what the alternative expenditure would be, but he simply said that the money would be spent more wisely. It would have been better for everyone if that rather paltry cut had not been made.
  Today's debate is really based on giving economic advice to the Chief Secretary, and it is difficult to say exactly what should be done, because the choices available at present lie between emphasis on growth, external equilibrium, internal stability, regional balance, and social progress. Since the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) is here, I might mention an alternative economic goal—winning the next election, which was something he did not succeed in doing, though he tried very hard.
  The Government are obviously giving priority to external equilibrium, and in the national interest this must be the top priority. It is only on the opposite side of the House that national interests are subjected to immediate electoral ones. It never happens on this side of the House. In the interests of my own political future, I sometimes wish that Ministers had a little less integrity in looking after the national interest at the expense of political popularity.
  It is clear that the wage freeze is politically unacceptable. It is temporary, and I think that it is transient in its effects. There is uncertainty as to whether devaluation will work by itself. In spite of the 14 per cent. devaluation there has already been an increase of 8 per cent. in export prices, and I am not convinced that the margin of 6 per cent. will make all the difference to our export trade. It is even more uncertain whether the inflationary measures taken by the Government will help. This is a time-honoured form of treatment for economic ills which has been carried out every few years in the last 20 years—with considerable lack

  803
  of success on every occasion. If one looks at the graph of production over the last 20 years, it is almost a continuous horizontal zig-zag. So it is difficult to say that deflation by itself will be very helpful.
  I suggest to the Financial Secretary that there should be some definite direct attack on the balance of payments problem. It is overwhelmingly obvious that there has been a great excess of imports over the last few years. The Government should attack this directly. But even if we have an export boom, which is what everybody wants, it will suck in a big increase of imports not necessarily of a particularly helpful nature to the economy. So it would be helpful if the Government would give serious consideration to having import quotas.
  Import quotas are completely permissible under the terms of G.A.T.T. and E.F.T.A., and if they were used for certain selected imports of a luxury nature I do not think it likely that there would be any serious reprisals against us in world trade. Also it would be helpful to have some restriction on credit for imports. This could be handled easily through the ordinary financial machinery, again without any possibility of reprisals by other countries.
  Mr. Bessell Mr. Bessell rose—
  Mr. Cronin: I am sorry, but I cannot give way. The time is short.
  The Government ought also to practise a policy which was very successfully pursued by the 1945–51 Labour Government. They should put more investment into factories which use import subsidies.
  Finally on the question of imports, there is much to be said for the withdrawal or modification of investment grants. At present we are importing about £800,000 worth of plant and machinery, and it seems absurd that this is being directly financed to a substantial extent by the Government. It is also having the effect of putting pressure on our own machine tool industry. There is a strong case for removing the investment grants at the earliest possible opportunity.
  There is obviously some room for improving the imports situation, but there
  804
  is an unlimited prospect for increasing exports, and I think that could be achieved very much by giving more incentives to exporting firms. The Government could easily divert Government contracts to firms which have good export records. A very large number of firms live on Government contracts and make little attempt to increase their exports. The Government should attend to this.
  There is also much to be said for preferential taxation for firms which export on a large scale. At present preferential taxation is devoted solely to expenses. If an executive takes a foreign buyer out to dinner and a night club, that can be put against taxation. So there is nothing unprecedented in the idea of having preferential taxation treatment for exports. Possibly the reintroduction of share options for export executives might be helpful.
  Having given that piece of advice to the Government, I want to give a little consolation. One of the most impressive aspects of the debate is the barrenness of Opposition policy in the economic situation. The speech of the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) suffered from an advance publicity build-up rather suggestive of the heavyweight prize ring. It was a rather mild speech. At no time did he produce any constructive suggestions. All he could say was that the Conservatives would reduce taxation and he produced an extraordinary theory that this would increase savings. He did not go on to point out that the reduction in direct taxation would be brought about by increasing indirect taxation, which would have an adverse effect on the vast mass of the population.
  My consolation to the Government, therefore, is this: whatever difficulties we are going through economically, we can at least say that the prospective alternative Government are completely barren of useful policies.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. Reginald Maudling: I was interested in the suggestion of the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) for the restoration of stock options. He meant the restoration of the taxation position on stock options for executives engaged in the

  805
  export business. It is certainly an idea to consider.
  I was taken aback when the hon. Gentleman talked in favour of discriminatory import controls. Nothing could do worse for our trade. He referred also to investment grants. We cannot have a system whereby we pay investment grants only on British and not on imported equipment. Every trade rule we exist by rules that out.
  Some hon. Members opposite have advocated controls on what they call unnecessary goods from abroad. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) was among them. But how many things that we sell overseas can be defined as wholly necessary? Whisky is among our greatest exports but it could be said to be unnecessary, although not everyone would agree with that. We depend upon selling woollen and leather articles and other goods which might well be described as unnecessary. It is an illusion for hon. Members opposite to think that we could cure our trading problems by refusing to buy from others the sort of things we are trying to sell to them. I hope that the Government will continue to resist these blandishments.
  We are now in the concluding stages of the debate and, in accordance with tradition, the Leader of the House is to reply. I believe that he will range widely and will not merely concentrate on our Amendment. I shall spend most of my time on the economic situation, but I have one or two other things to say first.
  Our condemnation of the Government is that so few of the proposals in the Gracious Speech have any relation to current economic problems, and anyone listening to the debate could not fail to be convinced of the accuracy and validity of our argument. In the Gracious Speech are many worthy Measures which I am sure the House will approve and pass, but few of them have any relation to our economic problems.
  Of the non-economic Measures, I think that most attention has been focussed, by the Prime Minister particularly, upon the constitutional proposals, and these are, of course, of considerable interest. But one point about the proposed Constitutional Commission has been taken outside in other quarters, and this is that it
  806
  seems odd to proceed immediately with reform, for example, of the Upper Chamber before the Constitutional Commission has considered generally the constitutional set-up which might itself be reflected in the Upper Chamber. This is something that we can discuss later, but we on this side believe that it is right to try and proceed with reform of the House of Lords by agreement.
  We were rather surprised when the Prime Minister had his little huff a little while ago and broke off the conversations, but we are glad that he has come back to the position, roughly speaking, which had been reached in the discussions between the various parties. Certainly, we hope that an agreement can be maintained between the parties and a solution found to the future constitution of the Upper House which will enable it to make the maximum contribution to our country and to our constitution. In these discussions we on our side always reserved our position on timing. We do not think it right to introduce the new composition of the Upper Chamber based on the electoral situation of 1966. The reformed new Chamber should come into effect after another election and reflect the political realities at the time that it is introduced.
  I turn now to the main question, the economic situation. Nearly a year after devaluation the balance of payments situation is still causing the Government great concern and, as my right hon. Friend so rightly itemised this afternoon, time and time again the Government's forecasts of "rounding the corner", "success ahead", "easy waters ahead", have been falsified, and there is no reason why either the House or the country should believe that they are right now when they have been wrong so often in the past.
  The balance of payments and the trading figures on current account are the most important figures which show the genuine over-spending of our country. The balance of payments on trade account in 1964 was over £500 million, and what a hullaballoo there was about that—the wicked Tories, the wicked Chancellor of the Exchequer to allow the deficit to escalate to £500 million. Now despite £2,000 million additional taxation and unemployment at historically high post-war levels, the trade deficit for the last 12 months was not

  807
  £500 million, nor £600 million, but very nearly £900 million. This is the condemnation of the Government's conduct of our economy which they must endeavour to answer.
  As my right hon. Friend said this afternoon, unemployment is high. In 1964, the economy was moving ahead fast and unemployment was low. Now, after these years of Labour government, unemployment is high and, whatever the loyal hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) may say, the measures announced last Friday are designed to increase the amount of unemployment. They are designed to cut down demand, and if demand is cut down then unemployment is increased; it is as simple as that.
  Then there is the serious problem of our exports being threatened in some vital industries by strikes. We have to recognise that, as industry becomes more efficient and more modern, so strikes becomes more serious. An efficient, integrated, modern industry, with supplies of components coming from one or two sources, and very low stocks held, is always far more vulnerable to wildcat strikes in one sector, and no problem which we are facing today is more serious than this.
  Then there is the burden of debt, to which reference has been made. I hope that the Prime Minister is prepared to listen to what I have to say about the burden of debt. It has grown a great deal in the last three years, partly by reason of our overspending as a nation, and partly by reason of devaluation itself, which increased by a large sum the real burden of our international indebtedness. Now we have the Basle Agreement. I for one think that in the Basle Agreement the Bank of England bailed out the Government from a very awkward situation, but it was at a price, and we still want to know the price. The Chancellor of the Exchequer recently gave my right hon. Friend a figure of £600 million. Now he says that it is not £600 million, but he is not prepared to say what it is. If he could the other day give the figure of what he thought would be drawn, why can he not now give the actual figure?
  Then we have the Budget judgment. I am sorry to disagree with the Chan- 808
  cellor. I think that his Budget judgment has been falsified. He was estimating a reduction in consumption. There has been no reduction. Now he is taking these new measures affecting hire purchase and school meals, and I am sure that we shall not know for some time what more is to come. It is an extraordinary situation. If the variation from the Chancellor's plans is so small, if £100 million is so little in our economy, why is it necessary to do what the Government have done about school meals for the sake of £4 million? It is a very odd scale of priorities upon which the Government operate.
  So we say that in all these matters—in the failure over the balance of payments, the threat to exports from strikes, the burden of debt, and the failure of the Budget judgment—the Government are failing in their economic measures. Above all, they are failing to restore confidence, and confidence is essential to the prosperity of a trading country like ours.
  We all agree, of course, that exports are doing well. We are glad to see that, but it has a long way to go. British industry, men and management, has to make and sell 17 per cent. more to get the same foreign exchange earnings that it got a year ago. The Prime Minister really cannot claim, as he tried to last week, the credit for his Government for the achievements of British industry in exports. It is true that the Government have done something to help. They could hardly fail to do something. But, by taxation and by interference with the processes of trade and commerce, they create problems and burdens for industry which are extremely heavy.
  To take one or two examples of what the Prime Minister said, shipbuilding orders are up by £100 million, but "only because of the reconstruction following the passage of the Shipbuilding Act." That was a typical remark by the Prime Minister. I agree that there is some truth in it. The Act, based on the Geddes Report, is a very valuable one. However, as the Prime Minister knows, I have a personal interest, and anyone who knows the industry also knows that the main reasons for the increase in orders are, first, the high freight rates and the international order situation; second, the fear of devaluation in the past and uncertainty about sterling now which leads

  809
  people to buy sterling ships; and, third, the credit terms available for foreign purchasers which were instituted by the Conservative Government. Those are the real reasons for the increase in shipbuilding orders.
  Taking another example of the Prime Minister's efforts, he says that the motor industry is able to take advantage of increased export orders because of Government aided restructuring under the I.R.C. Act. He really said that. Let us see what has happened. The I.R.C. has played some part in the merger of B.M.H. and Leyland. That merger is good for the industry, but whether it has played a decisive part, no one knows. When it comes to exporting, it must not be forgotten that British Motor Holdings-Leyland exports went up by 35 per cent. That was a very good effort. However, Ford, not restructured, increased its exports by 45 per cent., and Vauxhall, not restructured, increased its exports by 66 per cent. How can the Prime Minister seriously come to the House of Commons and claim credit for the increase in motor export orders?
  For good measure, he added that export orders of engineering products generally were up by 8 per cent. I should hope so. Until they get to 17 per cent., they will not get back to where they were before devaluation.
  The trouble with the Prime Minister is that he never reveals the whole situation. Always he says part of it. Look at how he dealt with the question of aid to the development districts. There was a very interesting passage in his speech in which he said that the present Government's assistance is now £250 million, whereas the assistance that we made available was £18 million. That implies that that is all that there is to it, with £250 million from them and only £18 million from us. That was his point.
  I do not often question the Prime Minister's figures, because he can get the Civil Service to give them to him and because he knows that, if he gives an inaccurate one, we can catch him out. However, again, he does not give the whole truth. He said that £18 million is all the aid that we gave. An Answer given by one of his colleagues earlier suggests that the figure was not £18 million but £30 million. But the Prime Minister forgot the small item of
  810
  depreciation and allowances. The present Government have given investment grants, but they have taken away investment allowances. He has forgotten the little matter of free depreciation which, on our plans, in 1966–67 would have given £45 million to the development districts. Again, that little item is forgotten. Possibly the Prime Minister has also forgotten the old principle that, if one suppresses what is true, one suggests what is false.
  Mr. Michael Foot: Since the right hon. Gentleman is such a powerful advocate of the desirability for telling the whole truth, will he now tell us on what date he forecast to the country the 1964 deficit?
  Mr. Maudling: I shall be delighted to answer that question. I forecast in my Budget speech in 1963 that there would be a substantial deficit in 1964. Throughout 1964 every trade return and every figure was published without emendation or delay. That is more than hon. Members opposite can say.
  Mr. Foot: I am not accusing the right hon. Gentleman of suppression. I am asking when he announced it. Is he now telling us that the deficit achieved in 1964 was achieved on purpose?
  Mr. Maudling: I am saying that I said in 1963 that we would have a deficit in 1964 in order to get the economy expanding, and that we would draw on our working capital from the World Bank. At that time my statement was received with the full approval of the present Prime Minister
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): The right hon. Gentleman knows that we publish the trade figures a great deal faster than he did. In view of the very bad trade figures that were published on 16th October, a few hours after the polls closed, will he say at what hour those figures were in the hands of the Government?
  Hon. Members: Answer.
  Mr. Maudling: Of course I will answer. Those figures reached my hands at 8.30 p.m. on polling day. If the Prime Minister is suggesting that at any time I caused a delay in the publication of the trade figures I hope that he will have the guts and decency to say so openly.
  The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has told us at what time he got them. At what time did the President of the Board of Trade get them? In view of the fact that, 20 years ago, I always had the trade figures on the 11th day of the month, why did he not have them until the 16th?
  Mr. Maudling: The Prime Minister is talking nonsense. They never arrive on the 11th day of the month. It is a different date each month, as he knows, from the situation under his Government. I am saying that if he is accusing me of delaying the publication of the figures, let him say so. We want to know this. Is he accusing me? He tried this one three years ago. I have taken a lot about 1964 and I will take no more from the Prime Minister. I am not prepared to accept these sedentary expressions. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman is not worth getting angry with.
  I return to the main subject of our Amendment, from which I was diverted by the Prime Minister. It is that the measures in the Queen's Speech have little if any relevance to our economic situation.
  Of course, the measures on Friday had some relevance. In the Gracious Speech we were told that the Government would safeguard employment, which they proceeded to do by putting on hire-purchase control. How important were these measures? I think that the Chancellor would like overseas opinion to think that they were important, but the First Secretary and the President of the Board of Trade say that they are nothing—a mere £100 million, or nothing at all in the great turn which we have seen of the deflation which the Labour Government are imposing on this country.
  They could have been avoided. There were other ways of cutting back on consumption. If there had not been the spending spree in the early months of this year, last winter, they would not have been necessary. I know that the current Treasury doctrine was that people could not spend money twice, but, with modern methods of borrowing, they can. As my right hon. Friend said, once they get into the habit of spending, it is a habit which will continue. There has been a flight from money, occasioned by the Government themselves.
  812
  When they say, of course prices will go up, what do they expect people to do? They go out and spend money before prices do go up. Then they are assured by the Prime Minister that the pound in their pocket has not been devalued. If the Government had managed their prices and incomes policy better, things might have been different. What has happened under the right hon. Lady the First Secretary? Under the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) prices were restrained to some extent, but incomes were not and they created a far greater inflation than would have happened otherwise. It was the cause of the 1966 crisis and the 1966 measures and it is the cause of the present economic freeze.
  Yet Government expenditure marches rapidly on. The Government are curious about expenditure. As I said, they are prepared to impose this policy on school meals which many of their supporters dislike, for the sake of £4 million, yet the increase in the Civil Service, which they treat with such complacency, if not with pride, is 57,000 people, since they came in, a cost of £145 million a year—a 34 per cent. increase in cost. If they had tackled the problem of Government expenditure and savings instead of talking about wealth taxes and what they did about the Married Women's Property Act policy, if they encouraged savings, they could cut back on consumer expenditure without the sort of measures which they have now, belatedly, been forced to introduce.
  One of the great omissions from the Gracious Speech is any positive action to deal with labour relations. The Government have promised a White Paper, but this is not fast or urgent enough. The Chancellor himself, I think, would say that the two main threats to his balance of payments forecast come from the labour problem. On the one hand, there are crippling strikes and on the other there is a break-through in incomes which must force up our costs to uncompetitive levels. This is the most urgent and fundamental of all our problems. Certainly, the effect of unofficial strikes on our exports has become very serious. It is not merely the delay in export deliveries which causes concern but the loss of future orders and the loss of confidence abroad in this country's ability to deliver what we say we will deliver.

  813
  I implore the Government to realise the urgency of dealing with this situation—[An HON. MEMBER: "Do your own dirty work."] We should be very happy to do the work which we believe the country needs. We think that legislation is needed to bring the law relating to the unions and their individual members up to date in the interests both of society as a whole and of the individual union members. We believe that it is time to provide in our law that, when people make a bargain, both sides should be kept to that bargain, if necessary in a court of law.
  We believe also that the time has come for some provision whereby there would be a cooling-off period when strikes are threatened which are a real national danger, followed by a secret ballot before a strike is held. People say it is difficult to legislate. Of course it is, but I would make three points on that. First, other countries do it. In fact, most other countries have legislation of this kind. Second, I believe that if we set all these problems of labour relations in a proper legal framework which reflected what the community wants to see, there would then be a new opportunity for responsible trade union leaders to impose the leadership and get the following which they really want to achieve their ends. Third, I am quite convinced that the public as a whole, including members of trade unions, are sick and tired of the present situation and are entirely ready, willing and anxious to see legislation of this character enacted by this House.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton) rose—
  Mr. Maudling: I am sorry, but I am very short of time.
  I have been asked to deal with the positive things we think should have been in the Gracious Speech. I have given one very definite one, legislation on trade unions. I give another very definite one—cutting back on Government expenditure. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] I have given one example already—the enormous growth of the bureaucracy costing £150 million. I give a third one, increase in savings. I give a fourth point, cutting back on taxation, particularly a: the higher levels of earning. The present penal level of tax on those who make the greatest success of their
  814
  trade or business or industry discourages them, and not only them but all the ambitious young men below them. These are the kinds of things which should have been included in the Gracious Speech, and we regret their absence.
  I turn, finally, to the question raised already of the position about the announcement on Friday morning on hire-purchase controls. Let it be quite clear that this was the position, as we know from what the President of the Board of Trade said, that the decision was taken before this debate began. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh, no."] Oh, yest. Look at what the right hon. Gentleman said on Friday. Quite clearly, he made that absolutely plain to all of us. It was in line with what the Prime Minister said on that previous occasion when the Prime Minister was challenged repeatedly by my right hon. Friend on this particular point. He was asked to say whether this was so.
  I quote my right hon. Friend:
  "Would the right hon. Gentleman now answer my question about measures to limit consumer demand? Are they or are they not to be taken?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th October, 1968; Vol. 772, c. 49.]
  That was his question. The Prime Minister knew at the time that there was only one truthful answer, which was, Yes. He did not give it. He preferred instead to talk about announcements being made when they were considered to be necessary. What made it necessary on Friday, when it was not on Wednesday or Thursday?
  Then we had the right hon. Lady, whose words were confirmed by the Leader of the House, who will wind up this debate. I bring him in because he is to wind up and will be able to answer. The right hon. Lady said on Wednesday that there was no economic freeze on the way. It was confirmed on Thursday by the Leader of the House who also said that the Chancellor had no statement to make. The fact is the President of the Board of Trade made the statement the next day. The Leader of the House must have known this statement was coming along. Both Ministers knew perfectly well at the time that the decision had been taken by the Government to impose these new controls. Of that we must be absolutely clear.

  815
  What is their excuse? Their excuse is that the hire-purchase clamp down is not an economic freeze. It is a very poor excuse. They knew perfectly well that what was in the minds of the public and their elected representatives in the House was hire-purchase controls, because their scheme had leaked to the Press on Wednesday. It was not just speculation. It was a very definite leak, and when that leak occurred in the Press on Wednesday Ministers conspired to make the public believe that those leaks and rumours were not true when they knew they were true.
  As to whether it is a freeze or not—well, if we look at the controls imposed by the Order on hire purchase, they exactly coincide with the freeze of 1966 in every single detailed particular. It may be that the right hon. Lady will say that it is only part of a freeze, not a complete freeze. She may be right on that, but this is the important charge against the Government, that they do not tell an absolute untruth, but they never tell the absolute truth, either. It is always half truth, of which the Prime Minister is a past master. By the contempt with which they treat the electors and by the standards of their own conduct in office, they have forfeited their right to be the Government.
  9.31 p.m.
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): Today we have had two speeches from the Opposition Front Bench which have both highlighted what they described as a charge of bad faith against the Prime Minister, the First Secretary and myself. The right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) did not mention me, but the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) mentioned my name both earlier and again in his last speech. I want to deal specifically with that charge before I turn to the main issues of the debate. It is right that I should deal with it early as it has been taken up by the Press. We have been accused not only of bad faith but of not telling the truth. As the importance of that charge goes beyond the immediate debate, I must put the record straight.
  Last Thursday afternoon, following the Business statement, I made two comments
  816
  on this matter. First, I confirmed the remarks of my right hon. Friend when, in reply to a heckler in a by-election, she said that there was no economic freeze on the way. I agree with that. Secondly, several times, and once in answer to a specific question about an Order relating to hire-purchase restrictions, I said:
  "If a statement is necessary, I will see that it is made."
  Within hours my words had been distorted. It was claimed that I had said that there were to be no hire-purchase restrictions. I was accused by the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) of not telling the truth. If we are talking of bad faith, may I ask who leaked in formation to the hon. Member for Louth? Who broke the confidentiality which is traditional in the way we conduct our discussions through the usual channels? The Leader of the House should address his attention to that question—
  Mr. Heath: The Leader of the House?
  Mr. Peart: I mean you—the Leader of the Opposition.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will use the traditional form of address.
  Mr. Peart: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  When we hear about charges of bad faith, that question should be examined by the Leader of the Opposition. It is accepted that we have conventions which make the House work, and since I have been Leader of the House I have tried to respect the Opposition, the Leader of the Opposition and, indeed, all hon. Members. I will go on doing that, despite misrepresentations in relation to my intervention during my controversy with the Leader of the Opposition when I announced Business. He ought to look at this matter. It was deplorable. I hope that there will be an apology?
  Mr. Heath: What about?
  Mr. Peart: Will the right hon. Gentleman offer an apology?
  Mr. Heath: The Leader of the House knows full well that there was no official leakage on this matter of any kind whatever. The Leader of the House must ensure that these things are done through

  817
  the usual channels and not in the casual way in which they were done on this occasion, which resulted in information being passed in a way in which it became common knowledge. I say to him frankly that we always observe the conventions. I put this to the right hon. Gentleman: in answer to me on Thursday—
  Mr. Peart Mr. Peart rose—
  Hon. Members: Sit down.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) has the Floor. If his intervention becomes too long, I will inform the House accordingly.
  Mr. Peart: I gave way.
  Mr. Heath: On Thursday I put this question to the Leader of the House:
  "Yesterday, I pressed the Prime Minister to say whether there would be a statement by him or the Chancellor of the Exchequer about further credit restrictions in the light of the categorical statement by the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity…. Can the Leader of the House say again categorically that the Chancellor will not now be making a statement to this effect?"
  That referred to my previous remark about no limitation on credit. The right hon. Gentleman replied:
  "Certainly, because what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said was perfectly true."
  He therefore said that there would not be a statement. The next day there was a statement.
  Mr. Peart: I made the first statement about confidentiality. I now ask the right hon. Gentleman if he seriously believes that there was no leak.
  Mr. Heath: There was no official leak.
  Mr. Peart: I am talking about confidentiality. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that his hon. Friend the Member for Louth was not informed by a certain person? I am asking for the right hon. Gentleman to investigate this. It is a serious matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on."] I do not want an evasive reply and the Leader of the Opposition is being evasive. We went into this through the usual channels and showed all courtesy. This is deplorable. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
  818
  As to my position as Leader of the House, I said, when the Leader of the Opposition questioned me:
  "I cannot…"—
  answer—
  "at this stage. If a statement has to be made on a matter, I will make the necessary arrangement."
  The right hon. Gentleman pressed me again and asked:
  "Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Chancellor will not be making a statement?"
  I did not mislead the House. Later the hon. Member for Worcestershire—
  Sir G. Nabarro: Worcestershire, South, if the right hon. Gentleman does not mind.
  Mr. Peart: I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will let me proceed. I said that I thought that it was not a Business question, because Mr. Speaker had ruled that it was not in order. Then I rose and volunteered a statement because I was anxious to help. I said in reply:
  "If a statement is necessary, I will see that it is made."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st October 1968; Vol. 772, c. 164–8.]
  I cannot understand why the Leader of the Opposition and his hon. Friends have got themselves into such a frenzy about nothing. They seek to distort the position. [Interruption.] They seek to distort—
  An Hon. Member: Lost the place? Start again.
  Mr. Peart: There is no question of my having to start again. I believe that right hon. Gentlemen opposite have sought to distort the position, and I cannot understand why the Leader of the House has got himself into such a frenzy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I apologise. I should have said "Leader of the Opposition". After all, the right hon. Gentleman has not answered my charge. He knows that he cannot get away with this. I have asked him once and I repeat my claim that he should hold an inquiry.
  I turn to the arguments that have been deployed. [Interruption.] When hon. Gentlemen opposite carefully read what has been said they will find that their leader's frenzied neurotic approach is not becoming of the Leader of the Opposition. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Peart.
  Mr. Peart: I cannot believe that hon. Gentlemen opposite honestly think that the hire-purchase restrictions amount to a new freeze.
  Hon. Members: One hundred million pounds?
  Mr. Peart: At a time when production, productivity and exports are rising and when unemployment is beginning to fall, one cannot describe as a freeze measures which are designed to act on £100 million out of a national income of £34,000 million to ensure that export orders are not frustrated by excess home demand. It cannot possibly be said that we are now in a position of a new freeze. That is what we have said over and over again. The right hon. Gentleman has exaggerated. I can almost imagine that if I gently embraced one of his lady colleagues, he would shout "Rape".
  Mr. Mark Carlisle: Since the right hon. Gentleman is so vehemently denying the charge which has been made that he, the First Secretary and the Prime Minister deliberately misled the public in the statements they made, may I ask whether he proposes to issue writs for libel against the Sunday Express?
  Mr. Peart: I do not know whether the hon. Member heard the speech this afternoon of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell). The hon. Member put it right. When asked to say "Yes" or "No" in reply to a direct question, my right hon. Friend's reply was right in those circumstances. Of course it was right. Hon. Members know that. Therefore, this is not a freeze, as the hon. Member should know. I hope that right hon. Gentlemen opposite will realise that this policy of instant accusation based on ill-founded facts does them no good, neither can it reverse the present opinion poll trends of declining support for them. Most important of all, it is not worthy of the right hon. Member for Barnet.
  On this point, as in their campaign against the two-tier postal system, I wonder why the party opposite have panicked into so desperately overplaying their hand. I believe that it is because they have not made fundamental criticisms. I got that impression when I listened to the speech this afternoon
  820
  by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West.
  If I may deal now with the issues that the right hon. Gentleman and many hon. Members have raised, I will refer to an important matter which was raised by many of my hon. Friends. I refer to regional policies and employment. This is probably one of the most serious parts of our discussions today.
  Regional development policy and planning have been key elements in the Government's economic policy ever since they came to power. For the first time, the problems of the regions are being tackled systematically and comprehensively. Our object has been to bring about a fairer distribution of economic opportunity and social conditions throughout the country. We also aim certainly to make use of the unused resources of the less prosperous regions for the benefit of those regions and the whole of the national economy.
  I should like to record our appreciation of the work of the regional economic planning councils and boards. They provide effective machinery in the regions. We are having special studies from them which will enable decisions to be taken not only by the Government, but by local authorities and by industries.
  I believe it right to concentrate in the first place on the development areas. We have to recognise that in the past their economy has declined or stagnated because of their heavy dependence on some of the older basic industries whose markets have changed and whose manpower needs are contracting. I know this problem very much because I represent a constituency in West Cumberland. The right hon. Gentleman today mentioned the problems of the Northern Region. I agree with him that they are very serious and they must be solved. They bear heavily on the individual worker and particularly on the mining community who have had to bear the brunt of change with colliery closures. Even in times of boom these areas have had unemployment levels twice the national average.
  We recognise—this is mentioned in the Queen's Speech—that this is a very serious human problem and, above all, a waste of valuable manpower resources. It also creates major problems for the

  821
  proper maintenance of the economy in the more prosperous regions. The Government have done much to help development areas in the last three or four years and to attract more industrial development to them. This has been appreciated by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  We have had the special incentives under the local employment Acts and the Industrial Expansion Act and the radical step of introducing and guaranteeing for seven years the Regional Employment Premium; and the Selective Employment Premium has been retained for the development areas. Far greater resources are being put into training and retraining in development areas. Additional assistance has been provided for certain parts of the development areas, even areas within the designated special development areas such as Cumberland, and additional benefits are available there in the industrial projects. We have stressed the importance of this.
  In winding up for the Opposition, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the amount of aid. I shall give figures showing how these measures have transformed the scale of special assistance to development areas over and above what they receive in common with other parts of the country. The total has risen from under £30 million annually before 1965 to £300 million this year. It is too soon to assess fully the effect of all these incentives, particularly that of R.E.P., but inevitably this will have a tremendous effect on areas such as the Northern Region, Scotland, Wales and parts of the South-West. The development areas' share of all i.d.c approvals has been running at one-third of the national total so far this year. The Government are well aware of the importance of this matter.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), a former President of the Board of Trade, pleaded for more advance factories. He asked for figures. The position at 31st October was that 99 had been completed covering an area of 2,400,000 square feet and 80 of these have been allocated. Sixteen are under construction and a further 26 are to be planned. My right hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, in a Written Answer to my hon. Friend the
  822
  Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker) announced a new programme to attack levels of unemployment in the regions this winter. The total amount which can be allocated for this purpose has had to be limited to £10 million, but it will be of considerable help in dealing with this problem and the Government consider that it should be a high priority.
  Unemployment is still too high in certain areas. We are well aware of this. This is why we are tackling it through many of the measures I have mentioned.
  As to strategy on many other issues, let us take the matter of prices and incomes, which was raised by the right hon. Gentleman when winding up for the Opposition and by many of my hon. Friends. No hon. Member is more anxious than my right hon. Friends and myself to finish with statutory controls, as long as other satisfactory arrangements take their place. The majority of hon. Members, even those opposite, know in their hearts that a return to the law of the jungle is not good enough.
  Some have questioned whether all the agony has been worth while. It has been agonising to try to introduce some element of order in an area dominated up to now by the law of the jungle. They point to estimates that the Government's policy has restrained increases in prices and incomes by only 1 per cent. in its first year. While not necessarily accepting this figure, I must point out that such figures cannot be better than well-informed guesses, with wide margins of error. It is the last 1 per cent. which is vital. If we could increase our competitiveness in costs and prices by just 1 per cent. a year, our troubles would soon be over.
  Some of my hon. Friends cannot accept the Government's policy on this, and to some considerable extent I sympathise with their objections. They are expressed in their Amendment. I believe, as they do, that the rights of free trade union bargaining had to be so bitterly fought for and were so dearly won that they will never be lightly set aside.
  Trade unions, given the philosophy underlying their foundation, must never become in practice merely organisations whereby those with strength grab most without regard to the weaker. They were conceived, and must continue, as organisations where the strong help the weak,

  823
  with objectives designed to ensure economic justice. This is right. The time has come when we must think just how that philosophy should be applied in practice.
  Half the hon. Members opposite, however, reject any form of policy and planning in relation to prices and incomes. If they had their way, many of them would go back to the unrestricted workings of the law of the market place. We last tried the unrestricted workings of that law in the 1930s. I believe that the nation has decisively rejected that course. When dealing with the livelihood of men and women we must never travel that way again.
  I was asked by many hon. Members about import saving. The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) made a very effective plea for import saving. He made a strong defence of British farming. He addressed the question specifically to me because of my previous responsibility as Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
  The hon. Member seems to be under the impression that agriculture is not contributing to import saving. That is precisely why the selective expansion programme was brought in. I can remember the arguments which took place with hon. Members opposite who represent farming constituencies on this very matter. We said when we introduced the selective expansion programme that we expected that home agriculture would be able to meet the major part of the additional demand expected by 1970 totalling £200 million on food for human consumption. If the hon. Gentleman is looking beyond the period of the selective expansion programme he is a little premature. The Report of the little N.E.D.C. for agriculture has stated that an import saving of about £220 million should be technically feasible by 1972–73. We have taken this assessment into account in our studies.
  On the other hand, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there are problems here in regard to import substitution. We are partners in many international agreements, some of which were put to the House by my predecessors but which we are continuing. I think of the bacon sharing agreement and the wheat agreement, for example. These
  824
  are important matters which have to be borne in mind. Neverthless, I believe that agriculture can make a major contribution, and, as we have said in the White Paper, and as I have repeatedly said to the industry—it was accepted—in order that growth in the industry may be achieved, the machinery for the purpose must be the Price Review.
  Sir G. Nabarro: I accept absolutely the right hon. Gentleman's sincerity. But will he knock it into the head of the Chancellor of the Exchequer who is utterly urban-minded and introspective in these important matters? I sit for an agricultural constituency—
  Hon. Members: Oh.
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman has forgotten. I gave a very good Price Review last year. I gave a very good Price Review the year before. Exchequer support was forthcoming. My right hon. Friend and his predecessor helped me to achieve it, and this was accepted by the farming community. The industry is not stagnating. It is increasing its production. [Interruption.] This is an important point, and I hope that hon. Members will forgive me for dealing with it.
  There are many other important matters covered in the Queen's Speech which time does not allow me to develop. I think, for example, of aid for the fishing industry, another vital interest. Many economic measures are foreshadowed, and there is also the question of the set ting up of a Commission on the constitution. Here I pay tribute to the speech made by the Leader of the Liberal Party, although I did not agree with all of it. The right hon. Gentleman regards the setting up of the Commission as a matter of great importance. I pay tribute also to the speech of my hon. Friend—
  Mrs. Anne Kerr: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is impossible to hear what is being said, and among what some hon Members seem to think are unimportant questions there is a matter of considerable importance. I wish to ask why Miss Pat Arrow smith is in prison tonight. Having been fined £2 and having refused to pay

  825
  the £2, she has now been sent to prison for six months.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It would be no disservice to Parliament if we heard the last words of the debate. Mr. Peart.
  Mr. Peart: I am sorry that I did not hear the question which my hon. Friend raised in her point of order.
  We are now near the end of our debate on the Queen's Speech. The arguments which have been raised in regard to the proposed Commission will be carefully noted by the Government. We regard the setting up of the Commission as an important matter, and we shall speed up the talks on the terms of reference. [Interruption.] I hope that hon. Members will allow me to finish my speech. If they wish to be discourteous, I can do nothing about it, although I am sorry.
  There remains much in the Queen's Speech to be debated and discussed, and there will be major debates on all these matters. Many people believe that the Queen's Speech will not impose heavy burdens on hon. Members. I assure the House that it is a heavy programme. There will be major pieces of legislation to be considered—the reform of the House of Lords, electoral reform, and many other matters which will have to be debated on legislation by the House itself. There will be a full period of work for hon. Members on both sides, and I hope that it will not be regarded lightly.
  Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 247, Noes 310.

  Division No. 4.]

  AYES

  [10.1 p.m.

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Dance, James

  Hiley, Joseph

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Hill, J. E. B.

  Astor, John

  Dean, Paul

  Hirst, Geoffrey

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

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)

  Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

  Awdry, Daniel

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Holland, Philip

  Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Balniel, Lord

  Donnelly, Desmond

  Hordern, Peter

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Doughty, Charles

  Hornby, Richard

  Batsford, Brian

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Drayson, G. B.

  Hunt, John

  Bell, Ronald

  Eden, Sir John

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Emery, Peter

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Bessell, Peter

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Biffen, John

  Eyre, Reginald

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Farr, John

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Fisher, Nigel

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Blaker, Peter

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Jopling, Michael

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

  Fortescue, Tim

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Body, Richard

  Foster, Sir John

  Kerby Capt. Henry

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Kimball, Marcus

  Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

  Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Kirk, Peter

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Kitson Timothy

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Bryan, Paul

  Glyn, Sir Richard

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

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

  Goodhart, Philip

  Lane, David

  Buck, Antony (Colchester)

  Gower, Raymond

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Grant, Anthony

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Burden, F. A.

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

  Gresham-Cooke, R.

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'n C'dfield)

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Grieve, Percy

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

  Carlisle, Mark

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Longden, Gilbert

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Loveys, W. H.

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)

  Lubbock, Eric

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Clark, Henry

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

  MacArthur, Ian

  Clegg, Walter

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty)

  Cooke, Robert

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

  Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain

  Cordle, John

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  McMaster, Stanley

  Corfield, F. V.

  Hastings, Stephen

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Costain, A. P.

  Hawkins, Paul

  Maddan, Martin

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Hay, John

  Maginnis, John E.

  Crouch, David

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Crowder, F. P.

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Marten, Neil

  Cunningham, Sir Knox

  Heseltine, Michael

  Maude, Angus

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Mawby, Ray

  Pounder, Rafton

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

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

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

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Teeling, Sir William

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Pym, Francis

  Temple, John M.

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Tilney, John

  Monro, Hector

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Waddington, David

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Murton, Oscar

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Wall, Patrick

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Walters, Dennis

  Neave, Airey

  Royle, Anthony

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Webster, David

  Nott, John

  Scott, Nicholas

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Sharpies, Richard

  Williams, Donald (Dudley)

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

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

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Silvester, Frederick

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Smith, John (London & W'minster)

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Pardoe, John

  Speed, Keith

  Worsley, Marcus

  Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

  Stainton, Keith

  Wright, Esmond

  Peel, John

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Wylie, N. R.

  Percival, Ian

  Stodart, Anthony

  Peyton, John

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Mr. R. W. Elliott and

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Tapsell, Peter

  Mr. Jasper More.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Gardner, Tony

  Alldritt, Walter

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Garrett, W. E.

  Allen, Scholefield

  Cronin, John

  Ginsburg, David

  Anderson, Donald

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Archer, Peter

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Ashley, Jack

  Dalyell, Tam

  Gregory, Arnold

  Ashton, J. W.

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

  Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Barnes, Michael

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

  Barnett, Joel

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Baxter, William

  Delargy, Hugh

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Beaney, Alan

  Dell, Edmund

  Hamling, William

  Bence, Cyril

  Dempsey, James

  Hannan, William

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Dewar, Donald

  Harper, Joseph

  Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Dickens, James

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Binns, John

  Dobson, Ray

  Haseldine, Norman

  Bishop, E. S.

  Doig, Peter

  Hattersley, Roy

  Blackburn, F.

  Dunn, James A.

  Hazell, Bert

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Dunnett, Jack

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Booth, Albert

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

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Boston, Terence

  Eadie, Alex

  Hilton, W. S.

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Edelman, Maurice

  Hobden, Dennis

  Boyden, James

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Hooley, Frank

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Horner, John

  Bradley, Tom

  Ellis, John

  Houghton Rt Hn. Douglas

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  English, Michael

  Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Ennals, David

  Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

  Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

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

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Howie, W.

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

  Faulds, Andrew

  Hoy, James

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

  Fernyhough, E.

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Buchan, Norman

  Finch, Harold

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

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

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Fletcher, Fit. Hn. SirEric (Islington, E.)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Callaghan Rt. Hn. James

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

  Hunter, Adam

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Hynd, John

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Forrester, John

  Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

  Chapman, Donald

  Fowler, Gerry

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

  Coe, Denis

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

  Coleman, Donald

  Freeson, Reginald

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Concannon, J. D.

  828

  829

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Millan, Bruce

  Ryan, John

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

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

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Sheldon, Robert

  Jenkins, Rt Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Molloy, William

  Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Moonman, Eric

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

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

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

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

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)

  Jones, Rt. Hn. SirElwyn (W. Ham, S.)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Silverman, Julius

  Judd, Frank

  Murray, Albert

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Kelley, Richard

  Neal, Harold

  Small, William

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Newens, Stan

  Snow, Julian

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

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Spriggs, Leslie

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

  Norwood, Christopher

  Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Lawson, George

  Ogden, Eric

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Leadbitter, Ted

  O'Malley, Brian

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Ledger, Ron

  Orbach, Maurice

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Orme, Stanley

  Swain, Thomas

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Swingler, Stephen

  Lee, John (Reading)

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

  Taverne, Dick

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Owen, Will (Morpeth)

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Padley, Walter

  Thornton, Ernest

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Paget, R. T.

  Tinn, James

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Tomney, Frank

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Pannell, Rt. Hn, Charles

  Tuck, Raphael

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Urwin, T. W

  Loughlin, Charles

  Parkin, Ben (Paddington, N.)

  Varley, Eric G.

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Walden, Brian (All Saints)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  McBride, Neil

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Wallace, George

  MacColl, James

  Pentland, Norman

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.

  Watkns Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

  McGuire, Michael

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

  Weitzman, David

  McKay, Mrs. Margaret

  Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Mackie, John

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Whitaker, Ben

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Probert, Arthur

  Whitlock, William

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Wilkins, W. A.

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Randall, Harry

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Rankin, John

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Rees, Merlyn

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

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

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Manuel, Archie

  Richard, Ivor

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Mapp, Charles

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Wills, Rt. Hn. George

  Marks, Kenneth

  Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Marquand, David

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

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

  Winnick, David

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Maxwell, Robert

  Roebuck, Roy

  Woof, Robert

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Rogers George (Kensington N.)

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Rose, Paul

  Mendelson, John

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mikardo, Ian

  Rowlands, E.

  Mr. Charles Grey and Mr. Ioan L. Evans.

  Main Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:
  Most Gracious Sovereign,
  We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave
  830
  to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.
  To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

  DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF
  10.14 p.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Harold Lever): I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Grenada) Order 1968 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 14th October, in the last Session of Parliament.
  Mr. Speaker: It has been suggested to me—and I have no objection—that we should take together the four Double Taxation Orders which are on the Order Paper, if that is the will of both sides of the House.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: We are entirely agreeable on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Lever: I know that the House is eager to discuss the details of the four double taxation Orders and I am sure that they will be greatly convenienced by the decision that they should be discussed together. The Orders govern arrangements between this country, France, Sweden, Lesotho, and Grenada.
  The fourth Order relates to a new comprehensive double taxation Convention with France. This is to replace the existing comprehensive Convention which was signed in 1950 and which is in need of revision following the changes in our tax system in 1965 and in the French tax system recently.
  The new Convention with France is based on the model agreement recommended by the O.E.C.D. for adoption, and it follows generally the pattern of our other recent Conventions. I will not weary the House with a detailed exposition of the provisions, as the House has followed so closely similar provisions in previous agreements relating to other countries which I have had the pleasure of presenting to the House.
  I might just mention the withholding taxes. The Convention provides as a general rule that the tax which can be charged in the source country is to be nil for royalties and limited to a maximum of 10 per cent. for interest and 15 per cent. for dividends. There is a
  832
  reduced limit of 5 per cent. for dividends received by a company with a holding of 10 per cent. or more in the paying company.
  The Order relating to Sweden gives effect to a Supplementary Protocol amending the comprehensive Convention which was signed in 1960. The House will remember that this Convention has already been amended, following the changes in our domestic tax law in 1965, by a Protocol which was signed in 1966 and which withdrew from portfolio investors entitlement for relief for overseas company tax on the profits from which their dividends are derived. That is the underlying tax. The Supplementary Protocol now before the House completes the further modifications to the Convention arising out of our tax changes in 1965, and the amendments made by the Supplementary Protocol in general follow the recommendations of the O.E.C.D. and are in line with the pattern of other similar recent Conventions. Again I think it would be troublesome to go into the details, the House having these details so firmly in mind from the previous occasions when we have discussed them.
  The new Supplementary Protocol with Sweden provides as a general rule that the tax which can be charged in the source country on dividends is limited to a maximum of 15 per cent., with a reduced rate of 5 per cent. for dividends received from a company with a holding of 25 per cent. or more in the paying company. Interest and royalties will in general continue as hitherto to be exempt from tax in the source country.
  The Orders relating to Lesotho and Grenada are two more in the series of Orders relating to amending agreements with smaller Commonwealth countries. Like the other Orders in the series, their object is to withdraw from portfolio shareholders their entitlement to credit for tax on the profits out of which their dividends are paid.
  I hope that these new double taxation arrangements, which I am sure hon. Members will have studied with close attention and interest, will meet with the approval of the House, but if I have failed to cover all the detailed and esoteric points I would be happy to answer the enquiries of hon. Members upon them.
  10.20 p.m.
  Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: Having just visited the charming island of Grenada, through the good offices of the C. P. A., I should like to ask the Financial Secretary two or three questions about this Order.
  I am interested to know whether it will help British investment in the island. It is obvious that such investment is required for hotels, tourism, and, I think, for light industry. I was struck to find in one of the Windward Islands that the Americans were already getting on with sub-contracting work for light industries, and it seemed to me that here was a great opportunity for British investment. In one island, for example, the Americans had a little factory making or setting up Christmas cards. That seemed to be the sort of thing that could be done in Grenada.
  These islands exist entirely on agriculture, the sale of bananas, nutmegs, man goes, and the rest of it. It is obvious that what is needed is technical schools and the knowledge to set up—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I, too, am interested in Grenada, but the hon. Gentleman must link his remarks to the Order before us.
  Mr. Gresham Cooke: Of course, Mr. Speaker.
  I wanted to ask the Financial Secretary whether the Order will help British investment to establish hotels, factories and other developments in the island of Grenada, which we all wish very well. I welcome the Order and hope that it will do good for the island. It is going through a difficult time, being entirely dependent on agriculture. It requires British technology and investment, and I hope that both will come through this Order.
  10.22 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I am happy to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) in pressing the Financial Secretary a little further on the Order relating to Grenada.
  My hon. Friend has put his finger right on the point. It is the effect that the Order will have on British investment in the territory. It is a country where the tax system is not dissimilar from that
  834
  which we operated before we moved to the Corporation Tax system. Companies operating in Grenada pay a company tax, declare a dividend, and are entitled to recoup themselves by deducting from the dividend of the company tax which they have paid so that, in effect, it is passed on to the shareholders. But, of course, this is a company tax and not a true withholding tax, and the effect of the Order will be to deprive a British portfolio shareholder with a shareholding in Grenada from any doubt tax relief.
  This is a matter which I raised when we debated the remainder of the Windward and Leeward Islands Double Taxation Orders in June of this year. Mr. Speaker, I apologise if I have to quote from my own speeches, but there are no others to which I can refer in the subject. I raised with the Financial Secretary the precise difficulty of these cases, of which there are many among the smaller territories of the Commonwealth, where the effect of the Orders is totally to deprive a portfolio shareholder from any relief in respect of tax paid in the overseas territory, for the reason that this is not a withholding tax but is treated for double tax purposes as an underlying tax.
  When I raised the matter, I quoted to the Financial Secretary a passage from a speech made in 1966 by the hon. and learned Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot), his predecessor as Financial Secretary, where he said when the point was made that it was the Government's intention to adopt a reasonably flexible attitude. I complained last June that when we had the first batch of double taxation conventions to which this point applied nothing had been done to give effect to that intention.
  The Financial Secretary was good enough to acknowledge the point. He said:
  "I assure him "—
  that is, me—
  "that in any future negotiations the closest regard will be paid to the point he has raised I will not use the word 'undertaking' in this connection, because I am sure that the hon. Gentleman rightly expects his comments to be sincerely taken into account by our negotiators."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th June, 1968; Vol. 766. c. 621.]
  All I can say is that here we have yet another example where, apparently, no account has been taken of the point raised on several occasions where the effect

  835
  would be to reduce the attractiveness of these territories for investment by British investors. The only result will be to leave the way wide open for investment from other countries. I hope that the Financial Secretary can give a rather more satisfactory explanation on this occasion as to why this has been done in this case.
  I now turn briefly to the Swedish Convention. Here there is only article to which I draw attention—the new Article VIII(4), set out in Article 4. This provision has the effect of nullifying, in relation to Sweden, certain provisions of paragraph 1(1)(d) of the 11th Schedule of the Finance Act, 1965 and of making certain interest paid by British companies to Swedish associates a distribution and not a deduction for Corporation Tax. The Financial Secretary will be aware that these provisions of the 11th Schedule have aroused considerable irritation in industrial circles here, especially in terms of their effect upon companies that raise loans in Switzerland and elsewhere on the Continent. The hon. Gentleman will remember that we raised this matter in Committee and that our arguments were dismissed.
  Here, in this Convention—and as far as I am aware this is the only Convention in which it appears—we find that this provision concerning paragraph 1(1)(d) is waived in relation to loans raised in Sweden. Why should there be a specific and specially favourable treatment of companies which borrow their money in Sweden rather than elsewhere? I expect the hon. Gentleman to say that we have to take the whole Convention together, but it comes as something of a surprise to find what was regarded by the Government as an important facet of the Corporation Tax reforms here being nullified in respect of one country.
  I now turn to the French Convention—the most important of the four in that it is a new, comprehensive agreement and follows closely the O.E.C.D. model. There are one or two provisions which differ from that. Article 4 deals with the definition of the term "permanent establishment", and is, in general, in accordance with the Convention. Paragraph (7) of Article 4, dealing with insurance companies, is both new and outside the O.E.C.D. model. It provides that an insurance enterprise of one coun-
  836
  try will be deemed to have a permanent establishment in the other country if it collects premiums from or insures risks situated there. On the face of it, this would appear to impose a heavy new liability to French tax on the part of a British company establishing an office in France merely for the purpose of collecting premiums.
  I have been given to understand that it is not the intention of the French authorities to enforce this new provision strictly according to its terms, but only if the activities of the branch companies go beyond mere routine administration and engage in what they describe as a habitual and normal commercial activity. I understand that they have also indicated that they would not regard the conduct of reinsurance business as making the branch liable for tax. This is a rather strange state of affairs. Here we have a provision of an Order which has been put before the House which, I understand, it is not the intention of the other contracting party to enforce according to its terms.
  A number of questions arise. If this provision is not intended to be applied, why is it in the Order? What is the purpose of putting in stringent financial provisions if, at the same time, one of the parties will not enforce them? Secondly, what are the circumstances in which this provision will become strictly enforceable so that a branch will become liable to French tax if it merely collects premiums? I understand that our practice in the United Kingdom is that we will subject to tax a branch of a foreign insurance company only if that branch accepts proposals.
  Can we, by a change in administration, which perhaps is all that it would amount to, so alter our practice that we would, as it were, provoke the French into applying this new provision strictly? Would it be, perhaps, only if we passed a law to change our treatment of branches of French insurance companies here that the French would be entitled, if that is the right word, to resile from the understanding which they have conveyed not to apply paragraph 7 strictly? What warning would be given to British insurance companies which have branches in France that their taxation treatment would be liable to be changed in what could be a stiff and swingeing way?

  837
  The third question which arises is how the Treasury intends to publicise what is tantamount to a major extra-statutory concession so that insurance companies may be aware both of the circumstances and of the waiver of the strict application and of the possible risks which they run of having the provision applied strictly in certain events. This is something new which I am not aware of having encountered in double taxation conventions before, a provision imposing an entirely new liability to tax but which, we are told, one of the parties has no intention of applying strictly from the outset. This requires explanation.
  The effect of Article 10, a new article with which I do not quarrel, is to bring into taxation the profits of a branch operating in France of a United Kingdom establishment and to bring the taxation into line with what has always been the position of the taxation of the subsidiary operating overseas. It seems to me to be a move in the right direction that one should not have a major taxation difference between the operation of a branch and the operation of a subsidiary, because there may be very good commercial reasons why a branch is preferable to a subsidiary, or vice versa.
  It seems to me, however, that the effect of this article is to swing the balance the other way. It appears that the curious formula that the
  "tax shall not exceed 15 per cent. of two-thirds of the profits of the permanent establishment after payment of the corporation tax on those profits"
  will have the effect of taxing branch profits rather more heavily than of taxing income from subsidiaries. I would be grateful if the Financial Secretary could confirm this and indicate the extent of the difference. Clearly, if it is merely a minimal difference, we would not take severe objection. If, on the other hand, it is one of substance, it requires explanation.
  May I turn to Article 24 which introduces the new restriction on the relief for underlying tax for portfolio investment? This is now confined to direct investment, and the usual phrase appears in Article 24 (a) (ii) indicating the extent of that. But there seems to be an extra condition which I am not sure that I understand. It is certainly a new condition to me, and
  838
  I should be grateful if the Financial Secretary will explain it. It appears to apply so that there is a new condition which must be satisfied if Britain is to give relief for underlying tax in respect of a dividend paid by a French Company to a British parent. This new condition is related to the rate of tax charged on a dividend paid by the United Kingdom company to a French company and, furthermore, to the rate of tax in force at the date when the Convention was signed.
  If there is an increase in the tax on a dividend paid by the British company to a French company, then, as a retaliation, as it were, the United Kingdom Revenue will no longer allow relief for underlying tax in respect of a dividend paid by a French company to a British company. In other words, this provides the British Revenue with a right of retaliation if the French increase their tax on a particular dividend above a certain level.
  I can understand that from the point of view of the Revenue a right of retaliation of this sort may be a useful weapon in their armoury, but what is the effect on the individual investor—let us say on a company which has invested in France? Because the French increase their tax on dividends from Britain to France, the effect is to be that the British Revenue will increase its tax on a British company which has invested in France. That seems to be an extraordinary process of robbing Peter to pay Paul, and to require some justification.
  One or two questions come to mind. Will this be an automatic retaliation if the condition ceases to be satisfied and France raises the appropriate level of tax above the level at the date on which the Convention was signed, or is there some discretion in the Revenue to decide whether to invoke the condition? Suppose we reduce the rate of withholding tax—which is not impossible—on dividends paid by a British company to a French parent, with the result that the amount of tax against which double taxation relief will be available in France has been reduced, and as a result the French think it right to recoup to themselves the difference. After all, we shall have done exactly the same thing in the opposite direction. Would this happen without provoking the retaliation?

  839
  By relieving a French investor in this country of certain of the tax, could we find ourselves obliged because of this condition in Article 24(a)(ii) to impose additional tax on a British investor in France? If so, that seems to be an astonishing result of this provision. It seems to me a very strange proposal, which is liable to give rise to some uncertainty.
  As the House is aware, there is a good deal of mutual investment—it is growing, and I welcome the fact—by French companies in this country and by British companies in France, which offers many attractive opportunities within the Common Market. I feel that the Government should make it entirely clear where they stand on this point.
  Next, I raise again a small issue which I have raised before—that concerning retrospection, which occurs under Article 30(1)(a). It will be seen from that paragraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) that this is to apply to tax in one case going back to April, 1966. It will be seen that from April, 1966, in respect of Corporation Tax going back to April, 1964 and in respect of Capital Gains Tax going back to April, 1966. Having read paragraph (2), I am aware that there is a saving provision that nobody will be forced to pay any more tax as a result of the retrospection. That is to say, if the effect is to increase liability, it is not to increase liability back beyond the date of the Convention. Nevertheless, this is strictly retrospective fiscal legislation. The mere fact that there is a relieving provision to prevent anybody from having an increased liability does not detract from this principle.
  We have had a number of Conventions, since I last raised the complaint of Conventions being supposed to apply from the date on which they took effect, and this principle has been accepted by the Treasury. I regard this as an infinitely preferable form of delegated legislation. I dislike this business of our nearly being in 1969 and having a provision which says that it shall apply to Corporation Tax going back to the financial year beginning 1964, nearly five years ago.
  10.41 p.m.
  Mr. Harold Lever: With the leave of the House, I will answer the many interesting points that have been raised.
  840
  First, however, I must congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) on his maiden speech on behalf of, as far as I know, all back benchers opposite on this subject, the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) otherwise having a monopoly in the conduct of these affairs.
  I was asked what would be the effect of the Lesotho and Grenada Orders on investment incentives for British investors to encourage growth, manufacturing and so on in those countries. The answer is that, for practical purposes, these Instruments will not in any way deter investors. It is true that, somewhat pedantically, we have in the treaty underlying tax rules which apply everywhere else, but in fact in these countries that will have no importance because they are concerned only with portfolio investment.
  As hon. Gentlemen opposite know, once there is any direct investment or other such consideration in the country, the underlying tax is available; and, in these circumstances, we need not worry unduly. I might add that there is not a lively stock exchange in either country.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: That is not the point.
  Mr. Lever: The hon. Gentleman obviously prefers pedantic abstraction to reality.
  If one is talking about investment in these charming places, one is talking not of portfolio investment but of direct investment or investment which, at the least, will represent 10 per cent. of the share in the company. That sort of investment gets the underlying tax advantage which the hon. Member for Twickenham is anxious it should have. If there were a stock exchange in one of these countries and somebody bought less than 10 per cent. of the shares in a local company, he would suffer a disadvantage compared with the position that used to prevail before the 1965 Act.
  Mr. Gresham Cooke: If a British hotel company put 50 per cent. into building a hotel in Grenada, the other 50 per cent. being supplied from local sources, would that company obtain the full advantage from double taxation relief?
  Mr. Lever: It would get the full advantage. Portfolio investment would not, as I explained, get that advantage.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: If a consortium of 12 hotel companies, which is not an impossible venture, were to invest directly in Grenada in equal shares, that advantage would not be obtained. The figure of 10 per cent. is arbitrary and to talk about there being no flourishing stock exchange in Grenada is begging the point.
  Mr. Lever: That intervention is an exercise in hypothetics; in other words, those dangers which might theoretically exist but which never do. If the hon. Gentleman will provide me with details of a consortium of 12 hotel companies which have gone into syndicate in equal shares in Grenada, I shall be happy to look at the whole matter again. Indeed, I give the hon. Gentleman an undertaking that if he can provide me with such an example, I will seriously consider renegotiating the Convention. In the first instance, however, he must provide this interesting syndicate not too artificially conjured together.
  I know that the hon. Member for Twickenham, who is more interested in the practical side, is relieved to know that, if he has as little as a 10 per cent. shareholding, he will get the full relief for the underlying tax. There may be a garden in Granada, but there is no stock exchange in Grenada, so the portfolio relief is not relevant to this matter.
  The hon. Member raised other points of great interest. I will deal, first, with the Swedish Convention. What seems to trouble him on the new Article VIII (4) is that we have made a concession which he and his hon. Friends pressed for in debates on the 1965 Finance Bill, and which, he says, we are making exceptionally in the case of Sweden. It is almost a relief to find that the hon. Member, who has more knowledge of these treaties, I think, than any other hon. Member, including the Financial Secretary, should be in error here. This is not exceptional. The main countries where the same provision applies are Switzerland, the United States, Belgium and Australia. So he will be gratified to know that, in implementing it in the case of Sweden and other countries, we are meeting a great deal of the Opposition's case on the Finance Bill.
  It will not have escaped the hon. Member's attention that all these
  842
  countries have a well ordered tax system of their own and fairly normal rates of tax prevailing, so it will not lend itself to mere channelling of income from the British company into a tax haven or anything of that kind. This is a reasonable provision. The hon. Member wanted it to apply generally. We have applied it pretty generally to the main countries, and where we can get reciprocity and it is appropriate, we are happy to apply it to any country.
  The hon. Member mentioned the French treaty. Article 4(7) deals with incomes. All these treaties are a matter for negotiation and give and take. We cannot dictate them, but must reach agreement with the other side, in this case the French Government. They insist that all their double taxation agreements should have this somewhat strangely worded clause, but do not enforce it strictly, so far as an Englishman reading the translation from the French in this Convention would understand it.
  We are glad that that is so. We had to accept the Clause and have every reason to think that it will not be troublesome to British insurance companies, which, happily, will not need a great deal of publicising of this, because they are frequently aware of the situation over a long period and there is little danger of any of them not being aware of this. Perhaps we can discuss outside the Chamber the suggestion that we should be more active in informing insurance companies. We have no option in the matter.
  On Article 24 (a) (ii), it is true that, if the French Government increase their tax system and make it more burdensome, we will be entitled to alter our arrangements in relation to the British investors in France. This is not as strange as the hon. Gentleman seemed to think. At first sight, I agree, it does seem a little odd that because the French impose more tax on their own citizens investing in England, we should impose more on an Englishman investing in France, but it is not so strange, because the whole object of these treaties is to encourage the free play of investment and mutuality is at the heart of it.
  The hon. Member should welcome anything inclined to deter the French Government from treating people who invest in this country more severely than they

  843
  do at present, because, as he said, it is highly desirable that the French should be encouraged to invest here. This provision is simply to say that we shall have the right, if the French taken steps—it is not automatic—which we sincerely hope they will not and which we have no reason to suppose they will, which would disincline Frenchmen from investing here, we might correspondingly, if we thought it right, take steps to discourage British investment in France. This is all in the interests of mutuality and of encouraging the two-way flow of investment which the hon. Gentleman has more than once welcomed.
  The hon. Gentleman's last point was the question of retrospection. On this, I must be absolutely plain. We have not retrospected, because restrospection means that we enforce the law on people in respect of a past situation against their wish. Far from that, what we have done is to establish a law in respect of past dividends which investors may apply if they wish. If they prefer to operate the law as it was in the past, they have the absolute right to do it.
  That is not retrospection. That is simply instituting a new system of law. For convenience we say to the investor, "You may, if you wish, in respect of the past operate the law which existed in the past." We think it convenient for most people to operate the new law even in respect of past dividends. If they do not like it, they do not have to do it. With that kind of retrospection one is tempted to recall the old joke—"With such an enemy you do not need a friend."
  Here the Government are not acting to penalise the investor. The Government are not acting retrospectively to enforce upon him something to his disadvantage or even to his advantage. They simply offer him a new code of law to apply to these dividends. If he does not want it in respect of past dividends, he can operate the old law. That is neither offensive nor retrospective. In these circumstances, I have no hestitation in commending the four Orders to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Grenada) Order
  844
  1968 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 14th October, in the last Session of Parliament.
  To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.
  Resolved,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Lesotho) Order 1968 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 14th October, in the last Session of Parliament.—[Mr. Harold Lever.]
  To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.
  Resolved,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that, on the ratification by the Government of the Kingdom of Sweden, of the Supplementary Protocol set out in the Schedule to the Order entitled the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Sweden) (No. 2) Order 1968, a draft of which was laid before this House on 26th August, in the last Session of Parliament, an Order may be made in the form of that draft.—[Mr. Harold Lever.]
  To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.
  Resolved,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (France) Order 1968 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 16th July, in the last Session of Parliament.—[Mr. Harold Lever.]
  To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

  ELECTRICITY (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Bill referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

  SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a Select Committee be appointed to consider Science and Technology and to report thereon from time to time:
  That Dr. Ernest Davies, Mr. Ray Dobson, Mr. David Ginsburg, Mr. Arnold Gregory, Mr. Stephen Hastings, Mr. Robert L. Howarth, Sir Harry Legge-Bourke, Mr. Eric Lubbock, Mr. Eric Moonman, Mr. Airey Neave, Sir Ian Orr-Ewing, Mr. Arthur Palmer, Mr. Brian Parkyn and Mr. David Price be Members of the Committee:
  That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, to admit strangers during the examination of witnesses

  845
  unless they otherwise order, and to report Minutes of Evidence from time to time:
  That Four be the Quorum:
  That the Committee have power to appoint Sub-Committees and to refer to such Sub-Committees any of the matters referred to the Committee:
  That every such Sub-Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit nothwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, to report to the Committee from time to time, and to admit strangers during the examination of witnesses unless they otherwise order:
  That Three be the Quorum of every such Sub-Committee:
  That the Committee have power to report from time to time the Minutes of the Evidence taken before such Sub-Committees and reported by them to the Committee:
  That during the present Session the Committee have power to appoint persons with technical or scientific knowledge for the purpose of particular inquiries, either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee's order of reference:
  That the Memoranda laid before the Committee in the last Session of Parliament be referred to the Committee.—[Mr. O'Malley.]
  10.55 p.m.
  Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I have no intention, of course, of opposing this Motion, but I seek clarification about it. I am particularly curious to know why the Government have chosen on this occasion to appoint this Select Committee instead of other Select Committees at the same time. My particular interest is in relation to the Select Committee on Agriculture, which was appointed in the last Session and has not completed its work.
  When that Committee was appointed it was several weeks after the beginning of the last Session with the result that the effective work of the Committee could not begin until after Christmas, so two or three months of last Session were wasted before the Committee could begin to work. That Committee is charged with an important task, as is the Committee on Science and Technology. If such Committees are to discharge their duties, it is vital that they should have sufficient time to do so.
  These Select Committees are the result of some of the reforms brought in by the former Leader of the House, reforms
  846
  which I support. The Select Committee on Agriculture is in the middle of extremely important work in relation to the rôle of agriculture in the economy and the part which the industry can play in supporting the economy of the nation.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. The hon. Member must know that this is not a matter for debate. He can put a question, but I hope that he will do so briefly.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I had nearly completed what I had to say, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I am interested to know why this one Committee is being appointed while another Committee which is in the middle of its work is not appointed at the same time. The Select Committee on Agriculture held its last meeting in the last week of the last Session. Why is it not being reappointed now?
  10.57 p.m.
  Mr. Brian O'Malley (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury): I understand and appreciate the interest of the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) in the Select Committee on Agriculture. As he said, at the beginning of last Session there was a delay of several weeks before that Committee was set up. I hope that he will be satisfied when I give the assurance that there will certainly be no undue delay of that kind again in setting up that Committee. I am hopeful that it will be set up within the next few days.
  The hon. Member asked why only the Motion for setting up this Committee on Science and Technology appears on the Order Paper, but it is not the only one for there was another Motion at the beginning of business today. I think that he will find that there will be a number of Motions to set up such Committees appearing on the Order Paper. There is no significance in the fact that only two appear today; it is merely a matter of administrative convenience. With the assurance that there will be no delay in setting up the Select Committee on Agriculture, I hope that the hon. Member will allow this Motion to be passed.
  Question put and agreed to.

  THE UNMARRIED MOTHER
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]
  10.59 p.m.
  Miss Joan Lestor: Much of what I have to say in this debate in reference to the unmarried mother includes the unsupported mother as well. I am particularly concerned with the latter category. In view of the increasing number of young women who find themselves in the position of trying to bring up a child of their own, I think that the attention of the Department and the Government should be drawn to the increasing problems facing them.
  From time to time public conscience is stirred when sociologists and social workers draw attention to the situation of the unsupported unmarried mother. Many people pay lip-service to the difficulties and make suggestions about solutions. Then we forget all about it for a time and assume that the problem no longer exists.
  Many of the problems to which I shall refer are not new. It is also true to say that great strides have been taken in changing attitudes compared with what they were in the past when the child was blamed for what many consider to be the crime of the parents. In this respect, I was particularly pleased to see in the Gracious Speech reference to the law of inheritance with respect to illegitimate children and to learn that a proposal will be put before this House to bring the law into line with that applying to legitimate children. Of course, this is a step in the right direction.
  In trying to deal with these problems we are indebted to the National Council for the Unmarried Mother and her Child. We ought to be concerned with the fact that the present financial position of this organisation is critical. If it is to continue the work that it does in helping so many young girls who arrive on its doorstep with their suitcases and carrying a child, it must be given financial support, and this support must be increased if it is to be assured of a future stable existence.
  I have with me some figures of illegitimacy. First, I think that most people
  848
  are aware that in this country last year nearly 70,000 babies were born outside of marriage. That is 8·4 per cent. of all live births, or, in other words, one child in 13 in England and Wales is born of unmarried parents. This figure is high. But, having said that, it is important to point out, as some of us pointed out when the Divorce Bill was under discussion, that many of these illegitimate births are the result of stable unions. They are not all the result of the situation with which I am mainly concerned tonight. The figures, therefore, have to be interpreted with that fact in mind.
  I wish to draw attention to the report that was published on the health of the school child and which laid particular emphasis on the problem—although it has been exaggerated, as the report showed—of the schoolgirl who has a baby. The report goes a long way to destroying the idea that sexual promiscuity is excessive among boys and girls still at school. It also destroys the idea that those with knowledge are the ones who usually get themselves into trouble. In fact, it highlights what we ought to be concerned with, that it is often the young girl from the inadequate home and inadequate background who finds herself pregnant while still at school.
  Nevertheless, the incidence of pregnancy among school girls is high enough for those of us here and others in responsible positions in schools and clinics seriously to consider whether enough is being done in our schools to deal with the difficult problems of sex and of growing up.
  One of the points that I want to emphasise is the main problem affecting all unsupported mothers, namely, accommodation. We need to find out what are the policies of our local authorities in relation to the unsupported mother. How does the points system work in relation to a single mother with one child? Does she lose out because she is a single mother, as against married parents, although their housing needs may be exactly the same? Do some authorities, as I fear they do, still take the view that to house the unmarried mother is to encourage others to follow her example and is, in effect, a condoning of what she has done?
  The real tragedies to which I draw my hon. Friend's attention begin when some

  849
  young girls leave the mother and baby homes and their babies are about six weeks old. They have to find accommodation. Much the same problem may well arise a few months later, when the baby is a little older. Statistics show that the unsupported mother has three times more chance of becoming homeless than has the normal family, and this difficulty affects the unmarried girl even more acutely.
  We must find ways of increasing the provision of short-stay housing and of providing good low-rent accommodation for people in this situation. Let us remind those who regard such provision, as many do, as an expense on the community that the inadequate home and the deprived child from such homes in the end cost the community far more than the offering of cheaper accommodation and better facilities in the first place.
  Anyone who has traced the history of some of the sad cases of children of unsupported mothers knows how the tragic pattern of the inadequate home produces the inadequate child, who, in turn, produces the inadequate home and again the inadequate child. The sad tales goes on endlessly. The case histories of our children's homes, our remand homes and approved schools and our prisons are so often the results of inadequacy in early years.
  The connection between inadequacy and illegitimacy or the circumstances of the unsupported mother was shown by the findings of the Seebohm Committee. If we allow the social conditions in which these children are brought to be worse than the conditions in which those whom we choose to call legitimate are brought up, they will be at far greater risk of coming into care and becoming social misfits.
  The Seebohm Report deals with this aspect of the matter at some length. It points out that the number of illegitimate babies coming into care between 1963 and 1966 was rising by roughly 800 a year. The cause of their coming into care was not illegitimacy; it was their mothers' lack of the means to maintain them in their own homes. It is a terrible reflection on us all if we force a young girl or a woman who has a child to give it up or put it into care simply because
  850
  we do not provide the necessary support in terms of finance and accommodation.
  I hope that we shall have opportunity on another occasion to discuss at greater length the complex problem of fostering. Sometimes, after several years, a child becomes involved in a tug-of-war between the foster parents and its mother. Sometimes, they are children of deserted mothers or were born before their mothers were married, and the mothers are able to establish a home a few years later.
  In many cases, the mother really believes that her child will have to stay in the care of the local authority or of foster parents for only a short period. But time runs on, and then one finds the child being taken from foster parents with whom it has been for as long as eight or ten years and put back with its own parents—or one new parent and its mother—whom it does not really know and from whom it has lost all contact.
  If, because of inadequacies in our social services available to the unsupported mother, we encourage this situation to arise or fail to check it, we bear a heavy responsibility. We must do better. Many of the mothers I have come across who have been faced with a contest over the moral right—to call it that—of the foster mother as against their own legal right originally intended that their children should stay in care for only a short time, but, because of bad housing and the other problems confronting them, they were not able to take them back into their own homes. We need particularly to look at the problems of the unsupported mother and her children in the long school holidays, when she must continue to work but the children need to be looked after.
  Perhaps we could look with interest and support at some of the housing projects that have sprung up during the past few years to help the unmarried mother, very often through voluntary organisations that have put forward imaginative schemes to local authorities and asked for help. Some local authorities have been very forthcoming with assistance to mother-and-baby homes and hostels that provide facilities to help girls keep their babies and go out to work at the same time. But some refuse to help in getting these projects off the ground.

  851
  If the Government could consider offering assistance in this connection we could begin to move along the right road.
  It is very important that, whatever a girl decides to do with her baby, in the end she is not forced to make a decision that she does not want to make, because she cannot keep her child owing to housing or financial difficulties. Many people in that situation will decide that adoption is the best solution. It may well be, but to force such a person to make a decision against her will is something that many of us would feel very guilty about.
  There is also the question of financial arrangements for unsupported mothers, and this does not apply only to the unmarried mothers. No doubt we shall be able to discuss this subject more fully another time. A little while ago the Lord Chancellor dealt in another place with the question of the unmarried mother receiving National Assistance. The figures showed that of those concerned about 17 per cent. had no hope of ever getting a court order; about 35 per cent. had not been able to prove entitlement; and in about 3 per cent. of cases there was no arrangement for payment because no financial payment was available. If we could start to think of other means whereby unmarried and unsupported mothers could get maintenance and support for their children, we should be moving in the right direction.
  I received today a letter from a constituent who had noticed that this was the subject of an Adjournment debate. He told me that his 16-year-old daughter, a schoolgirl, was pregnant, and wrote of the distress, shock and misery this was causing to his family and daughter. He blamed the permissive society, the accent on sex, and all the things we have heard blamed so much. It is not for me or anybody else here to start trying to say who or what is responsible for young girls who find themselves in that situation. But in a sense all of us are responsible for what happens, particularly to young people and the inadequates in our society. If they are inadequate, it is in a sense society that has made them inadequate. We must try to find ways and means of redressing the balance of the inadequacy which has caused many young unmarried mothers to find themselves in that situation.
  11.20 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Julian Snow): I am much obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) for raising this matter. I know of her specialised knowledge of this matter. I will try to deal with all the points that she has raised, but this may not be absolutely possible in the short time that I have at my disposal.
  There are many problems which beset the unmarried mother. She needs an adequate health service; appropriate accommodation, whether a home temporarily or long-term housing within the community; social support, including advice about the unmarried mother's legal rights; support to assist her in resuming her place in the community after her child is born; and adequate means.
  The expectant mother needs social support during the time before and immediately after the baby's birth, when she has to take difficult decisions about her own and the child's future. She may receive the support she needs from any one of a number of agencies, including her general practitioner, the local health authority through its local welfare department, child guidance clinic or maternity services or perhaps from a moral welfare worker. Perhaps on the other hand she will go to the National Council for the Unmarried Mother or another voluntary body. Voluntary organisations do a large part of this work, but I hope that in the time to come we shall see local health authorities doing more.
  All these services have to be seen against the unfortunate background of the ambivalent attitude of society. The unmarried mother continues to occupy a lowly place in the scale of public tolerance, and, although public attitudes are changing, the tempo of reform is very slow.
  Much of the reform that has so far been brought about has been due to the efforts of the voluntary bodies active in the field, and I would at this point like to refer particularly to the work of the National Council for the Unmarried Mother and her Child, to give it its proper and full title. The Council acts as an advisory and co-ordinating body in the

  853
  field of illegitimacy, campaigns for improved social services for unmarried mothers and their children, presses for changes in the law where necessary, and promotes public understanding of the problems of illegitimacy.
  It is particularly timely that I should pay tribute to the National Council at the present time for it is celebrating its golden jubilee this year and will be holding its golden jubilee annual general meeting on the 21st and 22nd of the month. Society is much indebted to it for all that it has done in this sphere of work during the past 50 years. I understand that it is launching an appeal to try to rectify its financial problems, and we shall be watching the results of it very closely.
  I would also like to pay tribute to the voluntary societies, many of them church organisations, active in this field. Although they would share with me the feeling of regret that it should be so, there is no doubt that greater calls than ever before will be made on their services in the future. I am confident that they will respond to these calls.
  I think that I should also mention at this point the finding or recommendation of the Seebohm Committee, in paragraph 211:
  "The risks to which the young illegitimate child is exposed are greater than those faced by legitimate children and they are likely to need more help from the social service department. Likewise unmarried mothers also need special assistance. Where they retain their children and look after them, help is necessary in the form of guidance, accommodation and in ensuring adequate income. We recognise the outstanding pioneering work which has been done by voluntary bodies in this field, particularly religious organisations, and there is no suggestion that they be superseded. But we do recommend that, first, there should be a realistic alternative sources of assistance to those unmarried mothers who do not wish to approach religious bodies and, second, that there should be a clear assignment of responsibility to the social service department for ensuring adequate social care and advice for both the unmarried mother and her child."
  I have read that paragraph because I feel that what the young unmarried mother really wants is not merely to know that there are certain services available but some social worker on whose shoulders she can cry and unburden her soul. I have in mind a typical case of the young girl from the provinces who
  854
  comes to London, occupies a bed-sitter, finds herself pregnant and then is lost because she is out of touch with her family, is not associated with any particular body and has nobody to advise her responsibly.
  The public bodies who play the major part in dealing with the problems of the unmarried mother must necessarily be the local authorities. But, apart from promoting the expansion of local authority services for the unmarried mother and direct forms of assistance such as the payment of supplementary benefit, central Departments also contribute directly in various way—for example, an annual grant, which was more than doubled two years ago, is paid by my Department to the National Council.
  Local authorities make provision for unmarried mothers in a variety of ways. The services provided by local health authorities for all mothers are equally available to the unmarried mother. The problem is, of course, to ensure that their services are adequately used by unmarried mothers, who, with their babies, have been shown to be at special medical risk. The relatively high rates for infant and perinatal mortality in these groups suggest that they tend not to take advantage of the ante-natal services until a very late stage in their pregnancy. The adverse effect of illegitimacy on the outcome of pregnancy is well known.
  Local health authorities also provide accommodation for the unmarried mother, either themselves or by arrangement with voluntary agencies. The day care needs of pre-school children of unsupported mothers, a large proportion of whom are unmarried, are given priority, and they will benefit from the considerable extra amount of day nursery building by local health authorities, assisted by a new Government grant, to which I referred at Question Time yesterday.
  Apart from problems arising over accommodation, we must ensure that the unmarried mother does not, under stress, neglect her health and that of her child, that she is able to find out without too much difficulty what services exist to help, and that skilled help and support is available to her for as long as she needs it while she is deciding upon her child's and her own future.

  855
  Here, I should like to make a brief reference to the conclusions of the Seebohm Report, one of which I have already quoted, on the personal social services. Whatever decision may eventually be taken by the Government on the Report's central recommendation that there shall be a family oriented social service department within the local authority structure, I am confident that one of the categories of persons that will directly gain from any arrangement made will be the unmarried mother and her child.
  I must emphasise that I think this link between a girl in trouble and what the local authorities can do is one of the answers we have to find in the provision, in due course, and as quickly as we can, of more social workers of the right type. In the case of social work services, authorities have tended in the past to discharge their responsibilities by delegating the care of unmarried mothers to voluntary agencies. Particularly is this so for the one-sixth of unmarried mothers in any given year who are accommodated in mother and baby homes. This aspect of the services for unmarried mothers has been the subject of a recent study and fine report by Mrs. Jill Nicholson, a research worker, on behalf of the National Council, which is at present under consideration.
  In the field of housing, the Minister of Housing and Local Government's Central Housing Advisory Committee, in a report sent to all housing authorities in 1955, and again, in a joint circular with the Ministry of Health and Home Office in September, 1967, drew attention to the housing difficulties which confront "unsupported" mothers and suggested that councils should, in the interests of the children, offer such families some of their lower-rented accommodation. There are also 16 housing associations, set-up wholly or partly to assist unmarried mothers and affiliated to the National Federation of Housing Societies.
  On the question of financial assistance to the unmarried mother, it is axiomatic that life will seldom be easy for mothers who have to bring up a young family without a husband's support. But owing to the supplementary benefits scheme, there are today about 180,000 "father-
  856
  less" families, containing 340,000 children, who enjoy a degree of financial security unknown to previous generations, and unmarried mothers account for some 50,000 of these families.
  These benefits must continue to be reviewed from time to time to take account of the rise in the cost of living and the improved circumstances with which we would like to surround the unmarried mother.
  I would be glad to write to my hon. Friend and give her examples of the sort of income of this nature which is at present being provided, but I ask her to believe that this is not the end of the story. I hope that there will be further improvements in due course.
  It is no part of my task today to make suggestions about the prevention of illegitimacy, but there is no doubt that a need exists to give young people advice and instruction about personal relationships, i.e., dealing with the emotions and responsibilities of the whole relationship between the sexes and not with physiology alone. An understanding of this is a basic essential for living happily in a community. We have to face the fact that numbers of our young people engage in pre-marital sexual intercourse and will continue to do so. But I hope that all who may read my speech and that of my hon. Friend will rid their minds of any question of moral rectitude in dealing with this problem.
  There is no doubt that in the future we can look forward to increasing provision by both central and local government for the needs of unmarried mothers. There is need for an increased number of trained social workers, and I would hope that local authorities will play an increasing part in this problem.
  My hon. Friend referred to illegitimacy rates, and also to the question of the very young girl who becomes pregnant. There is a special need for provision for this latter category, and the likelihood is that the children's department will be concerned here and will provide guidance and assistance under the Children and Young Persons Act, 1963. Next year a new establishment will be opened by a local authority which will provide for 20 girls and their babies where a court has made an order, and some voluntary bodies such as the Salvation Army provide homes specially for mothers in this

  857
  age group. It is a facet of society which we must face, but, like my hon. Friend, I think it has been perhaps over-dramatised and over-publicised in recent years.
  Statistically, the illegitimacy rate is going up, but many illegitimate conceptions end in abortion either spontaneous or induced and on this no statistics are available. We do, however, have statistics, derived from birth registrations, on the number of illegitimate births, and these show that there has been a considerable increase in both the number and proportion of illegitimate births in recent years. In the period 1928–1940 the proportion of illegitimate live births to total live births remained fairly constant at between 4·1 and 4·6 per cent. There was an increase starting in 1945,
  858
  followed by a decline in the 1950s. There has, however, been a steady rise in the 1960s from 5·4 per cent. in 1960 about 8 per cent. at the present time.
  The incidence of illegitimacy is by no means uniform over the country. It is bad in London, but there are some provincial towns where it is very bad indeed. This means we have a developing problem on our hands, and I hope that with the help of my hon. Friend and of society at large we shall be able to give increased protection to and provision of care for these girls who are in trouble.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Eleven o'clock.

ELECTRICITY
  Electricity Industry (Reorganisation)
  Electricity Industry (Reorganisation)
  Central Electricity Generating Board (Coal Purchases)
  Central Electricity Generating Board (Coal Purchases)
  South Western Electricity Board Buildings, Weston-super-Mare (Demolition)
  South Western Electricity Board Buildings, Weston-super-Mare (Demolition)
  Resale Price
  Resale Price
COAL
  Recruitment
  Recruitment
  Homefire Smokeless Fuel
  Homefire Smokeless Fuel
  Coal Requirements
  Coal Requirements
GAS
  Scottish Gas Board (Revenue)
  Scottish Gas Board (Revenue)
  Coal Requirements
  Coal Requirements
MINISTRY OF POWER
  E.F.T.A. Countries (Energy Policy)
  E.F.T.A. Countries (Energy Policy)
  Heysham (Proposed Nuclear Station)
  Heysham (Proposed Nuclear Station)
  Electricity and Gas Supply Industries (Consumer Council Report)
  Electricity and Gas Supply Industries (Consumer Council Report)
  Oil Requirements
  Oil Requirements
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Floods
  Floods
  Compulsory Purchase Orders
  Compulsory Purchase Orders
  Town and Country Planning Act, 1968
  Town and Country Planning Act, 1968
  Leasehold Reform Act, 1967
  Leasehold Reform Act, 1967
  Rent Officers (Meeting)
  Rent Officers (Meeting)
  Betterment Levy, West Midland Region
  Betterment Levy, West Midland Region
  Outdoor Advertisments (Appeals)
  Outdoor Advertisments (Appeals)
  Proposed Reservoir, Meldon Valley, Devon
  Proposed Reservoir, Meldon Valley, Devon
  Houghton-Ie-Spring (Land Use)
  Houghton-Ie-Spring (Land Use)
  Washington New Town (Land Use)
  Washington New Town (Land Use)
  Land Commission Regional Office, Reading (Allowances and Overtime)
  Land Commission Regional Office, Reading (Allowances and Overtime)
HOUSING
  Flats (Young Children)
  Flats (Young Children)
  House Purchases (Local Authority Advances)
  House Purchases (Local Authority Advances)
  House Building (Public and Private Sectors)
  House Building (Public and Private Sectors)
  Birmingham Overspill Scheme, Daventry
  Birmingham Overspill Scheme, Daventry
  Subsidies, Lambeth
  Subsidies, Lambeth
  Housing Societies (Finance)
  Housing Societies (Finance)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Hospital Management Committees (Amalgamations)
  Hospital Management Committees (Amalgamations)
  Money Supply (Control)
  Money Supply (Control)
  Purchases From Public Funds (Co-ordination)
  Purchases From Public Funds (Co-ordination)
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Net Incomes
  Net Incomes
  Selective Employment Tax (Inquiry)
  Selective Employment Tax (Inquiry)
  Employment Incomes
  Employment Incomes
  Income Tax Arrears
  Income Tax Arrears
  Special Charge (Revenue)
  Special Charge (Revenue)
  Basle Agreement
  Basle Agreement
  Industrial Capacity
  Industrial Capacity
  Nationalised Industries (Prices)
  Nationalised Industries (Prices)
WALES
  Motorways
  Motorways
  Welsh Office (New Functions)
  Welsh Office (New Functions)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Suez Canal
  Suez Canal
  Soviet Union (Diplomatic Courtesies)
  Soviet Union (Diplomatic Courtesies)
  Israel
  Israel
  Arab Refugees (Jordan)
  Arab Refugees (Jordan)
EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
  Industrial Accidents
  Industrial Accidents
  Construction Industry (Apprentices)
  Construction Industry (Apprentices)
  Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry (Petersfield Area)
  Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry (Petersfield Area)
  Glasgow Airport (Pay Claim)
  Glasgow Airport (Pay Claim)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Flood Warnings
  Flood Warnings
  NATIONAL DIVIDEND
  NATIONAL DIVIDEND
  NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION
  NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
  WELSH OFFICE (NEW FUNCTIONS)
  WELSH OFFICE (NEW FUNCTIONS)
  LAW OF CONTEMPT
  LAW OF CONTEMPT
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Linesman Air Defence System
  Linesman Air Defence System
  MINISTER OF PLANNING AND LAND (QUESTIONS)
  MINISTER OF PLANNING AND LAND (QUESTIONS)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Maintained Primary Schools (Condition)
  Maintained Primary Schools (Condition)
  Rheumatoid-Arthritis (Research)
  Rheumatoid-Arthritis (Research)
  Corporal Punishment
  Corporal Punishment
  Parent-Teacher Co-operation
  Parent-Teacher Co-operation
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Fireworks (Hazards)
  Fireworks (Hazards)
  Science Research Council (Postgraduate Grants)
  Science Research Council (Postgraduate Grants)
  Demonstration, Central London
  Demonstration, Central London
POST OFFICE
  Two-Tier Postal Service
  Two-Tier Postal Service
  Parliamentary Candidates (Free Post)
  Parliamentary Candidates (Free Post)
  Employees (Sales Grades)
  Employees (Sales Grades)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Newcastle-upon-Tyne Telephone Area (Address)
  Newcastle-upon-Tyne Telephone Area (Address)
  Employees (Engineering Grades)
  Employees (Engineering Grades)
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  B.B.C. Television Programmes (Population Coverage)
  B.B.C. Television Programmes (Population Coverage)
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Common Trench Services
  Common Trench Services
  Departmental Premises, Rugby
  Departmental Premises, Rugby
SCOTLAND
  General Medical Services (Principals)
  General Medical Services (Principals)
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
  Public Rights of Way
  Public Rights of Way
  Dental Practitioners (Disposable Syringes and Needles)
  Dental Practitioners (Disposable Syringes and Needles)
  Hunter Report on Salmon Fishing
  Hunter Report on Salmon Fishing
  Crofts (Commission's Proposals)
  Crofts (Commission's Proposals)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Lung Cancer (Deaths)
  Lung Cancer (Deaths)
  Acute Hospitals (Food Costs)
  Acute Hospitals (Food Costs)
TECHNOLOGY
  Materials Testing
  Materials Testing
BOARD OF TRADE
  Unemployment (Hemsworth)
  Unemployment (Hemsworth)
  British United Island Airways
  British United Island Airways
  Advance Factories (Scotland)
  Advance Factories (Scotland)
  Hire-Purchase and Rental (Regulations)
  Hire-Purchase and Rental (Regulations)
  Recommended Prices (Report)
  Recommended Prices (Report)
RAILWAYS
  Carlisle—Glasgow Line (Electrification)
  Carlisle—Glasgow Line (Electrification)
ROADS
  Motorways
  Motorways

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St. Albans
The Lord Kershaw—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

NIGERIA
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether a statement could be made on the present position of the civil war in Nigeria and of progress made in alleviating the suffering of Ibo and other peoples through lack of food and medical supplies.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, I have been asked to make a statement, and I apologise for the fact that it may be a little longer than usual.
After hearing in September that some leading Ibos wanted to enter into early negotiations with the Federal Government on the basis of the continued unity of Nigeria, I visited Lagos to discuss the position with the Federal Government. To our very great regret, Colonel Ojukwu announced on September 26 his decision to fight on. The Federal Government assured me that they were still prepared for peace talks on the basis of one Nigeria in which the Ibos would have full rights.
This attitude accords with the terms of the resolution adopted by an overwhelming majority of African leaders at the O.A.U. Heads of State meeting in Algiers in September. The O.A.U. Heads of State Committee are, in accordance with the resolution, continuing their efforts for peace. The team of international observers have seen no evidence to support Colonel Ojukwu's claim that
116
the Federal Government intend or are practising genocide against the Ibo people.
The effectiveness of the relief operation in Federal territory has considerably improved, which is much to the credit of the Federal Government and the International Red Cross. But in the areas still under Colonel Ojukwu's control his decision to fight on can only have increased the difficulties of relieving the suffering of Ibo civilians. The International Red Cross have succeeded in flying in relief supplies to these areas at an increased rate, but the problem of relief flights is greatly complicated by the use of the same air route for arms supplies to the rebel régime.
The House will be pleased to know that we have just agreed to a proposal by the International Committee of the Red Cross that the balance of the sum of a quarter of a million pounds allocated for Nigerian relief should be spent on the purchase of about thirty additional British vehicles for use in distributing relief supplies.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that very informative reply, might I ask whether there is any indication at present, particularly in view of the report by the observers, that those in the Ibo area who support the Biafran Republic (as it is called) are now satisfied that there is no intention on the part of the Federal Government to commit genocide? Further, in regard to the distribution of foodstuffs, may we take it that, outside the area held by Colonel Ojukwu, supplies are getting through to relieve the suffering and hunger of the people?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I wish we could get to the Ibo people the reports that have been made available by the observers, and particularly the recent report of Mr. Gussing, the representative of U Thant. I will see whether further steps can be taken in this matter. In reply to the second part of the question, in the Nigeria area, although I think there is a weakness in the field of medical supplies, they are getting through.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while appreciating my noble friend's reply, may I ask him to confirm from his knowledge of the background that the relief authorities agree that if this war continues until

117
the end of this year 2 million people may die? In those circumstances, is it not desirable that Her Majesty's Government, despite the difficulties, should seek a truce and an end of the fighting? Should not that truce be found by some restriction of the rigid terms—absolute union, absolute secession—on both sides? Cannot Her Majesty's Government seek a solution on the grounds of association with common services?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, as I am sure my noble friend will agree, Her Majesty's Government have done all they can to bring this tragic war to an end. I feel that at the present moment the responsibility lies with the O.A.U. Heads of State Committee, who have been very active and probably, in practice, have a greater chance than any of bringing this war to an end. We have had many opportunities to negotiate, and it is a matter of regret that one side still refuses to come to the conference table—for that is the thing that matters.
LORD WADE: My Lords, following the last reply of the noble Lord, can he say what steps will be taken to try to reduce or stop the escalation of the supplies of arms to both sides?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I think there is a Question on this subject later in the week. I should prefer to answer that supplementary question then.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, am I to understand my noble friend to state that the Government are anxious now to bring this war to an end? Does that mean that the supply of arms has ceased?—for that would be consistent with the wish to bring it to an end.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am glad that I have been able to impress on my noble friend that Her Majesty's Government have always sought, first of all, to prevent the war starting, and afterwards to bring to an end. Our supply of arms to the Federal Government has been made because Nigeria is a member of the Commonwealth. That is the stand that we must still take.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, might I further ask whether, in the reply that is likely to be given to another Question later this week, the noble Lord will give
118
information as to the volume and extent of the arms supplied by France and other countries to Colonel Ojukwu?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have not yet seen the Answer.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, does my noble friend not appreciate that the situation in Nigeria is one that concerns not only the relations of Biafra with the rest of Nigeria, but also the relationship of all tribes? In that situation, is it not desirable not only to bring about some union between Biafra and Nigeria, but also that there should be a constitutional conference which should enable some solution of these difficulties to be reached?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the Federal Government have stated from time to time that, if the Biafran authorities would agree to a united Nigeria they would then consider in the most friendly way what should be the political structure of Nigeria.

EPPING FOREST CATTLE GRAZING
2.43 p.m.
LORD SORENSEN: 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 further information or representations have been received by the Ministry of Transport and any other appropriate Ministry in respect of casualties and nuisances caused by cattle grazing and wandering through urban areas adjoining Epping Forest; approximately how many cattle under ancient rights are permitted to graze on forest land; and what action they have taken or consider taking to deal with this anomaly.]
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, since my noble friend raised this problem in June the Ministries of Transport and of Housing and Local Government have received a few further representations. One, from a local Member of Parliament, included 50 signatures on a petition about damage to property and gardens. At the midsummer peak a total of about 450 cattle are grazed. Of 260

119
commoners entitled to graze their cattle only about 12 do so. These ancient rights are preserved by the Epping Forest Act 1878, under which the Corporation of the City of London are obliged to keep the forest unenclosed. Any amendment of the Corporation's duties or restriction of the rights of the commoners would require further local legislation. This is a matter for the local authorities concerned.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, I would ask my noble friend whether he is aware that apparently most of the cattle wandering through Epping Forest seem to assemble regularly every day near my own house. And is my noble friend aware that the Corporation of the City of London, who are responsible for Epping Forest and who carry out their duties in a most admirable way, endeavoured to promote a Bill in the other place some few years ago, but unfortunately it was defeated on a Friday morning? Does my noble friend know whether the Corporation are likely to promote another Bill of a similar character? Further, may I ask him whether one of the difficulties regarding the limitation of this nuisance may not be compensation which would have to be paid to the owners of the cattle? If so, has he any information about that?
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, I am aware that from time to time my noble friend has experienced difficulty caused by these wandering cattle. When we shared the same room he told me about having to go out in his pyjamas at 3.30 in the morning to "shush" cattle out of his garden. I would say this to my noble friend: all his neighbours do not share his views about cattle. Among representations made to one of the Ministries is a nice poem of some 38 lines. I wish I could read it all to your Lordships—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No!
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: Perhaps I could read two or three lines. The lady who wrote it says that she has had cows in the back of her garden, but that many other things also come to her garden, including birds, wind and rain, which damage her crops irreparably. She says that people can take all the other
120
things away, but for goodness sake leave the cows alone! I hope my noble friend will remember that there are two views about this matter. So far as compensation is concerned, my noble friend should also remember that where cattle are involved there are two sides. The owners could perhaps in some cases be sued for compensation—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: On the other hand, there may be cases where the cattle are in the right, and it may be argued that there should be compensation for the owners.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, that lady is not one of my neighbours.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend—and I speak as another who lives in Epping Forest and whose garden is regularly invaded by cows—whether it would not be sensible that these mediæval rights which commoners used to enjoy should now be abolished? Is he aware that almost every day the traffic on the main motor roads into London is held up because herds of unattended cattle stroll across the highways? Does he not think that the law ought to be brought up to date? Does he not think that the owners of the cattle might possibly have to be compensated and that this is an evil—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Speech!
LORD LEATHERLAND: Is my noble friend not aware—
EARL ST. ALDWYN: It is still a speech.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, perhaps my noble friend would give way. I must say that the supplementary questions are longer than I have ever known. In fairness, I must also admit that so are some of the replies. If noble Lords, and my noble friends who sit on the Front Bench with me, will restrain themselves, we can proceed rather faster.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Next Question.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, I would draw the attention of my noble friend Lord Leatherland to what my noble friend Lord Shackleton has just said.

THORNEY ISLAND AIRFIELD
2.48 p.m.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, since the military airport at Thorney Island has one runway surplus to requirements and now out of use, they would give an early decision on its partial and regular use as a civil airport and thus liberate the land which is used as an unsatisfactory airport in the City of Portsmouth and which is urgently needed for development.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE, R.A.F. (LORD WINTERBOTTOM): My Lords, on present plans the R.A.F. will need Thorney Island airfield in the long term. It is already available to civil users during normal hours of opening by prior permission of the Commanding Officer. Any proposal to introduce regular civil traffic would have to be looked at carefully in the light of future R.A.F. needs and of any plans that may be put forward for the development of civil aerodrome facilities in the area.

EUROPEAN AIR-BUS PROJECT
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether a further statement can now be made on the European Air-Bus project.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, at the Paris meeting on August 2 Ministers expressed the conviction that the overall concept of the aircraft was right, but agreed that a decision on full development should not be taken until the companies concerned had carried out their work further, particularly in the commercial and financial spheres. Revised
122
proposals are due to be submitted to the three Governments by November 10. The latest specification has already been delivered to the national airlines.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. If one assumes that a final decision is reached at the end of this month, or towards the end of the year, what, in the opinion of the Government, is the likely date when the A.300 project would go into service with B.E.A.? Can the noble Lord also confirm that the national airlines of all the three countries involved in the project have given firm assurances that they together will purchase the minimum aircraft requirement?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the airline service date is still hoped to the summer of 1973. So far as the requirement of the three airlines is concerned, 75 between the three companies, Lufthansa. Air France and B.E.A., is still the target. The final decisions on this, of course, must rest on the final figures as to cost.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, could the noble Lord say whether the research and development costs of the project have increased since last July?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, early in July, when the noble Earl raised this matter on an Unstarred Question, I said that the construction companies had been asked to go away and see whether they could come back with lower figures. They have now produced some figures this week, which are being studied. It is hoped, of course, that they will be lower, not higher.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, in the event of the A.300 project going forward, could the noble Lord give an indication whether the proposed BAC 3-11 project would be supported by the Government?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, a decision on the one would not rule out the other. As I think the noble Earl will know, representatives of the British Aircraft Corporation set out last week on a world sales tour, and I am sure we all wish them well.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
2.52 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That leave be given to the Lord Fraser of Lonsdale to advance his Unstarred Question from Thursday the 14th of November to Thursday the 7th of November.—(Lord Shackleton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DEPUTY CHAIRMEN OF COMMITTEES
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Merthyr, the Lord Ailwyn, the Lord Airedale, the Lord Douglas of Barloch, the Lord Strang, the Lord Grenfell, the Baroness Wootton of Abinger, the Lord Jessel, the Lord Champion. the Lord St. Helens, the Viscount Dilhorne and the Lord Rovle be appointed the panel of Lords to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees for this Session.—(Lord Shackleton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SPECIAL ORDERS COMMITTEE
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider all Special Orders of the present Session; and that the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

D. Atholl,

M. Willingdon,

L. Airedale,

L. Archibald,

L. Auckland,

L. Cawley,

L. Coutanche,

L. Crawshaw,

L. Denham,

L. Faringdon,

L. Jessel,

L. MacAndrew,

L. Meston,

L. Morton of Henryton,

L. Peddie,

Bs. Plummer,

L. Royle,

124

L. Silsoe,

L. Strang,

L. Terrington:

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION
The EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Committee be appointed to select and propose to the House the names of the five Lords to form a Select Committee for the consideration of each opposed Private Bill; and that the Lords following, with the Lord Chancellor and the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

M. Salisbury,

M. Willingdon,

E. St. Aldwyn,

E. Swinton,

L. Amulree,

L. Beswick,

L. Chorley,

L. Ogmore,

L. Silkin,

L. Strang:

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed for the general supervision of arrangements relating to leave of absence, and that the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

E. St. Aldwyn,

L. Amulree,

L. Beswick:

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time.—(Lord Shackleton.)
On Ouestion, Motion agreed to.

ADDRESS IN REPLY TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH
2.53 p.m.
Debate resumed on the Motion moved on Wednesday last by Lord Delacourt-Smith—namely, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
"Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, this is the day that we set aside for a debate on Foreign Affairs, and as is customary the gracious Speech started with reference to Foreign Affairs. I do not think that there will be many of your Lordships who will take exception to anything that was said in that part of the gracious Speech, though perhaps some of it is not entirely clear. I do not think that many of your Lordships will wish to quarrel with the Government's decision to maintain their application for membership of the European Community and will welcome the intention to promote this. Though I do not suppose there are any of us who feel that there is much likelihood of a change of attitude on the part of the French, nevertheless I am sure it is right that we should make plain that we still wish to belong to the Community and that we are not deterred by the veto of one man or of one nation. I think that we should be equally cheered by the support for our entry which we get from the other members of E.E.C., and it is encouraging to feel that the Commission has decided to send a representative—an Ambassador, if you like—who arrived above six weeks ago in London to represent their views and to hear ours.
The main and most important event in foreign affairs in the last 12 months has undoubtedly been the Czechoslovakian crisis and the military occupation of that country by the Russians. I think that it would be right to pause for a moment or two to consider the consequences of that event. If I had been a Russian and had been faced with the
126
situation in Czechoslovakia in August, I should undoubtedly have been seriously worried. For, speaking very generally, what happened was that with the rise in the standard of living, the spread of education and the inevitable questioning which those two things bring with them, there was a great danger from the Russian point of view not only that their political and military and economic grip on Czechoslovakia would be greatly weakened but also that the Czechoslovaks would increase their ties of trade and increase the exchange of information with the West.
If they did nothing, if they allowed events to take their course, that would undoubtedly prove to the more liberal elements in the Iron Curtain countries and in Russia itself that Communism was failing, and it would prove to the Chinese (who had all along said that this was going to be the result of Russian policy) that they were right, and that the only way of spreading Communism was by perpetual militant revolution. But if, on the other hand, the Russians took action, they would run into the danger—which indeed they did run into—of alienating world opinion, of antagonising other Communist parties and of losing the image, which they have so laboriously been creating for themselves, that they are the friends of the "underdog", the underprivileged, and opposed to any kind of military aggression.
It is, in my view, the measure of the failure of Communism as a philosophy and as a system of Government that this crisis arose—and it was inevitable that it should arise. I do not believe that once a country becomes more prosperous, when more consumer goods are in the shops, when life becomes more than just a scramble for existence, a system of Government can be operated in which people have no choice and no opportunity to make their voices heard.
This will not be the last occasion on which the Russians, and indeed later on the Chinese, will find themselves in this difficulty. The standard of living of a country cannot for ever be held back. If it is, and it is compared with the standard of living in capitalist countries, it is a proof of the failure of the Communist system; but if it is not, and the standard of living improves, human beings will revolt against the system.

127
They will demand participation and break away from the rigid disciplines of the mind which Communism imposes.
I think that the Russians were faced with a great dilemma. To do nothing might endanger their own position and certainly make worse their relations with China. To intervene was possibly to lose the support of the uncommitted, to alienate their friends and to make more difficult their task of convincing world opinion that Communism was no longer aggressive. All of us know how in the end the Russians chose to suppress the Czechoslovaks, and in the process I suspect got the worst of both worlds: for by their dilatoriness they allowed pressures to grow up which might not have been there if they had acted quickly, and later they found themselves—and this must have been a great shock—unable to find a Czechoslovak puppet who was prepared to say that he had asked the Russians to intervene.
It so happened that at that time—and this was one of the reasons why I was not back in your Lordships' House—I was in a ship calling at several ports in Bulgaria and the Soviet Union. It was noticeable that when one inquired into the justification of the Russians' action in Czechoslovakia, the answer always was—the Party line always was—"We have been asked by our Socialist comrades to come to the rescue from an imperialist plot". But, in fact, no request was made and no Czechoslovak Quisling was found. This made the Russian task at the United Nations impossible, for they could not claim that they were intervening by request. I think they got the worst of both worlds. Certainly there were demonstrations everywhere against the Russian action. Even those who most usually demonstrate against the United States, for a brief moment demonstrated against the Soviet Union; though I may say, in parentheses, that I have always felt it rather significant, though perhaps not odd, that Soviet actions of that kind seem to wear off rather more quickly among Left-Wing idealists and protesters. One did not see very many banners protesting about the rape of Czechoslovakia in the procession in London ten days ago.
What lessons can we learn from this sad chapter? First, I think that, although
128
there may be talk of a détente, when it comes to the crunch the Russians are as prepared as ever they were to use military force to protect their own interests. It would be very unwise of us to think otherwise. The Russians moved with great military efficiency. Half a million men or more were moved with a minimum amount of trouble into Czechoslovakia, admittedly against no opposition, but still it was an impressive military planning feat. Are we satisfied that in the West NATO is in a fit condition to counter the military efficiency of Russia? My Lords, I do not know, but I am inclined to doubt it, for the support for NATO has been getting pretty lukewarm over these past few years.
We have heard some reactions in this House. "What is it all for?", some noble Lords have said. "Europe is the one place in which there is not going to be a war." That kind of argument has been introduced on a number of occasions in Defence debates. Europe is the one place where there is not going to be a war only if we keep NATO strong; for whatever others may say, I am more than ever convincd that the presence in Western Europe of such an alliance acts as a powerful deterrent to the Russians. No Russian can ignore the military potential of NATO, or the enormous military backing it has from the United States. The dangers to the West are not when the Russians are being aggressive; the dangers are when they are being conciliatory. If we take resolute action to maintain NATO we shall sleep safer in our beds and it is ironic that it might be as a result of what the Russians have recently done. Good things sometimes come out of bad.
Another result of last August's events must be to make us wonder very seriously whether co-existence is any longer possible. If a movement such as that in Czechoslovakia, comparatively mild and wholly peaceful, can cause reactions of so severe a kind by the Russians, how can co-existence in Europe and in the rest of the world survive? I do not think for myself that we need to be quite so downhearted about that, for it still seems fairly certain that the Russians themselves realise only too clearly the consequences of a global nuclear war, and that though they may not have abandoned the ideas in the long run of de-

129
stroying capitalism, they have come to the conclusion that while the West is strong, and in particular while America has a military preponderance, their aim could not be achieved by war. So it may be that, though there has been a setback as a result of Czechoslovakia, the Russians will still want co-existence, and that this, from our part, will be possible only if our American allies, and we with them, maintain our nuclear and military superiority—and, may I say, an American President who is thought and seen to be resolute and determined.
There may be some who think that everything I have said so far is a good deal of old-fashioned nonsense. I do not believe it is so. Nor do I believe that in these matters affecting the super-Powers the United Nations can be at present of anything but nominal use. I am not one of those who are uncritical in admiration for that institution; nor do I think it wholly or very bad. I think it does extremely useful work in its Agencies and in some of the political issues in which it has been concerned. But we really must be very careful not to expect the United Nations to solve problems between great Powers in which their vital interests are involved. It simply is not going to happen. Nor, I think, should we remain silent when its members act and carry the day in passing resolutions of unparalleled stupidity, the latest example being the resolution on sanctions against South Africa and Portugal. Nor should we ignore or sustain the bias and naïvete and double standards of the Committee of Twenty-Four.
It has never been my belief that one makes an organisation stronger by pretending not to notice its faults, or by shutting one's eyes to its shortcomings and congratulating oneself on how useful it is and how lucky one is to belong to it. By all means let us acknowledge the good work that the United Nations does. But it has its faults, and all the decorations along Whitehall and in Parliament Square, and all the parties which may be thrown on United Nations Day, should not blind us to them. What makes an organisation strong is the determination of its members to make it work, but also, at the same time, the realisation and the recognition of its weaknesses and its limitations, and the will to see that those weaknesses are removed.
130
A great many countries owe their economic existence, their life, to the aid which they obtain from those countries against whom they regularly pass votes of censure and resolutions. Some countries are so small that they are less in size than a medium city in this country. And yet countries in both those categories have a vote of equal importance to that of those great Powers which have responsibilities, populations and resources of a quite different order. is it not asking a great deal of the big Powers to submit themselves to a jury which may know only half the facts and which has no personal responsibility for the outcome?
My Lords, I want to see the United Nations work, and I should like to see some more work (because I know they have done some) done by the Government and the Foreign Office in making a real study as to how procedures at the United Nations could be improved in order to overcome its weaknesses. In point of fact, I think I am right in saying that the Government proposed some improvement in the procedure in the Security Council, and this was vetoed by the Soviet Union. I hope that they will persist and have another try, and I hope also that they will tackle the relationship, which I think is becoming more and more confused, between the General Assembly and the Security Council.
In saying what I have said, I hope no noble Lord opposite will make me out as being anti the United Nations. I am not. I am concerned only that we should be realistic in our expectations of what is likely to happen when the super Powers are involved, and that the Government should give serious thought to suggesting improvements which will make that organisation more effective and, at the same time, more aware of and responsive to the facts of world life.
While Her Majesty's Government here at home have been busy disarming us and removing the British presence both in the Far East and in the Gulf, the Soviet Union has been doing precisely the opposite. It now has a large fleet in the Mediterranean, and all around the world there are reports of Russian trawlers and a Russian presence. They certainly do not seem to take the view that Her Majesty's Government do about

131
military presence around the world. Perhaps they are old-fashioned, or conceivably it is noble Lords opposite who are old-fashioned, but it does not lead me to feel very happy about what is likely to happen in the Far East.
The most immediate and important issue there, of course, is Vietnam, and we must wait and see what the consequences of President Johnson's halt to the bombing will be. We must all hope that it will bring an end to the war, but not, I hope, in a way that is likely to be damaging to American prestige in Asia and in the rest of the world. Those who march, and protest, and advocate peace in Vietnam at any price seem to be totally unaware of the consequences which might follow from a precipitate American withdrawal. Her allies in South-East Asia would lose confidence and faith in her determination to preserve the stability of their area, and the effect on the American people themselves might be disastrous from the point of view of the West.
Whatever the outcome of the Vietnam war, and whenever it finishes, it would be unrealistic not to acknowledge the fact that any future American intervention on land in that area is going to be very reluctant indeed. After all, one cannot expect a great country to experience willingly the trauma of another Vietnam; and if, as a result of the end of the Vietnam war, there is a revival of the "Fortress America" mentality, and a tendency to pull back, the consequences not only to South-East Asia but to the West as a whole may be momentous.
We must all begin to wonder what is likely to happen in that area when the Vietnam war ends and if a British presence is removed. A great deal will depend upon the Americans and their attitude: whether they will retain troops in Vietnam for a time, or whether they will be withdrawn at an early stage, and so on. But surely it will not be claimed that South-East Asia as a whole will feel more secure with the disappearance of American and British troops. The decisions which are facing our friends in that part of the world are exceedingly difficult. There is already a tendency in Australia to talk about "Fortress Australia", and some point out that with the withdrawal of Britain from the area
132
it does not make sense any longer for the Australians to stay in Malaysia and Singapore, and that it would be much better to withdraw to her national boundaries. If Australia does so, certainly New Zealand will. If this happens—and I do not know what the probabilities are—the position in Malaysia and Singapore creates enormous problems for those two countries.
I do not intend to argue this afternoon about British commercial interests in staying in the Gulf and in the Far East area. This was very forcibly put by Sir Alec Douglas-Home in a speech he made in another place last week, and it will be gone into, I believe, by my noble friend Lord Lansdowne later to-day. Leaving that aside, I believe there is a British interest in seeing that South-East Asia does not become the cockpit of international politics; and I very much hope that if we are returned to office in 1970–71 we shall be able to combine with our four friends in the area to create some kind of a force which will make the position more secure for everyone.
There are some who say that the danger from China, if ever it was there, is now over, partly because of rising nationalism in South-East Asia and partly because of the Vietnam war. They say that if there is to be Communist expansion, it will come on the Chinese Western border rather than in South-East Asia. I do not know—and inevitably it must be speculation, for nobody knows what goes on in the minds of the men who rule the 700 million Chinese. But being uncertain I should take great care to build up such bulwarks as I could against any military expansion in that area.
In the gracious Speech the Government say not only that they will press forward with their withdrawal from the Far East but that they will, in consultation with the Governments concerned, maintain their efforts to promote conditions favourable to peace and security in the areas concerned. What does that mean? What are those measures, and what do the Government intend to do? I am one of those—and I think I share this view with others of your Lordships who sit on this side of the House—who feel that Britain has a role to play: not a role motivated by nostalgia for the past or for the British Empire, but a role to help our friends to maintain their independence. I only

133
wish that some of our friends in Europe did more in that regard, and not that we did less. Over the years we have built up an experience and expertise in these affairs which can be of use and can be put to the service of the Western World.
But we cannot be of use unless two things happen. Our first priority is, of course, to put right our economic situation. The damage to British prestige and influence which these last four years have done is incalculable, and no one will take seriously British advice and no one will admit our influence on events until we can show the world once again that we are solvent and economically strong. Tomorrow my noble friend Lord Jellicoe will no doubt make reference to that, and I make no comment except to say that obviously it is the hope of all of us that there will be an economic miracle. But miracles are sent from Heaven, and are not all that common. I wish I had more faith in the everyday competence and policies of Her Majesty's Government.
The second vital thing, if we are to maintain our influence and if we are not to become "little Englanders", is to show that we are prepared to share the burden of the defence of the Free World with our friends and our allies, and maybe make some sacrifices in order to do it. If the Government do both those things they will find that we on these Benches will wholeheartedly, gladly and staunchly support them.
3.17 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has delivered a characteristically clear and moderate speech. In the course of my remarks I shall try to isolate one or two of the more obvious points of difference, but I think most of your Lordships will agree with most of the things he said. I am grateful for the fact that in his criticisms of, for instance, the United Nations, he did not fall into an error of which we are so well aware, coming, as it does from certain noble Lords on his side of the House, of either extravagant criticism or even outright condemnation of an institution which still offers great hopes for the world. I shall follow the noble Lord in one respect; I will not attempt a full tour d'horizon but will try to deal with certain of the more important matters; and
134
indeed they are all ones on which the noble Lord has touched.
At the same time I should like to draw attention to the fact that this is the first debate in your Lordships' House on foreign affairs since the Commonwealth Office and the Foreign Office were merged. Inevitably there are regrets. I have heard these regrets expressed by people, particularly in the Commonwealth Office, and there is always regret at the disappearance of an institution with a long history and powerful traditions and one that has served this country and, I believe, the whole world, and has set standards in civilised relations with our former dependent countries of which we can be proud. I am sure all your Lordships—or practically all your Lordships—accept this merger as inevitable. Our relations with the Commonwealth remain particularly close, but of course few of our major problems concern only Commonwealth countries; there is a great overlap. We can be grateful for one thing. We are helped in this matter by having two noble Lords, Lord Shepherd and Lord Chalfont, both as Ministers of State in the new combined Department. My only regret is that they are apt to be away so much, either, in the case of my noble friend Lord Shepherd, in one of the hotter spots of the world, or, in the present case of my noble friend Lord Chalfont, enjoying a delectable visit to Chile and the other South American countries.
We have a number of our most experienced speakers taking part in this debate. Those of us who were at the Memorial Service for our friend Lord Rowley—and I see many noble Lords on both sides of the House who were there—will regret that he is not able to be here with us and to take part in this debate. If I may make one personal reference, I should like to offer a word of congratulation to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, on his 80th birthday, which I believe was celebrated in style only a few days ago.
I should like to start by dealing with the two areas of open conflict. I will then say a few words on Rhodesia, go on to the United Nations, the Middle East, East of Suez, the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington on NATO, and end with the Common Market, not because it is not a major part of the

135
Government's policy, but because it fits my speech. It is quite likely that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, may also have something to say on the Common Market and it may therefore be an opener for him.
Noble Lords will know that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has welcomed, as do the Government and, indeed, as does the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, without reservation the halting of the American bombing of North Vietnam. It is a step forward that we believe and hope can lead towards a peaceful settlement of the war. I should like to stress—because we all know the very strong feelings this has aroused—that this is the second major decision taken by President Johnson in his search for peace, and that it was in itself a courageous decision to have taken. The first was the decision to stop the bombing over 80 per cent. of the territory of North Vietnam on March 31, and this led to the opening of the Paris talks. Now comes a further decision to end the bombing of the North altogether, and we all hope that this will equally lead to far-reaching moves by both sides to de-escalate the war and to start serious and honest negotiations.
Of course, no one would underestimate the fact that the most serious obstacles lie ahead. There is a great deal of hard negotiating to be done; and of course we have all been disturbed by the immediate difficulty that the South Vietnamese Government have felt that the right conditions do not yet exist for productive talks. We do not believe that this is necessarily going to be a fatal obstacle; indeed we pray that it will not be. But, of course, the South Vietnamese maintain that the North Vietnamese have not shown themselves serious in the search to end the war. The important thing for all of us who have been concerned with negotiations in any area is always to get the people to the negotiating table, and we hope that the South Vietnamese Government will feel able to come to Paris and nut to the test the good faith of the other side.
It is this question of faith that is on test, now that the bombing has been halted and the way is open to ending all the killing and destruction in the South, as well as in North Vietnam. As Mr. Rusk, and indeed my right honourable
136
friend the Foreign Secretary, have said, it is for those who have demanded for so long that the bombing should be halted to exert a similar pressure to achieve a constructive response from Hanoi. I think that this is a fair point, and I am sure that noble Lords, whatever their views on the subject, will agree that this is right. I shall not spend any more time discussing Vietnam. We can only hope that this ghastly war, with its divisive repercussions all over the world, will be brought to an end, and certainly this country stands ready to help in any way we can, and in any capacity, to bring this about.
My Lords, let me turn briefly to Nigeria. We have had some fairly lengthy questions and answers to-day on the subject of events in Nigeria, and I should not refer to this were it not for the fact that I am conscious that my noble friend Lord Shepherd has not only borne a great deal of the brunt in this field of operations in trying to bring the war to an end but also had to bear the brunt of criticism which I can only describe as having been at times rather unfair. Our policy has throughout been based on the principle that we believe that the armed breakaway movement is wrong and that it is fraught with dangers for the whole of Africa. Our desire is to see the newly independent African States moving forward to prosperity in this world; and they cannot do so if they are torn by tribal rivalries. This is something on which I am sure most noble Lords who know the situation in Africa will agree.
That African leaders appreciate this was reflected in the resolution which was passed at the recent O.A.U. Algiers Conference when a solution was put forward in the context of a united Nigeria. And General Gowon has made it clear that he is ready to make peace on reasonable terms on the basis of one Nigeria. But Colonel Ojukwu is at present not prepared to explore these terms, and he is being encouraged in this attitude by an increase in his arms supplies, which is very much to he regretted. We believe that supplying arms to a lawful Government, as we are doing, is one thing, but to supply them in these circumstances to an illegal Government is quite another. I am well aware of the strong feelings this arouses among noble Lords of more than

137
one Party, but I repeat that our object must be peace in Nigeria. It is not a role that commends itself, either to Her Majesty's Government or to my noble friend Lord Shepherd and myself, just to wash our hands in public in regard to Nigeria. Those who are promoting the supply of arms to Biafra carry a heavy responsibility in making a negotiated outcome of the conflict more difficult.
I shall not say much on the subject of genocide, because I think it is at last becoming apparent to the world, and certainly to the majority of Ibos in those areas which have now been taken over by the Federal Government, that there is no such intention or, indeed, sign. The reports of the observers—and I would stress the quite unique circumstances in which a Government has allowed international observers into the observation and right up into the battle areas of a civil war—confirm this. Mr. Nils Gussing, U Thant's personal representative in Nigeria, has just reported that there were no confirmed reports of wanton destruction of civilian life, maltreatment or cruelty to civilians; and only yesterday the observers announced the result of their investigation of a story about several hundred villagers having been massacred on the southern front. They found no evidence of any such massacre by Federal troops, nor evidence of any hostility to Federal troops on the part of the local population. We can only again use our best efforts to help to bring this terrible struggle to an end.
I agree particularly with noble Lords, who, by their Questions, have again stressed the need for every effort to be made to relieve the human suffering. I think noble Lords should recognise, as I believe they do, that Her Majesty's Government have made a great effort, as indeed have the British people by their own voluntary efforts, to minimise the extent of these tragedies.
My Lords, let me now turn, briefly, to Rhodesia. Noble Lords are well aware that my right honourable friend the Minister Without Portfolio is now in Rhodesia, and that consideration of the British proposals on board H.M.S. "Fearless" is continuing. I am grateful to noble Lords, and particularly to the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, for the restraint they have shown in not pressing for a debate at this stage. I am well
138
aware that, from all points of view, many noble Lords are anxious to debate this subject, and I would say that the Government would be only too prepared to facilitate such a debate. But we are agreed that this is not the right time. None the less, I am bound to take up the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, about the resolutions put forward at the United Nations. I must state plainly that neither resolution is in the least helpful to the search for an honourable settlement. The first resolution, by dictating absolute conditions in advance, sought to derogate from the authority of the British Government and Parliament. We and 16 others in the Assembly abstained.
The second resolution, instead of lending support to the policy of intensified sanctions against Rhodesia adopted by the Security Council this summer, urged the use of force and called for the extension of sanctions to South Africa and Portugal. We all understand the feelings in this matter; and we, perhaps in different ways, should like to see a solution to these problems. But Her Majesty's Government have made their position absolutely clear, and I would reiterate our opposition either to the use of force or to an extension of sanctions to South Africa. The resolution, which was couched in what I can only describe as characteristically immoderate language, was described by our representative, Mr. Evan Luard, as "ill-conceived, unrealistic and extreme". Eight others joined us in the Fourth (Trusteeship) Committee in voting against it, and 15 other countries abstained.
It is right to point to these criticisms, and it is right, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said, that we recognise that, like all human institutions, the United Nations has its imperfections. But I suggest to the House (here I do not accuse the noble Lord, the Leader of the Opposition) that it is a dangerous fallacy to speak as though the United Nations were something apart from its members or to denigrate the Organisation in general terms without regard to how it can be strengthened. For our part, the Government take the view that it is important to Britain to help in every way open to us to build up the capacity of the United Nations to prevent armed conflict. In a world in which no country, and, I

139
would emphasise, particularly ourselves, can alone play the part of peace-keeper, we, like everyone else, need to develop international machinery which will serve this purpose.
The peace-keeping record of the United Nations is a little mixed. They have had successes, some of them important. People are apt to forget these. There have been failures. As a Permanent Member of the Security Council we have special responsibility to use our influence to persuade all members to live by the Charter, so that there are no more failures. I would suggest that there is nothing wrong with the United Nations Charter, but only with the way it is ignored or abused. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was anxious to look constructively at the United Nations. I must point out to him that he referred only to the equality of votes in the Assembly, and ignored (though I am sure he did not do so deliberately) the existence of the Security Council, which also comes under criticism because of the use of the veto by certain Great Powers.
We know that this is not an easy problem, but I am sure we must go on having faith, making the best contribution we can, remembering all the time that the United Nations has been doing a tremendous job in making life more worth living in certain areas of the world. The figure so often quoted is that 85 per cent. of the resources of the United Nations go to economic and social work. That gets little notice, but meets real, human needs. We have to bear that in mind, too. My right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary recently urged on the General Assembly as one of the conditions for its success that it should exercise foresight; that it should be ready to take up new issues as they arise and to find solutions to them. I would say to the House that we, too, should exercise foresight and see how important it is that we continue to support the United Nations and seek to make it a fully effective body based squarely on its Charter.
One of the areas of particular concern to the United Nations is, of course, the Middle East. At the recent meeting of the United Nations there was an opportunity for discussion on this subject when the Foreign Ministers of Israel,
140
Jordan and the United Arab Republic were gathered in New York. The next month may be critical to the success or failure of the work of the Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General to promote a just and lasting settlement on the basis of Security Council Resolution No. 242 of November, 1967.
A redoubled effort is necessary if his work is not to be allowed to end in failure; and this effort must come principally from the parties to the conflict themselves, since it is only they who can demonstrate the flexibility necessary to break down the deep mutual mistrust which at present exists. We still hope, and we believe it is possible, for the parties to this dispute, without jeopardising their own fundamental security requirements, to arrive at a settlement. This has been said so often about this terrible problem that sometimes one gives up hope. But we cannot afford to despair, because if the work of Dr. Jarring fails, the future outlook for the Middle East will be bleak indeed. It will be a prospect of further bloodshed, further suffering, further concentration on military preparedness at the expense of human needs and economic development. There have been incidents along the Suez Canal which were portents of this pattern. The position of Her Majesty's Government is clear. We deplore all breaches of the cease-fire. We all agree that violence is evil and that it breeds violence.
The world community should not forget, either, that many of the refugees of the successive conflicts between Israeli and Arab will be living this winter in discomfort and hardship. The refugee problem is something that has frequently greatly concerned your Lordships. In this House the noble Baroness, Lady Swanborough, the late Lord Astor, and other noble Lords have made great personal contributions in this respect. Action to relieve the condition of these refugees remains a high priority. Now we have the latest news of fighting in Jordan. I have, I fear, no hard news to give to your Lordships as to what precisely is happening. Such news as we have has been fully reported in the public Press.
I should like now to turn to this question of defence policy East of Suez.

141
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, raised this issue again. We have debated it several times already and I hesitate to go over the same ground once more. We believe—and I should have thought this was a matter of general agreement—that there can be no military strength for Britain or for our alliances unless it is based on economic strength. Our aim is to concentrate our resources. In defence terms, this means recognising that our security lies fundamentally in Europe and must be based on the NATO Alliance. Hearing the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, I am encouraged to think that the Opposition are beginning to recognise the existence of overstretch of our resources and are now speaking in terms of only a more moderate presence in the Far East. They are prepared to recommend that we combine to create some kind of a force. This seems a fairly modest as well as an imprecise proposal.
My Lords, I do not think I need argue this matter at great length. The case was fully debated in another place. There was a certain and unfortunate tendency to make use of particular figures. It was suggested, for instance, that a figure of £15 million in terms of foreign exchange was a kind of insurance premium. But this figure in relation to the Persian Gulf represents only a proportion of the cost. It certainly represents the foreign exchange cost. To represent the real cost to this country of the demand on resources, which has a direct bearing on our economic position, it would have to be multiplied several times, and it is a mistake to talk only about the £15 million of foreign exchange costs.
The Opposition have, in large part—the noble Lord, Lord Carrington did not do this to-day—based their case on the need to protect our investment East of Suez. My Lords, I think they are coming along; they are beginning to recognise the political realities of the present day, and I am sure, for instance, that if the oil ceased to flow in the Persian Gulf they would not now (although certain noble Lords would) expect us to intervene militarily to try to make the oil flow by force. But I want to stress—and this may help to answer some of the points the noble Lord, Lord Carrington raised—that the withdrawal of our forces does not in any way mean that we have
142
lost interest in the continuing prosperity and stability of those areas.
We are in very close consultation with Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and Malaysia about matters arising from our withdrawal, and I think we should welcome the way in which they are adapting themselves to the changed conditions that will prevail after we have gone. They have to make their own assessment, but our aim is to help the Governments of the area to establish, before our withdrawal, an effective defence system based on co-operation between Malaysia and Singapore, with such assistance as Australia and New Zealand may decide they can continue to give. We hope that a further five-Power ministerial conference on the lines of the one which took place earlier this year will take place in the first half of 1969. As a sign of our interest, we too plan to participate in a major five-Power military exercise in Malaysia in the mid-1970s. For this we shall be sending forces from Britain.
In the Persian Gulf we have already reached agreement with Kuwait about the future termination of the 1961 Defence Agreement, and we are encouraged by the progress made by the Union of Arab Emirates set up by the rulers of Bahrain, Qatar and the Trucial States to act as the successor authority in this region after our departure. When the structure that they are evolving is more clearly defined and we know on what basis discussions can most effectively proceed we shall continue our talks with the authorities concerned, both on the revision of our existing treaties and arrangements and on the disposal of our military installations in the area. We have every reason to believe that after our withdrawal friendly relations between Britain and the Persian Gulf States will remain as strong as ever.
The resources released by our withdrawal from the Far East and the Middle East will help us to get our economy straight and to remedy the distortions from which it has suffered for far too long. However, it does not mean that we have lost interest in those parts. But it does mean that we shall be able to make a more effective contribution in Europe; and it is here, as recent events have emphasised, that the most fundamental part of our national security lies.

143
My Lords, I propose to say very little on the subject of NATO. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, made an interesting speech on the miscalculations of the Soviet Union. He referred, in particular, to the inevitable revolt against what he called "Communism", but I would ask him to be a little more precise here. The interesting thing was that it was Communists themselves who were seeking freedom and, as I pointed out at that time, the whole face of monolithic Communism as equated with the Soviet Union was destroyed by those events. We have watched with interest and enormous sympathy what has been going on. It is astonishing, the determination and the fidelity which has been shown by the Czechoslovak people, the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia and their leaders. But the invasion has provided a stark reminder that the need is as great as ever for NATO to rnaintain its unity and common purpose in defence.
I think it is possible that that determination may be stronger in the future. Certainly I would agree that we must make plain our own ability and determination to protect ourselves effectively. I should have liked to say something about steps that could be taken, but it is riot possible for me to do so to-day. This subject is, of course, deeply in the minds of the Secretary of State for Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, and it will continue to be so at the forthcoming NATO ministerial meeting in Brussels on November 14 to 16. Again I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, when he poses the question as to whether co-existence is possible. Co-existence is not only possible but it is, in fact, the only key to existence at all; and this means that we should not abandon the ultimate objective of East/West détente.
My Lords, let me turn very briefly to the subject of the Common Market—and I stress that this is not because this important objective of British policy has, so to speak, been pushed to the bottom of the pile. The Queen's Speech made it clear that the Government will maintain their application but at the same time will promote other measures of cooperation in Europe in company with it. This has been and will remain the constant aim of our European policy. We
144
all know why the road to full membership is blocked for the time being. But the question remains very much alive. The Council of Ministers of the Six are discussing it again to-day. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, also referred to examples of interest. There have been a number of proposals designed to keep up the momentum towards European union against the day when the Community can be enlarged. There was a general welcome from the Five and Her Majesty's Government for the Benelux Memorandum of last January. We support the Benelux proposals, which call for consultations between Britain and the Community and for joint action in fields outside the scope of the Community.
The proposals made by the Belgian Foreign Minister, M. Harmel, as recently as October 21 at the W.E.U. meeting in Rome for closer co-ordination particularly of foreign and defence policies was also generally welcomed, except by the French. We are engaged with our partners in preparing the ground thoroughly for a further discussion at the next W.E.U. meeting in January. The European Economic Community Council have also been examining the possibility of a "trading arrangement" between the Community and other countries, an idea first put forward in a Franco-German declaration of last February. We have said that we are prepared to consider a detailed proposal from the Six as a whole, provided that there is a clear link with full membership. But after eight months, no proposal has yet been worked out.
The one encouraging sign is the rising determination among our friends in Europe—a determination which we share most wholeheartedly—to escape from the doldrums and to work together now for a greater degree of European integration. There is an increasing reluctance to allow one Member of the Six to block all progress, and in these circumstances we are now concentrating on joint action in fields where no single country has a veto. Our main reasons for seeking membership of the Community are both economic and political, and it is natural that we should support action to co-ordinate European foreign and defence policies. Particularly after the events in Czechoslovakia, there is an urgent need for Europe to speak with one voice in world

145
affairs. It is our belief that only in this way can Europe hope to have a proper influence on world events.
3.53 p.m.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, I suppose that the object of these debates on foreign affairs is to see where we have got to generally in our international relations, and if we can to try to arrive at some consensus of opinion as to what line the Government, generally speaking, might profitably undertake. We can surely all agree that, apart from the prospective end of the war in Vietnam (about which I hasten to say that I shall say absolutely nothing because nothing I can say on that subject would be of the slightest use) 1968, so far as we in this country are concerned, was dominated by two major political events: the social and economic upheavals of last May and June in France, and the occupation of Czechoslovakia last August by the armed forces of the Soviet Union. The first called in question the French Government's ability to conduct a totally independent and nationalistic foreign policy; the second involved the end of the so-called détente and the consequent collapse, for a long period at any rate, of the European policy of General de Gaulle and his devoted lieutenant Chancellor Kiesinger.
I propose to say a few words justifying these conclusions. Before I do so, I should like to say that I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said about the United Nations, and totally disagree with what he said about the right policy for us to pursue East of Suez. I shall not go into that matter now; I hope that we shall have a further opportunity to debate it. All I can say is that we are delighted that the Government should accept the policy which we on these Benches had the honour to put forward in March, 1965, and we hope they will continue upon this course. Nor do we believe that there is any prospect of the Tory Party's reversing that policy when they come to power. They may think that they will, but I do not think it will happen.
The upheavals last spring in France resulted in a large Gaullist majority in the National Assembly, but this large majority is in itself an obstacle to the continued personal policy of the French President. Nor does it, in itself, provide
146
any guarantee for the success of the economic and social policy forced on the French Government by what was, in effect, a minor revolution which is the classic way of achieving substantial reforms in France. Thanks to the intelligent policy now being pursued by M. Edgar Faure and the Minister of Finance, we must indeed all hope that the French economy will be restored and that unrest among the students, which of course is not only a French phenomenon, will also die down. But the possibility remains that there may be another thunderstorm in the spring and that in the circumstances France may hardly be a very satisfactory Member of the European Community.
It will indeed be paradoxical if in, say, a year's time, as a result of the Herculean efforts of the British Government, the British economy is well on the way to recovery, while the weak sister is our neighbour across the Channel! But it would surely be just as silly for us, as for the French, to indulge in Schadenfreude. All the events in our two countries go to show the inherent absurdity of excluding any democratic European State, otherwise qualified, from membership of the E.E.C. For it is only if a greater unity is achieved, and above all if certain supra-national obligations are freely accepted, that any of us can have any guarantee against fluctuations in our economy generally and any assurance of progress towards a rather more satisfactory economic, and indeed political, future for this country.
There is, admittedly, little hope that the present French Government will see matters in this light for some time, though a number of very far-sighted French statesmen such as Valero Giscard d'Estaing and the excellent Pierre Sudreau, both former members of de Gaulle's Government, have publicly stated, along with J. J. Servan-Schreiber, the author of Le Défi Americain, that France's best ally and partner in Europe is the United Kingdom. We even read in yesterday's Press that the most devoted assistants of the General, such as M. Couve de Murville and M. Debré, are beginning to feel that France cannot indefinitely veto British entry into the Community.
I imagine therefore that, pending our admission, most of us, I should hope all

147
of us here, will approve of our Foreign Secretary's constant efforts to achieve, in accordance with the Belgian Foreign Minister M. Harmel's plan, some kind of effective European action in fields lying outside the Treaty of Rome among all those qualified European States that are willing to co-operate. The chief scope for such efforts obviously lies in the possible harmonisation of foreign policies and in the general direction of co-ordination of armaments, with which is intimately associated the whole matter of so-called technological progress, that is to say, such things as space activities, electronics, computers, micro-circuits, supersonic aircraft and in general what have been referred to as "the industries of the future".
There is absolutely no reason why, if France will not take part in any general European ventures in such fields as these, Great Britain should not establish suitable European concerns, if she can, with some or all of the Germans, the Italian, the Low Countries, Scandinavia—and, yes, even with Sweden and Switzerland, if considerations of neutrality permit. As has been pointed out by our Government on so many occasions, this country has a vastly greater research capacity and technological know-how in all these fields mentioned than any of her European neighbours.
Common efforts would therefore make obvious sense, more especially in view of the huge strides now being made by the Americans and the Russians, with whom, unless we combine, we shall in a few years' time be quite unable to compete, always assuming that we want to do so. Judging from this morning's Press, it looks as if the French Government were attempting to put forward some scheme whereby we should supply all our technological know-how to the Community in exchange for practically nothing. I suppose that this is simply a preliminary manœuvre in the great game which we all know is now proceeding.
While I was attending the last meeting of the W.E.U. Assembly in Paris the other day, I heard the German rapporteur lamenting the recent British withdrawal from ELDO—the European Launcher Development Organisation—and hinting
148
that this was not at all a good augury for eventual entry of Britain into the E.E.C., nor very evident proof of a European outlook on the part of the British Government. I therefore did my best to suggest to my colleagues that, in the first place, had it not been for a French veto last December, even on negotiations for a possible British entry into the Community, it was at least probable that, in spite of strong doubts as to its efficiency as at present organised, the United Kingdom would still have been a member of ELDO; and, in the second place, that there was not really much point in continuing British membership of ELDO, or indeed of any similar European body, in the absence of any real decision-making authority or machinery.
Everybody admits that the principle of what is called "a just return" on what individual nations put into shows like this is a wrong one, which cannot possibly give any good results; but nobody as yet has suggested that some rather minimal supra-national element—such as that inherent in the Treaty of Rome—should he embodied in any other European organisation. And yet there is really not much point in talking about "Europe" at all, unless this principle is accepted. General de Gaulle was quite right when he said some years ago that you could not achieve European unity by simply jumping up and down in your chair and shouting "Europe".
So the time has come, as we on these Benches think, when governments—and, more particularly, Her Majesty's Government—should say exactly where they stand on this cardinal issue. It just is no good thinking that if only we can get into the E.E.C. everything will solve itself, and that European unity will be gradually achieved by a sort of inevitable process, in what is always referred to as a "pragmatical way", precedents being gradually established and machinery being slowly developed for arriving at sensible and common decisions in all fields. We British often think that this is all that needs to be done. But if we think so, we are wrong. For unless the Governments concerned are prepared to accept the general notion that in any European organisation their own individual will not always and necessarily prevail, no amount of diplomatic manœuvring will result in anything

149
beyond an alliance of the old-fashioned sort, always dependent for its continued existence on extraneous happenings.
Even the E.E.C. itself is marking time. Beyond the Customs Union and the common agricultural policy, nothing has yet been achieved. Yet it needs only a strong lead in favour of a real Community system for such a system to prevail, in spite of the desperate opposition to any such idea on the part of the Gaullist Administration, or, rather, on the part of its leader. If Her Majesty's Government, for instance, came forward with any concrete plans embodying the establishment of some authority, however embryonic it might have to be to start off with, in, say, the field of defence, there is no doubt whatever that their chances of making a success of M. Harmel's initiative would be increased enormously.
I also believe that if they did give such a lead they would have the enthusiastic support of a very considerable section of their own supporters in another place, as well as, I should imagine, of the great bulk of the Opposition. Naturally, there would be those in both the major Parties—though very few, I should hope, in my own—who would be strongly opposed, on nationalistic grounds, to the acceptance of any supranational principle. But such opposition is not a reason for pushing the issue under the carpet. It is a real and an unavoidable issue which, however much we may dislike ideas, as such, should be presented for debate to the people.
My Lords, I now come to my second point, which is: how does Czechoslovakia fit into all this? The end of the détente ought in itself to give a strong impetus to Western European unification. Naturally, all we can do about it at the moment, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said, is to keep our guard up, and, to some extent, reinforce it if we can. We should not, of course, despair of eventual better relations. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said that we should not despair of co-existence; nor, of course, can we despair of co-existence. As he inferred, I think, we simply have to go on co-existing for so long as there is no atomic war.
But for the time being we must recognise that there is no future in attempts to form some kind of special relation-
150
ship with the Soviet satellite States in Eastern Europe. This will no doubt be possible in the long run, but first there will have to be a complete end to Stalinism in Russia itself; and that may take a long time—I am afraid longer than we think—even though the Stalinist regime has been considerably tempered in recent years. The point is that for us ever to arrive at a real détente in East/West relations, the confrontation of the super-Powers on the Elbe must be ended. If it is to be ended, both the Russians and the Americans must be confident that they would not be at the mercy, strategically, the one of the other, if they withdrew their armed forces to their own country.
For the Americans to have this confidence, it is absolutely essential that Western Europe should be formed as a valid entity; and, further, that it should include Britain and Scandinavia. Otherwise, it simply is not credible. For the Russians, it is absolutely essential that the D.D.R.—the Deutsche-Demokratische Republik—should continue to exist as a separate State, somewhat on the model of Austria. Of course, the one super-Power or the other may be forced by outside events to abandon these essential safeguards; but if they are, the danger of general war will be increased rather than diminished.
It must also be said of General de Gaulle that his own vision of the future has basically not been far removed from this conception of a détente; namely, one resting, so to speak, on the physical separation of the super-Powers by the prior constitution of "Europe". Unfortunately, his own plan embodies two absolutely fatal flaws. In the first place, he seems to be determined, for historical—it might even be said "ancestral"—reasons, to make Europe without the "Anglo-Saxons", of which, in his view, Britain is a representative. In the second, he is resolutely set against any supranational solution of the problem of European unity, which logically means that, if it is to be formed at all, it can be formed only under the aegis or hegemony (as it is called) of one European Power—naturally, France.
As regards Europe generally, we are obviously approaching a very dangerous period. The evident failure of what they call their "Ostpolitik"—their policy

151
towards the East—has had a most unsettling effect on the Western Germans. By far the best way to prevent them from doing something quite rash—which I assure your Lordships is quite possible—is to give them the impression that they are destined, by Fate as it were, to become members of a real European political community in which they will be on a footing of complete equality with ourselves, the Italians and the French. If this country, therefore, came out firmly (and this, again, is my essential point) with a plan for some kind of Western European Defence Community, or even, perhaps, we might say, some European Defence "element" inside NATO, and a real decision-making authority in various technological spheres, it is possible that the Germans would rally to it and thus gradually overcome—and they could overcome—the opposition of the French even to starting negotiations for our eventual entry into the European Economic Community.
But first, my Lords—and this is the point—Britain herself must be genuinely converted to the supra-national idea. It is an excellent thing that the Government should have agreed to join M. Monnet's Action Committee for Europe, and the representatives they have appointed—namely, Mr. George Brown, Mr. Walter Padley and Mr. Michael Stewart—are, I believe myself, willing to accept this basic thesis. So of course is my own leader, Mr. Jeremy Thorpe—who as a Liberal has, naturally, already upheld it for many years. I must say that I am far less happy about the nominees of the Tory Party—in particular, perhaps, Mr. Maudling—who, excellent statesmen though in most respects they undoubtedly are, have never (and this cannot be disputed, I think) in the past, to say the least, manifested any particular enthusiasm for the supra-national principle in however limited a form. I would frankly be much happier if Mr. Heath himself were representing the Tory Party. Perhaps, however, it is a cunning move, like putting the, at the time, rather lukewarm European Lord Butler of Saffron Walden in general charge of the negotiations for our entry into the E.E.C. in 1961. Let us hope so.
For, my Lords, I can assure you that we have now reached a most critical point. It is all too likely, I fear, that
152
the so-called "Harmel" initiative will peter out when the next meeting under its auspices takes place—if, indeed, it takes place at all. It is only therefore, I repeat, if Britain now comes forward as a potential leader of a genuine community—which she might with advantage have done some ten years ago—and herself advances constructive and forward-looking plans for the construction of a real European authority that there is much chance of our becoming anything except an obedient satellite of American big business or a highly directed semi-socialist State in good relations with the Soviet Union.
Your Lordships may think that this is too categorical a judgment. I do not think it is. We live, I repeat, in very dangerous times. Things may happen at any moment in the Middle East, or even nearer home, which may shake our allied unity to its foundations. Frankly, what we now want is a leader who can find the necessary support to play in the "Big League": not a cunning fellow who will be able to compete in Machiavellian tactics with the other leaders, but one with the ability to convince the Continentals that Britain has now had a genuine change of heart and is determined not only to enter the Community, but to abandon old-fashioned nationalism when she does so.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I may say that I was not quite sure, when he was referring to a leader of this character, to whom he was referring. In fact, I wondered whether he was referring to Mr. Jeremy Thorpe.
LORD GLADWYN: I should be only too delighted if Mr. Wilson, the leader of this country, would act in that capacity.
4.15 p.m.
LORD GLENDEVON: My Lords, I will not follow the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, tempting though it be to do so in view of his observations as to the lukewarmth of one or two of my noble friends where the European idea is concerned. One day, perhaps, but not now, I shall pull his leg about his own views not very long ago.
My Lords, what I should like to do—and I shall detain your Lordships for a

153
very short time—is to return to the subject of the United States and Soviet Russia. Of course I agree with the hopes so eloquently expressed by the noble Lord the Leader of the House and my noble friend Lord Carrington that what is happening in Vietnam now may lead to a genuine peace, but at the same time I cannot help regarding this particular moment as extremely worrying. Any democratic Administration is bound to find itself in a difficult position when a war is not going very well as an election approaches; and looking into the far distance one can but pray that the continuing increase in the already incredible speed of communications in the world will not eventually make, if not impossible at least extremely difficult the luxury of Parliamentary democracy.
Totalitarian Powers suffer from no such anxieties. To put it in practical terms, the North Vietnamese and the Chinese must have known perfectly well all along that time was on their side in this particular context. Opinions have always differed as to the rights and wrongs of any great campaign. So far as I am concerned, I see very clearly why the United States are worried by the prospect of Chinese paramountcy in South-East Asia. India is also deeply worried by it, as she must be; and even Russia herself cannot fail to share these misgivings. It is very easy to scoff at all this if you live as far away from the scene of action as Trafalgar Square or Grosvenor Square, but it is, I think, unwise.
My Lords, the last thing I want to say of the United States is this. When all is said and done, my mind still goes back with deep relief and gratitude to the day when in another place I heard Mr. Bevin announce the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty. For the first time in history we knew that the United States were pledging their support to collective security and to deterrence of another world war, not too late but in time. If that had been the case in 1914, how much misery the world would have been spared! I thank heaven that they are now fully and irrevocably in the picture.
Concerning the Russians, again I agree very much with what the noble Lord the Leader of the House and my noble friend Lord Carrington said. As for the barbarous cruelty of the Russian treat-
154
ment of Czechoslovakia, this revolted me as much as it could have anyone. But, my Lords, I did not think it was surprising. On the contrary, I thought it consistent with all their history. They have always been a deeply suspicious people, suspicious of each other and suspicious of others. One had of course hoped so much that they were emerging from their past, but there are no real signs of it yet, and it is profoundly disappointing that that should be so. One would have thought that, with China sitting on their tail eager to regain her lost territories, they would hasten to emulate the example of Peter the Great and open a window on to the Western World whose help they may well need sooner rather than later. But instead they prefer to stick to Lenin's dreary injunction: "Why let the people have ideas? Ideas are far more dangerous than weapons." They are the last of the Bourbons; they have learned nothing and have forgotten nothing.
Finally, my Lords, may I give an example from my own experience of Russian suspicion, in this case suspicion of Sweden. It was an extraordinary experience. Two years ago I visited Leningrad and Moscow for the first time. I went in a Russian ship called the "Krupskaya". Krupskaya was the name of Lenin's wife. One of our ports of call en route was Stockholm. In a Stockholm newspaper we saw a photograph of another Russian ship sinking in the Baltic the day before. An hour and a half out of Stockholm, by which time it was quite dark, I was walking the deck with a friend. We were discussing this photograph and hoping that it was not a bad omen when suddenly there was a fearful bang. We were thrown forward along the deck. My friend exclaimed, "God! they've done it again." And they had. We were on a rock.
There were 150 passengers aboard, almost all Russians—who I may say behaved admirably. We were all packed into a small saloon in the stern of the ship. We were kept there for several hours and nobody could possibly have got out. Meanwhile, the ship developed a considerable list. During this time a good-natured Russian gentleman sat down at the piano—which was beginning to slip a bit—and played, not the "Volga Boatman", but the old capitalist air,

155
"Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer, do." Some danced. I did not. I readjusted my life jacket and thought of the "Titanic." At 4 a.m.—not until then—we were told that all danger was passed and that we could go back to our cabins. But we were still on the rocks. It was not until 1 p.m. the next day that we were rescued by Swedish boats. All of this time we had been only one and a half hours from shore. The fact was, as we found out, that the Russians were simply not prepared to admit to the Swedes, until they had to, that they were on the rocks. And by that time at least ten hours had passed. It is an incredible story, but I can assure your Lordships that it is true.
My Lords, as has already been said in this debate—and I agree with it absolutely—whatever the disappointments, whatever the frustrations, whatever the cruelties, we must persevere so far as Russia is concerned and never give up hope. Part of that hope must always be that she will see that it is time that she pulled herself together.
4.25 p.m.
LORD WEDGWOOD: My Lords, when I put my name down to speak to-day in this debate I anticipated that a number of the points that I hoped to make would be covered by other noble Lords who spoke before me. Indeed this is so; and after the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who spoke so thoroughly and admirably, I feel I have very few clothes left with which to dress my few remarks. Nevertheless, I should like to add my voice in support of the theme which I believe is essential to any hope of our future as a strong and vigorous nation. It is simply this: that, as always, the defence of this country and the defence of our rightful and vital interests abroad must be the very kernel of our foreign policy, whatever Government hold power here in Westminster.
I feel—and I say this with a conviction that has been growing stronger in recent months—that this policy does not seem to be followed by Her Majesty's Government. I also believe, and so it seems do many others, that we are letting slip much to which we should be paying greater attention. Our political vision is becoming fixed not much further than
156
the shores of the English Channel, and we appear to think that what happens in the overseas world in which we used to take such a large part is no longer of great importance to our future wellbeing. Such an attitude was never right in the past, it is certainly wrong to-day and it will always be wrong in the future.
We are all acutely aware that our fortunes are bound up inextricably with world trade, and your Lordships will forgive me for pointing out the obvious: we can live only by world trade and particularly by exporting our own products to lands in every part of the hemisphere. Our ability to do so rests entirely on the freedom for our ships and planes to carry our goods anywhere on the high seas and in the air. In the first place, as your Lordships all know, we have considerable trading interests in the Middle East, in Africa, in Asia, in Australia and in the Far East—areas in which to-day there is much uncertainty and confusion. Diminution and loss of trade and influence in these countries would certainly be the gravest setback to our industry and future prosperity.
We have also, I suggest, another real and vested interest, and that is in preserving the freedom of those nations with which we have so much in common. I speak particularly of the English-speaking nations and of those with whom we have had a long and close political and economic association and where the English language is usually the language of commerce and political discussion. The freedom of these countries from aggression and possible absorption by Powers hostile to our Western concepts should be as much our vital concern to-day as was the case in former times. It is not just a duty or a sense of historical obligation; it is sheer common sense. We stand together, or we shall fall separately.
I would add a third British interest which deserves mention. It is no less obvious but not very well defined. It is our right of access to primary agricultural and mineral products, particularly oil, on which we are very dependent for imports and of which we are not likely to be independent for some years ahead. There is nothing new in all this, but how often do we hear these issues spoken about? How often are they given prominence? Far too seldom in my view.

157
I should like now to comment briefly on some aspects of our foreign policy which are directly related to these interests and to ask your Lordships to consider how far these interests have been supported by the policies of Her Majesty's Government. First, Suez. We have reached the position, so far as I can see, where our former base at Alexandria is apparently a Russian naval base. We are denied passage through the Canal; our ships and tankers have the more expensive haul round the Cape to India and to the oil wells of the Persian Gulf. Some of our ships are still incarcerated in the Suez Canal. Little is heard about compensation for them, but rather more of loans to the United Arab Republic while that country is now being rearmed by Russia for the next act in the Arab-Israel war.
We relinquished our position in Aden, admittedly under most difficult circumstances, at a time which gave every advantage to our enemies and in a manner which placed our former supporters in the hands of their own enemies. To-day Aden is isolated and of less consequence, but should the Canal be opened, my Lords, with Russian support and control, we can all be sure that we shall hear of Aden again. The consequences, as you may well imagine, to the independent countries in Eastern Africa and those nearby in Asia need no emphasis.
In the Persian Gulf area, whence we draw the bulk of our oil supplies, and where 60 per cent. of the world oil reserves are situated, there is a power vacuum. Her Majesty's Government have announced the total withdrawal of military and naval units in 1971, two or three short years away. We debated this matter last May, on a Motion from the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, and the points have all been made. Nevertheless, I should like to remind your Lordships of what was said on that occasion by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, because I think his remarks bear repeating. He said:
"There seems to be an idea in the mind of the Government that when we move our Armed Forces out of any area in the world the position remains exactly the same as when we were there, and that the balance of power in the world remains unaltered. But it does not. When we move out of any area in the world, we create a power vacuum. That
158
vacuum is immediately filled by someone else, and nearly always by someone entirely opposed to all the interests and principles for which we stand. It has happened again and again in the last few years. If it were to happen in the Persian Gulf, it would be a disaster of the first order not only for us but for the whole of the Western World."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 22/5/68, col. 789–90.]
I should like to add to the words of the noble Marquess only this: a token residual force has an advantage because no other Power moves in so long as another nation's forces are in occupation however puny those forces may be. But if those units are once withdrawn, the way is left open for any hostile Power to replace them. Can we doubt, my Lords, that in this case Soviet forces may well be substituted for our own?
In Malaya and Australia we have, I think, what might truly be called a crisis of confidence over British intentions which is repeated, across the Indian Ocean, in South Africa where one of the greatest trade routes is dependent on inadequate naval protection. Those of us who have contacts with these countries know all too well of the astonishment and dismay, even the unbelief, that Britain could place in jeopardy their security and this country's own substantial national and economic interests there by a total withdrawal from the one area and by an embargo on arms and naval equipment to the other. My Lords, Australia and South Africa are the twin southern bastions of the Free World. They are young countries with tremendous energy and potential. They need our help, and we need their custom and stabilising influence on a shaky and ever-changing international scene.
I listened carefully to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, when he was speaking on these points, and I hone that the noble Lord will not be over-annoyed if I say that I found what he had to say somewhat unconvincing. We cannot afford to allow the impression to grow that Britain is now leaving the people in these areas in the lurch. We can and should re-appraise this unhappy situation and do what we can to correct it. Of course financial limitations need careful scrutiny, but I contend that the defence of our own national interest is now the greater priority in these vital areas, let alone the interests of our allies in two world wars.

159
Turning to another matter of foreign policy, my Lords, the foreign policy of Her Majesty's Government to-day, it seems, in my view, to be based too much on a reliance on the effectiveness and sagacity of United Nations opinions and decisions. The United Nations was a great concept born of the last world war. It has now greatly changed in composition and authority. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said much on this subject in a very much better style than I can, bat I should like just to say that I agree very much with most of what the noble Lord said. Whatever may be our individual feelings about UNO, it cannot be said, after the events of the past few years, that it is a real force for peace in the world as it is constituted to-day. While I recognise, as does the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that in its many forms and organisations—UNESCO; F.A.O.; W.H.O.; and so on—it has brought great benefits to many millions throughout the undeveloped areas of the world, to discard our national defence and rely overmuch on international settlements of UNO is to stake a faith which in my view is clearly not yet justifiable.
We have had two recent examples which affect us—concerning Gibraltar and Rhodesia—and which, in their stupidity, show UNO in a light far removed from that hoped for by the founders at San Francisco. Of course I accept, my Lords, that an international debating forum has undoubted value— "Jaw-jaw" rather than "War-war"—
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord wishes to be fair, and I think he would agree that the United Nations had a notable success in at least easing the tension between Turkey and Greece last year, when a major war could have occurred.
LORD WEDGWOOD: Yes, indeed, my Lords. Of course I accept the contention of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. But I would ask him to remember that on the outbreak of war between Israel and Egypt in June last year the United Nations Observer Force was withdrawn just at the drop of a hat. At any rate, my Lords, it is reassuring to note the recent remarks by the Prime Minister on the last of these ill-considered pronouncements, the one demanding that we should commence
160
hostilities in Central Africa against Rhodesia. I was very pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, refer in his speech to what I think he called characteristically immoderate demands. I also fully endorse his remarks about how unhelpful this resolution was at this time. What an irresponsible resolution, as the Prime Minister said, from an international body founded to secure world peace!
My Lords, there is something more on which I should like to touch, concerning our own trading interests. It is that in the past we have directed criticisms at the internal policies of various countries in Europe, Asia and Africa, and on a number of occasions we have taken active steps to show our disapproval by cancelling or placing an embargo on trade with these countries. I should have thought that if we wish to afford the luxury of discriminating as to who shall be the recipients of our industrial goods we should discriminate against those who are clearly hostile to us; against those who send their troops into neighbouring States to subjugate and browbeat the population, and that whatever opinions we may have, right or wrong, about the merits or otherwise of the internal policies of would-be friendly countries, we should develop our trade in these places and in the process, we hope, of mutual enrichment perhaps influence their thinking as well as inform ourselves more clearly on their problems.
Finally, my Lords, we have heard much about Russian naval strength in the Mediterranean and along the sea lanes in the Atlantic and Indian Oceans. Only those in high places can gauge the risks against their knowledge of Allied strength and weakness. As one person trying to assess the situation realistically, and without any benefit of special information, I believe that it is not difficult to see that we are living through a time of great international danger— indeed, this point has been made already by two previous speakers.
We have lost our former position in the Eastern Mediterranean. Africa is being encircled to the West and to the North-East. Our great ally, the United States, on whose dominant nuclear capacity we are in the ultimate vitally dependent—and we can never forget that—is now war weary and beset by her

161
own internal problems, and perhaps by a change of Administration. This is not the time to contemplate any further reduction in our Armed Forces. Indeed, the opposite should be the case. We should now be taking urgent steps to increase our contribution to NATO in the defence of this country, and of all those who look to us for support. Our brains and our industrial capacity are two vital factors which can maintain peace and stability. We have a balance-of-payments problem, but Her Majesty's Government cannot allow this to obscure our national defence requirements. First things must come first.
My Lords, I now have spoken for too long and have not deserved your patience, but I speak with deep concern at what is happening to our international repute and to the prospects of increasing our share of world trade. I believe that our foreign policy needs drastic reshaping; that our national interests and alliances need more encouragement and a far greater care in their maintenance; and that we must ensure that all our Armed Forces shall have the equipment and personnel to undertake successfully any protective duties that may be assigned to them. Let us stand by our principles and our national interests, and stand up for our continuing future as one of the great trading nations of the world.
4.42 p.m.
LORD BETHELL: My Lords, I should like to speak briefly about a point mentioned by other speakers in this debate, and rightly described as the most important event which has happened in foreign affairs in the last year—I refer to the invasion of Czechoslovakia by the Soviet Army. My noble friend Lord Carrington rightly gave as the main reason for this invasion the fear held by the Soviet leaders that a germ of freedom had been born in Czechoslovakia, and the possibility that this germ would spread throughout East Europe in the countries around Czechoslovakia, and perhaps even to the Soviet Union itself, and that this would be a direct threat to the Soviet Union. I am going to speak in greater detail about a subsidiary reason for the invasion, which I think was very much in the minds of the Soviet leaders and which, though it might not have been the main
162
reason why they decided to invade, certainly played a part in their decision. It is a reason which they have given since the invasion in their attempts to justify it with their own people and with world opinion—I mean the fear in Eastern Europe of Western Germany.
To us this fear may seem rather senseless and exaggerated. We may ask ourselves: how can Western Germany possibly attack the great Soviet Union? It is true that for Western Germany to attack the Soviet Union would be military suicide, but from the East European point of view, the issue is not so simple as this. Poland, Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union have not forgiven or forgotten Germany to the same extent that we have. They suffered much more. The Soviet Union had 13 million killed in the last war. Poland lost 20 per cent. of her population. These are matters of the recent past, which many people in Eastern Europe remember and are afraid of.
But there is also the present: in the minds of many East Europeans the present threat from Germany is the fact that Western Germany has still not recognised the frontiers of its country in the East, and still has claims on territory in Poland and Czechoslovakia, and even in the Soviet Union. There will never be a chance of a rapprochement between West Germany and the East European countries until the elementary step of recognising West Germany's frontiers is taken by the West German Government and claims on East European countries are abandoned. It is true that there are many politicians in West Germany who do not press these claims so strongly as they did, but it is, unfortunately, a fact that no responsible West German politician would ever renounce them emphatically. To do so would be political suicide, and it would be regarded as providing a sop to the Right Wing extremists in West Germany. Unfortunately, many politicians in Great Britain and the United States take this view as well, and do not deny the West German claims.
The Poles, Czechoslovaks and Russians, however, are more impressed by the outward signs they find in everyday life in West Germany of claims on their territory. I have myself seen signposts and maps pointing out towns and areas in Eastern Europe, marking them

163
as German, giving them the old German names and generally treating them as German territory. There are large political associations in Germany whose business it is to claim parts of Eastern Europe for Germany; and, of course, there is a political party, the N.V.D., part of whose policy is to make these claims. This is all grist to the mill of the Communist leaders, and is used to provide a basis for such aberrations as the attack on Czechoslovakia. Their explanations are only too easy for citizens of Poland, Czechoslovakia and Russia to accept. Even non-Communist citizens have this fear of West Germany, and are unwilling to reject the policy of their Communist rulers, because they know that the rulers will at least defend them from German aggression, which they believe is still a threat.
What can the British Government do in this matter? Many politicians in this country see the matter as not their concern, as a matter between Germany and Poland, or Czechoslovakia, as the case may be. However, I know that in East Europe we are not going to be allowed to wash our hands of this matter. People remember that it was Great Britain who signed the Munich, Yalta and Potsdam Agreements. We are responsible for these frontiers, and we have a special interest in their maintenance or their abandonment. We shall be expected to take a positive line on whether they are to be maintained or still to be held in question.
There is a deliberate policy among successive Governments in this country to play down this issue and minimise it. At the same time, the issue is played up in East Europe. The more we play it down, the more the Communist leaders play it up, and the more support they gain in their countries by playing on the fear of invasion from the West. The sort of vagueness on this issue which East Europeans find alarming may be typified by a remark made by the then Foreign Secretary, Mr. George Brown, in the summer of 1966, when he was asked straight out by a journalist whether we recognised the frontiers of Poland, and he paused and said, "Yes, in a way". This chance remark, which received very little publicity in this country, was put on the headlines of East European countries and of Germany and it was regarded as
164
very irritating both to Germans and to Poles.
On May 31 this year there was a brief debate on this issue in another place in which a certain clarification was given by Mr. Goronwy Roberts, the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs. On Czechoslovakia he said:
"As regards the frontier between Germany and Czechoslovakia, here again the formal position of Her Majesty's Government is that the final determination of the frontier cannot be formalised until there is a peace treaty."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons; 31/5/68, col. 2356.]
This, on the face of it, is vague. But he went on to say:
"— when the time comes for a final determination of Germany's frontiers by a peace treaty, the treaty discussions will start from the basis that Czechoslovak frontiers are not in question." [Col. 2357.]
This, one might say, is fair enough. On the other hand, on the question of the Polish frontiers the Minister said:
"Until such a time as the vexed and central problem of Germany is solved to the satisfaction of all who are legitimately concerned, however, no final 'Yes' can be said to the frontiers."—[Col. 2355.]
This statement, I know, was profoundly shocking to very many Poles and Russians, Communist and non-Communist. Poles have said to me, "How can we possibly be friendly with a country which does not recognise the integrity of our State? Is there a more hostile attitude one can take to a country than to challenge its frontiers?" And, I wonder, are there any other countries whose frontiers we challenge? It is seen by Poles and Russians as the most hostile attitude a country can possibly take to them, and I am convinced that it causes us a terrible amount of trouble in our foreign policy there.
Could not the Government adopt the formula taken by the Minister on May 31 with regard to Czechoslovakia? Could the Government not declare that a basis for a future settlement with Germany and a peace treaty with Germany would include the fact that the frontiers of Poland and Germany would not be called into question? It is true that this is the view taken by General de Gaulle, and I hope that it will not be rejected out of hand for this reason. Not necessarily everything that President de Gaulle says is wrong. It remains a fact that, until we take this attitude, until we

165
make this declaration, and so long as we continue, as the East Europeans see it, to challenge the frontiers of Poland, adventures like the invasion of Czechoslovakia will be made and will be justified and regarded as justifiable by a very large number of East Europeans, whether they are Communist or not.
4.54 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I should like to start by asking for the indulgence of the House because I shall not be able to stay for very long beyond the end of my speech, owing to an engagement which I entered into some months before the date of this debate was known. Like many others this afternoon, I propose to address my remarks entirely to the intervention into Czechoslovakia, except that I should like to address a word to the noble Lord. Lord Wedgwood, who I am sorry is not now in his seat. I must say I thought that when he referred to South Africa—a country in which a comparatively small number of white people are holding in semi-slavery a very much larger number of coloured people, in effect by armed force—as one of the bastions of the Free World, it was really comic if it had not been intensely tragic.
With regard to Czechoslovakia, I found myself much in agreement both with the noble Lord the Leader of the House and indeed with the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition in what they said. I should like to say to the noble Lord who has just resumed his seat that, however true a great deal of what he said may be, it is almost entirely irrelevant to the question of Czechoslovakia. He himself quoted from the speech by Mr. Goronwy Roberts, which made it perfectly clear that there is really no question at all about the Czechoslovak boundary, and, so far as I know —and I am a fairly close observer of the German scene—there is no kind of a movement in Western Germany to undo what was done during the war in respect of Czechoslovakia.
I was unable to take part in the very interesting debate on the invasion of Czechoslovakia which we held at the time, again owing to a long-standing engagement, but I heard a good deal of it. Although I propose to discuss this matter and some general considerations in relation to it, I shall certainly not
166
make to-day the speech which I had hoped to make on that occasion. But I should like to begin by confessing that I had hoped for better things from the Russians. I remember very well as a young man welcoming the Russian Revolution, and I still think that on the whole it has been for the benefit of the world. I have admired over the post-war years the enormous contributions to science and art and the tremendous technological and industrial progress which have been made in that country. It therefore gave me all the more shock and dismay when the Russian armies advanced into Czechoslovakia.
An operation of that kind is, of course, completely at variance with the philosophy of Marx, and indeed with that of Lenin, in spite of one or two snide remarks addressed to the memory of Lenin this afternoon. I can imagine the blistering language which Karl Marx would have used, with which he would have denounced the power politics of the present Russian policy, naked and unashamed; that variety of power politics which we call "imperialism"—because that is what it is; it is an imperial policy. The acid test of imperialism, my Lords, is the establishment by one State of its authority over another against the will of the citizens of that other State. The classic method down the ages has been the use of armed force. Force is the keynote of imperialism, and by that acid test it is clear that the Russian invasion of Czechoslovakia in August was imperialist.
In the last resort an empire can be held together only by force, and that is true whether it be a Czarist empire or whether it be a Communist empire. It is one of the ironies of modern history that of all the great empires which began their existence in the 16th and 17th centuries, only the Portuguese and the Russian empires are still in existence. The Russian Empire began, broadly speaking, with the invasion of Siberia by the armies of Ivan the Terrible in the time of our Elizabeth I, before the first steps to the building up of the British Empire had been taken. Russia is now the last great imperial Power; indeed, it is the one great imperial Power of the modern world, ironic as that may be, and its territories are held together by the largest army that the world has ever known and in some ways one of the

167
most powerful military forces which the world has ever seen.
Can it be doubted that it is this which holds together the Russian Empire? Can it be doubted that the Red Army—just that, and nothing else—is what prevents its dissolution into the constituent nationalities which go to make it up and which are held together only by that great armed force? For nationalism is a far stronger force than Communism; it is a centrifugal force; it is a force the tendency of which is always to disrupt imperial power. It has disrupted many of the great imperial Powers which have existed in the past, and will in the end, in my view, disrupt the Russian Empire unless those who rule in that country take steps to ensure, as we did here, the breakup of this militarily-based empire into an association of free States. That, I am sure, was the dream of Lenin; I am quite sure it was also the policy of the Prague Government which Moscow decided to break up; and it undoubtedly is the policy which would be in the best interests of the world.
The constituents of an empire may voluntarily agree to remain together, as the constituents of the British Empire have agreed to remain together and to form the British Commonwealth of Nations; but this means, of course, that as an empire it comes to an end: force is abandoned, and the empire, as such, ceases and becomes in very truth a Commonwealth of nations. The Russians maintain that this is what has happened in the U.S.S.R., but I believe the invasion of Czechoslovakia in August last proves conclusively that this is not so.
The U.S.S.R. could become a Commonwealth of Socialist nations. That might have happened if a different turning had been taken at the end of the last war, if the required leadership had been there, and particularly if Russia had not been under the domination of a tyrant of the old sort—the domination of Stalin, who had developed a lust for power which made impossible any real rapprochement between East and West. It is the tragedy of the modern world that the statesmanship was not there at that time to provide a really sound and solid basis for the building up of a new world on lines of that kind. It is tempting to pursue
168
the analysis of the history of this problem, but I do not propose to do so further. It is sufficient to say that at the end of the war conditions were favourable for such a new approach, but that it was lost in the way that I have endeavoured to describe.
Since the death of Stalin brought about a freer state of affairs—a distinctly freer and more fluid situation in the U.S.S.R.—many of us have devoted a great deal of our time and energy to trying to bring about a better state of affairs. Undoubtedly, much progress has been made in a number of directions—in rapprochement towards culture, towards science, toward trade, and in many other ways. Undoubtedly as a result of this there has been too much optimism—an optimism which has not been justified by the event—and it has been a tragedy to those of us who have put so much time and trouble into the business of building up better relations between East and West to see, apparently, everything fall to pieces, like a palace built from a pack of cards, under the shattering tread of the Russian armies advancing from the North and East. So we seem to be back at square one. But I do not think we really are. I think that forces have indeed been generated in Russia itself which will in the end produce a better situation, although it may well be some years before they are effectively able to make themselves felt.
What, then, is to be done just now in the present situation, which I agree is a difficult and a dangerous one? I think we must do all we possibly can to encourage these forces to which I have referred as existing in the U.S.S.R., and which undoubtedly exist in the Kremlin itself, because Russia is no longer a dictatorship—a dictatorship either in the old-fashioned autocratic type of Stalin, or indeed of the rather liberal type of Khrushchev. Russia is now governed by a sort of Cabinet, and one really cannot have a Cabinet without disagreements, particularly the sort of Cabinet that exists in the Kremlin. As has been pointed out this afternoon, there can be no question that the hesitation which occurred over taking action in Czechoslovakia was due to disagreements in that Cabinet. It would appear that in the end the balance was evenly divided, and it was only pressure from Eastern

169
Germany that decided the matter. We can very well understand that there is exceptional fear in Eastern Germany, because the forces of nationalism in Germany would bring Eastern and Western Germany together again in a few weeks if the military pressure in the opposite direction were removed. So it was only after extreme hesitation that the decision to carry through this invasion was taken, and we should remember that in a situation of this kind majorities can easily change.
As has been pointed out, the operation was far from being a complete success. The almost unanimous resistance of the Czechoslovak people, whose wonderful courage and pertinacity no-one can admire too much, was something which the Russians obviously did not expect, and in Russia itself this is now becoming known. All the stories which the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, told us were put about at the time when his ship was putting into the Southern Russian ports are now perfectly well known inside Russia itself to be falsehoods, and that cannot give the régime strength. The conduct, reported in the Press only a few clays ago, of the Russian tourists subscribing for flowers to be put on the Memorial to the Czechoslovak citizens who were killed at the time of the invasion in August, is a good illustration of that. It shows that all the people coming to Czechoslovakia are perfectly well aware of what has happened, and when they go back into the U.S.S.R. obviously what they have seen will become known to their fellow-citizens. Politicians are the same sort of people all over the world. It is impossible to imagine that the people in the Kremlin are not sensitive to this sort of feeling. That may well result in a desire in the Kremlin to draw back from this position which has been taken up. This may seem too optimistic; we must not be too optimistic any more, I entirely agree.
On occasions of this kind there are in the opposition those who are opposed for reasons of principle and idealism, and I take off my hat to those Russians, particularly the writers and scientists, who have done their best to bring home to their fellow citizens what is going on. They have been persecuted and a number of them sent to prison. These are
170
the men of sympathy and imagination, the people who can look behind the mountain, the people who imaginatively remember that the successful resistance to the forces of Nazism during the war was not inspired by Communism but by Russian patriotism, by a simple nationalism which is an instinct of very old foundation; and they know perfectly well that the Czech and Slovak citizens, when their own country was invaded in August last, felt exactly the same sort of sentiments and felt the will to resist; and indeed if their armed forces had been in any way commensurate with the requirements of the occasion would in fact have resisted.
But of course there are on these sort of occasions large numbers of people who are opposed to an adventure of this kind only because they do not think it will succeed, because they are afraid that it may bring a serious war with it, and that the advent of the Third World War may be the end of the world altogether. Nothing succeeds like success, and it may very well be that this part of the opposition to the Czech invasion has now disappeared in the U.S.S.R. Imperialism can be a paying game if it is carried through in the ways that some of the Russian leaders, at any rate, understand how to carry it through. As the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has said, the Russian invasion of Czechoslovakia was carried through brilliantly as a military enterprise, and if it could be carried out so successfully in Czechoslovakia why not in Rumania? And why not in Yugoslavia, and indeed in Austria and Western Germany itself? But, of course, if it is carried out in Yugoslavia there will certainly be a war, because the Yugoslavs are a people of a very different temperament from the Czechs. They do not fight on patiently, underground so to speak; they come out and fight on the barricades; and if the war started there surely the chances of it spreading through Europe are very serious indeed. I think at this stage it would be right that NATO should make it clear that this would be an attack on Western Europe, and if that were made perfectly clear to the Russians I have no doubt that they would think twice and more than twice before they went on with it.
What are we to do in these circumstances? I should like to close on this

171
reflection. I think this is a time emphatically for a constructive and farseeing diplomacy. I have been much impressed, and I am sure others of your Lordships have been, by reading the extracts from Senator Robert Kennedy's forthcoming book on the Cuban troubles some years ago, and enormously encouraged by the wise diplomacy of the President and his advisers at that time, the firm resistance to the Russian infiltration into Cuba combined with an understanding of Mr. Khrushchev's difficulties, and a determination to provide him with a way out which he could take in honour, with concessions which obviously Mr. Khrushchev thought of value and which he was prepared to accept. In that way that really serious crisis was overcome.
Could not the same sort of diplomacy be applied to Russia in regard to Czechoslovakia under the new President?—because one of the reasons why these international crises always crop up at this sort of time is that the Americans are electing a new President. Within a very few hours they will have decided which of the leaders they wish to have; the whole situation will he clearer, and we shall be able to get a sensitive and effective reaction to these problems.
In Czechoslovakia there are quite a number of the same sort of conditions existing as existed in connection with Cuba and Khrushchev. The Russians themselves are in a difficulty. They have withdrawn a very large part of their military forces already because they realise the hostility of the people to them. I am told by friends who have recently been in that country that you do not see any Russian soldiers in the large cities. The Russian soldiers that are about are behaving very well; there are no attacks on women and that sort of thing.
The Czechs and Slovaks have made very considerable concessions, concessions which some of us may think have gone almost too far. The Russians could withdraw saving their faces; and so far as it is possible for them to preserve their honour after what they did in August, they can withdraw with the preservation of their honour. Surely it is right and proper that at such a time our diplomacy should be concentrated on enabling this to be brought about. I do not say that the leaders now in the Kremlin are men like Mr. Khrushchev,
172
who was a man of flexible disposition and an elastic understanding of foreign policy. But those forces to which I have referred in the Kremlin who undoubtedly were against this adventure might well be ready to take advantage of moves of this kind and in this way, maybe over weeks or over months, the necessary détente could be secured. As has been said to-day, it is essential that coexistence should go on, and I think that in this way that could very well be secured.
5.20 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, we all, of course, follow the pronouncements of the Foreign Secretary, and in his recent speech on the Address he dealt with the invasion of Czechoslovakia and trouble in the Near East. I felt his manner of dealing with this was insufficiently vehement in its denunciation. To use his own words, he said that there was preoccupation at the United Nations on both issues. Like several other noble Lords who have already spoken, it was this feeling about Czechoslovakia that moved me to speak to-day. It is because I feel so strongly that I am going to presume to make contrasts, and while the invasion of Czechoslovakia has had the universal denunciation of all, I think perhaps that something I may say afterwards will be such as will not have the same general agreement. I say that because I find myself in the happy position of following the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, in his erudite survey of the historical evolution of Russia as a world Power, now an imperial Power and as powerful as anything on earth. Certainly much of his analysis was most interesting and we are grateful to him for it.
Returning to Czechoslovakia, it is because it seems that the denunciation has been inadequate—there was universal disapproval in the Press; there were recommendations as to action in cultural and in trade zones—sanctions have, however, nowhere resulted. In fact, the whole shock seems to have faded away to an appearance of "business as usual" which evidently has stimulated so many speakers to-day to express themselves so strongly. This is in conspicuous contrast with what many speakers, Ministers and the Press have used in the past to express their disapproval of events in other quarters, where the allegation of

173
oppression or suffering was ridiculous. But the United Nations repeat little criticism in regard to the tyranny of Russia and her brutal occupation of Czechoslovakia and her oppression of the captive European peoples. I personally find this inconsistency nauseating.
The United Nations could have been more vehement. My noble Leader dealt with that. The noble Lord the Leader of the House attempted to make a good defence of the United Nations. It is proper that he should do so. There are vast numbers of people who hope that there-from something may emerge to lessen the tensions of the world. Anyhow, so far as Czechoslovakia is concerned our representative there seems to have become resigned to silence. Instead, from the United Nations there pour out resolutions hostile to South Africa.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? Did he say that our representative at the United Nations was silent on the subject of Czechoslovakia, or did I misunderstand him?
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the House misunderstood me. I said that since the early denunciations silence seems to have reigned and there is no continuing condemnation of Russia. I want to compare this with the continuing hostile resolutions which pour oat of the United Nations against South Africa. Anyhow, opposition by our representative gets no headlines here. There is a continuous harassing; threats of boycotts, sanctions or force; suggestions of alternative Government for South West Africa—quite impossible. In the United Nations our defence of South Africa has been woefully inadequate.
Our trade with South Africa, our second largest customer, is in our favour and of importance to us. How different our trade with Russia! It was stated last week in this House that there is an adverse balance of £50 million a year, apart from the political considerations. Then Portugal, our ally in NATO, is also a target for United Nations opposition. The provinces of Mozambique and Angola are parts of metropolitan Portugal. We maintain her. Why the offen-
174
sive blockade of Beira? Merchandise and oil pass freely into the interior by other routes. The blockade has no purpose in it at all.
The closing of the Suez Canal has put on to South Africa responsibility for guarding the passage of shipping to the East. Already we read of 3,000 ships diverted from the Canal route having been serviced in South Africa. Yet we have the presumption to suggest that South Africa is not entitled to support by the provision of arms. The same is true of Portugal. Sir Alec Douglas-Home in another place powerfully denounced this policy, and I think that my noble Leader is in support of that denunciation. What bigoted stupidity it is! We thus contributed to the maritime build-up of Russia which has been so emphasised today, particularly by my noble friend Lord Wedgwood, with much of whose speech I find myself in agreement. We lose valuable exports. This helps to spread Communism in Africa. Look at the disturbance in Nigeria to-day. This we all deplore. It is the terrorist menace in Africa which evolves from this. Whether in Angola or Mozambique, against South Africa or Rhodesia, or even in Israel, I denounce this terrorist menace altogether. These Communist-trained horrors are even referred to by members of the Government as "freedom fighters", when they are using the tools of Communism in their dissolute, barbaric tactics.
Now to Israel, already mentioned. I think that the policy of Her Majesty's Ministers was insufficiently firm at the end of the six-day war. They could have denounced any reversion to pre-war delimitations. We have Russia blatantly arming the Arabs, bringing disorder into the area. Surely our representative could have had more influence in bringing about a directly negotiated settlement. The suggestion of a return to pre-war boundaries, such as the heights of Golan or in the West Bank, is impossible. They were like a sword at the throat of Israel. It is because of all this action, the alarming growth of Communist power, that I think we must remember Czechoslovakia, which should awaken us to the dangers, the tyranny over oppressed peoples, including white peoples, rigid, ruthless and regulatory, unmatched anywhere except in black dictatorships like Haiti and San Dominica.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I am glad to be able to follow the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, because he touched on that continent which is close to both his heart and mine, and I propose to spend rather longer on it than he did. However, he will not be surprised if I do not follow him in any of his comments. I was sad to see that, apart from the exception of Rhodesia, there was no mention whatsoever of the continent of Africa in the gracious Speech. I believe this to be a very serious omission because, with the exception of the noble Marquess who is to reply for the Opposition, and my noble friend Lord Shepherd who is to reply for the Government, both of whom I know are well aware of the importance of Africa, I feel that there are many, both in this House and in the present Government, who are not sufficiently aware of the enormous significance that that continent has in world affairs and, in particular, in our own overseas policies.
My Lords, there are two reasons above all for this: one is the economic, and one is the political. Economically, the continent of Africa—and I am speaking of the whole land area there—consists of some 50 countries (I believe it is actually 51 now) and something over 250 million people, a pretty substantial population. More important than that, in 1965, the last year for which figures are available, British investment in the continent of Africa was £800 million, or 19 per cent. of our total overseas investment. I ask your Lordships to compare this 19 per cent. with the 14 per cent. that we have invested in the whole of the continent of Asia, and the 5 per cent. that we have invested in the whole of Latin America. Therefore, with the exception of Europe, it is clear that our investment in the continent of Africa is infinitely greater than it is anywhere else.
It is not only in our investment that Africa is important to us. Our exports last year, 1967, amounted to £532 million, or just over 10 per cent. of our total exports, compared with exports to Asia of 9·3 per cent., and Latin America a mere 3·2 per cent., while imports at £616 million represented 9·6 per cent. of our total imports, compared with 7½ per cent. for Asia and 4½per cent. for Latin America. I do not want to weary your Lordships with any more figures, but these must make it very clear indeed
176
that purely from the economic point of view Africa is a continent to which we are already devoting a great deal of individual attention and to which, therefore, Her Majesty's Government should equally devote a very large amount of attention also.
Politically, my Lords, I believe that the importance of Africa is even greater than its economic importance. As I have said, there are something over fifty countries in Africa and 250 million people. The great majority of those countries are new countries very recently come to independence, and they are countries which are searching for a new way of life. There is a vacuum there waiting to be filled. I am not for a moment suggesting that we should attempt to fill it with our own particular brand of democracy of Westminster, democracy of the two-Party system, whatever you wish to call it, because I have no desire—and I am certain that Her Majesty's Government have no desire—to replace the old Victorian Colonialism with the neo-Colonialism of imposing forms of government on people for which they are not automatically suited and who may not wish to have them.
Equally, we cannot allow this vacuum to remain unfilled. It will not remain unfilled. If we withdraw entirely it will be filled, but it will be filled with something else. Whether it is with the doctrines of Chairman Mao, or whether it is with Marxism Leninism I do not know, but I am quite certain that while our own form of government in the West is not ideally suited to the new countries of Africa, the forms of government in the Soviet Union and in China are even less suited to them. They can choose certain good things, I believe, from those countries; they can choose other good things, and more good things, from us. But it is the job of this country, politically and diplomatically, to make certain that the good aspects of Western democracy—and not only the good aspects but the aspects of it which are particularly suited to the new countries of Africa—do not go by default, but are listened to, are studied and are made easily available to such countries as wish for them.
More important than these new countries searching for a way of government,

177
for a form of government in their own affairs, is the fact that in Africa to-day we find the only area in the whole world where together on one land mass are living a substantial number of white people and a very large number of black people; a substantial number of rich people and a far larger number of very poor people. What is more, the rich and the white, which are virtually synonymous, not only live on the same continent as the poor, or the black, but actually share a common frontier with them. If ever a conflict arises between the rich and the poor, between the black and the white—and this is something which many noble Lords and others have spoken of with a great deal of knowledge and a great deal of feeling in the past; and let us all hope that it never will—it will be in the continent of Africa that that conflict will start. If it starts, heaven knows where it will end! For that reason, above all, we cannot afford to ignore Africa, to let it go its own way.
If we are to retain any control over the future destinies of this country and our own way of life, let alone of the world, wherever this potential confrontation arises in Africa—and signs already exist, as the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, pointed out, with the freedom-fighters, although he does not want us to call them that; with the guerrillas, with the terrorists, as he would like to call them (call them what you like, they are the same people)—we must look at these matters frankly; we must study them in depth, and we must act courageously.
My Lords, right now we are, of course, mesmerised by the problem of Rhodesia. But Rhodesia is only one of several flashpoints in this highly explosive continent. The others are South Africa itself, with its racial policies of apartheid or separate development; Angola and Mozambique, the Portuguese overseas territories, with their social and economic inequalities which disappeared from Europe generations ago, and the question again mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, of South-West Africa and the United Nations.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to intervene? He is overlooking the fact that in the Portuguese African territories there is no
178
colour bar. It is an equal qualification, whether for black or for white.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I am not overlooking the fact at all. I specifically said that in South Africa they had their separate development and their racial policy. In the Portuguese territories they do not have that, but they have their social inequalities and their economic inequalities. I accept that they are not racial inequalities.
We must not so concentrate on Rhodesia that we lose sight of all those other equally dangerous, though not so imminent, problems. And we must not think that if, during the next week or in the coming months, the problem of Rhodesia is settled, we can then sit back and say "South Africa is now a quiet continent. We can once more forget about it." But for all that, Rhodesia is number one on the list. The problem of Rhodesia must be settled, but in order for the settlement to be worth anything at all it is not only necessary for people in this country and people in Rhodesia—whether it be the 4 million Africans, the 200,000 Europeans or all of them together—to be satisfied; it is also necessary for the neighbouring countries of Africa to be satisfied and, above all, for the closest neighbour, Zambia, to be satisfied. For if they do not feel that it is a just and lasting settlement, the tension will continue to mount and the threat of final explosion will in no way have been dissipated.
I do not in any way want to trespass on the delicate negotiations which are at present taking place in Rhodesia. I am quite sure that, if anybody can bring about a satisfactory conclusion, my right honourable friend the Minister Without Portfolio is the man to do it. But so far as I can see from such information as I have been able to glean, the Privy Council is to the Rhodesian Front and its supporters the great stumbling block. They say that they cannot submit to having an outside body interfering with the decision of their own properly elected Parliament. On the other hand, Zambia and the other African countries will not be satisfied, and in my view quite rightly will not be satisfied, with anything that leaves the Rhodesian Government free to alter the Constitution. The Privy Council perhaps appears to constitutional lawyers to be the right

179
way to give this safeguard; but if we are realists—and we must be realists in a matter of this sort—we all know that the decision of a court, whether a magistrates' court or the highest court in the land or in the Commonwealth, is valueless unless there is a policeman to ensure that that decision is carried out.
I do not want to go into the past history of this matter, but in the past Her Majesty's Government have made it quite clear that force is not going to be used against Rhodesia. I suggest, in all diffidence, that the objections of the Rhodesian Front and Mr. Smith to the superimposition of the Privy Council could be overcome, and at the same time the desires of Zambia and her neighbours for adequate safeguards could be met, if Her Majesty's Government gave way on the Privy Council (which, at its best, is only a hollow safeguard) but withdrew the undertaking which they have given not to use force, and made it clear that they would be prepared to use force only in the event of the agreement (assuming an agreement is arrived at) being broken. I suggest that this is something worthy of consideration.
In any case, the dispute over Rhodesia is not solely a matter between this country and Rhodesia: it involves other people; and, above all, Zambia. Would it not be a more effective way of achieving settlement to bring together, if they will come, on the one hand President Kaunda and, on the other, Mr. Ian Smith? After all, it is their two countries which are most at risk and which have most to lose from a continuation of this state of affairs and most to gain from a settlement. While in no way abandoning the responsibility of the British Government in this matter, a confrontation between the two leaders of the neighbouring countries, under the chairmanship of a British Minister, my right honourable friend, seems to me to offer the best way of getting some satisfactory settlement, if that is indeed possible.
My Lords, I should like to leave Rhodesia and turn to the rest of Africa. As I have said, we must not so concentrate on Rhodesia that we lose sight of the rest of this enormous continent. And I am afraid that we have been neglecting Africa. I will not embarrass my noble friend the Minister of State by asking him how many African countries have re-
180
ceived visits from British Ministers over the last four years, or to compare the number of African countries which have received such visits with the number of Asian, European or Latin American countries.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, perhaps I can help my noble friend. I have not the figures in my mind, but I would hazard a strong guess that there have been more ministerial visits to African countries than there have been to European and, I fear, to some Asian countries.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, my noble friend did not get my question quite right. I did not ask how many Ministerial visits there had been to African countries. I said I would not ask him how many African countries had been visited by Ministers.
LORD SHEPHERD: Yes, that is what I meant.
LORD WALSTON: There may have been a very large number of visits; in fact, I know that one country has received several visits. If my noble friend will give us that information, I shall be delighted. But I should be prepared to have a small bet with him—
LORD SHACKLETON: I should not.
LORD WALSTON: —that, as a proportion, far more countries in Latin America have been visited by British Ministers in the last four years than countries in Africa.
LORD SHEPHERD: No.
LORD WALSTON: I will put half-a-crown on it. However, let us hope that there will be still more visits, however many there have been.
I would also suggest that in the new amalgamation of the Commonwealth Relations Office with the Foreign Office (which I, and I am sure others, welcome) there should be appointed one Minister with special responsibility for Africa. Possibly it has already been done, and I should be very glad if it were my noble friend. I should hope that, Parliamentary duties permitting, he could de vote all of his time to the study of this continent, to visits to it, to talks with its leaders, and in general to evolving long-term policy and putting into effect the short-term implementation of that policy.

181
Also, I think we should expand our information services there. It is to me remarkable that the effectiveness of British sanctions against Rhodesia and the ineffectiveness of the sanctions of many other countries, some in Africa, some in Europe, some in Asia, should go virtually unnoticed in African countries; that we are so often criticised for the inadequacy of sanctions while sonic other countries—and I will not embarrass them by mentioning them by name, but they are well known—are able to pick up the trade which we have dropped and are at the same time received with open arms by other countries in Africa who are castigating us for our failure in Rhodesia. I think there is an information job to be done there. Similarly, there is the fact that certain countries are now prepared to step in and provide arms to South Africa which we, in deference to our obligations to the United Nations, are not supplying. The breaking of the sanctions is unknown in African countries and, again, the trade relations of those countries are improving, while we are receiving blame. There is a big job there also for our information services.
I think we should spend far more effort in seeing that the right sort of literature is available throughout even the relatively small towns of Africa, instead of its being concentrated in our High Commissions, our Embassies and the British Council offices in the capitals. Here we can take a leaf out of the Chinese book; they are extremely effective. We should give at least as much encouragement to development and self-help in Africa as we do in Asia and in Latin America. As your Lordships may remember, we have promised the Asian Development Bank £12,500,000. We have promised the Inter-American Development Bank £4,000,000. The African Development Bank we have promised £1,000,000. Compare those figures, my Lords, with the figures I gave you earlier of the volume of our trade.
I further suggest that we might consider encouraging African members of the Commonwealth to set up a group of their own, to study the particular problems of Africa and to co-ordinate their own policies. We must not lead a group of that sort—that must be an African initiative under African leadership—but we should give help, encouragement and
182
advice if we are asked for it. Above all, we need not only to do the few specific things which I have suggested—and there are many more which could be suggested—but to realise firmly, and all the time, the enormous importance to us, politically and economically, of Africa. We must also realise that, even forgetting the present problem of Rhodesia, Africa presents us with the greatest potential danger to ourselves and to the whole world, and, at the same time, the greatest opportunity of any country in the world.
5.54 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I do not propose to follow the noble Lord, Lord Walston, in his interesting survey of Africa as it is to-day, although, as he knows, I am particularly interested in the Malagasy Republic, which has been independent for eight years, and which is fortunate in having a stable and effective government. This evening I should like to refer to our relations with Greece, a member of NATO, at a time when nerves are taut in Yugoslavia, and when there has been a considerable build-up of the Russian fleet in the Mediterranean.
In another place, last Thursday, the Foreign Secretary said at col. 187 of Hansard:
"… the continuance of this alliance"—
NATO—
"and its continued use both for defence and for the pursuit of better understanding between East and West is a necessity."
He went on to say that
"… anyone who considered events in Europe would have drawn the conclusion that, in view of what has happened in the East, there is greater need for the nations of Western Europe to pursue unity among themselves and not merely in the military field."
But last September, according to the Daily Telegraph, a resolution was agreed in Strasbourg by members of the Political Committee of the Council of Europe that Greece may be expelled from the Council of Europe. The Daily Telegraph article of September 26 went on to say that, unless the Greek Government made sweeping changes in its constitutional proposals, the Council's parliamentary assembly would be asked to vote Greece's expulsion or suspension next January. I understand that the final say in the matter lies with the Committee of Ministers. I

183
therefore hope that Her Majesty's Government will intervene, should it be necessary, to oppose such an expulsion or suspension.
Articles 56 to 86 of the 1968 Constitution, which was submitted to the Greek people by referendum on September 29 last, deal with the election, constitution, powers and operation of Parliament. The Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe called for free parliamentary elections in Greece within six months. In view of the assurance given by the Greek Prime Minister following the plebiscite, that there would be a gradual return to full democracy, should not the timing of this internal matter be left to the Greek Government? Friends in Greece, with whom I have spoken, consider the 1968 Constitution more democratic than the 1952 Constitution, and also better adapted to the realities of Greek life. Having visited Greece last August, and having met the Prime Minister, I have no reason to doubt his word that he intends to bring Greece to a full democratic régime.
At this stage a comment by Peregrine Worsthorne might be appropriate. He said:
"The Colonels are not ideologues or fanatics. Their exact counterparts could be found in every saloon bar in this country. They are what in happier lands and in former times would be regarded as the backbone of any nation—sincere patriots, deeply concerned with the traditional values of their country."
Would the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, be willing to concede that the time might have come for an improvement in relations between our two countries?
In this context, a statement such as "Colonels rig Greek ballot", which appeared in the Observer of September 22 last, and the showing by I.T.V. on August 31 last of the Allan King Associates production, "I was born Greek", with Melina Mercouri, do not seem very helpful. That film was blatant anti-Greek Government propaganda.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, is the noble Lord suggesting that we should control television?
LORD MERRIVALE: No, my Lords. I am just drawing the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the fact that there is this definite anti-Greek government propaganda. In view of the popular
184
support—and I stress the words, "popular support"—which appeared to be enjoyed by the régime when I visited Greece last August, when I spoke to a number of people—trade union leaders, agriculturalists and so forth—I trust that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will agree that such remarks as have appeared, such as, "The barbarous methods in use in Greece to-day", might be replaced by a more constructive approach.
So far, my Lords, I would agree that our trade balance is still favourable, with our exports to Greece in 1966, 1967 and January to September, 1968, running at £35·2 million, £33·1 million and £28·3 million respectively, while our import figures for the same periods are as follows: £11·3 million, £12·6 million and £8·5 million. But I think we should not overlook the fact (which has its political implications) that the Communist Eastern bloc countries have been buying up increasing quantities of the large surplus of tobacco in Northern Greece by means of bilateral agreements. It is an important problem for that country, for, to quote just one example, the unsold stocks of tobacco in 1964, 1965 and 1966 amounted to 63,532 tons. The time could well come when the Eastern countries, particularly the U.S.S.R., might be prepared to buy greater quantities of tobacco provided more machinery and consumer goods were bought from them. This could have the effect of reducing our exports to Greece.
To turn now to NATO, Northern Greece being one of the most sensitive areas of Western defence, with the shadow of Russia's invasion of Czechoslovakia lying heavily over the Balkans, one can understand America's restoration of military aid to Greece. Could I therefore ask the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in what way we are assisting or contributing to the combined defence of that area, apart from the few British officers who are, I believe, in Salonika, and also in Izmir and Ankara? My Lords, I have already referred to the systematic build-up of Russian naval power in the Mediterranean, whilst Moscow's penetration of the Arab world brings it nearer to Greece's frontiers. No doubt, too, Moscow is capable of considerable mischief-making in Cyprus.

185
My Lords, Lieutenant-General Anghelis, the Greek Chief of Staff, when inaugurating a new NATO guided-missile firing range in Crete last May, said that it was
"yet another example of the important achievements of the Alliance whenever its members, in a spirit of co-operation, solidarity and mutual understanding, join forces for a common purpose".
My Lords, eight member countries are co-operating in the use of the facilities provided in Crete. These eight countries are: the U.S.A., West Germany, Italy, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Turkey and Greece. Can the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, say why we are not participating in any way in taking advantage of this firing range?
In conclusion, my Lords, bearing in mind the popular support of the régime in Greece and the trade implications to which I have also referred, should we not also remind ourselves that the penetration of the Soviet Union in the Eastern Mediterranean increases the strategic importance of Greece for NATO, and, therefore, might it not be appropriate to seek more friendly and closer links with that country?
6.5 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I hesitate to begin with a personal reference, but after the congratulations which were expressed by my noble friend the Leader of the House on the fact that I had celebrated my 80th birthday this weekend I should like to express appreciation, not only to him but to Members on all sides of the House, from all Parties, who have sent me messages. I shall think it much more appropriate in 20 years' time. Under the proposals for the reform of this House I should become a voteless Member, but I can assure your Lordships that you will have to put up with me by way of Questions and speeches until I am 100 years old.
My Lords, I want to make only a brief reference to what the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, has said. I have been almost stunned in amazement by that speech. In Greece we have had a military coup; we have had the destruction of a democratic system; we have had an election which has been controlled just as much as elections in Communist countries. The feeling of the people of Greece has been
186
reflected in that amazing demonstration at the funeral of the ex-Prime Minister, Mr. Papandreou. That any Member of this House, in our democratic society, should express sympathy and solidarity with that régime just astonishes me. Those of us in this House who have democratic sentiments are indeed critical of our own Government for recognising that régime. No one could possibly condemn what Soviet Russia did in Czechoslovakia to destroy those democratic liberties in which we believe and at the same time extend praise to the Government in Greece.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but he referred to the demonstration which took place on the occasion of the funeral of Mr. George Papandreou. I should have thought, first of all, that such a demonstration was in bad taste; but, secondly, I should have thought that the fact that 92 per cent. of the votes cast in Greece were in favour of the Constitution put forward by the present Government when people were not under any obligation to vote for it—they had two ballot papers, "Yes" and "No", and they could just put one in an envelope, seal the envelope and put it in a ballot box; no pressure was put on the people—meant something.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I would not accept that there was no pressure. I would just say I regard that result in exactly the same way as I regard the 98 per cent. support for the Communist régimes in Communist countries.
My Lords, I propose to discuss a number of matters, but I want to be telegraphic in my expression about each of them. The first speech which I delivered in this House was on the subject of the danger of nuclear weapons. That remains. In America and Soviet Russia there are nuclear weapons which can destroy all human life on earth; and now there is the greater danger of biological methods of war, which could be even more destructive than nuclear weapons. I want to express appreciation to Her Majesty's Government for their initiative in the Non-proliferation Treaty; but the nations of the world which do not have nuclear weapons are urging very strongly that it should be supported

187
by the nuclear Powers, including Great Britain and France, and unfortunately unreachable China, cutting down their own nuclear weapons. But, much more important, they are urging that this should be made the occasion for advanced, progressive disarmament; and I hope very much that the British Government will revert to the situation of some three years ago when both Soviet Russia and this country and, indeed, America, were making proposals for deep, progressive disarmament.
My Lords, the great factor to-day in our discussion of foreign affairs is the hope of peace in Vietnam. The American Government has now decided to stop its bombing of the North. I wish this had been done months ago when U Thant and many leading voices all over the world urged it. But, late as this decision is, I deeply hope that it is going to lead to peace. The one difficulty is that the Saigon Government—very mistakenly referred to as the South Vietnamese—have decided not to attend the peace conference in Paris. I hope they will reconsider this decision. I would add only this: if the Saigon Government comes into conflict with the American Government in this matter, and if it is left alone, there could be no greater assurance of a Communist triumph in South Vietnam than that the Saigon Government should, on their own, attempt to resist the N.L.F. and North Vietnam. They are probably awaiting the result of the Presidential election which is taking place in the United States of America to-day. I hope that they will join the peace conference and that it will lead to a decision that the people of South Vietnam shall have the opportunity, in free elections, to decide their own Government, and to decide their relations with North Vietnam. I hope also that there may be some provision for international supervision of that election, which might be under the United Nations auspices.
My Lords, when we turn from the situation in South-East Asia and Vietnam, I think that the greatest danger of war now lies in the Middle East. I want very sincerely to congratulate Her Majesty's Government, and particularly my noble friend Lord Caradon at the United Nations who took the initiative in
188
proposing the resolution on the Israeli/Arab conflict. That resolution has unfortunately not been accepted by the Israeli Government. I hope Her Majesty's Government will continue to press it as the means to a solution. I have been deeply interested for many years in trying to make some contribution to a solution of the Israeli/Arab conflict because I have a profound admiration for what the Jewish race have done in Israel, for the amazing way in which they have turned deserts into towns and swamps into fruitful agricultural areas, and also because I have sympathy with the Arab nations in their desire for recognition in the Middle East. I would urge very strongly that a solution to this problem may be found by a withdrawal of the Israeli forces from the territories they have occupied but that there should be some modification of the old frontiers. I think the Israelis are entitled to say that there should be some reconsideration of the frontiers on the Syrian heights over the area of Lake Galilee, which is at the mercy of any army occupying them. I also think the Israelis are absolutely entitled to urge that there should be free passage of their ships through the Suez Canal and through the Akaba Gulf. But even if the Arab nations refuse entire recognition of Israel, I hope that on the basis of non-belligerency between those nations peace may be secured.
I turn now to Europe where I think lies the third danger in foreign affairs. I am deeply moved by the struggle of the people of Czechoslovakia for their democratic and libertarian rights. I regard it as one of the most hopeful things that have happened in the Communist world since the 1917 revolution in Russia. Over the years many of the leaders of Czechoslovakia have been my personal friends. But, having said that, I hope Her Majesty's Government will resist the provocation and the tendencies which have arisen from that struggle to strengthen the military conflict in Europe between East and West. I hope Her Majesty's Government will resist the temptation to pursue a more challenging policy in Berlin itself. I urge that, because the strengthening of a military challenge from the West will merely increase the tendency of Russia to hold on to Czechoslovakia by military means.
In contrast with that policy, I urge strongly that when NATO comes to be

189
reviewed next year we should seriously look at the possibility of establishing a European Security Pact to replace both NATO and the Warsaw Pact. The Warsaw Pact Powers themselves, prior to the Czechoslovakian incident, indicated that they were ready to enter such a security pact to cover the whole of Europe. I hope that our policies will tend in those directions.
I have great sympathy with the speech that my noble friend Lord Walston delivered about Africa. I do not propose to enter into details about Rhodesia this evening: I understand that we are to have another opportunity for doing that. I would only say to the Ministers—and say it with a little knowledge of Africa—that we have to consider not only Rhodesia, but the Commonwealth itself. We have to consider what would be the reaction to any settlement in Rhodesia; whether it would mean the deep disagreement of Commonwealth countries. We have to consider also what is one of the most alarming dangers in the world today; that is, the possibility of a racialist war throughout the whole of Southern Africa. My Lords, I shall have much to say about Rhodesia when we come to the debate, but at this moment I will limit my observations to that.
I want to say a little more about the situation in Nigeria. I regard it as one of the tragedies of the present day. That Africans in a large part of Nigeria should be in conflict with the Ibos in Biafra is not only a disappointment to those of us who struggled for Nigerian independence, but to those of us who had hoped that in independent Africa an association on the basis of Africa rather than of tribes would develop.
My first comment on this situation is that it is becoming a scene of a most unseemly competition in traffic between arms from different countries. I suppose that I first gained any kind of reputation at all in this country by my exposure of the arms traffic of the world in books which I wrote forty years ago. We now have a situation in which there are the armament firms of this country and of Soviet Russia, with Egyptian pilots flying the planes, on the one side, and on the other side the armament firms of France, indirectly supplying Biafra through the Ivory Coast and Gabon. And
190
there is the black market which is going on through Portugal, at Lisbon, to which contributions have been made by Communist countries, even when Soviet Russia is supplying Nigeria. This is one of the most evil reflections of the bloody traffic in which armament firms are engaged for their own profit, resulting in the death of thousands of people all over the world.
My Lords, I have repeatedly made the appeal to Her Majesty's Government to seek to end this traffic in death by the great armament firms, and the answer has been that the Government cannot control this black market. The Government can control the black market. Every Government in the world can prohibit the export of arms from its territory. The greatest scene for the exports of this market is Lisbon, in Portugal. The Portuguese are our allies, our oldest allies. Portugal is part of NATO. Is the influence of Her Majesty's Government now so small that they cannot even exert their power over Portugal to end this black market in arms which means death to thousands in Nigeria?
LORD STRANGE: My Lords, is the noble Lord suggesting that we can control Russia?
LORD BROCKWAY: Yes, my Lords, we can influence Russia. I must not reveal too much, but I have had repeated conversations with representatives of Soviet Russia urging them to stop the supply of their arms; and, different from what Her Majesty's Government have said through their Front-Bench spokesmen, I think it possible that Soviet Russia would be prepared to stop her supply of arms if Britain would stop her supply of arms, and if we could get a similar arrangement between other Governments.
My Lords, I am deeply concerned about this, because it is not only the deaths which come from military action in Nigeria and Biafra but starvation also. The relief organisations estimate that if this war goes on there will be two million deaths by the end of this year. That is more than a political and military calamity: it is a human calamity, and there should be an effort by all Governments and all people to avoid it. I believe that the British people in the last months, despite their almost indoctrination in violence, have been more moved by the sight on television of those starving

191
babies in Biafra and Nigeria than by anything else. In that situation, we should now be thinking of every kind of effort to bring this war to an end.
We have reached a situation in which Biafra, with the increased supply of arms received indirectly from France, is holding back the Federal troops. At this moment there is a stalemate. I have differed on this issue, to some extent, from my friend Margery Perham, but in The Times last week she very strongly urged that, in view of the stalemate in the military situation between Nigeria and Biafra, the opportunity should be taken for negotiation and agreement. I beg Her Majesty's Government to accept that view. I hope the Government will not feel that the supply of arms must be increased. If this war in Nigeria and Biafra becomes a conflict between the arms supplied by Soviet Russia and Britain, on the one hand—very strange allies!—and by France and the black market and Czechoslovakia, on the other, we shall face a massacre and starvation in one of the Commonwealth countries that we have established which would be a calamity for the world.
In this situation I beg Her Majesty's Government not to expand their arms supply to the Federal Government, but to say to the Federal Government that they should seek negotiation. I know what the answer is: that Colonel Ojukwu has said, "We will fight on". Three months ago I proposed to Colonel Ojukwu a formula which I believe will ultimately be accepted by both the Federal Government and by the Biafrans. As my noble friend Lord Shepherd knows—and this was the reason why he went to Lagos with hope—there were members of the Biafran Administration who supported this approach.
My proposal was an association of Biafra with common services with the rest of Nigeria; that Nigeria should give up its rigid idea of unity and that Biafra should give up its rigid idea of secession. As my noble friend knows, that idea received considerable support from influential people on both the Biafran and Nigerian sides, even if it was rejected publicly by Colonel Ojukwu. The British Government, if they are thinking of the future of Nigeria (and there can be no unity if the war goes on; it is a psycho-
192
logical impossibility), and if they are seeking to save thousands of lives, must now use their influence for a truce on these lines rather than an expansion of military aid.
My Lords, I conclude on a point about which I feel just as deeply: not the starvation of two million in Nigeria by the end of this year, but the great danger of starvation in the world by the end of this century because of the absence of food to meet the expansion of world population. Family planning, yes; but that will not be a solution to the problem. I want to urge Her Majesty's Government, as they look at the next decade, to put right in the priority of their thinking about world affairs the possibility of increasing food production throughout the world. The possibility is there. It is now possible to make the desert fruitful land and to control the depths of the sea to produce a wealth of food for millions of people. For these purposes we need world economic organisation. I would urge Her Majesty's Government to make one of their first priorities a determination to assist in the solution of that problem.
6.32 p.m.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, will forgive me if I do not follow him in his speech, except in regard to his declaration of personal policy. My noble friend Lord Salisbury has described the debate on the humble Address as a grand inquest on the nation, and it seems to me appropriate that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, should choose this occasion to indicate that he means to continue for another twenty years as Grand Inquisitor of your Lordships' House. I wish him luck and I am sure that we all look forward to a proper "Brockway benefit" at the end of it.
My noble friend Lord Erroll of Hale, likened the gracious Speech to the American war-time K-rations we used to have in Burma—and not a bad comparison either, so far as it goes. I cannot remember that there was anything very nasty in K-rations except possibly when the flavour of chewing gum got into the powdered soup. I would take my noble friend's comparison a little further and remind him that if he tasted K-rations, possibly he will also have been exposed to the soya links, a kind of skinless

193
vegetarian sausage from America, of which the Americans were as bitterly ashamed as we were on our side of our equally revolting V-cigarettes.
This ration pack contains for me a couple of soya links, the second of which is at the bottom of the second page, where it says:
"My Government will press forward their policies for strengthening the economy"—
I have not strayed into the wrong debate: your Lordships will find it is all right—
"so as to achieve a continuing and substantial balance of payments surplus. This will enable us to meet our international obligations, rebuild the reserves, develop industry and safeguard employment."
The second of those two sentences I think stamps this document as being historically—and alas!, deplorably—unique. It means that last Wednesday was the first occasion, I believe, on which a British Sovereign ever came to Parliament and announced that we were actually unable to meet our foreign international obligations. We have come to a pretty pass, my Lords, when The Queen is asked to state that publicly to the world.
A little further up on the same page comes another curious paragraph, the one which says:
"My Government will continue to take the necessary steps to withdraw British forces from Malaysia, Singapore and the Persian Gulf by the end of 1971."
I am not going to harp on that. It has been debated this afternoon and before, and I wish to say nothing more on the matter of defence. But I have been trying to imagine how I should feel if I were a foreigner and read the next sentence that comes after, which says this:
"Furthermore, in consultation with the Governments concerned. My Ministers will maintain their efforts to promote conditions favourable to peace and security in the areas concerned."
I think that my imaginary foreigner would find that puzzling. He would say to himself, "If they are trying to promote conditions of safety in the area, that must mean presumably that those conditions do not exist now, so why are they making this precise announcement of their intention to withdraw?" And if he were a well-informed foreigner and had noted that apparently Soviet Russia is the only country in the world that seems
194
seriously anxious to get the Suez Canal reopened, I think that he would wonder a little more.
I am not thinking of defence—not this time. I am thinking of the kind of figure we, the British, are cutting in the world just now. Having read those two passages, what weight are people in other countries likely to give to the assortment of vague promises that the Government make in the gracious Speech concerning the lofty part they mean to play in world affairs? I fancy that my ear catches an echo from last year's debate on the gracious Speech, and your Lordships may possibly recall these words:
"… I do not recollect a time in my lifetime when British prestige abroad has been so low or this country has been held in such low a regard. I recollect that the Foreign Secretary once said that now, once again, Britain's voice was being listened to in world affairs. I fear that nothing is more untrue than that remark, and that our allies have deteriorated and weakened in a way which I, for one, find alarming."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2/11/67; col. 157.]
My noble leader will forgive my quoting him in those words, I am sure. I wish I could be equally sure that those words were any less true to-day than when he spoke them a year ago. Where overseas has our national prestige been enhanced in any way? Perhaps the Government find comfort in the fact that negotiations have been reopened with Rhodesia. If so they are entitled to it. But suppose a settlement should be achieved? The long struggle would still not be over, for another hurdle, and perhaps an even higher one, looms ahead —that of selling it to the United Nations. If the Security Council says, "No", what then? I do not see where anywhere in the world the Government still retain initiative cf any kind in foreign affairs. I am not sure I even see anywhere outside Rhodesia where they are taking a line of firmness, except in pursuing policies of weakness.
Think of the Falkland Islands. The Argentine wants those islands. The British Government reply that they will not hand them over unless the inhabitants approve. If there is one thing in the world that is more certain than another, surely it is that the inhabitants have not the slightest intention of approving any such thing, so the answer is, "No"—not "Well, yes, perhaps, but if …", but, "No".

195
Perhaps I may return to Europe, and once again, like other noble Lords, to Czechoslovakia, but from rather a different point of view. Last Thursday the Foreign Secretary said in another place that it was noticeable that—and I quote:
"nations have realised that what has happened in Czechoslovakia, and what has been said by the Soviet Government since, brings into international affairs an alarming element of unpredictability".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons; 31/10/68, col. 185.]
I cannot make out what that is supposed to mean. Does it mean that before the invasion of Czechoslovakia there was no element of unpredictability?—because, if so, I should like to know why the invasion itself was not predicted. Or does it mean that the invasion itself was the first unpredictable thing that the Russians had done? If so, it is simply idiotic and untrue. Whatever the remark may mean, it certainly implies the admission that the Russians are able in time of peace to plan and mount a full-scale operation of war and to bring it into full and complete effect without the Western military and diplomatic intelligence services having the slightest idea that they are going to do it. If that is what the Foreign Secretary means by "an alarming element of unpredictability", then, by golly, I think he is right!
Much praise has been given to the Russians, and with justice, for their efficiency in doing it. But the corresponding inefficiency of the NATO Governments, including the British, is something that I, for one, really feel alarmed about. The next sentence that fell from the Minister was this:
"It would be a bold man or a fool who would like to make positive prophecies as to where next the policy of the Soviet Union might move."—[Col. 185.]
Well, if that is how the Foreign Secretary feels, all I can say is that I hope there are some men in the Foreign Office who are neither fools, nor necessarily bold, but simply efficient.
In any case, I can tell your Lordships something else about the invasion of Czechoslovakia. I can tell you of an embittered remark made to me by a Czech-born British citizen who with his English wife was on holiday in Prague at the time of the invasion. "A British passport," he said to me, "means nothing in the world any more". By "nothing,"
196
he meant nothing in the way of help or protection for its holder. For he told me how, in order to get out of the country, he had to appeal for help to the Americans in Prague, because it was they who were working all night to collect petrol to organise convoys, while the British Consulate was shut. He described to me how, when he eventually reached the frontier, on a road through Pilsen towards Nuremberg in West Germany, in an American convoy, with his tank full of American supplied petrol, he found reception centres organised and laid out on the ground, with field kitchens, supply dumps, fuel and, if necessary, money. They were American (an American one was there), French, Danish, Swedish, Swiss—all there for the purpose of helping their own nationals. But there was no one to help the British; no British organisation at all, not even one military field kitchen. That man, I am sorry to say, is a little less proud now than he was of being a British citizen.
There is a feeling abroad in the air, which you must all have come across, that because we no longer have an Empire, and are no longer a great world Power, we are no longer a great world people. Where, then, has the greatness gone? How about the Czechs and the Slovaks? They are by no means a world Power, and they are very far from rich, but would you say that the greatness has fizzled out of them? I doubt it. England was no world Power in 1588, when the first Queen Elizabeth rode out ahead of her troops at Tilbury and said:
"I know I have the body of a weak and feeble woman, but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a King of England too and think foul scorn Parma or Spain, or any other prince of Europe, should dare to invade the borders of my realm."
The voice of a leader! A voice to set the youth of England all on fire! The voice has been heard in other mouths and at other times, including our own. But not now. Our leaders now in Whitehall and Westminster speak a different language. Not so long ago a politician or a statesman would say, "I think …" or, "I believe …". But now he is more likely to say, with exquisite caution, "I should have thought …". He used to say, "I will try" or, "I will do my best". But now he seeks.

197
"My Government will continue to seek to bring about a return to constitutional rule in Rhodesia …".
Ministers will seek to use all available means to
"achieve a negotiated settlement of the Vietnam conflict."
"Will seek to use all available means"—the composer of that gem must surely have earned at least a bronze medal of the lightweight class.
Some noble Lords, whether they are here or not—at least one is —will remember, as I do, singing in boyhood a song called "Giants". It goes like this—words only, my Lords, I promise you, unless, that is, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack would care to join me in chorus:

"There were wonderful giants of old, you know,

There were wonderful giants of old.

They grew more mightily all of a row

Than ever was heard or told.

All of them stood their six feet four

And they threw to a hundred yards or more

And they never were lame or stiff or sore.

And we, compared to the days of yore,

Are cast in a pigmy mould".

There are two more verses in that self-depreciative vein, and at the end of each refrain the song goes:

"For all of we, whoever we be,

Come short of the giants of old, you see

For all of we, whoever we be,

>Come short of the giants of old, you see."

But the fourth and last verse begins like this:

"But I think all this is a lie, you know,

I think all this is a lie.

For the hero race may come and go,

But it doesn't exactly die.

For all of we, whoever we be,

Come up to the giants of old, you see.

For all of we, whoever we be,

Come up to the giants of old, you see."

I commend the thought to Her Majesty's Government, in the hope that perhaps some day the flame may kindle in their hearts and cause the voice of Britain to sound across the frontiers a little less like a squeak and more like a lion's growl.
6.47 p.m.
THE EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE: My Lords, the Free World was shocked and disgusted at watching Press, radio and television reports on the brazen rape of Czechoslovakia by Soviet Russia and four of its puppet régimes last August. This new crime revives the painful memories of the Kremlin's brutal
198
assault on Hungary less than 12 years ago. Directly, and through the United Nations, this earlier crime was condemned by free men and their Governments, including us here in Britain. But because the words were not accompanied by action they were futile. They never stopped the rapists, and while the great democracies stood aside in hand-wringing sorrow, this has given the Soviets their lust for more to-day. The only immediate and positive approval of the Soviet outrage against Czechoslovakia came from the most violent elements in the Middle East; and these are Nasser's Egypt, Syria and Iraq. In Moscow's brutal defiance of world opinion, these Arab States saw at once a happy Portent for the destruction of Israel with direct help of Red Russia.
Unless the major democracies immediately invoke meaningful diplomatic, and especially economic, sanctions against these acts of international banditry, Soviet Communism will be hardened in its belief that it has a hunting licence against any nation or region which it plots to dominate; and to-day, my Lords, that means the Near East, in particular. So I would say, let us safeguard ourselves against aggression. We have, as all your Lordships are aware, a nuclear force which is not strong enough to be a credible deterrent. I would therefore strongly urge Her Majesty's Government that our Polaris submarines be increased to the original aim of five (at the moment we have four) and that, when practicable, the nuclear fleet should be built up to eight Polaris submarines, which would provide Britain with the effective means of self-defence. This would give Britain security against aggression, and real independence for our people. I would mention here that a Polaris submarine costs some £50 million, which is about one-third of one per cent. of what the Government spend annually.
I will conclude by saying that we should keep NATO strong, and at the same time, as one of the free nations of the world, we must keep striving for peace.
6.51 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, from some personal experience of the task that I understand is to fall to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, I know how difficult it can be, and tonight all the more so, when foreign

199
affairs include what used to be colonial affairs and the affairs of the Commonwealth Relations Office. So I think the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will have his work cut out to reply to all the questions and all the points which have been raised. For this reason I took the opportunity of sending to the noble Lord a note of the points to which I hope to call your Lordships' attention, and a list of the questions to which I am seeking answers. I know the noble Lord will do his best to help me.
I was interested to read in the Report of the debate on the Queen's Speech in another place that the right honourable gentleman the Foreign Secretary had based his policy on his answer to what he described as the fundamental question of how best we can look after our own immediate interests, and how we can contribute with other nations to finding a mechanism for peaceful change in the world. He asserted that Britain's permanent long-term interest was the establishment in the world of peaceful methods of settling disputes. He considered that Britain could not deal with its problems, "by any kind of withdrawal from the world". So far as they go, these observations seem to me to be unexceptionable, but we must consider how Her Majesty's Government propose to act. The right honourable gentleman suggested that a peaceful method of settling disputes was probably in the interest of all nations, though particularly in the interest of a nation like our own, which lives by world-wide trade. I wonder whether Her Majesty's Government have been giving enough consideration to the possibility that this is not at all what all nations consider to be in their best interest.
It is my opinion that the U.S.S.R. welcomes strife and unsettled disputes (outside her empire), and that it is now, and always has been, her policy to provoke and to foment them. The U.S.S.R. unlike ourselves or Japan—another highly industrialised trading nation to which I shall refer again later—has within her territories vast natural resources so that, like the U.S.A., she is virtually self-supporting. Let us not forget that the genesis of the great dynamic behind Russia's remarkable and brutal material progress was the drive for world revolution
200
—the establishment of a completely new order. Has the U.S.S.R. abandoned its dream of world revolution? The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, in his interesting observations about the possibility of a rapport with the satellite nations, asserted his view that it was quite impossible for this to take place until Russia had completely abandoned Stalinism. I think I have not misquoted the noble Lord's words.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, I think I said something to that effect. I said that Stalinism has already been tempered to a considerable extent, but that I think we shall never get a real détente unless Russia abandons the main principles of Stalinism.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I made a note of the noble Lord's words, and I think he said "a complete end of Stalinism". He will be able to see his words in Hansard tomorrow, but virtually speaking I think we are in agreement.
We are a nation of peace-loving shopkeepers, traders, contractors and developers. It was in order to trade that we travelled; it was in order to get rich that we traded; it was in order to protect our trade routes that we developed the most powerful navy in the world, and it was in order to consolidate our overseas trading posts that we built up our Empire, upon which the sun never set. We were never at any time in our Imperial history engaged upon a programme of ideological indoctrination. It is the very essence of Communism that it respects no frontiers. The Foreign Secretary has told us that in the General Assembly of the United Nations Mr. Gromyko reaffirmed this principle when he referred to what he called the "Socialist Commonwealth", and on being questioned said that this concept had no geographical limits. In my opinion the greatest danger for the West would be a failure to appreciate that Communism is activated by a quite different impulsion from that which propels the non-Communist world. It is the false doctrine which ensnared such men as Burgess and Maclean. It is the power which, unhampered by the inhibitions of truth, respect for the dignity of the individual, or of Christian charity, will unhesitatingly indulge in the pursuit of

201
its evil ends in merciless oppression and ruthless cruelty.
My noble friend Lord Carrington has drawn your Lordships' attention to certain aspects of the Communist front. My right honourable friend Sir Alec Douglas-Home gave us in another place figures to illustrate the scale of the Soviet's naval force—375 Soviet submarines, 160 of them long-distance craft deployed in Atlantic and European waters, compared with a total of 200 United States submarines and 33 of the Royal Navy. These figures have a significance. They are important, and I quite agree with the noble Earl, Lord Buckinghamshire, that that is something we need to think about.
In the view of Her Majesty's Government it would have been wrong and unnecessary, following on the events of August 21, for NATO to have embarked upon some plan of gigantic rearmament and provocative response. Those are the words of the Foreign Secretary. In my opinion, there would be grave danger in any hesitation on the part of NATO, or the appearance of any lack of determination in its member States—and here I was glad to note that the noble Lord the Leader of the House entirely echoed my views. It seems to me essential that there should, without further delay, be clear evidence that the NATO members are taking the necessary steps to fulfil their obligations.
I feel that the Foreign Secretary is to be congratulated on his clear statement that the Soviet Union considers itself entitled, if necessary, to invade the territory of other countries according to its judgment of where its, and their, interests lie, and he considers that this attitude brings—and these are the words the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery mentioned— "an alarming element of unpredictability" into the situation. I am sure that the right honourable gentleman will have the full support of the Tory Party when he tells his NATO colleagues that
"all members will have to be prepared to make some increased commitment to the efficiency of the Alliance".
My ear, perhaps like the ear of the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, has perhaps grown unaccustomed to the restrained speech of politicians, but I only hope that there are undertones of a greater sense of urgency and determina-
202
tion in those words of the Foreign Secretary than I am able to detect. I believe that the forthcoming meeting of the NATO Ministers will be of paramount importance and we on these Benches will await its outcome with deep concern. I was very much gratified to learn from the noble Lord the Leader of the House that these meetings are to take place, I understood him to say, on the 14th to the 16th of this month in Brussels.
Like many others, no doubt, I had the unpopular thought in my mind that it was perhaps a pity that some of the young men and women engaged in the demonstration against the Americans fighting in Vietnam were not voluntarily occupied in the drill halls of the Territorial Army or perhaps incorporated in the National Service. I wonder whether those same young men and women, and for that matter many others of us besides, fully appreciate the extent to which we rely for our survival upon the power of the United States of America. An examination of the forces available to the Warsaw Pact members and of the totally unexpected invasion of Czechoslovakia would, one would have thought, have brought it home to all of us in Western Europe how essential it is for us to work together. The absence of France from NATO seems to me a tragedy. It is most fervently to be hoped that she will resume her place beside her old allies. Meanwhile, can the Minister tell the House what would be the position of France if it were to become necessary for the NATO members to act in accordance with their treaty obligations? Has France perhaps made bilateral agreements with her allies? Can the Minister tell us? I firmly believe that to accept the idea of the broken entente would be very much against our own interests and the interests of Europe as a whole.
We have been informed that, despite the obstacles to our entry into the E.E.C., Her Majesty's Government are pursuing co-operation with nations both inside and outside the Common Market in all those fields not actually precluded by the Treaty of Rome. I understand that a plan of M. Harmel, the Belgian Foreign Minister, is a new basis upon which we have been discussing European co-operation and that discussions have been taking place within the Western European Union. I am also informed that after the meeting

203
of the Council of Western European Union in Rome the week before last, five E.E.C. Ministers, but not the French Minister, met with the British Minister.
As noble Lords will know, the Harmel plan covers such questions as finance, monetary policy, politics and technology. I do not know what was discussed at this meeting of the five E.E.C. Ministers with the British Minister, but can the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, tell the House whether in fact the questions that I have mentioned could be discussed by us with the five Ministers in the absence of France? I understand that another such meeting is planned shortly, and I therefore ask the Minister whether it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to by-pass the French and to seek to negotiate with the five other E.E.C. members. If there is to be a change of emphasis in the Government's policy towards Europe, Parliament should be informed. In this connection, can the noble Lord who is to reply tell the House whether there is any special significance in the forthcoming visit which I am informed the Prime Minister proposes to make to Germany?
The gracious Speech asserts that it remains the aim of Her Majesty's Government to work for genuine East-West understanding and of course we should all like to see that achieved. Despite the many setbacks we have had to endure, I sincerely hope that Her Majesty's Government will never falter in their determination to continue in close co-operation with France. I cannot conceal my dismay over the French intervention in Biafra. The arms and other assistance received from France have certainly prolonged this tragic conflict. Can the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, tell us whether there have been diplomatic exchanges with our French friends concerning aid to Biafra? Does he not think —and here I was particularly interested in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Walston that it is high time that the countries of Western Europe, and in particular France, Belgium and Britain, attempted to work out a concerted plan together to guide them in their relations with the newly independent African States? Are there, in fact, some regular exchanges of this kind? In my experience they were infrequent and mostly only at official level.
204
I wish now to turn for a few moments to the decision of Her Majesty's Government to withdraw British forces from Malaysia, Singapore and the Persian Gulf by the end of 1971, and to have no special capability for operations outside Europe. On March 4, 1968, the Secretary of State for Defence said in another place:
"Any forces we provide for operations outside Europe and the Atlantic area—whether under U.N. auspices or otherwise—will have to be drawn from the capability which we maintain for the defence of Europe."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, col. 59.]
In view of the Foreign Secretary's statement that all NATO members will have to be prepared to make some increased commitments to the efficiency of the Alliance, will the Minister inform the House how Her Majesty's Government will provide forces for operations outside Europe and the Atlantic area?
There seems to me, as to the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, to be a contradiction in the words of the gracious Speech, where it is announced that Her Majesty's Government are to withdraw British forces from Malaysia, Singapore and the Persian Gulf by the end of 1971, while at the same time Her Majesty's Ministers will maintain their efforts to promote conditions favourable to peace and security in the areas concerned. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, was naturally at great pains to justify the decision of the Government of which he is so distinguished a member to withdraw from East of Suez. I am bound to say that in this part of the noble Lord's speech I thought he spoke with less assurance. I was grateful to him for his helpful observations over Nigeria, but I felt that on the subject of East of Suez he was less confident and rather rushed things.
I shall not this evening attempt to go into the detailed argument of the financial advantages for and against withdrawing from East of Suez. I understand that a long debate took place on this subject some time ago. But I must put it on record this evening that it seems to me extraordinary that we should be deciding to make this move. Sixty-two per cent. of all our oil supplies comes from the Gulf. We have very considerable investments in Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, Burma, Thailand and Indonesia, and in the Persian Gulf, and these, I

205
understand, total something like £1,115 million in value. I understand that British commercial activities in these areas contribute a net £300 million per annum towards the United Kingdom balance of payments. All these things appear to be good reasons for keeping things safe and as they are. I know that a great deal of play was made in another place over the question: how can you protect your investments by military force? The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, again raised this point.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, would the noble Marquess allow me to intervene? is it not the case that we have actually spent more on defence East of Suez than all the interest that has been obtained upon investments?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I have not the figures, so I cannot give an answer, yea or nay. But perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to develop my theme in my own way. I am going to fortify my argument by using the arguments of those who were then distinguished members of the Opposition.
I begin with the present Prime Minister, when he was in Opposition, speaking at the National Press Club in Washington in 1963. I know that this was some time ago, and in different circumstances, and that of course one has to change one's views. Politicians are often accused of being dishonest men because they change their views; but circumstances change, and it is necessary to change one's views according to the circumstances. But here is something that was said with great conviction by the present Prime Minister at the National Press Club in Washington. He said:
"I believe it to be a mistake to evacuate key bases where we have the chance to remain."
So do I, my Lords. We are going to evacuate key bases where not only have we the chance to stay, but the local people are begging us to remain. I go on with the Prime Minister's remarks:
"It is a hundred times easier for Britain to remain there"—
that is to say, in these bases—
"even with a token force, than for us, still less the United States, to seek to enter if trouble breaks out."
Here, of course, I am at one with the noble Lord, Lord Wedgwood, who raised
206
this particular point. The Prime Minister went on to say:
"I believe, therefore, that our maintenance of these bases should be regarded as a specific and invaluable contribution to the alliance."
Those are the words of the present Prime Minister in Washington in 1963.
Further to reinforce my views, I take the opinion of the present Defence Secretary who spoke in Canberra in 1966, in these terms:
"It would not make any military sense at all for us to leave Singapore unless we had to. From every point of view I think it is in our interest to stay in that part of the world as long as we can do so with the consent of the local people".
On the same occasion he also said
"We have no intention of ratting on any of our commitments. We intend to remain and shall remain fully capable of carrying out all the commitments we have at the present time"—
"the present time" was 1966—
"including those in the Far East, the Middle East and in Africa."
Now all that has to be forgotten.
Bearing in mind the figures that I have given your Lordships, and remembering the policy opinion expressed by Mr. Wilson which I have quoted to your Lordships, and on top of all this the outspoken statements of the Defence Secretary, it is my view that the abandonment of any role East of Suez was agreed to, not because Britain could not afford it, nor indeed as a deliberate act of policy, but purely as a bribe to appease certain recalcitrant elements of the Socialist Party. When a prudent man discovers that he is living beyond his means he cuts down on his own personal expenditure. He does not take risks with the sources of his income, and he endeavours through greater enterprise and effort to earn more.
It is deeply to be regretted that once again the difficulty over the Philippine claim to Sabha is bedevilling her relations with Malaysia. Can the Minister give us any information on this subject? It has for many years seemed to me that the importance of South-East Asia and the Far East, and the possibility of many countries in South-East Asia and the Far East all progressing peacefully towards great wealth and a high standard of living, is a subject which deserves more of the detailed consideration of your I Lordships. It is too big and significant

207
a subject to be tacked on to the end of a debate on foreign affairs. I have mentioned it this evening only because of the proposed withdrawal of the British Forces from East of Suez. Perhaps at some time in the future it may be possible for us to have another debate on this subject. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, will realise that I do not mean a debate purely from the angle of withdrawing from East of Suez, but a general discussion on this part of the world.
By our departure we shall be leaving a part of the world where the consent of the local people for us to remain has been readily given. And more, my Lords: our friends in these countries are expressing grave anxiety over the vacuum which they consider will be left by the departure of the British forces. This withdrawal from East of Suez carries with it, of course, a weakening of our links with Australia and New Zealand. I do not for a moment question that it is right and proper for Australia and New Zealand to rely less upon British forces and more upon their own. I have the figures for Australia. In 1962–63 Australia spent 3 per cent. of her gross national product on defence. Now the proportion has gone up to something over 5 per cent. So certainly Australia is making far more of an effort than previously.
As I am sure your Lordships are aware, Australia and New Zealand participate with us in the Commonwealth Brigade, based in Malaysia. In 1971, the plan is for us to leave. Can the noble Lord tell us what the Australians and the New Zealanders will do? This may be a question that he is unable to answer. According to what my noble Leader said, it looks rather as though we shall all be going. Well, here we are in another vacuum.
My Lords, we on these Benches wholeheartedly approve the declaration in the gracious Speech that Her Majesty's Government
"will continue to support Britain's alliances for collective defence".
We have been given assurances about NATO. But it looks to me as though we shall not be able to play any part in SEATO. Our defence agreement with
208
Malaysia is to be scrapped, and there will be little reason for Australia, New Zealand and the U.S.A. to consult with us in Anzan. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, may perhaps be able to assure me about Brunei; but I fear that, as in the Persian Gulf and Malaysia itself, it will again be a case of a unilateral declaration to scrap an agreement.
I will not end on this gloomy note, but I will ask your Lordships to consider something more constructive than Her Majesty's Government's shameful catalogue of scrapped agreements and the abandonment of loyal friends. My Lords, is it not time that Japan were again invited to participate in an alliance for collective defence? Your Lordships may remember that in 1957 President Eisen-hower attempted to persuade Prime Minister Ikeda to increase the Japanese army to 300,000. He failed. Japan has insisted on abiding by her decision only to raise what she calls "Self defence forces". Her air, maritime and ground "Self defence forces" total only 245,000. There is at present a reluctance, and perhaps it is understandable, to join the S.D.F. None the less, might there not be merit in our exploring, with Australia, New Zealand and the United States, the possibility of persuading Japan to participate in ANZUS? I would have added, but for the present intention to abandon the "third world", that the United Kingdom should be invited to participate in ANZUS, too.
My Lords, I was rather distressed to hear the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, refer a little scornfully, I thought, to the ideas of noble Lords on this side of the House about combining to create some kind of force. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said that we had shifted a point or two from a rather more robust attitude, but it is the policy of the Tory Party to combine. The old idea of imperialism has gone by the board years ago, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, well knows, but it seems to me that, even at this late hour, we should not be considering getting out of everything but seeing whether we cannot combine with other people of good will with similar interests to our own to make collective defence arrangements together.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, the noble Lord has spoken from the Front

209
Bench. Has his speech really represented the point of view of the Conservative Opposition?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, where I have been certain that I was representing the view of the Conservative Opposition I have said so; where I was speaking for myself your Lordships will have noticed that I used the first person.
7.22 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I first of all thank the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, for his sympathy in my task tonight in winding up not a very long debate but certainly a very wide ranging debate. I am sure his sympathy would have been a little bit warmer, if it could have been warmer, had he known that this is a maiden speech, so far as I am concerned, on this subject. It is true that I have spoken on numerous subjects, but this is the first occasion that it has fallen to me, either in Government or in Opposition, to speak on foreign affairs. Therefore, it is with great trepidation that I approach this task. I think this trepidation will be shared by my officials, who await with great anxiety what I have to say. May I also join with my noble friend Lord Shackleton in congratulating my noble friend Lord Brockway on his eightieth birthday. I hope that twenty years hence I shall be part of the same Government, answering the noble Lord's Questions at Question Time.
There have been many themes in this debate but I think that we can in the end isolate them to three main ones. There is the Commonwealth; there is NATO, and there is the East of Suez policy. In regard to the first two, the Common Market and NATO, I think that all Parties are in broad and general agreement. My Lords, I come as a supporter to the Common Market rather late in the day. Like some of my noble friends, I have been brought up in the Commonwealth, and I saw the consequences of the Common Market on the Commonwealth. That was some years ago. A good deal of water has passed under the bridge since then, and I believe that many of the problems that would have confronted the Commonwealth in those early days would be a good deal
210
less if we were now to enter the Common Market.
I do not think there is any doubt—and I fully accept this—that Britain has a need to enter the Common Market, to enter a much larger European community, and that Europe needs us. Therefore it is right, and I am glad the whole House has joined with us in agreeing that our application should continue to lay before the Common Market countries. We hope that in the not too far distant future we may find unanimity among those members for our entry.
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, suggested that we should make firm proposals for closer co-operation with the Common Market countries, and perhaps even the creation of a supra-national organisation. We have made a number of suggestions in the course of time, and we will continue to study what can be done in discussions, not only among ourselves but also among the countries of Europe. The noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, asked me whether, in our efforts to find a bridge for European cooperation before we can get into the Common Market, we would go behind the back of France—whether we would bypass France. I think I should answer this. We do not seek to isolate France: we seek greater co-operation in Europe. If it cannot now be done within the ambit of the Common Market itself, then we must seek other ways of co-operation in Europe, and we hope that France will understand this.
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, that although we have already shown that we seek to be Europeans—and in many ways we are far more European than France pretends—we must not only continue to maintain our application firmly in the Common Market but must also find other ways, perhaps through defence, to create a greater degree of co-operation in Europe. The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, spoke about the problems of the boundaries between Poland and Germany, and he wanted us to make a specific declaration. Our view is that this can be done, the boundary can be finally determined, only in the context of negotiation of a peace treaty with Germany; and the main factor in such negotiations would be the wishes of the inhabitants of the territories concerned.

211
I now come to the second theme: the question of NATO. The events of Czechoslovakia have perhaps brought our attention more closely to NATO, to see what steps should be taken to strengthen not only its forces but also its administration. As my noble friend Lord Shackleton has said, the Ministers of NATO will be meeting shortly in Brussels. But whatever we do in strengthening NATO, we must not close our eyes to the question of co-existence, of the need in the end to find a settlement between Western Europe and the Soviets, and of the Soviets with the rest of the world. I think it was my noble friend Lord Shackleton who said that there would be no existence if there is no co-existence; and, my Lords, we must proceed there.
The noble Lord, Lord Barnby (and I apologise that I did not hear all his speech) complained that the Foreign Secretary had not been sufficiently vehement in his condemnation of the Soviet Union on the Czechoslovakian invasion. All I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Barnby is: little does he know! My right honourable friend has a very sharp tongue, and those who come across him know that there can be no misunderstanding his views.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, if the noble Lord will permit me to say so, I have already had access to a report of his speech in the Press.
LORD SHEPHERD: On the question of NATO, I would end by saying that the need for the Alliance is as great to-day as it ever was, and it has proved its worth. We must, and shall, continue to support it and to play a full part in it. I believe that this is the will and determination of the countries within NATO to-day. The noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, drew our attention to the position of France. Although France has withdrawn her military forces from the integrated command structure of NATO she is still party to the North Atlantic Treaty and is a member of the Council. There is no indication about French policy after August, 1969, the first date on which parties to the Treaty can give notice of their intention to withdraw. I do not, of course, know what is in the French mind, but I greatly hope and believe that France will find some way of
212
meeting her point of view while continuing to give her present collaboration—indeed, I hope she will increase her collaboration—with NATO.
My noble friend Lord Chorley spoke about future relations with the Soviet Union. I assure him that, although we have had a setback, if we have the opportunity to develop our relations with them we shall not fail to pursue it. Although the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia came as a great shock to all of us, I am convinced that it was also a fundamental shock to the Russian people themselves. I cannot believe that the Russian sportsmen at Mexico were not very conscious of the very special and warm welcome accorded to the Czechoslovakian team as they entered the arena at the beginning of the Olympic games.
I now wish to turn to the question of our forces East of Suez. Here again we have debated this subject many times before. There is deep division. For my part, and I will be frank, it is a matter of regret that we have had to make this decision: it is a matter of regret to Her Majesty's Government. But when we consider the matter of military support, we must look at certain economic facts. Noble Lords opposite, and we on this side of the House, believe that our fundamental effort must be made in Europe in support of NATO. We are being asked to increase our support to NATO. We cannot continue to do that and at the same time provide sufficient forces which are in any way viable in the Far East. If we were to do what many noble Lords opposite wish to do, within the broad economic facts and the resources required, we should need a population in this country of 100 to 150 million people, whereas, of course, we are a country of only 50 million people. Already our ability to provide our forces is far stretched.
I regret that a decision had to be taken in this matter, but it was a choice of whether one was to be in Europe or whether one was to be in the Far East. I do not think there can be any doubt that the interests of this country lie in Europe. But this does not mean that our interest in the Far East will disappear. I do not accept, as some noble Lords do, that a military force is necessary to safeguard one's investments I

213
have lived overseas; I have lived in the Far East. I have never seen that German warships or German soldiers were necessary for the large German investments in the Far East. I do not see that British naval ships, German naval ships, or Spanish naval ships are necessary in South America to protect the investments in those countries. I believe that this view to which I have referred is quite wrong. I know it seems a reasonable argument to put forward; but when it is examined, particularly with people who have had experience in those parts of the world, it does not stand up.
As I have said, it is a matter of regret, not merely on the question of defence, but because of the impact on the economies of Singapore and Malaysia of the withdrawal of British forces. As the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, will know, we have made arrangements with both those Governments for considerable sums of money to cushion the effect of our military withdrawal from the Far East. The noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, asked how we were to provide forces outside Europe. We shall have an infinitely stronger base; we shall have stronger reserves either in the United Kingdom or in Germany, and we shall have a major airlift capability. As we have already said, there will be a major exercise in the Far East between the five Powers, and clearly we shall have lessons to learn from it. I do not believe that we shall not have the capability of moving the size of force that is likely to be necessary.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I understood that it had been stated categorically that we would not have a capability for deployment outside. Is this the case or not?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, what we have said is that we shall not have a special capability—that is to say, a capability which is set aside and specifically trained for it. But, clearly, we have a base in this country; we shall have soldiers, as we do now, who, if they are called upon to carry out a task, will have the ability to move.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Presumably with the agreement of our NATO allies to remove part of our force if required.
LORD SHEPHERD: That is so, but we have never before had any experience of not being able to withdraw them. The noble Marquess also spoke of the situation as between Malaysia and the Philippines on Sabah. I should say that the situation is a good deal easier, and we are grateful for the restraint by both parties in this dispute. So far as we are concerned, the sovereignty of North Borneo, when that country was part of Her Majesty's Dominions, was undoubted, and it was only on that basis that we could have agreed to the transfer of the sovereignty to Malaysia.
My noble friend Lord Brockway spoke about disarmament; in fact he was the only noble Lord who raised this most important subject. Progress has been made, and I agree with him as to the general line of advance. But as the noble Lord will know, in the end disarmament will depend on bilateral agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union. Only after that can we really move to a more general agreement.
I would say to my noble friends and to other noble Lords who mentioned the important talks on Vietnam which are taking place in Paris this week, that Her Majesty's Government have a special concern in the Vietnam conflict by virtue of their Geneva co-chairmanship and the desire, which we share with many others, to see an end to this tragic war. We think that all parties to the dispute should participate in the talks which are due to begin in Paris to-morrow. We hope that the South Vietnamese Government will soon think it right to join in and to test the good faith of the other side. The South Vietnamese are fighting a brutal and insidious enemy, whose terrorism has fallen on their civilian population and whose declared objectives are still to take over the country. The reason for President Thieu's present attitude should be understandable to us, but we must hope that the Paris talks will pave the way to a settlement. In the immediate future, however, it is for Hanoi to match the stopping of the bombing by reducing the scale of their military activities. As my noble friend Lord Shackleton said, we stand ready to do anything we can to bring this war to an end.
The noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, spoke about Greece. Our views are

215
known, but we welcome very much indeed the Greek Government's decision to close the prisons on the island of Yiowra, as recommended by the International Committee of the Red Cross, just as we welcome the release since the referendum of a further 200 political prisoners. We are also encouraged by the Greek Prime Minister's statement that trade unions will be allowed full rights of association when the Constitution is shortly brought into force, and by his promise to expand the democracy with the passing of each day. I hope that we we shall see continuing evolution on these lines during the coming months. If the Greek Government has the support which the noble Lord says it has, then I should not have thought it had much at risk in seeing that this evolution was speeded up. The noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, asked me about the Prime Minister's visit to Germany. As I understand it, there is no special significance in it, in that it is usual for the two Prime Ministers to meet at regular intervals. I understand that the last occasion was in October, 1967.
The noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, raised the question of consular staff and their behaviour during the Czechoslovakian crisis. I was rather sorry that he did so. On occasions our consular staff throughout the world have had to perform in very difficult circumstances. Theirs is not an easy task. I am thinking particularly of the consular staff in Shanghai recently, and also of the staff in another country where things were very difficult and where we even took over for a bigger Power than ourselves. I do not know on what his complaints were based, but if the noble Earl will give me details I will look into them. It is one thing to attack Her Majesty's Government; we can stand and defend ourselves, but our staff overseas cannot, just as soldiers cannot—until they retire. I hope that if he has future complaints the noble Earl will feel that there is always a Minister whom he can contact, and that that would be fairer and perhaps, in the end, more satisfactory. If he was not satisfied with the explanation of the Minister he could then raise the matter in the House.
The noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, spoke about Brunei. As he knows, the
216
Sultan of Brunei visited London between September 20 and October 24 and discussed with the Minister Without Portfolio—who was then the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs—the implications for Brunei of the major changes in British policy decided earlier in the year, including the decision to withdraw British forces from South-East Asia by the end of 1971. Mr. Thomson explained that these changes made it necessary to review the existing relationship between the two countries. Both sides wanted the friendly association between Britain and Brunei to continue, and we looked at various possible fields where we might help Brunei. Both sides are now studying the stage reached. It is expected that there will be further discussions shortly.
My noble friend Lord Walston spoke about Africa. I think his statistics about Ministerial visits are wrong and mine are right, but I agree with him that, perhaps, this House has given too much attention to the question of Rhodesia and Nigeria and not enough to Africa as a whole. However, I assure my noble friend that in the new Department formed by merging the Foreign Office and the Commonwealth Office we have been able to "go geographical", and for the first time we now have a Minister who is solely responsible for Africa. With the merging of the various offices, this should give us increased efficiency and, I hope, increased attention for Africa.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, can my noble friend say who will be the Minister specially responsible for Africa?
LORD SHEPHERD: I can, my Lords, I think it is Mr. Maurice Foley. I agree with my noble friend that it is not for us to impose Constitutions or methods of Parliamentary assembly on African countries. But, of course, they were colonial territories and, as he will know, when these countries have moved towards independence we have had to give them a Constitution which was broadly acceptable to the people of the territory. In practice, the Constitution that they have taken over has been the Constitution current prior to their becoming independent. It is for them, if they so wish, to change their Constitution, but I hope it will always be with the agreement of the people of the territory as a whole.

217
My noble friend Lord Brockway raised the queston of Nigeria. I am sure he would not expect me tonight to make a long speech on that subject, as we have discussed it on many occasions. I will only say, as I said in a previous debate—and I have given this matter tremendous thought and with a great deal of anxiety—that if I believed it would quickly bring peace to Nigeria if this country gave up the supply of arms, then I would support the giving up of that supply. But I do not believe that to be the case. I believe that if the United Kingdom were unilaterally to give up the supply of arms to the Federal Government, the consequence would be that Colonel Ojukwu would be more determined to carry on his civil war.
Perhaps the most significant part of all our negotiations to try to bring peace is that when both sides went to Addis Ababba after the talks at Niamey, when there was a real and genuine feeling that peace could be obtained, there was a marked reaction by Colonel Ojukwu's supporters and negotiators, because of the recognition, or token recognition, of the Biafran regime by France. On my last visit, when I went with high hopes—and my noble friend knows the situation as well as I do—there was a change of attitude when the promise of military aid became a reality, because at that time there was a significant increase in the supply of arms to Biafra. I would say to the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, that we have had no diplomatic exchanges with France. I think it is a matter for Nigeria to decide what steps they should take if France is supplying arms to Biafra. May I make one last point in regard to the Middle East? My noble friend Lord Brockway was quite right to draw our attention to the great dangers that exist in the Middle East and to how much we depend upon Dr. Jarring in his talks in New York about bringing that tragic war to an end.
My Lords, this has not been the speech I should have made had I not been replying on behalf of the Government. I should have liked the opportunity to put some of my own thoughts and experiences before the House. I have, how-
218
ever, sought to answer the various points which have been made. But I think the House must accept this: that we are not the Colossus that we were at the turn of the century, when our Army and Navy straddled the world. And even then we could not prevent war. We are not that to-day. Neither is the Soviet Union, nor the United States. Each has its limited field of operation. I do not myself believe that there is a grave risk of war between the Soviet Union and the United States: the mere balance of power and the strength of the military might of both is sufficient to deter. The greatest danger lies in the breaking out of small wars which can escalate and involve more and more countries.
There is only one organisation which can solve such disputes, and that is the United Nations. I accept the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. The United Nations is not perfect, because the men who created it and the men who work in it are not perfect. But I am bound to say that I had a feeling of gloom when I heard the growls of "Hear, hear!" from various corners of the House when criticisms were being made of the United Nations, because I believe that those voices are the voices of people who dislike the idea of a supra-national power like the United Nations. But, my Lords, at the end of the day it is only the United Nations which can bring us peace, and the United Nations can survive only if the countries which are in it are prepared to support it, are prepared to take the rough with the smooth, prepared to argue, prepared to talk, and prepared to take knocks, but all the time seeking to make the United Nations stronger so that, even if at one stage it may be able only to conciliate, perhaps at the next stage it will be able actually to prevent a war from breaking out.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Jellicoe, I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned until to-morrow.
Moved, That the debate be adjourned until to-morrow.—(Lord Denham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.

COVENT GARDEN MARKET BILL
Brought from the Commons, and (pursuant to the Resolution of October 23 last) read la.
ST. MARY, HORNSEY BILL
Brought from the Commons, read 1a; then (pursuant to the Resolution of October 22 last) Bill, pro forma, read 2a.

ST. SAVIOUR, PADDINGTON BILL
Brought from the Commons, read 1a; then (pursuant to the Resolution of October 22 last) Bill, pro forma, read 2a and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
House adjourned at seven minutes before eight o'clock.