Sitting of 4 November 1971

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

HEATHROW AIRPORT (DISPUTE)
Mr. Russell Kerr(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he intends to take to seek a settlement of the industrial dispute at London Airport, and if he will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Carr): I have been asked to reply. Operations at Heathrow, London, Airport have been disrupted since Monday by a strike of some employees of airline operators and the British Airports Authority in protest against the provision of ground handling services at the airport by General Aviation Services Ltd. The immediate cause of the stoppage was the coming into operation on 1st November of a contract between General Aviation Services Ltd. and Iberia Air Lines of Spain. I understand that at a mass meeting this morning it was decided that work should be resumed from 2 p.m. today. Prior to this the two sides of the National Joint Council for Civil Air Transport had jointly asked to see me and my officers are having discussions with them and with the British Airports Authority.
Mr. Kerr: May I thank the Minister for his reply? I am sure that he will share with me a sense of relief that a total closure of the airport has been avoided at least for the time being. Is he aware that I and several other Members of this House spent a considerable part of last week trying to avoid the total closure of the airport? Is he further aware that in the course of a meeting
332
which I chaired between the B.A.A. management and the representatives of the men in a Committee room of this House we came very firmly to the conclusion—my fellow M.P.s and myself—that the management side were in no sense free agents but were under a Government directive? Will he assure the House that we will not have this Government intervention in what is already a very tricky situation?
Mr. Carr: I do not understand what the hon. Gentleman is trying to say. I am encouraged by what he said about wishing to play what part he could in securing a peaceful settlement, and glad to accept from him that reports to the contrary are not true. There is no question of Government intervention here. This matter has been looked into by a court of inquiry appointed by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) in March of last year. That inquiry concluded that the Airports Authority's decision to encourage the establishment of an independent ground handling service at Heathrow was reasonable and well-founded. It concluded that it saw no grounds for suggesting that the agreement with the company was a threat to employment prospects, to wage standards or established industrial relations procedures and it recommended that G.A.S. should be allowed to fulfil the contract made with B.A.A.
Mr. Harold Wilson: Since the right hon. Gentleman has referred to my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle)—his predecessor—would he take it that it is no act of discourtesy on her part that she is not able to be here this afternoon? I would ask the same of my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr). I think that he will know the very serious private difficulties she has at this time and realise that it is only possible to know at short notice of a question of this kind.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if my right hon. Friend were here I am sure she would want to express her satisfaction that this very difficult situation is over and hope that we can now go forward to a period of stability of employment and industrial relations in the industry?
Mr. Carr: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said. I fully understand and sympathise with the reasons for the right hon. Lady's absence. I should like to take this opportunity on behalf of everybody to wish that her worries may soon be allayed.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the whole of the general public will be relieved that this strike has finished and will hope that, arising out of the report presented last year, both sides will he able to look at the matter and to avoid this kind of situation in the future. The only people who suffer are the travelling public, particularly at London Airport and in other airports of the world. It does not make for good employment in London Airport when this kind of action takes place.
Mr. Carr: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that what he says is right and I hope the whole House will send that message to the people concerned.
Mr. Rankin: I gather from the Secretary of State's reply that all services at the airport are interrupted. Is that correct? Is it not the case that the only services interrupted were the baggage services, and that for passengers who cared to leave their baggage or had no baggage planes flew as usual with their load of passengers?
Mr. Carr: The hon. Gentleman might be technically correct, but it is clear that many flights have not been able to operate as they should have done and that very large numbers of people have been, to put it mildly, inconvenienced. But let us be grateful that work by now should have been resumed.
Mr. Edward Taylor: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the terms of reference of the resolution passed at the mass meeting this morning were not such as to instill confidence that such problems will not arise again? In view of the hardships these disputes cause to the travelling public and the repeated claim about poor communications between management and men at the airport, is not this a matter which the right hon. Gentleman's officials should look into?
Mr. Carr: The committee of inquiry made some recommendations on the ques-
334
tion of communications last year. My officials will be meeting both sides of the National Joint Council this afternoon, and will bear in mind the sort of points my hon. Friend has mentioned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Harold Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): Yes, Sir.
The debate on the Address in reply to the Gracious Speech will be continued tomorrow and on MONDAY, and be brought to a conclusion on TUESDAY, 9TH NOVEMBER.
At the end of MONDAY—Motion on the New Bus Grants (Increase of Rate and Extension of Period) Order.
The business for WEDNESDAY, 10TH NOVEMBER will be—Second Reading of the Mineral Exploration, Etc. Bill which it is hoped to obtain by about seven o'clock.
Afterwards Motion on the Southern Rhodesia Act, 1965 (Continuation) Order.
THURSDAY, 11TH NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Sound Broadcasting Bill.
FRIDAY, 12TH NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the New Towns Bill, and of the Banking and Financial Dealings Bill.
MONDAY, 15TH NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Housing Finance Bill.
Mr. Harold Wilson: Dealing with Wednesday's business, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we share his hope that we shall get through the Second Reading of that important but I think uncontroversial Bill at a reasonably early hour to allow maximum time for discussion of the Rhodesian situation? The Bill originated with the Labour Government, it has been taken over by the right hon. Gentleman's Government, and I believe that we all very much support it.
My second question concerns the business so far provisionally announced for Monday week, the Second Reading of the Housing Finance Bill. Would the right hon. Gentleman give very careful consideration to a proposal put to him from our side of the House that, in view

335
of the fundamental change which it makes in all the housing policies which have been followed for some 50 years past, and in view of the very large number of tenants who will be affected, there is a case for this Bill to be debated not for one day but for two? He did not preclude this, as I understand the situation, since he announced business only up to Monday of the following week. Will he therefore give earnest consideration to this suggestion for a two-day debate on Second Reading?
Mr. Whitelaw: I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said in his first point, and I hope that business on Wednesday will be conducted on that basis.
I note what he said in his second point. I am sure he will be the first to appreciate that two days for the Second Reading of a Bill are very unusual, with very few precedents. Nevertheless, I am prepared to consider it through the usual channels.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As my right hon. Friend will remember, the Select Committee on Procedure submitted in July a rather mixed bag of recommendations. When will the Government indicate their attitude on this matter and may we be told when the House will be given an opportunity to discuss these recommendations?
Mr. Whitelaw: As the House knows, I have always been very anxious to give the quickest possible response to any Report from Select Committees concerning the procedure of the House. Therefore, I intend to give the Government's answer to the Select Committee's proposals in a statement on Monday. There-after the various resolutions to give effect to these proposals which the Government will accept will be put before the House.
Mr. George Thomas: Would the right hon. Gentleman say what are his proposals about local government reform? In view of the fact that the Government issued a separate White Paper for local government reform in Wales, and also bearing in mind that no Royal Commission has dealt with local government in Wales, why is Wales not being allowed a separate Measure which could be dealt with by Welsh Members of Parliament?
Mr. Whitelaw: The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the Government proposals. A Bill has been published and shortly will be brought before the House on Second Reading. I note what the right hon. Gentleman said. These matters were taken into consideration, and the decision was that it was right to have one Bill.
Dame Irene Ward: I appreciate how very busy my right hon. Friend is and I will not press him to give me a day to debate a matter relating to the police in which I am particularly interested. However, he will know that I have a Question down next week and would be grateful if my right hon. Friend would discuss this matter with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and with the Home Secretary before he answers it. Is he aware that at a time when the police are very heavily pressed, any matter which they would like put right as a matter of justice ought to be put right speedily? The Question which I have on the Order Paper for next week affects Northumberland police, and I hope that I shall receive a satisfactory reply to it.
Mr. Whitelaw: It would be dangerous for me to go as far as to assure the hon. Lady exactly what reply she will get, but I will certainly discuss her important Question with my right hon. Friends concerned.
Mr. J. T. Price: With regard to next week's business, could the Leader of the House give me an assurance that this House will be more fit to work in than it has been this week and last week? I refer, of course, to the massive building operations which are now taking place in Speaker's Court. Is he aware that this way of conducting the business of the House, in conditions which amount almost to a state of siege and heavy bombardment affects not only Members of Parliament in trying to carry out their work but also servants of the House? Does he not agree that these conditions are an outrage and that if the Government cannot organise the building programme any better they ought to hand it over to somebody who can?
Mr. Whitelaw: I much regret any inconvenience caused to right hon. and hon. Members. I do not think it is quite as bad as the hon. Gentleman has suggested. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]

337
He put his point in a graphic way and that is very important. I would point out to the House that these matters are normally dealt with by the Services Committee of the House. I happen to have noticed that when the proposal to set up a new Services Committee was put down last night it was objected to. I must point out that if hon. Members do not want a Services Committee they will not have one.
Mr. Emery: In regard to Wednesday's business, if the Mineral Exploration, Etc., Bill lasts until seven o'clock, with only half an hour for Front Bench spokesmen, will this not mean that there will be only two hours left for the Southern Rhodesia Order to be debated? Would my right hon. Friend consider an extension to 11.30 p.m.—or is this automatic?
Mr. Whitelaw: On an Order the extension to 11.30 p.m. is automatic.
Mr. Leslie Huckfield: When do the Government intend to move the Second Reading of the Transport Holding Companies Bill?
Mr. Whitelaw: Not next week.
Mr. Ridsdale: Could my right hon. Friend arrange to have a debate on local government finance separate from a debate on the Second Reading of the Local Government Bill? We were promised a great debate on this but we do not seem to have had a debate at all.
Mr. Whitelaw: I note my hon. Friend's important proposal. Certainly it will be considered, but I cannot say when it will be possible.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Would the Leader of the House arrange for the Foreign Secretary to make a statement next week about the trial and conviction of the Dean of Johannesburg? If it is merely proposed that the Foreign Secretary should refer to this in his speech today, may I say that that would not meet the convenience of some hon. Members of the House who are very anxious to address questions to the Foreign Secretary on this matter, and that the impact in Pretoria would be much less from a mere allusion to the matter in the Foreign Secretary's speech than it would be from
338
a large number of questions to the Foreign Secretary here?
Mr. Whitelaw: As I think the hon. Member appreciates, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary hopes to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, very shortly in today's debate, and I think that it would be right for the House to see what he says and then to decide thereafter.
Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Would my right hon. Friend find time, if not next week, before Christmas, for a debate on the Report and Accounts of the Post Office for the year ended in 1970?
Mr. Whitelaw: I could not promise time for a debate at the moment, but I certainly note the important request which my hon. Friend has made.
Mr. Russell Kerr: Can the Leader of the House tell us when we can expect time to debate the Report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries concerning the British Airports Authority? Is he aware that the troubles which we have discussed already today might well have been averted if some of those recommendations had been put into effect?
Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman knows that I appreciate his interest in these matters. There are always days for debates on the various Select Committee Reports. Certainly this one will be considered when those days come.
Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Will my right hon. Friend be able to find time in the near future to debate Britain's representation in the European institutions as far as the international civil service is concerned, and also to debate the representation of this Honourable House in the European institution?
Mr. Whitelaw: Clearly these are important matters, but I cannot promise time for a debate in the near future.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Could the Leader of the House make an arrangement some time next week for the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications to explain to the House why it was that yesterday morning and yesterday afternoon, notwithstanding the fact that he had a sponsored Question on the Order Paper,

339
full and complete details were subsequently announced in the Press concerning postal charges and alterations? Are we to have this kind of thing continually—not a leak but an actual statement which was in contempt of this House? Would he get the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications to come to the House and give us a chance to have a go at him—not leak it to the Press?
Mr. Whitelaw: I do not accept for one moment the suggestion that my right hon. Friend leaked it to the Press. What I would say is that there is certainly no question of a contempt of the House in these matters.
Mr. Harold Wilson: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will consider this? I do not think anyone is suggesting a leak. It was a form of statement made outside the House, not inside the House. While not wishing to be censorious so early in the Session—
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Why not?
Mr. Wilson: I should like the right hon. Gentleman to look at what has been happening this week to see whether there is a change in practice from what he insisted upon last Session. In this case, with a normal Question the Minister would have come to the House and made a statement, or there would have been a Private Notice Question.
Secondly, I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman would look at another point which I was hoping to draw to his attention, the fact that we heard yesterday afternoon—not in this House, but, again, through the Press—of a very important change in the situation in Northern Ireland, taken. apparently uniquely, by the Northern Ireland Government with or without the support of the Government here. The House has not been told. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the day before, the Prime Minister referred to the Northern Ireland situation in terms which commended themselves to the whole House? Surely he must have known that this was going to be done, yet he said nothing in his speech about it.
Would the Leader of the House, therefore, attempt to put this right, asking both his right hon. Friends responsible to come to the House on both these issues and make their statements on
340
matters for which they are accountable to the House, so that the House can debate with them?
Mr. Whitelaw: I note what the right hon. Gentleman says. Certainly he has been more generous than was his hon. Friend. His hon. Friend deliberately said that information had been leaked by my right hon. Friend. That is why I gave him the answer I gave. I heard him distinctly, as did the House. I note what the right hon. Gentleman says. I certainly note the point he put forward. I think the proper procedure has been followed in this case, and certainly I am anxious that the House is given full information. I think it has been in this case.
Mr. Cockeram: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will find time for a debate, if not next week, before Christmas, on the important Report of the Bolton Committee dealing with the part played by small businesses in our economy?
Mr. Whitelaw: I note what my hon. Friend says. I think it is an important Report. I am glad at the reception given to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State yesterday. I cannot promise time for a debate in the near future, but there will be other opportunities, and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to get one of those, when the subject can be debated. I will certainly bear in mind the point he has raised.
Mr. Bagier: Has the Leader of the House noted Early Day Motion No. 8, tabled yesterday in my name and that of my hon. Friends, referring to the unemployment demonstration to take place in Newcastle this Saturday? Whereas I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman will be anxious to find time for a debate next week, he will appreciate that that will be too late, and I am wondering whether there is any way he can suggest that the Motion be passed either today or tomorrow so that his right hon. Friends on the Front Bench may go to that demonstration with clear consciences.
That this House takes note of the growing dissatisfaction in the country about the present disastrous unemployment figures, notes with dismay the alarming unemployment figures in the

341
Northern Region, and therefore calls for massive support of the unemployment demonstration to be held in Newcastle-upon-Tyne on Saturday 6th November, 1971, to be addressed by Mr. Victor Feather, General Secretary of the Trades Union Congress.]
Mr. Whitelaw: I think the hon. Member will appreciate that I have noted the terms of the Motion. The subject of unemployment has been chosen by the Opposition for debate on Tuesday, and the hon. Member may be interested to note that I shall have the pleasure of replying to that debate and that I am looking forward to the occasion.
Mr. Charles R. Morris: The Leader of the House will be aware that the dramatic announcement by the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications yesterday and the Chairman of the Post Office Corporation has given rise to considerable anxieties in so far as this envisages a loss of 25,000 jobs by Post Office staff. Would he accept that the Post Office staff and reasonable Members on both sides of this House feel that the Minister should take an early opportunity of making a statement on this matter?
Mr. Whitelaw: I note what the hon. Member says. At the same time, this was clearly set out by the Post Office Corporation, whose responsibility it is. I think the proper procedure was followed in this case.
Mr. Raphael Tuck: Would the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for the Environment to come to the House and to make a statement on the killer stretch of the M1 motorway between Watford and Hemel Hempstead? There were 23 pile-ups on one night last week on that stretch. The Secretary of State promised an inquiry last July but up to now nothing more has been heard of it.
Mr. Whitelaw: I appreciate the hon. Member's concern with this difficult problem and I accept the seriousness of it. I will certainly draw the attention of my right hon. Friend concerned to what he said.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. It will be within your memory that the Leader of the House a
342
moment ago said that I had falsely accused the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications of leaking to the Press. If I may, I would raise with you this question. An allegation has been made that I falsely made that statement. In fact, yesterday morning in the Daily Express there was a verbatim report of a speech which the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications had made the day before yesterday—I think, speaking from memory, to the Law Society—making an announcement in regard to postal increases prior to their being put to the House of Commons and in the knowledge that the Minister had a sponsored Question. Surely that shows that the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications must have deliberately gone outside and made that speech in contempt of this House.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member raises a point of order. I am not responsible for what he says, nor am I responsible for what the Minister says. There are certain parliamentary expressions which are out of order, but none has been used today. I think the hon. Member must find other methods of pursung his problem.
Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman, in the guise of a point of order, has made an accusation against my right hon. Friend which I think I have the right to say is not in accordance with the facts. My right hon. Friend in the speech he made —and he has just assured me of this—did not set out the details of what was announced by the Post Office yesterday, and to that extent the hon. Gentleman is wrong, and he must appreciate that.
Mr. Arthur Lewis:If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the Daily Express for yesterday he will see, as I saw, that the details subsequently announced in reply to the sponsored Question were attributed to the Minister. Perhaps the Minister will confirm or deny that he addressed a meeting.
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is highly irregular. This cannot be raised as a matter of order. It is not a matter of order for the Chair. There will be many other opportunities in the not very distant future when the Minister can be questioned about this matter, but it cannot be raised as a point of order.

BILL PRESENTED
  SUPERANNUATION BILL
  The Prime Minister, supported by Mr. Secretary Maudling, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Sir Keith Joseph, Mrs. Secretary Thatcher, Mr. Secretary Campbell, Mr. Secretary Walker, Mr. Secretary Davies, Mr. Christopher Chataway, and Mr. David Howell, presented a Bill to amend the law relating to pensions and other similar benefits payable to or in respect of persons in certain employment; to provide for distribution without proof of title of certain sums due to or in respect of certain deceased persons; to abolish the Civil Service Committee for Northern Ireland; to repeal section 6 of the Appropriation Act, 1957; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 9.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS
  [THIRD DAY]
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [2nd November]:
  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.—[Mr. Nott.]
  Question again proposed.

  FOREIGN AFFAIRS
  3.1 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): General and roving debates on foreign affairs are seldom satisfying in this House, and previously on such occasions I have sought to introduce a theme. This afternoon, in the context of the Speech from the Throne, I think the House will expect a broad review of British objectives and policies in relation to the main areas of the world where there is either friction or opportunity. The theme will be there, that which, inevitably and properly, I took in the United Nations Assembly a few weeks ago, the theme of dialogue versus confrontation.
  In Europe, countries which saw war as the only answer to disputes have agreed that partnership for economic and political co-operation is a much better solution. I will not rehearse our debates of last week on the European situation, but for me one of the most compelling arguments for Britain's entry into the Community is the contribution which Western Europe can make, operating on a broad consensus of opinion, to a more stable world.
  Since the war the tenuous structure of world peace has on many occasions been in danger of collapse. In the past, Communist ideology has insisted that the total triumph of Communism throughout the world was inevitable, and that this

  345
  achievement should be hastened with every available weapon, including sub-version, and, where practicable, through force of arms.
  Through the creation of N.A.T.O. we in Europe halted the progress of take-over, but that was 20 years ago. The pause which has been gained has been well worth while. The Communist movement itself is no longer monolithic in structure. The countries of Eastern Europe are increasingly showing a desire to think and act for themselves, and are having a good deal of success. Above all, the dispute between China and Russia has added a totally new dimension to the balance of power, a dimension which is assuming greater importance as the Chinese emerge from their self-imposed isolation and take their place on the world stage. So there has been a considerable change in the last few years.
  The House will have followed with interest the debates in the United Nations on Chinese representation. It was right, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, that mainland China should be seated in the United Nations for reasons not of ideology but because mainland China represents one of the great realities of power in the world.
  Ideological disputation is still passionately conducted between the two leading Communist Powers, but it is my belief that it will increasingly give way before the facts of life and the facts of power. The reality as between Russia and China is the 2,000 miles of frontier between the two countries. It is that which will condition the attitude of Russia to China, and vice versa, for generations to come. Meanwhile, we must hope that working together in the United Nations will make it possible both for the Soviet Union and for mainland China to modify extremes of doctrine. That will be of enormous benefit to the world as a whole.
  The main question which has not yet been answered is how what for convenience I will call the Western free way of life can contrive a co-existence with each of the Communist Powers, a co-existence which is real and one in which suspicion is gradually but surely replaced by confidence. This must be the goal of everybody, and we certainly will pursue it with determination.
  346
  It is no use pretending that with Czechoslovakia so close behind us and the Berlin wall still an active armed barrier against the natural contacts between the two Germanys détente will be easy. If it were so, N.A.T.O. would be no longer necessary. Nevertheless, difficult though it may be, we must persevere.
  I venture to say that there is one rule to which the Western countries must hold. Nothing which we do in the name of co-existence and peace must alter the balance of power to the disadvantage of the West. Any disturbance of the equilibrium could be the point when fear would start to play havoc with even that fragile confidence which is born of stalemate. We have learned to live with that and we all recognise that it is dangerous, but it is far preferable to the jitters and temptations which would grip the nations if the balance of power were to shift against the West or for that matter if it were to shift seriously against the East. So the equilibrium of the balance of power must be kept.
  On this, all the Western Allies, including, and most importantly, the United States, are agreed. Soviet spokesmen themselves, I have noticed, have lately begun, almost for the first time, to speak this same language, when they say, "We want to preserve equal security for all". That needs further definition, but we must test what they mean.
  Since the war Berlin has been the focus where the two ways of life have met in their starkest confrontation. It was, therefore, the right place in which to start a lowering of tension. Here, after long discussion, Russia and the responsible Allies have been inching nearer to an agreement. It will be a modest one, simply creating for the people of West Berlin the conditions of living which are the right of any civilised city community. But it will be something gained on past practice, and it is to be hoped that the East and West Germans will be able soon to complete the task which has been begun by the three Allies and the Soviet Union. I hope, therefore, that the East and West Germans shortly will come to an agreement.
  A Berlin agreement would lead to ratification of the German-Russian and German-Polish Treaties. From a Berlin settlement we can proceed to further carefully prepared exercises in reconciliation

  347
  of differences and disputes. When the Berlin agreement is completed, we can get ahead with the preparations for a security conference which could lead us further along the road to positive co-existence. That has been consistently the position of Britain and the N.A.T.O. Alliance, and the House will have noticed that this was recorded in the communiqué issued by President Pompidou and Mr. Brezhnev. So there is apparently a wide area of agreement that after a Berlin agreement we can get on to the preparation of a wider security conference.
  We have an open mind about the agenda for such a conference. The Russians will have their ideas, and we and others will contribute. The agenda must be broad enough to accommodate ideas of many different kinds. One item must be the free flow of peoples and ideas between the countries forming the membership of such a conference.
  The initial stages of the conference are likely to deal with the approach to co-existence in a general manner. It is only thereafter that the conference might deal with particular disarmament problems, such as mutual and balanced force reductions. In practice, these are more likely to be dealt with in a separate body, but they could be dealt with in a committee of the security conference if that conference was a success.
  Mr. Denis Healey: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the views expressed by Mr. Brezhnev and President Pompidou that provided that a Berlin agreement is clinched in the next few weeks it should be possible to prepare such a conference immediately and hold it in the spring of next year?
  Sir A. Douglas-Home: I have just said—
  Mr. Healey: In the spring of next year.
  Sir A. Douglas-Home: I do not know about the spring of next year because we cannot know when the Berlin agreement will be made, and the preparations must take the time necessary to ensure that the conference has some chance of success. But I hope that it will happen soon. There is no reason why, following a Berlin agreement, the preparations should be delayed.
  348
  I will interpolate here the only comment which I intend to make about the recent spy incident. I put forward this simple proposition. For a country to conduct a massive and sustained espionage campaign against another under the cover of diplomatic missions or State trading organisations in inadmissible. If any right hon. or hon. Gentleman would like to contest that, let him say so and we shall know where we stand. In the case of the Soviet Union, I tried to deal with the matter privately over the period of a year, but that approach was rejected. There was no alternative, there-fore, but to act so that it should be clear to all that Her Majesty's Government will not tolerate such practices from any quarter. Retaliation was expected.
  As far as I am concerned, the incident is closed. I share Mr. Kosygin's opinion which he recently expressed that there is no reason why this episode need affect the security conference negotiations or progress towards them or other proposals for détente. It was a necessary clearing of the air if relations are to be conducted on a basis of trust.
  Mr. Charles Loughlin: I make it clear that I have no time for espionage of any kind by any country. But will the right hon. Gentleman make it perfectly plain that, just as the Russians, by virtue of the economic system they operate, use their trade agencies for espionage, so do the Western countries use business men for espionage purposes?
  Sir A. Douglas-Home: No, Sir. No doubt espionage is carried out by a great many countries all over the world against each other, but not under the cover of embassies or State trading organisations. That rule must be established.
  Mr. Stanley Orme: I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says, but does the same apply to the South African Government and the activities of their agents in this country?
  Sir A. Douglas-Home: If any Government conduct massive espionage under a cover of embassies, the rule will apply, yes.
  I turn to another region of the world, the Middle East, where confrontation should be replaced by dialogue. The

  349
  achievement of stability there has so far remained a mirage. We continue to believe, because no one since has suggested anything better, that United Nations Resolution 242 constitutes the best basis for a settlement. It would be a great mistake to tamper with it, for no other resolutioin would gain comparable support in the United Nations.
  When I visited Cairo in September it was my strong impression that Egypt now genuinely desires a permanent peace with Israel, but not at the price of ceding territory. Israel for her part also desires peace, but not at the cost of compromising her security. It is in the reconciliation of this dilemma that the heart of the problem lies. The most promising avenue of progress towards a comprehensive settlement still lies in the efforts to promote an interim arrangement under which the Suez Canal would be reopened in return for Israeli withdrawal to some line in Sinai to be agreed. Both Israel and Egypt are undoubtedly interested in such an arrangement, with the strong proviso made by the Egyptians that the first stage of withdrawal must not be an end in itself it must lead to a comprehensive and final settlement.
  There are limits to what any third Power can do. We will help if and where we can, especially in relation to guarantees by the leading Powers to give confidence in a lasting peace. But one thing was crystal clear to me when I was in Cairo and later talked to Mr. Eban, the Foreign Minister of Israel. No progress will be made in solving the problem unless the momentum and intensity of an exchange of views is accelerated. Where distrust is so deep it cannot be removed by leisurely correspondence through a third Power at intervals of months or weeks.
  No one can dictate a peace, but the only answer to the present deadlock is, in my view, a third party which can accurately and quickly transmit and interpret ideas between those who confront each other; otherwise there will be no solution. There are signs that this is now recognised to be right and that it is necessary to set up this kind of machinery if there is to be progress and time is not to be wasted, which might make war more likely.
  Mr. Clinton Davis: Do the Government support the idea which has always been postulated by the Israeli Government, that if the Suez Canal is to be reopened it must be made accessible to Israeli shipping as well as other shipping?
  Sir A. Douglas-Home: That would be one of the conditions which we hope would apply when the canal was open. It would be our feeling that all shipping should be free to use the canal. Confidential contacts are more likely to show results than public postures, but I must emphasise that time slips by and action is urgent if the ceasefire is not to be broken.
  On the Gulf, I can give the House some better news. There has been some encouraging progress since I last reported to the House in the summer. In mid-July the rulers of six of the seven Trucial States signed a constitution for a union. Bahrain and Qatar told us that they wished to resume responsibility for the conduct of their own affairs. The special treaty relationship was ended, and we made treaties of friendship and consultation with both States, which are now members of the Arab League and the United Nations.
  Preparations for the formal establishment of a union of Arab emirates are continuing. We are making detailed arrangements for handing over to them, as their security forces, the Trucial Oman Scouts as a nucleus for the Union Defence Forces and for the establisment of a military advisory team with those forces. The Rulers have agreed that visits by British ships and British military units for training purposes should take place. The difficult problem of the Iranian claims to the Gulf islands remains. We are continuing our efforts with the Rulers and the Iranian Government to find a solution which will remove this difficult problem, a solution which will contribute to the security of the area. In the security of the area I believe that the Iranians' and the Arabs' interests are essentially the same. So one hopes that there will be a solution of this problem. Sir William Luce, whose patience has already gained so much, has returned from another visit to the area. We must hope that success will attend his most recent efforts to solve the islands problem. He will shortly be reporting to me.

  351
  I turn to another scene of potential conflict in the sub-continent of India, about which the House has been so exercised—
  Mr. John Gorst(Hendon, North): Before my right hon. Friend leaves the Middle East, he has been talking about a third party being able to make a contribution, perhaps as an honest broker, between the Israelis and their Arab neighbours. Will he make it clear whether he sees this country being available for that purpose?
  Sir A. Douglas-Home: We shall help in every way we can. At the moment, the Americans are in touch with both the Israelis and the Egyptians. The best person to fulfil this rôle, once it was established that there could be an interim settlement, would still be Dr. Jarring, who is ready to do so. But certainly we shall help if we can. I would not put forward this country as a third party at the moment, but we shall help so far as we are able to.
  To come to the sub-continent of India, two great countries, members of the Commonwealth, whose friendship we value, now find themselves drawn as if in some Greek tragedy into a rising spiral of tensions with a risk of war. The human misery which exists here on a massive scale is a terrible reminder of the failure of human beings to learn that the peoples of this world want bread more than politics and peace more than war. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I had discussions with Mrs. Gandhi when she was in London earlier this week. I am sure that the House will understand that the matters which we discussed are confidential and that I cannot give a full account of them. We have also been kept informed by the Government of Pakistan of how they see these matters.
  In this emergency situation, caused by the flood of refugees into India—we should understand the disruption of Indian life which this situation has caused in many ways—the policies of the Government have been directed towards two aims.
  First is the relief of suffering, which is pitiful and widespread. We have contributed £15 million to the refugees in India and £2 million in relief to East
  352
  Pakistan. Having done this, I think that we are justified in urging other countries to join us in this humanitarian effort to a greater extent than they have done up to now.
  Second is the politics of the situation. The danger of a warlike confrontation between these two countries is dire and real. In this situation our first duty is to urge moderation on all concerned, using such influence as we can. I have repeatedly expressed my view that real progress towards a lessening of tension and the return of refugees can only come through a political settlement within Pakistan as a whole. But, having said that, I must add that no one else can lay down the constitutional pattern for the future except the Pakistanis themselves. Unless it is done by the Pakistanis, no solution will stick.
  After the convulsion of civil war, harmony is difficult to restore. President Yahya Khan has appointed a civil governor. He has proposed by-elections in December and announced 27th December as the date for the meeting of the new National Assembly. He has arranged an amnesty. He has accepted United Nations reception centres for refugees returning from India. I state these as facts. I cannot say whether these moves will be sufficient to result in a situation of confidence in which the refugees will wish to return to Pakistan from India. But that must be the end for which every-one of us must work. The return of the refugees is of mutual interest to both India and Pakistan. In the meantime, we will continue to urge both Pakistan and India not to take any action which could threaten the peace of the sub-continent. To compound the existing misery with war would surely be the ultimate disaster.
  Certain offers have lately been made by Pakistan which could help to relieve the situation. The first is that the armies should withdraw a specified distance from the frontier. The second is their willingness to receive United Nations personnel on the spot, first, to observe and, second, to receive returning refugees and see them back to their homes. I am not sure that this is understood in the refugee areas of India. But India feels that action of the kind which I have mentioned will have no effect as long as the flow of refugees continues out of Pakistan. There is conflicting evidence of how many refugees

  353
  are now moving out of Pakistan into India. I have asked the Secretary-General of the United Nations whether he can discover the truth of the matter, because it is essential to know whether the flow has stopped or is continuing at this level before other countries can contrive coherent policies.
  Once again, the most promising area here is to explore the possibilities of dialogue between those in West Pakistan who hold the power now and those who can command confidence in East Pakistan, and also dialogue between India and Pakistan. If we can do anything to help the dialogue betwen India and Pakistan we will gladly do it.
  Mrs. Jill Knight: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether he was able to suggest that United Nations observers could be accepted on the Indian side of the border as they are being accepted on the Pakistan side?
  Sir A. Douglas-Home: We were able to talk about this proposition. At the moment the Indian answer is that as long as there is a substantial outflow of refugees from Pakistan into India this is not practical, but it would be if the flow stopped. I am unable to judge this. I do not think that any right hon. or hon. Member in the House can judge it. That is why I have asked the Secretary-General of the United Nations whether he could establish for us with authority, by a team on the spot, what the position about the refugees now is. It is essential to get that information.
  Mr. Peter Shore: I am a little worried about the way that the right hon. Gentleman has presented the problem in the last few minutes. I think that other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will agree that there has been a great deal of quite deliberate window dressing by the Government of West Pakistan, for obvious reasons: that they wish to resume aid and that they are also in the middle of a most profound crisis affecting the future of Pakistan. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman, describing what is required for a political solution, if such a solution is possible, has not emphasised very strongly the need to release Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, which is essential, and also that whatever solution is finally put forward should be acceptable to the
  354
  people of East Bengal, which was the point he made before and which I urge him to make again.
  Sir A. Douglas-Home: It must be acceptable to the people of East Bengal and to the people of Pakistan. The right hon. Gentleman is trying to lay down what the political settlement should be. That is not possible. It must be settled by dialogue between those in power in West Pakistan and those who command the confidence of the people in East Pakistan. I said that deliberately. I think that it covers the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Reginald Freeson: Will the Government press for and support the release of the Sheikh?
  Sir A. Douglas-Home: That is something which must be decided by President Yahya Khan himself. It is no use other countries publicly saying what should or should not be done in Pakistan. We hope that there will be a dialogue, but the form of the dialogue must be decided by the Government of Pakistan.
  Mr. Shore Mr. Shore rose—
  Sir A. Douglas Home: The right hon. Gentleman will probably have a chance to speak later, and I have already given way a great deal. Perhaps he will allow me to continue with my speech.
  I shall say a few words about Africa. On South Africa and arms I have nothing new to report to the House. I noted yesterday the question asked by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) about the trial of the Dean of Johannesburg. The Dean has been given leave to appeal, and I have reason to believe that he will pursue the appeal. I have to be very careful that I say nothing which could damage the Dean in any way. It may be necessary to provide all possible help later on; therefore, I do not think that it is right, wise or helpful to the Dean himself that I should comment at all at this stage, but I am willing to answer Questions if the hon. Member for York would like to put them down at some future date.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I understand the sentiments expressed by the Foreign Secretary, and one is anxious to do nothing in this House that would jeopardise the chances of the Dean in

  355
  South Africa, but what concerns me a little is that if there is no expression of the deep anger and concern felt about this trial by this House and in the country South Africa may feel that she is able to pass any kind of sentence on a British subject within her domain without any response from the legitimate British Government.
  Sir A. Douglas-Home: I think that our feeling must be apparent in South Africa, because it has been widely expressed not only in this House but outside it, and I feel that it would be wiser, because my desire is to help the Dean, not to make any further comment now.
  As to the chances of a Rhodesian settlement, I am still studying with my colleagues the latest report of the officials who have followed up Lord Goodman's visit. A lot of progress has been made. I promised the House that if I felt that preliminary discussions warranted negotiation I would make a statement. There are considerable difficulties still in the way of any settlement, but I hope to be in a position to make a statement to the House early next week before the debate. I cannot promise it, but I hope to be able to do so. Meanwhile, there is only one thing that I will say. It is that a settlement with Rhodesia within the ambit of the five principles would make an enormous contribution to harmonious living on the Continent of Africa. We must therefore try to achieve it, otherwise the African landscape is very bleak.
  There are, of course, many problems besides those of which I have spoken to which the answers are not apparent. America has made an enormous outlay of wealth, first, to set Europe on its feet after the war, second, to help the developing countries and, third. in Vietnam. There is now in the United States a mood of disillusion because of what many Americans feel is a lack of gratitude for the huge outlay which America has made towards the freedom and economic prospects of many other nations.
  That is understandable, but we trust that the mood will not dominate American policy. We have noted with satisfaction the reactions of the President of the United States, who has made clear his intention to maintain the flow of aid to
  356
  developing countries. Our responsibility and that of the industrial nations towards the third world is a shared responsibility, and if one major Power decides to opt out of the common effort it must, inevitably, have the most serious repercussions for all the others, and for the developing world.
  But in respects other than aid, if only temporarily, the United States may begin to draw in her horns. That is when Europe must be ready to take more of the strain in the context of collective security. My speech would be much too long if I were to embark on the future organisation of defence in Europe, something in which the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) is intensely interested.
  The Americans will not abandon Europe. They are a most responsible nation. They will keep the backing of the nuclear strategic deterrent, and they will deploy substantial forces and weapons on the Continent. Of that I have no doubt. The United States is well aware of the dreadful damage that would be done to the whole free world if the balance of power were disturbed by American action.
  Any new pattern of organisation in which Europe within the framework of N.A.T.O. would carry more responsibility would need long and careful discussion. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has often said that the problems are formidable. They need to be handled with extreme care, but the facts of life are that if the balance of power is to be held over the years in Europe it will in future require a greater European effort. We have to be aware of that and prepare for it with great care and consultation between all the allies interested in the freedom of the West.
  The review which I have tried to make is not complete. Any Foreign Secretary is only too well aware of the range of problems which beset the world, but if they are intractable we must never admit that they are insoluble, for that way lies despair, and so it is vigilance and perseverance in the cause of peace that must be for Britain the order of the day.
  3.36 p.m.
  Mr. Denis Healey: Like the Foreign Secretary, I shall concentrate my remarks on three major issues

  357
  because I am well aware that the complexity and variety of the world's problems defy adequate discussion in this House in one afternoon.
  The three areas on which I want to concentrate were largely dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman. They are, first, the relations between East and West, where the news is wholly good, and where I believe we are already living in the twilight of the cold war. Second, I want to deal with a problem which I was shocked to find the Foreign Secretary handled in such a perfunctory manner, and that is the question of relations inside the West; that is to say, the growing political and economic strains caused by America's attempt to reduce the burden which she assumed in the world after the second war. Here the news is deeply worrying; I think that there is a real danger of a trade war beginning next year between the rich countries, from which all would suffer, not only the rich, but even more the poorer countries.
  The third question is that of relations between North and South, between the rich white peoples living mainly north of the Equator, and the poor, mainly coloured peoples living to the south of it. Here the picture is sombre indeed. The economic gulf between rich and poor in the world is widening fast. In the last few years the share of world trade taken by the poorer countries fell from 27 percent. to 17 per cent. of the total. President Nixon's surcharge, and the other economic measures which he took in August, are bound to reduce the share of the poor countries in world trade even further, and the aid provided to the poor countries by their more fortunate brethren is far below the target of 1 per cent. of G.N.P. which was fixed by the United Nations some time ago.
  The position is further threatened by President Nixon's intention to cut American aid by 10 per cent. and the decision taken by the American Senate to stop aid altogether, though I share the Foreign Secretary's hope that the President will find some way of getting round the problem of the proposed reduction in aid to the poorer countries. The House will be aware that the bulk of the aid covered by the President's Bill is military aid, and it was really the controversy about American military aid which was responsible for the Senate's action
  358
  The problem of the third world is presented in its starkest form by the developing tragedy on the Indian sub-continent, where poverty aggravates all the political and religious tensions and natural catastrophe multiplies the suffering caused by human error. We all read in the newspapers this morning of the floods in Orissa this week which may have produced 5 million homeless and 20,000 dead. I hope the Minister will be able to tell the House whether Her Majesty's Government find it possible to make any additional contribution in aid to deal with this specific problem.
  Like the Foreign Secretary, I want to start by talking about relations between East and West, if only because rapid progress here is a precondition of success in dealing with the other problems. A United Nations report, which is summarised in The Times today, points out that the six protagonists in the cold war —America, France, Britain and West Germany on the Western side, and Russia and China on the Communist side—are responsible for four-fifths of the world's spending on arms. That spending reached the staggering sum of nearly £800,000 million in the last decade, which is 30 times more than the official aid given by rich to poor in the world. Any progress which can be made in reducing the political conflicts between East and West, so liberating resources from arms for other purposes, is a precondition of success in dealing with the North-South problem
  Although the Foreign Secretary's speech about East-West relations was, to me at any rate, notably less forbidding than other speeches he has made in the last few weeks on the subject—in Brighton, for example, and at the Foreign Affairs Club, where I had the pleasure of acting as his chairman and interlocutor on occasion —I feel that very little of the enormous improvement in East-West relations was really reflected in the right hon. Gentleman's speech. As he said, in the Far East China is entering the world community at last, and I would here pay tribute to Her Majesty's Government's part in bringing about the vote at the United Nations. In the Middle East, Russia and America are clearly trying to prevent a war, and I think the Foreign Secretary will agree about this. We all know, as he recounted, how difficult are the problems dividing

  359
  Israel from the Arab countries, but there can be little doubt that neither America nor the Soviet Union want to see those conflicts ending in another war, and both are doing something—perhaps not enough —to prevent another war.
  The only point I would make on the Middle East where I do not think there is any reason for me to disagree with the right hon. Gentleman's account of the problem is that I think if an interim settlement can be reached on the Canal— I agree that this must be our target for the time being—it would be helpful if Her Majesty's Government were prepared to provide a contribution to a United Nations force for guaranteeing the frontier between the Israelis and the Arabs, because one thing which seems to me to be certain is that no transitional settlement can be reached which leaves the Israelis and the Arabs facing one another along a land frontier. This would be an even less secure situation than the present situation where they are separated by the Canal.
  But in Europe the progress in the last 12 months has been immensely encouraging. Chancellor Brandt's Ostpolitik has broken the log jam which has prevented any real progress in East-West relations for nearly 25 years. The four major Powers have already reached agreement on Berlin, and I share the Foreign Secretary's hope that the two German Governments will be able to conclude the details of that agreement and so open the way to further progress on resolving tension. The French Government have just received Secretary Brezhnev. The Canadian Government have just received Prime Minister Kosygin. The United States is now deeply engaged in talks on strategic arms limitation which have already produced their first concretse results in agreement to improve the hot line between Washington and Moscow and in agreement to reduce the risks of accidental war. I believe that it should be possible by the middle of next year for America and Russia to reach agreement on a limitation in antiballistic missile systems. President Nixon is off to Peking in a month or two and is visiting Moscow in the spring. Indeed, anyone who, reads the newspapers today must imagine that both Joseph Stalin and Foster Dulles are spinning in their graves.
  360
  What disappointed me in the Foreign Secretary's speech was the extremely cautious and, indeed, rather negative tone in discussing the possibility of negotiations for mutual force reductions in Europe and his lack of imagination, if I may say so, in discussing the opportunities which could arise through a European security conference. He also said nothing at all about the Soviet proposal, which I believe is well worth the West considering, that some agreement should be reached on limiting the deployment of naval forces in distant waters like the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean.
  But, having recounted this progress which has been made in East-West relations over the last 12 months, and noting the rôle played in this by the United States, the German and the French Governments and the Governments of small countries like Belgium, Finland and Denmark, we must ask ourselves what contribution are the British Government making to this progress. There is no reason why a Conservative Government in Britain should not be in the forefront of this great tide of international development. There is no doubt that if Sir Winston Churchill had been Prime Minister he would have been; so would Mr. Macmillan. But the nearest which any Government spokesman has approached enthusiasm about the prospects of progress in Europe was the pallid and spectral glow emitted by the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) when he said that Her Majesty's Government's attitude was "not negative".
  On the other hand, I am bound to note that The Guardian the other day quoted a British diplomatist as saying that if the Americans are leading the field in force reductions, the British are acting as the brakes rather than as the engine. Another national newspaper went rather further in a leading article today. It said:
  "All Sir Alec Douglas-Home can do in defence of his position is to go in for gentle diplomatic sabotage demanding unrealistically-drawn-out prior consultations, smothering the whole exercise with such a profusion of paper work that neither the N.A.T.O. Secretariat nor that of the Warsaw Pact can hope to get through it."
  Those words appeared in the Daily Express, a paper whose conversion to the

  361
  Government's cause on the Common Market issue will be welcomed by some hon. Members on the other side of the House at least.
  But the Foreign Secretary—and I understand why he did not admit this—faces the fact that Britain's relations with Russia today are worse than at any time since the 1930's. They have been worse than the relations of any other Western power for at least 12 months—long before the issue of the Soviet spies began to add its additional complication. Indeed, if we are to believe the Daily Telegraph, the Foreign Secretary recognised this because he told the United Nations Press conference the other day that the reason he had expelled the Soviet spies was to improve relations between Britain and the Soviet Union. If he really thought that the way he handled this matter was likely to improve relations, he is less experienced a diplomatist than I know him to be.
  All Governments in Britain and in Western countries have been continually irritated by the abuse of diplomatic privilege in their countries by Soviet agents masquerading as diplomatists, trade officials, and so on. But, for the life of me, I cannot understand why the British Government did not handle this problem—a very old problem which has troubled previous Conservative Governments as well as Labour Governments—like the Americans, who have 1,380 Soviet officially registered personnel in their country, nearly three times as many as we have, of whom about half are claimed to be working for the K.G.B.
  Sir Alec Douglas-Home: That includes the United Nations.
  Mr. Healey: Of course, that is counting the United Nations, but the Foreign Secretary will be aware that New York is in the United States, and targets for espionage in the United States are concentrated just as much on the Eastern seaboard as they are in the District of Columbia.
  I do not understand why they could not have handled it like the Germans, for instance, who certainly have more agents of one sort or another in their country than we have here, or like the French, who have nearly as many as our-
  362
  selves, or the Belgians, or any previous British Government.
  I must remind the Foreign Secretary that, as a result of the barrage of publicity, carefully prepared, which accompanied the announcement of his decision, the impression was created, not only in Britain but throughout the West, that the right hon. Gentleman's intention in taking action in that way and at this time had been to slow down the process of detente in Europe. Indeed, the British Broadcasting Corporation in its news bulletin, not in comment, described it as pricking the bubble of euphoria which was so widespread in Western Europe. That was how it was interpreted by The Times, by the Daily Telegraph, by all the newspapers which support the present Government in Britain, and by most newspapers on the Continent as well.
  Mr. John Wilkinson: Would the right hon. Gentleman put a higher priority on maintaining the security of the State or on securing his objectives of detente? What the Government are doing is trying to achieve both. which makes jolly good sense.
  Mr. HealeyI agree, but the point I am making is that the Government are clearly not furthering the process of détente and certainly not improving their relations with the Soviet Government not so much by the action which they took as by the barrage of publicity fed out to the Press by Whitehall at the time. It may be that the Foreign Secretary was as much a victim here as he believes Mr. Gromyko was in the Soviet Union and that much of the publicity did not emanate from the Foreign Office, but there is no doubt that the way in which the matter was handled did damage our relations, although, thank heaven, it did no damage whatever to relations between the West as a whole and the Soviet Union.
  Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that over the year I not only wrote two letters—[Interruption.] I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman needs prompting by the Leader of the Opposition. [Interruption.] I shall ask for it if I want it. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that I wrote two letters to Mr. Gromyko asking him to handle this matter in a private way, and I sent the Permanent Under-Secretary to the Foreign Office to

  363
  try to handle it in a private way. There was no reply to any of these approaches. There was no alternative.
  Mr. Healey: I am well aware of that, and I am not—[Interruption.] It is for the Foreign Secretary to defend his own action, not for me. What I am complaining about is the way in which this was handled by Whitehall in dealing with the media. As Professor Alec Nove, who was one of the first victims of Soviet retaliation, pointed out in the Observer, it was reminiscent of the worst days of Joynson-Hicks and the "Red scare" of the 1920s—and was deliberately used, indeed, by the hon. Gentleman the new Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) to help him secure his narrow-scrape victory in that by-election.
  Spies are a product of political conflict. All countries try to keep some things secret, and their political enemies try to find them out. There is no doubt in my mind that the K.G.B. is the biggest feather-bedded industry in the world, that thousands of Soviet K.G.B. men spend money painfully collected from Russian workers to have a wonderful time in foreign countries, largely collecting information which could be collected as easily and much faster by a girl with scissors and a pile of newspapers in Moscow.
  One should not exaggerate the importance of this type of activity; nor—here I agree with hon. Members opposite— should one diminish its importance. It is a nuisance. We found it so, and previous Governments have found it so. But I feel that the Foreign Secretary himself now recognises that the way in which the matter was presented to the public has not strengthened but has damaged the causes which he claims to hold dear.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: Would my right hon. Friend agree that not only did it do damage to the prospects for an East-West détente but it has damaged as well, at a time when there are nearly 1 million unemployed, large contracts for engineering and other firms in all parts of the country?
  Mr. Healey: With respect to my hon. Friend, I do not believe that it has damaged the prospects of a détente, be-
  364
  cause the American President announced his forthcoming visit to Moscow a week or two afterwards, and, similarly, the French Government went straight ahead with their invitation to Mr. Brezhnev. What it has damaged is our own relations with the Soviet Union. I hope that my hon. Friend is wrong in believing that the Russians will take reprisals against British firms. I saw an estimate of £22 million worth which could be lost, but I hope that they will recognise the importance of improving relations, particularly at this sort of level, and will not seek to retaliate in that way.
  The real trouble is that tile right hon. Gentleman is still living in the 1940s, when it was possible to see world Communism as a monolithic bloc of States under central direction engaged in international conspiracy against democracy. I noticed that, in his speech under my chairmanship a fortnight ago, the Foreign Secretary quoted Mr. Brezhnev in saying:
  "From the start it is necessary to establish clearly and without emotion the purpose of the Russian Communists up to now. Mr. Brezhnev, who tells us that the total triumph of socialism throughout the world is inevitable, is the direct descendant of Mr. Khrushchev who said. 'We will bury you'. The language is less picturesque but the essential message does not vary. It is that international life is a struggle between two systems, and that one is destined to defeat the other, and that if the pressure is maintained resistance will first weaken and then collapse."
  Mr. Brezhnev has made statements of that nature, but the Foreign Secretary knows as well as I do that what is important in international affairs is to see how Governments behave and not always to read the speeches which Government leaders make at party conferences.
  The facts are that there has not been a monolithic Communist bloc in the world for over 20 years, that the biggest single political conflict in the world is between two Communist States, Russia and China, that in Eastern Europe alone we see Yugoslavia, Albania, Romania, Poland and Hungary all claiming to be Communist States, all having their different internal economic systems, and all having their different attitudes to world affairs.
  The present situation is most clearly demonstrated by the state of affairs in Ceylon this year where there are two Communist parties in the Government, one Stalinist and one Trotskyist, a third

  365
  Communist party in peaceful opposition calling itself Maoist, and a fourth Communist party in armed rebellion against all the other three and declaring its dedictation to Che Guevara.
  It is certainly true that some Communist Governments are hostile to Britain. Equally, some, like the Yugoslav Government, are not. But the job of diplomacy is to turn enemies into friends. I believe that there is a growing realisation in Moscow that it will be impossible for the Soviet Government to create the economic incentives necessary to get their economy growing without reducing expenditure on armaments, and that they believe that in so far as there is an external military problem it lies in the East rather than in the West. I believe that therefore they are genuinely concerned to find a basis on which they can negotiate mutual force reductions in Europe and the seas around it, if possible.
  The Government should not be dragging along as a brake on the movement towards détente. They should be pressing fast; they should be in the lead in the movement for mutual force reductions, for a European security conference and above all, because this is so much a British interest, for an agreement to limit the deployment of the rival fleets in the oceans through which our trade must pass.
  I believe that the Foreign Secretary has not succeeded in his aim of slowing down that movement very much, though it is appalling that the N.A.T.O. Council at its recent meeting should have decided to move so slowly towards mutual force reductions, I understand, because ex- Secretary-General Brosio is to visit only one Communist capital, Moscow, before Christmas, and will not visit further capitals until well into next year. There is a real risk that the momentum will be lost.
  I think that the Foreign Secretary will agree that whilst it is probable that a basic shift of policy has taken place in Moscow, and was registered at the last Soviet Communist Party Congress, there are opponents of détente in Moscow no less than in the West, and if we allow this issue to lag we may find that a real possibility which exists today has gone, perhaps for a decade.
  There is one further fact that I ask the right hon. Gentleman to take into
  366
  account. The only result of slowing down multilateral negotiation on East-West force reduction will be to stimulate bilateral negotiations between America and the Soviet Union for the same purpose. Unless N.A.T.O. engages in negotiation on the issue by the middle of next year there is an overwhelming probability that President Nixon will reach a separate agreement with the Soviet Government for a very substantial cut in Soviet and American forces in central Europe. That would certainly be better than nothing, but it would be much better still for N.A.T.O. as a whole to be engaged in the process. There is a real danger that if N.A.T.O. drags its feet the process in the United Stales to which the Foreign Secretary replied will gather irresistible force, with serious danger for the West as a whole.
  One of the most depressing things about the European Governments in the past 12 months has been their reluctance to accept the reality of America's determination to reduce its defence and economic burdens overseas. The biggest threat to world stability today, and to Britain's prosperity and survival, is not the Soviet Government; it is the failure of America's allies, in the Far East as well as in Europe, to take her problems seriously, and the consequent reaction of the United States last August. When Secretary Connally gave clear warning at the International Monetary Fund meeting in Munich last May, not a single European Government took a blind bit of notice. The only response of the British Government to the American demand for more burden-sharing was to refuse to contribute to the European Defence Improvements Programme unless the Germans agreed to refund the money as part of offset. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman knows that as well as I do. It has been widely reported in Germany.
  The August measures taken by President Nixon could spark off a world recession unless there is agreement soon, and by "soon" I mean before Easter. If we allow the issue to drag into 1973, as seems to be the clear intention of many European Governments, the momentum will have carried away with it any chance of reaching a satisfactory agreement, and the consequences for this country in

  367
  employment and trade will be dire indeed.
  The central problem here is, I regret to say, the attitude of the Common Market Governments and the Common Market as a whole. It appears that the Japanese Government, late but clearly, have come to terms with the American position and are prepared to negotiate. But it is impossible for the European Governments to negotiate separately under the E.E.C. rules, and they are unable to agree on a collective negotiating position. It seems to have been only by the most undiplomatic forms of public pressure that Chancellor Brandt was able to persuade President Pompidou to meet him before January to discuss the development of a common position.
  I am well aware that the Foreign Secretary is not responsible for our economic policy, and I welcome that almost as much as I am sure he does. But I hope that it may be possible for the Minister of State to say something in his reply about the Government's attitude to the problem. I urge him to recognise how urgent it is. It is impossible to talk to leading Americans in business, banking or diplomacy these days without realising the severe risks that would be run if agreement was not reached before Easter. Once the American election campaign supervened another year would pass, during which irreparable damage would have been done to the structure of world trade, and the poor countries which are not party to the argument would suffer even worse than the rich.
  A further point on the problem concerns Japan. There are already mounting signs that the Japanese Government and business recognise that they will never recover the markets in the United States which they lost in August, and that they are therefore concentrating on building up their markets in Europe, using very much the same methods. I believe that the Japanese Government, after what they call the "two Nixon shocks" are now in a position to talk seriously to European Governments about the problem. There is no doubt that if agreement is not reached between Europe and Japan at the governmental level the American experience will be repeated. After a period in which the Japanese penetration builds up almost unseen the pressure of competi-
  368
  tion will come to seem intolerable in Europe, the shutters will go up again and we may spark off another international trade crisis, this time with consequences in defence and foreign affairs, as a result of Japan's reaction inside her own country, which might be profoundly disturbing to world peace.
  Finally, I come to the problem of relations between North and South. On Bengal I will only say that I have admired the Foreign Secretary's handling of the problem. I have repeatedly congratulated Her Majesty's Government on their contribution in the material field towards the relief of suffering of the refugees and those in East Bengal. I understand how difficult it is for the right hon. Gentleman to give the House an account of the advice he may have given to foreign Governments. The only point I would press again—and I hope that the Minister may have something to say about it in his reply—concerns the risk of war.
  I was not glad but I recognised today that the right hon. Gentleman for the first time was prepared to talk publicly about this danger, which has been patent for many months. It seems to me to be an appalling commentary on the wit of diplomatists and the wisdom of men if, seeing this war approaching, as the right hon. Gentleman says, like something in a Greek tragedy, nothing whatever can be done by the United Nations, the international organisation whose prime job it is to prevent war, to stop this catastrophe from coming about. I understand the reasons. The right hon. Gentleman has often explained why it is difficult to raise the issue so long as neither of the parties to the dispute is prepared to do so. But I believe that posterity would not forgive us if nevertheless, seeing these two great nations—as the right hon. Gentleman said, friends and partners of ours in the Commonwealth and with which we have historic ties—drifting towards the precipice, we did nothing and could do nothing to prevent it.
  I would also like to compliment the right hon. Gentleman on breaking an election promise. Normally we on this side upbraid him for this but I am delighted to see that he is actually taking all British troops out of the Persian or Arabian Gulf at the end of this year. I am glad also to see that all he is doing

  369
  to implement the election promise on the Far East and east of Suez is to leave a tiny token force in Singapore—a concept violently attacked by the present Home Secretary when we suggested it in 1967.
  I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman seems to have abandoned the idea of using our forces in the Far East to prevent the Soviet Navy from, in his view, dominating the Indian Ocean. I was very interested in this regard to see what the Prime Minister of Singapore had to say yesterday. When asked if he regarded the Soviet Navy as a threat in view of its expansion in the Indian Ocean he replied,
  "I don't see it as a threat."
  The report said:
  "He indicated that there was plenty of space for many warships of many nations in that large ocean, and that Singapore was confident she could pursue her independent policies regardless of sabre-rattling.
  He said that Soviet merchant vessels were welcome at Singapore for servicing, as were the ships of other nations. Soviet naval craft were a different case and notice was required."
  But he pointed out that, provided that notice was given, these Soviet ships, like others, would be allowed to put in for rest and recreation.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: The right hon. Gentleman refers to the Prime Minister of Singapore. He will no doubt be aware that in a broadcast with me on the B.B.C. World Service Mr. Lee paid tribute to the extreme value of the Five-Power Compact and Britain's contribution to it.
  Mr. Healey: I am aware that that is Mr. Lee's view. I could scarcely fail to be aware of it in view of my long connection with him. But the presence of this force has nothing to do with the Soviet threat in the Indian Ocean, and it is based in a country whose Prime Minister does not regard the presence of the Soviet Navy in the Indian Ocean as a threat and is prepared to give Soviet naval vessels certain facilities, provided that they give adequate notice. The calmness with which the Prime Minister of this small country treats the problem could well be a model for our own Prime Minister.
  But I have no bouquets for the Foreign Secretary's policy in Africa. His obsession before and immediately after the
  370
  last General Election with the idea of providing arms for South Africa has left Britain's influence in black Africa hanging by a thread, and every week brings fresh evidence of the mistake he and the Prime Minister made in jeopardising our whole policy in Africa for the sake of six helicopters. Indeed, I am not clear—perhaps we can be told —whether even these six have yet been ordered.
  The right hon. Gentleman told us a year ago—and I know that he believes it to be true—that in his opinion apartheid was breaking down under pressure of economic and diplomatic facts and that the situation would slowly improve. He cannot take that view today. In the last few days he has seen the South African Government proposing legislation to make Africans foreigners in their own country and legislation passed to remove coloured voters from the municipal rolls in Cape Province, where they are the great majority of the population. We have also heard that a 17th person has died in detention in circumstances which give every reason to believe that police brutality is the cause, and we have seen a British dean sentenced to five years in gaol for doing his duty as a Christian after a show trial in which the evidence was provided largely by secret police acting as agents provocateurs.
  I welcome the indication given by the right hon. Gentleman that he is prepared to do what he can for the dean in the light of the result of the dean's appeal. But does he still believe that the policy he adopted a year ago, and argued with such force in this House, was a wise one for Britain and for Britain's reputation in the world? There is no doubt, as The Times has pointed out, that South Africa is now a police State, and for the first time a police State for its white population no less than for its coloured and black peoples, as we saw from the Gestapo raids carried out the other day.
  I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question, and if he cannot reply immediately perhaps the Minister can tell us. It has been widely reported that the head of this Gestapo, the Bureau of State Security, General van der Bergh, is in London. It has also been widely reported with a wealth of circumstantial detail that under the present Conservative Government co-operation takes place

  371
  between the South African Bureau of State Security and British security forces regarding the activities of enemies of the South African Government who happen to be living in this country.
  I ask the right hon. Gentleman for an assurance, if such collaboration has taken place, that in the light of what we have seen happening in South Africa in recent months it will cease forthwith and that General van der Bergh will be told that his presence in this country is not welcome to the British Government and people.
  The right hon. Gentleman left us in some doubt as to the Government's policy today regarding the supply of arms. I hope that it is true that he is now trying to limit the damage by refusing to provide any arms, or by discouraging applications for any arms, other than helicopters. But all that we can hope to achieve in limiting the damage would be lost if it were thought that he was selling out to a similar regime in Rhodesia.
  I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is a man of honour—indeed, I know him to be so—and I believe that when he says that he will not accept any settlement which does not observe the five principles he is telling the truth. But he must be aware that Smith has said that he does not believe in any of these principles. Smith has said it while negotiations with the right hon. Gentleman were already proceeding on an exploratory basis, and he said it to a British television correspondent. The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the 1969 Constitution means, in Smith's own view, that it would be centuries before even parity was reached politically between the races and that a majority of the Africans would never be allowed a majority in politics.
  The right hon. Gentleman knows also that another of the five principles insists on guarantees against retrospective amendment of the Constitution. He also knows very well that without some physical guarantee against amendment it is possible for a future Government to overthrow entrenched clauses, as the South African Government did in the 1930s. Certain rights for the majority in South Africa were established in, I think, 1907, but they were overthrown in the 1920s and 1930s in violation of
  372
  solemn pledges by the South African Government, and there is little doubt that Smith would not wait 30 years before he took action.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the custom of the House to refer to political leaders of other countries at least by the courtesy of calling them "Mister"?
  Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.
  Mr. Healey: I do not regard Smith as other than a traitor to the Crown, and I would hope that the gallant admiral would take the same view, that he would as a serious matter and violation of that take the oath of allegiance to the Crown oath as an act deserving of the deepest condemnation by every hon. Member on both sides of the House.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I remind the right hon. Gentleman, as he has referred to me, that at least I should have been able to pass the positive security vetting in my own Ministry.
  Mr. Healey: All I can say to the hon. and gallant Gentleman is, "Temper temper." It is always interesting to observe how the most hon. and gallant Members opposite can stoop to a smear campaign when they find themselves morally embarrassed.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the hon. and gallant Gentleman ought to withdraw that remark?
  Mr. Healey: I do not in the least object to the hon. and gallant admiral branding himself a McCarthyite, although I know him well enough to recognise that he will regret that remark tomorrow, and we shall remain good friends in the future as we have so often been in the past.
  I do not believe that it is conceivably possible for the Foreign Secretary to reach an agreement on Rhodesia within the ambit of the five principles so long as Smith is the Prime Minister of that country, but I should like to raise one matter which disturbs me greatly. A day or two ago Sir Philip Adams, the leader of the British team, left Salisbury after five days of talks with Rhodesian officials. During the days he was there, the Rhodesian

  373
  authorities began to evict thousands of Africans from church lands at Epworth, near Salisbury. When Sir Philip was questioned about this, he said that the reports about the Government's plans had had no effect on the talks, that it had not been
  "a hastener or an impediment to what we have been talking about."
  If that statement is true, it is shocking. For the Smith authorities to take this action at that time in the presence of the British team in itself is some indication of the frivolity with which they regard the negotiations. But for the British negotiators not to raise the matter in the talks seems to be a betrayal of everything the Government say they stand for. I hope that the Minister will give us some assurance that Sir Philip Adams was misquoted or was mistaken.
  I conclude with one or two very general remarks. There is much which the right hon. Gentleman has done in the last 12 months with which I agree and with which most of us on this side of the House would agree, and I have mentioned his action on China and his conduct of British policy in Bengal and other matters. But the Government's record as a whole in the last 12 months has shown a deplorable sense of priorities in world affairs. They have invested a tremendous amount of effort in attempting to come to terms with racialists in Southern Africa and little effort in trying to deal with the claimant problems of East-West relations and the difficulties inside the Western world on which our whole prosperity and survival must depend.
  I cannot help feeling that the reason for this defective sense of priorities is double. First, there is the Foreign Secretary's personal obsession with the Communist threat as it appeared 20 years ago, but no longer exists today which prevents him from recognising opportunities for improving relations in the world when those opportunities appear. Secondly. there is the insensitivity, which is even worse in the Prime Minister, which the Foreign Secretary shows to the needs and sufferings and aspirations of the poorer people on this planet, an insensitivity which is equally reflected in the Government's attitude to the poor and underprivileged inside the frontiers of the United Kingdom.
  374
  I believe that until the Government can free themselves of these false values and mistaken priorities they will not be able to exercise a voice in international affairs worthy of our past, commensurate with our resources and in line with the deeply felt wishes of the British people.
  Mr. Victor Goodhew(Lord Commissioner of the Treasury): Thank God the right hon. Gentleman is not the Foreign Secretary.
  Mr. Healey: As the hon. Gentleman is a Whip, I will forbear to comment on that remark. The problems and opportunities which we face in the world today are incapable of solution unless to the qualities which the Foreign Secretary mentioned, perseverance and courage, we add imagination and humanity, and I despair of finding those qualities on that side of the House until the General Election changes the teams.
  4.27 p.m.
  Mrs. Connie Monks: As a comparatively new Member, I hesitated seriously about taking part in this debate on defence, but I felt that if I omitted to do so I should be failing in my duty. The comments which I wish to make are brief and are based on my own experience. and they link the Common Market and defence.
  In working for economic unity, the Six have grown closer together and now they are ready to extend their co-operation to foreign affairs and defence. Indeed, I understand that they have taken the first tentative steps in this direction. But it is unthinkable that this extension should go on, essential as it is, without Great Britain, and that is one of the primary reasons why I support entry into the European Economic Community.
  We—and I mean we Europeans—can never find adequate words to thank America for the part she has played in our defence and the major rôle which she has accepted in Europe for 25 years. However, there are signs that this cannot go on to the same extent for ever. America is having financial difficulties, which are partly due to trade diversion from America to the Community. The Six are becoming more and more prosperous and financially able to bear more of the cost of their own defence and we, as their partner in N.A.T.O., obviously need to

  375
  share their prosperity before we, too, can afford increased costs for our mutual defence.
  In a world of large Powers, all European States can do more to protect their interests in world affairs if they act together rather than separately. We could be on a par, in size, with America, Russia, China and Japan. We could be among the giants rather than the pigmies. The potential power of the European nations is dissipated if it is fragmented. If our individual powers were harnessed together through a community of ten nations, with their associates, acting in common, there is nothing that we could not do in the material world and we should again become more masters of our own fate, not having to depend to a very large extent on the presence of 300,000 American troops to make our defence even credible.
  I remember the relief I felt when a British Prime Minister came back from Munich waving a piece of paper and crying, "Peace in our time." That was appeasement, and that peace lasted just over 12 months. But that peace at least gave us that period in which we could begin to prepare to defend ourselves, even to the provision of gas masks. Some hon. Members may have forgotten all about that, but I, as one of the people who had to wear them, remember it very well indeed.
  It was the fact that we were able—this is something, perhaps, which people smile about now—to distribute those gas masks which probably deterred the use of gas. To many young people, that seems a time long past, and so it is. I hope that it will remain in the past. That is why I am determined that Britain must remain strong and able to defend herself along with our allies. It took disaster to unite the allies against Fascism, but in any future war there will be no time and no reprieve.
  Only one great Power made territorial gains during the last war—or should I say after the last war—and the same Power continued to extend its control over Eastern Europe by means of political infiltration and subversion. Between 1945 and 1948, that Power extended its dictatorship at the rate of 22,000 acres a day. In the face of this westward
  376
  thrust of the Communists, the free world decided to unite its forces, and N.A.T.O. was born.
  N.A.T.O. has achieved collectively what separately would have been impossible. While working for the maintenance of peace, we must be able to defend ourselves. I believe that membership of the Common Market will make a major contribution to our prosperity and to our ability to defend ourselves. Like the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), I welcome the idea of mutual force reductions, but it all depends on the starting point; the one with the biggest pile still has a lot left when one's own have all gone. I feel most strongly on this, as you have obviously seen, Mr. Speaker. I believe that we should delude ourselves if we believed that the pressure from the East had stopped. It is simply coming from other directions.
  4.35 p.m.
  Mr. John Stonehouse: I hope that the hon. Lady the Member for Chorley (Mrs. Monks) will forgive me if I do not follow in detail the points which she raised, but in her speech she drew attention to several developments in international affairs which confirm what I think was demonstrated in the two Front Bench speeches today—that there have been dramatic changes in international relations during these past 12 months.
  In fact, these changes are probably more significant than anything which we have seen in any period since the last great war. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) in a very moderate and well-balanced speech, referred to the great significance of Willy Brandt's Ostpolitik. This is one of the greatest things which we have seen in Europe in these last few years and will perhaps give rise to a greater opportunity for East—West friendship and the avoidance of conflict arising out of the division of Germany.
  But in addition to this most significant development, we have seen changes in South America in the last 12 months which are also important—a move to the Left which will enable some of the dispossessed in South America, of whom there are many millions, to gain a greater place in the sun. I have been glad to

  377
  see some of the changes which have occurred in Chile and elsewhere, which I think will lead to a better economic way of life for millions in that part of the world.
  Then there are the changes on the Canadian scene. Prime Minister Trudeau is beginning to have his impact on international affairs, and there is little doubt that Canadian politics internationally are moving out of the automatic association with everything that the United States does. This could be all to the good.
  Then, of course, there has been this significant change in our relationship with the E.E.C., in that the E.E.C. is now prepared to accept us, the French have dropped the veto and there has been a very large vote by the House of Commons in favour of joining. These are very significant developments. They will have a tremendous effect on international relations.
  The fifth change, of course, is that in the relationship of China with the rest of the world. One of the aspects of this which I believe is being neglected—it was certainly neglected in the Foreign Secretary's speech—is that this is not an emergence from a self-imposed exile, as he said; it is a change on the part particularly of the United States but also of many other countries in their relations with China. It is particularly important for America that they have had to recognise that the policy which they have pursued over the last two decades has now been proven wrong.
  After all, for many years, they have tried to impose a policy of supporting Chiang Kai-shek on their other allies. They have pursued the conviction to the point of lunacy that it would be possible for Chiang Kai-shek to return to the mainland of China. Associated with this policy has been the policy of attempting to contain Communist China and prevent its influence spreading in other parts of the world.
  This has led to the policy of United States intervention in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and Siam. It has led to the Americans attempting, with the loss of millions of dollars in resources but also thousands of American lives, to stop the emergence of a Vietnamese solution in South Vietnam.
  378
  The Americans are now withdrawing from that aspect of the policy, recognising that in recent years they have been wrong. I welcome the change that has come about in the U.S. and I welcome the fact that President Nixon has decided to visit Peking, but let us recognise that there are dangers as well as opportunities in this change of heart on the part of the U.S.
  The Americans have acknowledged their mistakes, though they have not perhaps admitted them publicly. Indeed, it has been represented in many quarters as a great diplomatic success that President Nixon is going to Peking. If one adopts a more realistic approach to these issues one realises that this is a suing for peace and a recognition of the weakness of United States policies in the last two decades have been wrong.
  As I say, while this change of policy in America is to be welcomed, there are immense dangers inherent in it for the United States and the rest of the world. In the last few weeks we have seen even liberals in the American Congress and Senate arguing against United States aid for the rest of the world on the ground that such aid has been seen to be ineffectual in securing friends. This could lead to a new isolationism on the part of America, which could have serious repercussions for the developing countries.
  There is in America a withdrawal not only from the power politics of international intervention but from the moral idealism that has inspired a great many Americans in their relations with the rest of the world. Indeed, many Americans supported going into Vietnam in the early days because they were moral idealists. They believed they were there with a mission to serve; that they would save South Vietnam for democracy.
  Many of these Americans are sadly disillusioned when they see that rather than saving South Vietnam for democracy, they have in South Vietnam a military dictatorship in which democratic elections are not allowed to take place. This has led many American liberals to throw up their hands and withdraw, and this could lead to a new mood of isolationism which, as I say, could be very dangerous indeed.
  One obvious danger arises from the fact that American policy can be turned on

  379
  its head within such a short space of time and that the United States can ignore and retreat from alliances to which it has adhered for many years. Its withdrawal of support from Japan and Taiwan is significant for us in Europe because it could happen here.
  The Foreign Secretary expressed confidence that the United States would not abandon Europe. I hope that he is right and that the Americans will continue to take an interest in the security of Europe. However, when we see what the United States can do with its Pacific policy almost overnight, some Europeans are bound to be fearful that the United States could do the same in Europe if it served its interests.
  This is one reason why—I will not burden the House today with my reasons for supporting Britain's entry into the E.E.C.—it is important that we should enter the Community. The situation for Britain in Europe has changed dramatically in the last 10 years. On balance, it is now better for us to join an enlarged Community and to play our part in it rather than to stay out, for I believe that the relationship of Europe with the rest of the world has undergone substantial changes since the first application was made 10 years ago.
  I wish briefly to consider the situation in India and Pakistan, which I regard as one of the most dangerous areas of the world and which therefore warrants our attention in this debate. I accept what the Foreign Secretary said about it not being for this country to dictate to the people of East Bengal as to what course they should adopt for the future of their country. We should accept, too, that it is not for us to dictate to them what they should not accept—and I thought the right hon. Gentleman was in danger of falling into this pit.
  He said that the solution for East Bengal could come only within East Pakistan and within Pakistan itself. He is wrong. It is not for us to assume that the solution to the problem in East Bengal must be found within Pakistan. There is another solution—that Fast Bengal should become an independent State, under the name of Bangladesh, if that is its wish. It is not for us to dictate to the Bengalis or West Pakistanis that this is an option which is not available to them.
  380
  After all, many other countries have had unions and associations which have been broken off because they have not worked. Consider, for example, our creation of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, which we decided to break up because we realised that it could net work and could not lead to amicability between the communities living in Rhodesia and Nyasaland. As a result of that action there are now the two independent States of Malawi and Zambia and the illegal régime of Rhodesia.
  Mrs. Knight: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that such a change could not come about against the wishes of the people concerned? Is he further aware that it was never any part of the election programme of the Awami League that there should be secession?
  Mr. Stonehouse: Six years ago the Awami League drafted a policy and election programme which included a number of points leading to economic autonomy. The League made it clear during the elections last December that such a policy could be pursued within a united Pakistan
  Since then President Yahya Khan and the military rulers of West Pakistan have refused to accept the democratic will of the people of East Pakistan. They used military force on an almost unprecedented scale after 25th March to suppress the feelings of the East Bengal people, who had voted overwhelmingly in support of the Awami League in December. It was in that situation that the Awami League leaders who survived the carnage and escaped to the sanctuary of India declared the independent State of Bangladesh, and it is that State that we should recognise as having come into existence.
  Mrs. Knight: Nonsense.
  Mr. Stonehouse: That is my view.
  There are many examples in addition to Rhodesia and Nyasaland of States which have been created in a certain way and which broke up because the peoples of those countries decided on better ways of proceeding. There was the union of the U.A.R. with Syria. That broke up and has since been re-formed. There was the union between Singapore and Malaysia, with the Malaysian Federation, by which we set great store at one stage. That broke up, and who can say that the relationship that now exists between

  381
  Singapore and Malaysia is not better and does not give better opportunities to each country, rather than both being forced together in a federation which could not work? One could quote other examples.
  If it is right that in those countries it has been possible for the people concerned to take a decision to break up a federation or even a unitary State, surely that must apply in Pakistan. Pakistan was created by the United Kingdom because of the tremendous pressures in the Indian sub-continent for a religious type State to be established, but it has the enormous disadvantage of being separated by a thousand miles of India and, between East and West Pakistan, by a cultural and historical background which is as dissimilar between the two wings as between almost any two countries in Europe. With these differences, we should recognise that these people have a right, if they wish and if it is their decision, to break up their country and to have two independent States rather than one.
  The Foreign Secretary fell into an error in his speech when he said that the solution must be found within Pakistan. But I hope that he will recognise that if the people in East Pakistan wish to declare their independence, an opportunity must be found for them, if they so desire, and that there is no reason why Britain should say that that option is not available to them. I hope that the Foreign Secretary, if he agrees with me, will indicate that in our decision not to interfere in the constitutional decisions of the people of that part of the world, we do not impose any such pre-conditions on their decisions.
  Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We cannot impose any pre-condition.
  Mr. Christopher Woodhouse: I have a good deal of sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman's point, but I wonder whether he would extend it to the attempted secession of Biafra. Biafra did not enjoy much sympathy from the Government of which he was a member.
  Mr. Stonehouse: Biafra is an interesting case. At that time the then members of the Opposition supported the secession of Biafra and worked very strongly for it, and they recognised the principle which I am describing to the House—that a people have the right, if they so decide, to break up a country where they believe that is in their best interests. I do not believe that
  382
  there are very many similarities between the Biafra-Nigeria situation and the situation I am considering in East Bengal. For one thing, Biafra was in geographical touch with Nigeria. It was not a separate State separated from Nigeria by 1,000 miles of another State. There were other reasons why the break-up would have been inadvisable. But in this particular case there are many more reasons why an independent country is more desirable than in the case of Biafra.
  I was in complete agreement with what my right hon. Friend said about the actions of the Foreign Secretary in providing aid for the refugees in India and in providing aid which can be used in East Bengal. I have paid tribute to the Foreign Secretary's humanitarianism about this and I hope that many other countries will follow our example. But there will be a need for Britain to provide even more aid, especially during the coming winter months, and when India is coping with the enormous problems of nine to 10 million refugees in the camps in West Bengal and elsewhere. The refugees will face tremendous privation in the oncoming winter, with the worse conditions in the camps that that will cause. There will be a need for even more aid in the form of clothing and blankets in order to save lives. I hope that we shall be able to play our part in giving more assistance.
  Although the final decision has to be made by the people of East Bengal, there is strong evidence to suggest that an independent Bangladesh will emerge from the conflicts which now take place. Not only will it emerge but, I believe, it has already emerged. The Bangladesh Government is in a very much stronger position than most international commentators are prepared to admit. This is partly because India has prevented full information about the success of Bangladesh going out to the rest of the world. India has her own reasons for doing this. She has prevented foreign visitors from going to parts of Bangladesh which are firmly under Mukti Bahini control.
  In the last few days I have had the good fortune of talking to Donald Chesworth, the chairman of a charity in Britain called "War on Want", who returned recently from an extended visit to areas of Bangladesh which are firmly under the control of the provisional administration. He tells me that it became

  383
  clear to him about his extended visit that there are about four million people, at least, who are under the administration of the Bangladesh authorities, that normal civil administration, including the administration of courts, the running of police forces and trade, is going on, and that the Bangladesh administration is in firm control.
  I do not know why the Indian authorities do not allow visitors to go to the areas which are so strongly under the control of the Bangladesh authorities. They do allow visitors to go to an area controlled by the Bangladesh administration nearer to West Bengal, and I visited this particular enclave last July. I crossed the frontier from India and went across some fields into an area that was quite clearly under the control of the Mukti Bahini, the forces which owe allegiance to the Bangladesh administration. That area of about 150 square miles is, or was, under the control of the Bangladesh authorities.
  I was interested to read a report in The Guardian last week that a group of journalists had been to the same area and met the same Bangladesh officials and heard from them a similar story to that which I had heard last July, which indicates that this is an area which has been under very firm Bangladesh control for very many months.
  Bangladesh does exist. The information we have confirms that. Therefore, in considering what solution should be found to this awful tragedy in Bengal, the Bangladesh Government must be one of the parties to the discussion. It is simply not good enough for the farce of elections to be held in East Bengal and for most of the candidates to be unopposed because the Awami League, the major political party, is refusing to participate and cannot do so. It is ridiculous to go through with this farce and to ignore the realities of the situation that a vast area of East Bengal is under the control of the provisional government of Bangladesh.
  Reference has been made to the situation that existed in Biafra during the war with Nigeria. At that time efforts were made to bring together the parties to the dispute, and talks were held in Ethiopia from time to time in an attempt to secure some peace in the region. If it were right to try to bring the Biafran representative
  384
  to the conference table with the Nigerians, it is right today to recognise the existence of the Bangladesh Government as a force in the same way that Biafra was recognised in that dispute with Nigeria. I believe that we close our eyes to the facts of the situation if we do not recognise that, at least.
  My hope is that India will herself give more support to the Bangladesh Government because, as far as I have been able to assess on my visits to that part of the world, this administration is the true reflection of the majority view in East Bengal. No doubt those elections won by the Awami League were an amazing success for the point of view put forward by Sheik Mujib Rahman. There is no doubt that the Bengali people in East Bengal continue to support the concept of an independent Bangladesh, and it will be impossible for a solution to be found to this tragedy unless it is recognised that the possibility of an independent Bangladesh may emerge from it. In the meantime, we have to negotiate with the Awami League leaders in the provisional Government of Bangladesh who represent that point of view.
  I want to raise a specific point which is of great importance in securing that there is no continuation of unnecessary atrocities in the areas where there continues to be this guerrilla strife. The guerilla strife will go on, and there will continue to be this war between the Pakistan Army and the forces of the Mukti Bahini. But I believe that there is an opportunity for the international community to play its part in reducing the atrocities which undoubtedly are taking place.
  I refer in particular to the Geneva Convention of 1949 which was signed by various High Contracting Parties and adhered to by the United Kingdom in September, 1957. Article 3 of the Convention provides that
  "In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
  (1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms… shall…be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour,

  385
  religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
  To this end, the following Acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time, and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

  (a) Violence to life and person, in particular, murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

  (b) taking of hostages;

  (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

  (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognised as indispensable by civilised peoples."

  We know that that Convention is not being adhered to by the Pakistan Army. From reports coming out of East Bengal, we know that when a bridge is blown up or a road is mined or there is an attack on Pakistan Army units, the Pakistan Army is going out to nearby villages and destroying them, killing the men, raping the women, and making thousands of people flee from their homes because of these atrocities. Every day, 20,000 to 30,000 people are crossing the frontier from East Bengal to West Bengal because of the atrocities perpetrated by the Pakistan Army in its attempt to "pacify" the area that it would like to control.
  This is illegal conduct. We have condemned it already in this House as being in contravention of the Geneva Convention on Genocide. But it is further condemned by the 1949 Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.
  What, then, are the positive proposals that we can make to deal with the situation? They are contained in this Convention, which goes on to say:
  "An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict. The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention."
  As I have indicated, this Convention applies not to disputes of an international character but to hostilities
  "… occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties "
  It refers specifically to an
  "… armed conflict not of an international character".
  386
  In other words, a civil war can come within the terms of the Convention. Therefore, I press very strongly that every passible pressure should be put on both the provisional Government of Bangladesh, who are supporting the forces of the Mukti Bahini, and the Government of Pakistan, who are sustaining the activities of the Pakistan Army, to agree to adhere to the Convention of 1949 and to help bring to an end the atrocities against civilians which are now taking place every day in East Bengal.
  An agreement will also help the charities, like War on Want and Oxfam, which are trying to bring aid to the refugees in Bengal and to those people in East Bengal who are also in need of help and may within the next few months face the worst-ever famine to affect that part of the world. It could lead to the deaths of millions unless means of communication are found to bring in the food which is available. If that food is to get in and be distributed to those who need it, it is essential that both sides to the present dispute—the provisional Government of Bangladesh and the Pakistan authorities—should agree to give laissez-passer to the supplies of food which can be brought in by the international community. I am certain that the operation of this Convention will help to ensure that this humanitarian job is done.
  I turn briefly to the negotiations going on with Mr. Ian Smith and his colleagues. I regret that the sanctions policy has not worked. The Rhodesian economy is very strong. It is not as strong as it would have been had there been no sanctions, but it is clear that the condition of life in Rhodesia is reasonably good and that Rhodesia can survive economically even if sanctions are continued. Therefore it is right that Her Majesty's Government should find ways and means of bring this dispute to an end. I hope that it will be possible to reach an agreement, though I doubt whether any agreement will stick. But I have one specific question, to which I hope I shall have a reply. In the negotiations conducted by the previous Administration, the Governments of the Commonwealth countries were always kept in touch with every stage. Are they being kept in touch with these negotiations? Are they being told what is going on?

  387
  Finally, I refer to an event which is due to take place within a few days and which has immense significance to specific countries as well as being of great importance to environmentalists and conservationists all over the world. I refer, of course, to the proposal by the United States to explode a five-megaton nuclear device underground on the island of Amchitka, in the Aleutians. This proposal has been strongly condemned by Japan, Russia, Alaska itself, and now by the Canadians. Yesterday the Canadian Foreign Minister said that this proposed act was illegal under international marine law. I have not had the opportunity to look up all the references which would confirm that, but there is little doubt that the explosion, if it is allowed to take place, could lead to very serious repercussions.
  The Science Correspondent of the Daily Telegraph wrote this on 30th October:
  "Operation Cannikin"
  —that is the name given to the proposed explosion—
  "may produce a dangerous earthquake in one of the world's most active seismic areas, the circle round the Pacific Ocean …
  The possibility of an earthquake being caused by Operation Cannikin is discounted by the A.E.C. but the five megaton test is only four times less than the force of the recent earthquake in Peru, which was considered to be equivalent to a 20-megaton nuclear explosion.
  The deeper and bigger the test the more likely it is to trigger action in an unstable area."
  I hope that the British Government will in the time available make their strong protest, along with the protests of Canada and Japan, against this test taking place. The risks in this test are too great for the world community to ignore.
  5.12 p.m.
  Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker: These are unsatisfactory debates, because after the Summer Recess we tend to say where we have been on our holidays and think that the rest of the House will be interested.
  As for the right hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse), I regard the situation in the sub-continent as so critical now that any partisanship in the House is to be regretted. This does not mean that we cannot express great sympathy with all those suffering in that part of the world and hope that we can assist
  388
  the various relief organisations in carrying on relief in very difficult circumstances.
  In the past few months, if not years. I have studied the question of having some emergency force, with communications and transport which might go in and help. However, it is, I feel, irresponsible to adopt partisan attitudes in the House, particularly at this stage.
  Those of us who were around when these two great friendly Commonwealth countries were established in the subcontinent 24 years ago regret, to an extent more than I personally can express, that they should have got into this situation. There is little that we can do about it now, and all that happens is that we get accused of neo-colonialism.
  I want to take up two points arising from what the Shadow Foreign Secretary said. I warned the right hon. Gentleman that I would take up these points. However, exhausted by his long speech the right hon. Gentleman had to leave the Chamber, and I quite understand that.
  The first point is on security. I do not want to be over-controversial about this. The right hon. Gentleman said that the relations with the Soviets now are worse than for 20 years. Everybody who has followed this argument on security knows that under the previous Administration there was great laxity for six years and that we lacked the great patriots like Lord Attlee, A.V. Alexander and, above all, Ernest Bevin, in controlling these very delicate affairs. After the war they faced up to the reality of infiltration, espionage and worse, and protected our interests.
  Clearly action had to be taken. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has made clear, he warned the Soviets privately, but for a year they took no action. It is also clear that they started a propaganda operation in anticipation of the British Government taking action. I regret that the Shadow Foreign Secretary added support to the Soviet propaganda by his speech.
  The second point I take up concerns the right hon. Gentleman's reference to what he calls North and South. I spent the only 10 constructive years of my life trying to do a job of work in the

  389
  "South". I am not sure that I would use the word "gulf" which the right hon. Gentleman used to describe what exists between North and South rather than "gap"; but this may be a fine point.
  As the prosperity of the free world increases, that of the third world does not increase so fast, partly for reasons that have always existed, partly because of its own fault. About 30 years ago it was food, medicine, education and, above all freedom—and environment, which we are now talking about in Britain. Many of those peoples then lived in much happier circumstances than they enjoy today, due to over population and instability.
  What we should lay more stress on, rather than the idea that the North must "help" the South, is the practical proposition of management. I hope that the right hon. Lady the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart), who is to reply for the Opposition, will tell us what her view is on this critical point. It is not just a question of making capital or resources available from the North. They must be administered in a responsible and effective way. It disturbs me deeply that as soon as somebody becomes for example a bank manager he thinks he can run international banking. That is just as expert a job as being a doctor. The way in which new countries tend to get rid of anyone who is not of their own nationality, then fail themselves, and blame the "North" for their own shortcomings is regrettable.
  The proposal of the International Chamber of Commerce may not appeal to the Labour Party, because it involves free enterprise, but it was a realistic proposal. One proposition was that the "North" should go in on a mutually sharing basis and do the job together. Increasingly it is management rather than just capital which is required, to close the gap in the under-developed parts of the world.
  The Shadow Foreign Secretary said that East-West Relations were better under the previous Government. However. there is a steady improvement. I recently spent two weeks in the Soviet Union and I never had a more friendly time in my life, but I was not moving in governmental circles. We must study this question carefully. In the Soviet Union some people are looking 25 years ahead.
  390
  There are not many people here looking 25 years ahead.
  I pray that the SALT talks will produce satisfactory results. However, we must not drop our guard or be taken in, because it is in the Soviet interests at the moment to face China rather than to face the West. We must also realise that at present the Soviet forces—conventional, nuclear and subversive—are more powerful and more active than they have been at any time since 1945.
  I want now to concentrate on two specific points which are far removed from those global conceptions, but on which the House is able to take action. On Friday of last week I attended a W.E.U. Committee meeting in Paris with colleagues from the other side of the House. This was a meeting of representatives of the Six and the United Kingdom. They were all delighted at the vote in the House last Thursday night. They repeated to us many of the points which they wished to be considered in the next few months or years. The great hope is that all the seven countries will work ever more closely together.
  It is now only 14 months before we must send a delegation from the House to the European Parliament. I believe that we must study many problems much more closely than hitherto, preparatory to action on 1st January, 1973.
  In this connection I make two points. The first is on organisation. M. Jean Monnet, speaking on television on Thursday night, made the same point as the American Bar Association has made three times to my knowledge in the last 20 years in Westminster Hall—that Britain is not supreme at cooking and heating but is unsurpassed at creating institutions to maintain freedom under the law. All of us who have lived through the last 40 years can see that. This is the great challenge, as we unite Europe, even beyond the economics, and I hope that from now on, both pros and antis will join in making our association with the Community work.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis:Will we get the chance?
  Mr. Dodds-Parker: That is up to the hon. Member and his Front Bench as indeed it has always been during the last 25 years. Until direct elections come he

  391
  has to make peace with his own Front Bench, not with me.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has admitted that we shall not get a chance to amend or alter any of the five types of rules and regulations in the Treaty. We shall be permitted to debate them, but not to reject or amend them. In that situation, how can we possibly make the improvements suggested?
  Mr. Dodds-Parker: I am not talking about that. We are joining an association which already exists, which has been going for 10 years, but it is an evolving community. We are going in 10 years after the Communities were set up, and when the hon. Gentleman is sitting on his cloud a century or so from now I hope he will be able to say that, although he opposed it for the first 10 years, he supported it for the next 20.
  Those who are opposed to entry have a great chance, by going to the European Parliament, under whatever conditions may exist, to find either that their fears are unfounded or that they are shared by others there. It will be for them to put in constructive proposals for resolving those fears. We had to face this on this side of the House over nationalisation. We did not accept it in the years after the war. The hon. Member will remember how we opposed it and said it would not work, and it has not. But we as a party had to make it work.
  That is the challenge which faces both those who want to join and those who do not. The task, not just for Members of both Houses of Parliament but also for the Chair and the Table, is to keep the business within bounds. This is only a small point, but one which makes an organisation work effectively. The right hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) at Strasbourg made a great effort to overcome the academic "quarter of a hour" and got into trouble for doing it. But now some of these organisations work more punctually. This may seem trivial but we do not always realise how much we owe to the Chair and the Table in getting the business of our democracy through, or how much we owe to individuals like Sir Frank Figgures and Sir John Coulson, from the Civil Service, who helped to make E.F.T.A. such a success.
  392
  But now we are joining a going concern which is evolving. We must therefore try to help the organisation work as well or better than it does at present. At the moment the European Parliament meets for some 120 days a year, mainly for committee work. The enlarged Assembly can, I hope, be kept down to 120 days, of which about 20 days may be held in London. The other Six members find that if the best qualified representatives are to be retained, the demands made on them must be kept within bounds.
  I believe that as time goes on the European Parliament and the North Atlantic Assembly will be the main assemblies in the free world. On the latter Assembly. I hope to speak in the future, but I believe that the North Atlantic Assembly, supporting the O.E.C.D. area and perhaps working towards a North Atlantic Free Trade area, is something we ought to be thinking about now, although it may be long before it becomes a reality.
  I turn now in narrow parliamentary terms to the Assemblies which we propose to establish to ensure proper parliamentary control over the Executive, the Council of Ministers and the Commission in the E.E.C. This is something which is as necessary, and sometimes, I am afraid, as unwelcome, as it is here to the Treasury Bench. Members of the Assembly will have to be chosen through the usual channels until direct elections are held. [Interruption.] This has all been said before.
  The Assembly must include members who specialise on subjects such as the social services, agriculture, trade and regional policy. It is not, in terms of my own party, the foreign affairs committee, but members of the specialist committees who will have a great contribution to make at the European Parliament. Beyond the mere harmonisation of such policies in committee, political issues also will have to be dealt with which will require a united European policy, for instance, on East-West relations; problems will result from trade and also from, for example, pollution. It is perhaps just as well that, through an accident of geography, the prevailing wind blows from west to east.
  Another aim of a united Europe will be to achieve an Arab-Israeli settlement. Studying the energy needs of Europe, it

  393
  will become more obvious that beyond humanitarian reasons we should have a European policy towards that area from which so much of the energy for Europe comes.
  In parenthesis, the Middle East seems still to be, after the problem of the Indian sub-continent, the main danger area in the world. The conflict on the sub-continent is limited, but that in the Middle East might spread out of control unless the most careful attention is given to it. I would draw my right hon. Friend's attention once again to a point not sufficiently looked at—and that is the potentially decisive importance of a European guarantee for any Middle East settlement. The Western European Union Assembly suports this idea. We were discussing it at the Council of Europe. The churches believe that the proposals made in the last five years for under-writing a settlement will be helpful.
  I believe that the significance of the enlarged Community is not just for the benefit of this country and the Community, but that for the creation of wealth and stability to help others outside the Community. The excellent speech of the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), the Leader of the Liberal Party, brought that out better than anyone else has ever done recently.
  I believe that the United Kingdom's opportunity in that enlarged Community to build its economic and political future is the greatest since 1775, when a former Member of Parliament for Banbury disposed of the American Colonies.
  5.30 p.m.
  Mr. R. T. Paget: It seems a little strange, and may be we should have a look at our institution, that a foreign affairs debate on the third day of the Gracious Speech should attract so little interest. It does seem remarkable. The only thing that I would say to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Dodds-Parker) is that I do not think his idea that we can transplant British institutions to Strasbourg or Brussels is a viable one. We have tried to transplant these indigenous institutions to a number of places and it has always been disastrous and will be again.
  I want to say a word or two about Rhodesia. I never believed that sanctions would work. I believed that they
  394
  would strengthen the Rhodesian Front and that the Africans would be the sufferers. I congratulate the Government on trying to settle this nonsense and I certainly deplore the observations of the Leader of the Labour Party who threatened that he would not support the Market if there was a sell-out over Rhodesia. Really, the only thing we have to sell in Rhodesia is our own vanity. For all that and with the best will in the world I do not think it will be possible to settle the Rhodesian situation on any terms at all because I do not think that Mr. Smith's supporters can afford a settlement.
  Sanctions are too valuable for them. So long as sanctions remain so do the members of the Rhodesian Front in Parliament. While the patriotic struggle is there they are safe in their jobs. A very high proportion of them are men who could never get as well paid anywhere else.
  The other great problem for these people is that they are the people who, quite properly from a Rhodesian point of view, have invested in the import substitution industries. Those industries will collapse when imports come in again. That is very unattractive to those who have their money in these. So Mr. Smith finds one excuse after another because he must pretend all the time that he wants a settlement. Politics in Rhodesia require him to make that pretence. Every time some reason must be found why the negotiations cannot go any further. The latest one is what I describe as the quite disgraceful conduct with regard to Rhodes's legacy to the African people and the ejection of those Africans just at the time of the negotiations.
  Mr. Smith is not a foolish man, he knows his politics pretty well. That is not done by mistake. I say to the Government in all seriousness that they will only get negotiations when they remove sanctions. If sanctions are removed Mr. Smith is in a rare mess because suddenly he has to cope with an inflow of new investment, with the boom that is waiting to break out, the boom that can only be staffed and manned by Africans. This is not an apartheid situation, there cannot be one with a 1 in 20 situation. It is difficult enough with a 1 in 4 situation but with 1 in 20 it is just not on.

  395
  The only way to keep this sort of régime is by screwing it down and stopping progress. This is precisely what sanctions have done for the last four years. They have kept the régime going. If they are removed there may be realistic negotiations on the basis of the six principles because in coping with the difficulties which will arise through expansion the Rhodesians will need us seriously. They do not need us in the least so long as sanctions can be kept going.
  I turn to my main theme and that which worries me above all other things, namely the state of the American Alliance. It is on that Alliance that the defence stability of Europe depends. I remember only too well, as does my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) the meeting at Lisbon of the Chiefs of Staff of the N.A.T.O. countries in 1952 when we had to decide what was necessary for the defence of Europe. The answer came out—50 divisions at the ready, another 120 available at so many days, an air force of 4,000 planes and most important of all, the main body of this force to be stationed behind the Rhine and not to move forward until the axes of advance of the enemy were ascertained.
  That proposal was turned down because Europe was not prepared to provide the divisions and above all because Germany was not prepared to provide the battlefield. That is no less necessary for real defence. The forces which we have to meet are no less now than they were in 1952. Instead we plumped for something quite different. We accepted a forward policy which was alone acceptable to the Germans; we put our armies forward knowing perfectly well that they could not fight in those positions but believing that they would provide credibility for the American deterrent on which we relied. That has been their function.
  I remember discussing this with the late Sir Basil Liddell Hart. His view was that any time the Russians, using not more than six divisions, chose to move in the North they could do so, leaving at last light and up on the Rhine at first light, on to the Swiss frontier on the third day, filling up behind with their airborne divisions. In three days the
  396
  N.A.T.O. forces could have been wiped out. I am sure that is correct. Those N.A.T.O. forces mean nothing without the American nuclear deterrent. They are there to give it credibility. The American divisions could never fight in the positions in which they are placed, but they are there to give the nuclear force credibility because it seems that it could lead to the kind of defeat which the Americans could not or might not leave alone.
  The hon. Member for Chorley (Mrs. Monks) spoke about the possibility of creating a European defence. Even if we were all prepared to quadruple our defence expenditure, and that would be necessary to give us technical parity with the forces we are meeting, we still could not station our forces in positions where they could fight because we have not the kind of command that can leave a province to the enemy to drive him back. That province, Germany, is not standing for it. So we are totally indefensible in Europe without the American Alliance. It is for these reasons that I am anxious about what is happening today. Without this deterrent Europe is a power vacuum.
  What is happening in America? First, we have that most dangerous phenomenon of isolationism, which used to be the creed of the extreme right. One felt it had almost gone with the late Senator Taft, but now it has come from the Left. Now we find a motion put down by Mike Mansfield, leader of the Democratic Party in the Senate, to withdraw the troops from Europe. This is an extremely dangerous situation.
  We have experienced the dollar crisis, and the fact that the Americans at long last are finding the cost of supporting so much of the world, both in its defence and its economy, can no longer be carried. We find that in this new alliance of isolationists of right and left, the aid vote has cut off aid throughout the world. Yet the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary says that America will never abandon Europe. I hope he is right, but I am worried. I do not think it can be just assumed.
  Then look at what is happening from the Russian side. On this matter my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East made me feel anxious, because on the Russian side are all these proposals for disarmament which are being nibbled

  397
  at by the Americans, the French and the Germans—though, thank God, not yet by the British. Any level of disarmament leaves even more massive Russian superiority behind it; it means nothing else.
  We have had the French negotiations with the Russians and have seen Mr. Brezhnev making a demand for a pact of friendship and non-aggression. Perhaps my right hon. Friend could correct me, but I cannot think of anybody whom Russia has ever attacked without having a pact of friendship and non-aggression. I do not think there is one. Then there is the Ostpolitik of Willy Brandt. The Russians are cooing like doves and, unlike my right hon. Friend, I know no sound that terrifies me more than the cooing of a Russian dove.
  What is our reaction to this situation of crumbling alliance with America and with the Russians doing their utmost to destroy it by cooing to us here? First, we propose to join a commercial bloc in Europe with an economy which in a great many instances is antagonistic to American interests, and above all to accept it with the Pompidou gloss which identifies Europeanism with anti- Americanism. This seems to me to be the most dangerous thing to do in these circumstances.
  Immediately after that we are faced with the dollar crisis. If any nation in the world has ever owed a debt of gratitude to another we owe such a debt to America. Think what she did to help us when we were in financial difficulties. In order to show we are good Europeans à la Pompidou we are almost insultingly unco-operative when the United States asks us for assistance.
  Finally, China. At this point in time did we publicly have to insult our ally by casting that vote? Could we not have stretched a point at least to obstain? Even if China is likely to be less of a— nuisance inside rather than outside the United Nations—and I quite see that point of view—why was it not realised that our friendship with America and our debt of gratitude to her means that we should stand up for a friend when that friend is in an awkward position? But no—this was not to be. This sort of independent new Europeanism involves our stepping in to kick the Americans in the teeth. I remind the House that the
  398
  Foreign Secretary has said America will not abandon Europe. Again I hope he is right because I find fewer and fewer Americans are believing that it is not worth spending good dollars—and it is a large amount of dollars—on allies who let them down so often and who constantly side with their enemies. We must remember that a Presidential election comes up next year and this will be an issue in it.
  What will happen when the credibility goes from the American deterrent? Credibility is not an easy thing to maintain if only because of the very terribleness of what one is threatening. If the master says to the boys in school "The next one that talks I will cut his head off" he will only get a giggle. In fact, to make his threat credible, he has to cut off somebody's head, and in the nuclear world things are getting rather near that situation. It will cease to he credible unless somebody drops one, and then God knows what will happen. But within this situation we still have a built-in credibility provided by the four American divisions. It has become established that this is the American commitment. This deters the Conservative-minded Russians from taking any kind of risk and, more important, it gives the Germans a sense of security. But the moment one begins to take away those divisions, the moment America begins to show a diminishing interest in Europe, then the belief even in the possibility—and it is only a possibility today—that America might respond with her nuclear weapons if those four divisions were destroyed— will go and that will mean that we shall he left naked indeed.
  What will the effect be? I believe we shall find German morale beginning to crumble. She will know that protection of her eastern frontier is worthless. The Germans are a military nation and know the form. They equally know when their allies are worthless. I cannot think of a war in which Italy started and ended on the same side. And as for France being regarded as an ally, the French are very brave when they are fighting for France but the idea of their doing anything for an ally does not fit in. Germany will he feeling very naked and isolated and will begin to take out insurance. We shall find "fronts" to unite the Fatherland, starting fronts—which will be Communist—starting from end to

  399
  end of the country. Germany is clearly a more developed managerial society than we are. She would prefer to manager a free society but has seen that in East Germany a managerial society can do not too badly under Communism. We shall find these fronts being financed, as Hitler was financed, by the German industrialists and managers who will take out an insurance for what inevitably will happen.
  My own prophecy is that within three years of our being in the Common Market, Germany will be united under Communist control. Then what will happen to France and Italy where the working class parties are already Communist? It seems to me the risk is appalling. I am not saying that this is something the Russians desire since I do not think they do. But where there is a power vacuum one finds oneself falling into it, and this is what we are providing in Europe. I believe that Russia no longer believes in a Communist Europe in the sense that a Communist Europe is a Russian-controlled Europe. She is having her difficulties more and more. I think she might find that Germany united under Communism would be rather tough to digest. I accept all that, but the inevitable suck of that power vacuum, the reaction of the German mind, the German playing for unity, will bring the result whether any one wants it or not.
  I think that that is what will happen, unless we can save the alliance, and keep the credibility of American nuclear deterrence in being, and that means courting America on very different terms from those we are using now.
  To me, the great Common Market question is, can we preserve the alliance better out than in? Certainly the things which are necessary to preserve that alliance are just the sorts of things which, in M. Pompidou's book, are not available to a good European. It is a question of preferring the alliance to the French, of working in with the Americans, of going out of our way to help them when they are in a dollar crisis and when they are in a defence crisis, or even when there are difficulties in the United Nations over China. These are the kinds of things we have to do, whether we think they are right or whether we think they are wrong, to be able to maintain the alliance.
  400
  If we cannot save the alliance, then I do not want to see myself tied into a Europe which, I am confident, is going to disintegrate. It is the hell of a position. An island defence position is not viable in the long term, but it is in a degree. Finland resisted Russia; she resisted only for a limited time while it was possible; but she did not end up a Poland or Czechoslovakia. If Europe is Communist, our independence is limited. We could not conflict with its sort of policies, but at least we could have a Fnnish type of independence as against a Czechoslovakian or Polish subservience. For these reasons, I myself look to this idea of entering Europe as the entering of a disintegrating society whose defence will collapse as the Americans go.
  5.53 p.m.
  Mr. Christopher Woodhouse: I shall touch in a moment on one or two of the points which the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) made, with some of which I agree, though I would not carry that agreement to the extreme conclusions he reached, but before I do so I must first endorse emphatically his opening remarks about the poor attendance at this important debate on foreign affairs. The only comfort I can draw from it is that I am unlikely to have the experience which some hon. Members have had of seeing the Chamber empty as soon as they get up. [Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) will stay to listen.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: I certainly will. I was only just remarking that I wondered whether the hon. Member has guessed the reason why the Chamber is almost empty. Perhaps he will have a word with some hon. Members afterwards to see whether they agree.
  Mr. Woodhouse: I think that the poor attendance is particularly regrettable because one of the welcome features of the Gracious Speech is the unusually large proportion of it which is devoted to foreign affairs and to our international commitments—about one-third of the whole text.
  This is what leads me to make my opening comment on the Gracious Speech, and it is that it is all the more

  401
  surprising that, on the subject of international affairs, there is not a word about the rôle of the United Nations or about our obligations to and through the United Nations, except for a single reference to an impending conference on the law of the sea.
  I make this point out of a potentially practical, not sentimental, reason. The gap in the Gracious Speech was filled at a number of points by the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but I think it is still desirable for the House to have a more up-to-date account of the Government's conception of the United Nations and of our rôle in it. I have always supposed that our policy in the United Nations was that it should be a universal organisation, that it should be a useful and effective organisation, and that we ourselves should be in good standing as a member of it. In all these respects I have been puzzled by some of the Government's recent actions.
  Take, first, the principle of universality. Last week our representative at the United Nations voted for the admission of the Chinese Communist Government. I have no doubt that that was right because it was certainly inevitable in the end. But at the same time he voted for the expulsion of the Government established in Taiwan. It was clearly wrong that a Government speaking for 600 million people should in effect be deprived of representation at the United Nations, but it seems also wrong that a country of 15 million people should at the same time cease to be so represented. The Government of Taiwan, however it may be designated, was a member in good standing, and, whatever its other defects, which, I think, were no greater than those of dozens of other Governments throughout the world, it had never transgressed the Charter or abused its position as a member.
  It seems to me, from a study of the reports last week from New York, that no good reason was advanced by our representatives for voting against the resolution supported by the United States, and here I certainly support the point of view of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton. That resolution would have allowed representation of both Chinese Governments while giving a place on the Security Council to Peking.
  402
  In voting against it, our representative seemed to have based himself in the first place, on a certain interpretation of the Charter. That interpretation was at least open to question. It was an interpretation which was not shared by the United States Government—obviously, because they voted the opposite way; and it was an interpretation which, if in doubt—and I am certain that it is in doubt—should have been submitted to the International Court.
  Our representative based himself, secondly, on an assumption about the obstinacy of the Peking Government. We all know how the Peking Government have repeatedly said that they would not take their seat in the United Nations unless the Government of Taiwan were expelled. It cannot be regarded as certain that Peking would insist indefinitely in that obstinacy, especially if it were offered, as it was offered, the essential seat on the Security Council. Once again, the United States Government clearly thought differently from us, and I can see no reason why we could not at least have had the experiment of trusting the United States Government in this instance, because even if their forecast were wrong and ours right, namely, that the Peking Government would not come in unless the Taiwan Government were expelled, it was a matter which, surely, should have been put to the test.
  Now it never can be put to the test —never. There can be no question of the Taiwan Government ever being separately admitted after having been expelled. By our vote we have gone a long way towards conceding Peking's right to claim sovereignty over Taiwan as well as the mainland, or, alternatively, at best, we have condemned 15 million Chinese to being permanently unrepresented, which surely makes a mockery of the contention of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that the sovereignty of Taiwan is undetermined.
  We have, at the same time, disastrously compromised ourselves with regard to future votes at the United Nations. I have in mind, for example, that one day a proposition is bound to be put forward that the two Germanys, and perhaps other divided countries, should be admitted to the United Nations as separate sovereign States. We are committed by the precedent of our vote last week to

  403
  voting against any such proposals, because otherwise we should be inconsistent. We have taken a step away from the principle of universality at the United Nations. This is to be regretted, and it should not pass without remark.
  Next there is the principle of utility, the need for effectiveness of the organisation. If that is what we want, as I assume, I must ask my right hon. Friend why the Government have not done more to urge the United Nations into effective action over the situation in the Indian and Pakistan sub-continent, in particular, Bengal, both East and West, and the border between them. My right hon. Friend has often answered Questions in the House on this subject. I can only say that I share the feeling expressed by the right hon. Member for Leeds. East (Mr. Healey), that posterity will not forgive us if for technical, constitutional or other vaguely defined reasons the international community fails to take far more dramatic and effective collective action to deal with this catastrophic situation. Both as a threat to peace and as a relief problem, Bengal—East and West—is in a desperate condition which can be remedied only by international action.
  We have been told that Her Majesty's Government are taking appropriate steps to promote action through the United Nations, but in practice little seems to happen. I am well aware, as I am sure are many other hon. Members, from constituency correspondence, that the public of this country is becoming exasperated and impatient at the continuing failure of the international community to do anything commensurate with the appalling scale of this problem. No doubt Her Majesty's Government feel obliged to tread warily in dealing with two relatively new sovereign States. Like all newly emergent States, Pakistan—and for that matter India, too—is sensitive about sovereignty, and it may be felt that an intervention by the United Nations would be derogatory to the sovereignty of Pakistan. But surely in a crisis situation of this kind that must be judged to be a mistaken view. There need be nothing derogatory about United Nations intervention, nor should one be over-sensitive about it.
  To take an example much nearer home, although I would not expect all my hon.
  404
  Friends to agree with me I see no reason why we in this country should find it derogatory if United Nations forces were to take over some of the intolerable responsibility now being borne in Ireland on both sides of the border. Indeed, such considerations of sensitiveness should not inhibit us in the Asian sub-continent from taking a much more determined initiative and insisting that the United Nations should do the same.
  Finally, I will say a word about our standing in the United Nations. I would dispute with anyone who said that this country had anything to be ashamed of in its record as a member, but there is no doubt that we shall remain open to criticism so long as the situation in Southern Africa remains unresolved. We have heard hints of what may be coming in Rhodesia. It is important that the Government should be quite clear about its position at the United Nations before any new settlement is made with the Rhodesian Government. Whether we like it or not, mandatory sanctions are still theoretically in force, and they are in force on the initiative of a British Government. To a Government who respect the rule of law in international affairs, it makes no difference that the initiative rested with a different and previous British Government. Moreover, if we were now to propose at the United Nations, after signing a new agreement with the Rhodesian Government, that sanctions should lapse we could certainly not count on a majority at the United Nations to support us. What could we do then?
  I have felt for a long time that, in a sense, the right action is no action at all. Here I rather agree with the hon. and learned Member for Northampton. It would be a mistake either to sign a new agreement which we should have no power to enforce or to terminate sanctions until we could be sure of a clear majority in favour at the United Nations. The most that I think would be practical at the present time is simply to acknowledge the fact that Britain no longer can exercise sovereignty over Rhodesia because we have not the means to enforce it, and to that extent, whether we like it or not, the Unilateral Declaration of Independence has succeeded. It is not for me to decide these matters, but I

  405
  hope that the Government will make their intentions clearer.
  We also need to have, in the same context, clarification of where matters stand in relation to the supply of further arms to South Africa, on which we had only a few words from the Secretary of State this afternoon. I accepted some months ago, as the House in general accepted, that we were legally bound to sell half-a-dozen helicopters and associated items of equipment to South Africa, but no one has suggested that there is a legal obligation to go any further. The obligation, if any, to go further would derive from broader considerations of defence needs in the waters round Southern Africa, and in particular from the obligations implicit but not explicit in the Simonstown Agreements.
  What are those needs and obligations? It is a curious fact that the 1971 Defence White Paper, which supposedly catalogued all our commitments throughout the world made no mention of the Simonstown Agreements, and the outline map which is to be found in the Defence White Paper was so designed as to blot out Southern Africa altogether. I wondered at the time whether this was deli- berate and, if so, whether it reflected a view which was held by our United States allies, and conceivably even by our own Chiefs of Staff, that Simonstown was not all that indispensable and that at any rate it was not worth the cost of antagonising so many other parts of Africa.
  I cannot pretend to know the answer, but I express the hope that before Her Majesty's Government decide to sell any more arms to South Africa Ministers will be able to assure the House that the decision rests on the unanimous and unqualified advice of our own Chiefs of Staff, otherwise we shall risk gratuitously com promising ourselves to no good end in defiance of United Nations Resolutions.
  While I have no doubt that the Government's policy on the United Nations is still animated by the principles of universality and utility and of our good standing, I hope that it will be reaffirmed in more explicit terms before the debate concludes because our need to be in good standing with the United Nations is likely to become greater and not less in the years ahead.
  6.10 p.m.
  Mr. Reg Prentice: It is a comparatively rare event to listen to a Conservative Member addressing the House on the importance of the United Nations Charter and of Britain's good standing at the United Nations. For that reason I welcome the latter remarks of the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse). I do not agree with everything that he said, but I do agree with the context in which he put his speech. It was particularly useful that he should warn the Government that future developments in the supply of arms for South Africa and in relation to Rhodesia must be judged, in very large part, by our standing at the United Nations and by the reaction of the world community. However, I part company from the hon. Gentleman in his remarks about the admission of mainland China to the United Nations. As I intend to criticise the Government on various matters, I should say that I agree wholeheartedly —and I am sure that every Member on this side of the House agrees whole heartedly—with their attitude on that issue.
  Whatever can be said, quite reasonably, about the case which the people of Taiwan have for representation at the United Nations, the fact is that the United Nations was faced with a hard choice, and the British Government and most other Governments were right in recognising that choice. They had either to agree to a motion which would put China in its rightful place at the United Nations or continue the representation of Taiwan. The American resolution was not realistic. A choice had to be made. I am sure that the right choice was made and that the representation of China in the world body is years overdue. The world has paid a very great price for a long time for China not being properly represented at the United Nations.
  I wish to make a brief reference to the Foreign Secretary's failure to say anything of a forthright character about the tragic events surrounding the Dean of Johannesburg. This was a negation of the kind of leadership which we should have had from the Government. The right hon. Gentleman said that he thought it would be unwise to talk about the details of the case because an appeal was in progress. That may be so. I am sure that we accept that he could not

  407
  go into the details of the case in terms of the evidence or comment on the facts presented. But we should have had from the Government Front Bench a declaration of the shock and horror felt by the people of this country at the kind of régime which has the Terrorism Act on the Statute Book and which leads to events of this kind. If the Foreign Secretary had said that, he would have been speaking for Britain.
  What I find so depressing is that this is an example of the Foreign Secretary's style on so many issues in the last 15 months. I do not suggest that the Foreign Secretary of this country or of any country can comment in every speech on the internal affairs of every country; there are many issues on which diplomacy must be conducted behind closed doors and about which it is wiser not to make moral judgments. But on certain issues in the world statesmen need to stand up and be counted.
  One thing which seems to be wrong not merely with the Foreign Secretary personally but with every Government pronouncement on international affairs is that they are prepared to condemn the Communist world for denials of liberty and of human rights—and we agree with them about that—but when it comes to the conduct of South Africa, Portugal, Greece or Pakistan they take refuge in diplomatic silences or in the kind of double-talk which has no meaning. This is not the kind of leadership which a democratic nation is entitled to expect in the world in which we live.
  I should like to develop that theme particularly in relation to the situation in East Bengal. I agree very strongly with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) and I disagree very strongly with the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Dodds-Parker), who said that it was unwise for us in the House to take sides on the issue. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) accompanied two other colleagues and myself on a visit to the area in the summer. Anyone who studies this situation at first hand is bound to make value judgments on it: that seems to be inescapable.
  There is a repugnant reign of terror in East Bengal. We received this information during our visit from many people
  408
  in East Bengal who spoke to each of us personally, quietly, in corridors and in the corners of rooms and who were prepared to give us the kind of information which we were not being given by the representatives of the régime. But we heard this evidence overwhelmingly when we visited refugees in India, in the camps, in the hospitals and along the roads, including refugees who had left on the day that we were visiting the frontier areas.
  The information which we received overwhelmingly and which observers from all over the world have received overwhelmingly in recent months is that atrocities are being committed on an appalling scale in the villages of East Bengal. I suppose that if one accepts the premise that the West Pakistan Government have the right to try to preserve Pakistan as one nation by force, it becomes a strategic necessity to do it by maintaining a reign of terror. There is no other way in which an army of 70,000 troops can hold down 70 million people, with lines of communication 3,000 miles long and in country which is good for guerrilla tactics. It can do so only by killing, torturing, looting, burning, raping and committing other acts of terror of which there is ample evidence. That is why I come to the same conclusion about the situation as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury.
  I do not know what kind of diplomatic pressures the Government have applied to the Pakistan Government behind the scenes. I hope and believe that they have given much more forthright advice to them than they have indicated in any of their statements in the House. I return to the point which I have made in earlier debates and which many of my hon. Friends have made, namely, that we are entitled to a clearer declaration of the Government's attitude.
  I urge three points in particular on the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. First, we hope that the Government are putting unremitting and vigorous pressure on Pakistan in favour of the release of Mujibur Rahman and of discussions between the Pakistan Government and the Awami League leading to a settlement. Britain, of all countries, from her experience in the fairly recent past, is surely able to point out to

  409
  Pakistan that every colonial power this century has had to come to terms sooner or later with those who can claim effectively to represent the people seeking independence. The Government of Pakistan will have to reach that point sooner or later. The only question is how much suffering will there be and how many people will be killed before they do.
  It is no use the Foreign Secretary saying, as he did today, that a settlement must be acceptable to the people of East Bengal but that it is not for him to identify those with whom the Pakistan Govenment should talk. It is clear that the Awami League won an overwhelming victory, and it is with its representatives that effective discussions can take place.
  The second point which I urge upon Her Majesty's Government, though I feel even less optimistic about getting a reply, is that every possible pressure should be put upon the United States Government to cease the shipment of arms to Pakistan. There has been a recent vote by the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate to stop arms shipments. There has been a similar vote in the House of Representatives. I hope that they will be decisive. Certainly friends of the United States throughout the world are entitled to say that it is a tragic aspect of the situation that the Pakistan Army is going into action in East Bengal armed partly by China and partly by the United States. In some senses, it would be a comic situation if it were not so tragic.
  My third point is one that the hon. Member for Oxford raised. It is to ask, even at this late stage, whether Her Majesty's Government will not take action in the Security Council. Here I remind hon. Members that U Thant took the very unusual step on 20th July of making an appeal to members of the Security Council to discuss this matter as "a threat to peace". He issue to the world, again a very unusual step, through a Press release the memorandum that he had sent to the members of the Security Council. I quote two sentences from it which contained the force of his argument:
  "In the light of information available to me, I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that the time is past when the international community can continue to stand by, watching the situation deteriorate and hoping that relief programmes, humanitarian efforts and good
  410
  intentions will be enough to turn the tide of human misery and potential disaster. I am deeply concerned at the possible consequences of the present situation, not only in the humanitarian sense, but also as a potential threat to peace and security and for its being on the future of the United Nations as an effective instrument for international co-operation and action."
  The British Government are one of the permanent members of the Security Council and must share responsibility for the fact that the challenge has not been accepted and that no attempt has been made to use the machinery of the United Nations to find a solution. History will not exonerate any Government if the appalling situation continues and still less if it leads to war between India and Pakistan.
  Since our delegation went there in July, my view is that the situation has deteriorated in many respects and that it is likely to deteriorate further in the weeks ahead. With the end of the monsoon period and with water levels falling, troop movements will become easier again. There will be more intensive military activity on the part of the Pakistan Army and probably more intensive activity on the part of the guerrilla forces. Then again, the food situation in East Bengal is extremely serious. We cannot judge at the moment how serious it is going to be and how far the threatened famine will develop in parts of East Bengal, but it is an appalling probability in the weeks and months ahead. Both factors, the more intense military activity and the food situation, will lead to further increases in the flow of refugees into India. As time goes on, the burden upon India will become more and more intolerable.
  It is against that background that I refer to the relief situation in India and the statement by the Foreign Secretary recently in which he pledged another £7½ million. As the right hon. Gentleman re- minded us today, that brought the total British pledge towards the refugee situation in India to almost £15 million. As far as I know, it is far more than this country has committed to any other relief operation in our history, and we can claim to be the second largest contributor to relief operations in India—second only to the United States. Therefore it will seem almost churlish to criticise the scale of our effort. But I do criticise it in relation to the actual scale of the problem.

  411
  If one criticises the scale of the British effort, one is criticising all the more those other countries who have fallen short of it. Some of our potential partners in Europe should examine their records, their standing as civilised members of the world community, and their failure to respond effectively to the enormous needs of India. Here we have a crisis on an unprecedented scale which demands an unprecedented response.
  From the visit which some of us made to India in July, one came away from the refugee areas carrying mental scars for life and lasting impressions of individual cases of suffering. One saw and spoke to individual people, including many children. One came away appalled by the scale and by the sheer numbers involved. Driving to Boyra on the frontier, we passed thousands of people coming down both sides of the road. People were lying and dying in the ditches. They were camped in large drainpipes and in schools which the local children could not use. People were crammed into every house and hut that we passed. It was just a tiny part of an enormous problem which has got much worse since we saw it a few months ago. A couple of months back, one could draw a parallel in that the number of refugees equalled approximately the population of Greater London. Today it is far more, and it is likely to increase further in the period ahead.
  A couple of months ago, the Indian Government estimated that the cost of keeping these people alive for six months would be 400 million dollars. The total aid effort of the world in that six months period, with some 50 Governments contributing, including all the voluntary agencies came to less than half that total.
  The cost of keeping those people alive is only part of the cost involved. The burden upon India itself and the cost to India cannot be computed. We are thinking here of the food stocks that were run down. We are thinking of the land taken up for camps. Land is scarce in West Bengal, which is one of the most overcrowded parts of the world. We are thinking of local officials so preoccupied with keeping people alive that they are not able to do their normal work. We are thinking of schools not available to
  412
  local pupils. We are thinking of local development projects which cannot take place. We are thinking of the burden on the Indian economy and on Indian development plans.
  All of this is on a scale which cannot be computed. The world has to respond on a scale that no one imagined necessary before. In a recent Oxfam publication, 60 people who have been to the area gave eyewitness accounts. Mr. Leslie Kirkley suggested an immediate British pledge of £25 million. He said that this would be the probable cost of keeping the refugees alive for about a month. I believe that that was a reasonable proposition.
  I do not criticise the £7½ million announced recently, except to say that we are entitled to ask of Her Majesty's Government that they will keep the position under constant review and come back to the House to make further pledges as time goes on. At the same time they should urge other countries to match our efforts and to do more than they have been doing.
  I do not want anyone to think that I am asking for impossible sacrifices from the British taxpayer. One point which is not sufficiently recognised is that the money which we have provided so far and, as far as I know, the money which we shall be providing in the coming months, does not mean an extra penny from the British taxpayer. It is money which is being found from within the ceiling on overseas expenditure already announced and approved and within the contingency sums in the aid programme. Any adjustments which have to be made are at the expense of other developing countries, not at the expense of our people. I hope that that need not be the final position. If the situation demands far larger sums than have so far been announced, I hope that it will be possible to exceed the aid ceiling and that this will not in any sense be a reason for failing to respond to these needs.
  I now turn to the aid programme in general. The Prime Minister, in his speech on Tuesday, claimed that in 1970 we had already passed the United Nations target of providing 1 per cent. of our gross national product in development assistance to countries in need. He reminded us that at the United Nations

  413
  General Assembly a year ago he had promised that we would endeavour to do this by 1975, and he said that we had done it in 1970.
  I should like to expand on something which I tried to say in an interruption in the right hon. Gentleman's speech on Tuesday. I remind the House that the 1 per cent. target includes both the flow of Government aid and the flow of private investment. Anyone who follows these matters in detail will recognise that 1970, as 1969 in fact, was an unusually high year for the net level of private investment. I say "the net level" because the total figure which is taken into account does not necessarily involve any new investment, but involves the extent of disinvestment, and this disinvestment can mean that the figure is abnormally high. This was an abnormally high year. The real test of what we are doing—indeed, the real test of anything which can reasonably be called "aid" in the true sense of that word—is what we are providing from Government funds in the form of grants or loans for development, not what we are providing by private investment in the expectation of a profit. I am not speaking against private investment. I am saying that the real test is the extent of Government aid.
  Our record in 1970 was the provision of 0·37 per cent. compared with 0·39 per cent. in 1969. In other words, our record was slightly down. I hope that hon. Members on both sides will be prepared to join in pressuring the Government to attempt to reach the United Nations modest target that, in terms of official aid, we should provide at least 0·7 per cent. of our gross national product by 1975. Other countries have accepted this target. In the E.E.C. it has been accepted by Germany, Holland and Belgium. In the Commonwealth it has been accepted by Canada and New Zealand. There is no reason for us to fall short of that modest target. It is a deliberately modest target. Those who frame these targets do so in terms which take account of the selfish instincts of the taxpayers in the rich countries. The achievement of this target would hardly be noticed by the British taxpayer, but it would make a substantial difference to the flow of assistance to the poorer parts of the world.
  414
  This target was part of a series of Resolutions passed by the United Nations General Assembly a year ago— Resolutions applied to the decade of the 1970s, designated by the United Nations as the second development decade. We should consider our modest target against the ambitious target accepted at that meeting by the developing countries of increasing their rate of domestic saving by 1980 to 20 per cent. of their gross national product.
  The most important feature about development is the recognition of the efforts and sacrifices being made by the developing countries—with growing success in many cases—compared with the comparatively feeble efforts of the richer countries to co-operate in this work.
  The whole scene is dominated at the moment by the vote in the United States Senate recently which threw out the Foreign Aid Bill. Other hon. Members have referred to the development in the United States in recent months of protectionist attitudes and of withdrawal from some of the burdens in the world, which it has been carrying. There has been a feeling on both sides that we have to deal gently with the United States in this matter. I do not share that view. Those of us who can speak as friends of the United States—many of us can—are entitled to make frank criticisms of the attitude which it has taken. I make every conceivable allowance for the psychological shock of the tragedies in South-East Asia and the effect which that has had on attitudes in Congress towards other aspects of world affairs. Nevertheless, it is not true that the United States has been carrying an intolerable burden which now has to be shared with other nations. That is not borne out by the record.
  In terms of defence, the United States has provided far more than other members of the Western Alliance, but it is the largest and richest country and, compared with its resources, has not carried an unfair share.
  In terms of economic aid, in recent years the United States has certainly been doing far less than many other countries as a proportion of its gross national product. I refer again to the statistics and the record. In 1970 American aid performance, as a proportion of gross national product, was 0·31 per cent.—

  415
  lower than ours and lower than the average for all the Western nations. That aid programme has already been subject to a cut of 10 per cent. which was announced by the President in his August measures, and the Senate has now thrown out the Foreign Aid Bill, which covered nearly all American aid operations. One or two operations are outside the scope of that Bill. I cannot believe that this is the end of the matter. In some way or other, we must hope, the Administration and both Houses of Congress will find a way of legislating so that the American aid programme can continue; but our fear must be that this is part of the mood of public life in the United States which will reduce even further its contribution of recent years.
  I believe that this is due in the main to the fact that it has been sold to the American Congress for the wrong reasons. It has been sold to them by successive Administrations as part of a political strategy designed to produce political results. So we have Liberal Members of both Houses of Congress voting against it because they dislike the political strategy and Conservative Members of both Houses of Congress voting against it because it has not obtained for them the short-term political results which they were led to expect.
  What has to be stated clearly—I should like to hear it stated more clearly in the United States at the moment—is that the obligation of the richer countries to help the poorer countries is principally a moral, and, in terms of the growing gap in living standards, an inescapably moral, obligation. There may be political and commercial by-products which are helpful to the donor country, but any nation which sets out on an aid programme trying to measure particular aid and expecting back specific results is bound to be disappointed. It is bound to be disappointed if it expects gratitude or specific political dividends.
  What needs to be looked at here is the simple sentence in which the late President Kennedy commended a growing American aid programme to the American people in his inaugural address in 1960. He said:
  "We must help them to help themselves not because the Communists are doing it, not because we want their votes, but because it is right."
  416
  Those words "because it is right" are in one sense the only words which need to be used in this context. In the 1970s the developing countries are entitled to look to the United States, to Britain, and to the rest of the richer one-third of the world to fulfil the promise in the words used by President Kennedy a decade ago.
  6.40 p.m.
  Sir Frederic Bennett: In his closing admonitions to the Americans the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) betrayed one of his most endearing qualities, which is that he not only believes the best of people but believes that they will do something because he thinks they ought to. It would be folly not to realise one matter—it was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse)—which has played a part in American reaction on aid and that is the sense of outrage which a number of Conservative Americans felt at the expulsion of Taiwan from the United Nations. Whether the right hon. Gentleman likes it or not, there is no one who does not know that to be a fact.
  I hope that when the Minister of State winds up the debate he will say a little more about a matter that is puzzling many of my hon. Friends and myself. We fully endorse, and have done for a long time, the admission of Red China to the United Nations, but why did the Government go to the lengths that they did to expel Taiwan? Various comments have been made about precedents. I have never been able to understand why one country, temporarily divided up, but which may one day be joined together again, cannot necessarily have two votes, one in the General Assembly and one in the Security Council. Indeed, that situation has existed since the inception of the United Nations, with the Soviet Union, Belorussia and the Ukraine having three votes, one in the Security Council, and two in the General Assembly.
  There may one day, too, be a majority for the admission of some of these split countries, not necessarily of the one which we favour, but the one which another majority favours. It may not be a matter of admitting East Germany and West Germany, South Vietnam and North Vietnam. The situation could arise in which a straight vote might be held to decide which of the divided countries

  417
  might represent the country as a whole, and then the other would be excluded. I think that at least we have a right to ask the Minister of State to tell us a little more about why the Government took a step which surprised some of us.
  The right hon. Member for East Ham, North criticised my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on several issues, and I am sure that the Minister of State will be able to deal with those criticisms when he replies, but there is one criticism which ought to be answered at once. It is most unfair to criticise the Foreign Secretary for not being forthright enough about what has happened to the Dean of Johannesburg, because the right hon. Gentleman knows that my right hon. Friend is guided solely in his restraint by his wish not to prejudice the ultimate out-come. My right hon. Friend made that clear, and to chide him for not doing something which might make the situation worse is not worthy of the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a considerable respect.
  Mr. Prentice: I think that, to be fair to me, the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that I said I understood that the Foreign Secretary could not comment on the details of the case, which is under appeal. Nevertheless, surely the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting to the House that if the Foreign Secretary were to say that everyone is feeling a sense of shock and horror that such things can occur, and that the Terrorism Act can be kept on the Statute Book, that would prejudice the appeal.
  Sir F. Bennett: I differ from the right hon. Gentleman. Declarations by foreign powers about the judicial processes of another country have a bad effect in that country.
  Mr. Prentice indicated dissent.
  Sir F. Bennett: The right hon. Gentleman differs from me in that view. It is easy to clear one's conscience and not be careful about the consequences to other people. I do not take back one word of my criticism.
  The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) spoke about the Russian spies expulsion. I was sorry that at a rather interesting moment an exchange between the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for
  418
  Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) prevented us from hearing what I had been looking forward to hearing in relation to the criticism of the Foreign Secretary's handling of the Russian spy situation. I was hoping that the right hon. Gentleman would say something about that, and tell us how, if he had been in office, he would have handled the situation. Perhaps the right hon. Lady the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) will conclude the series of remarks of her right hon. Friend which were so brusquely interrupted this afternoon.
  Did the Labour Government know that the situation revealed by the Foreign Secretary existed when they were in office? Whether they did or not, did they know that it was happening during the last 12 months? In any event, may we be told how they would have acted if they had written a series of letters, all of which were ignored? If we are told that the Foreign Secretary handled the situation badly, we are entitled to be told what the Labour Government would have done if they had received no response to private letters which they had sent to the appropriate authorities. Would they have allowed the situation to continue, or would they have done what the Foreign Secretary did? Unless they tell us that, their criticism is negative.
  Earlier today one of my hon. Friends said that one aspect of a foreign affairs debate in the autumn was that it was taken as an occasion for hon. Members to tell the House where they had been during the Recess. That is a fair criticism, but if I tell the House that I had the privilege of attending the C.P.A. conference in Malaysia I do so for one reason only, that as a result I learned quite a lot about what people, not only there, but in the world as a whole, were thinking about a number of the issues which have been discussed today.
  In previous conferences there had always been a great deal of talk about Vietnam, for obvious reasons. That did not happen on this occasion, as one hon. Gentleman opposite who was there will no doubt agree. In previous years there had been a lot of discussion about British immigration policy, but that subject, too, was not discussed this year, for the simple reason that other countries nowadays are increasingly faced with their own immigration difficulties. Again, for the first

  419
  time this year there was no demand for the use of force to obtain a Rhodesian settlement, and there was no expectation that force would be used.
  The hostility to the sale of arms to South Africa, whether they could be used for enforcing apartheid or not, remained as strong as ever almost right across the board in the Commonwealth, and one would be idle to deny that that feeling exists. But what is interesting—and this may not be so pleasant to hon. Gentle- men opposite—is that one African country after another thinks that the way to get a better relationship with South Africa to cause her to modify and change her policies, which are abhorrent to us all, is by means of dialogue. Previous to this conference only Malawi and the former High Commission territories took that view. This year, for the first time, Ghana spoke in favour of a dialogue with South Africa as a means of trying to get her to realise that her apartheid policies are not the right course for stability in Africa.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Will the hon. Gentleman make it plain which country, in addition to Ghana, spoke in favour of a dialogue and, in particular, what they meant by a dialogue? The Lusaka Manifesto expressed an interest in a dialogue, but a dialogue to get rid of apartheid, and it was that on which Dr. Busia was concentrating.
  Sir F. Bennett: I do not want to be diverted. The dialogue to which I am referring is a dialogue in the sense hitherto referred to by Malawi and the High Commission territories. In that sense Ghana has joined the countries which wish to have a dialogue with South Africa, rather than try to change her policies by the use of force.
  Mr. Frank Judd Mr. Frank Judd (Portsmouth, West) rose—
  Sir F. Bennett: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Judd: It is on that specific point.
  Sir F. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman will have time to make plenty of specific points when he is called to make his own speech. An interesting phenomenon is that, not only in the British Commonwealth but in other parts of Africa, States
  420
  are increasingly coming to believe that the way to obtain a change in South Africa's outlook, which we all want to see, is not by the encouragement of terrorism or invasion across the borders.
  When I first expressed the hope that I should be called today, I wanted to paint a rather a different picture of what I had seen going on in East Pakistan when I called there on the way home. The main reason that I called there was that, at the conference—the Indians had, of course, been represented in strength but the Pakistanis were not, because they did not have a Parliament—one heard well and skilfully deployed the Indian arguments, some of which have been deployed again today. I always like to think that there are two sides to any question, and, having heard this one side skilfully deployed, I wanted to see a little of the other side for myself.
  I intended today to try to put the record straight, but, even within the last 48 hours, the situation has become so intensely dangerous vis-à-vis India and Pakistan that any argument about who was responsible for the main atrocities, who was guilty of this incident or that— whether more Baharis were killed by Bengalis or more Bengalis by Pakistan troops, all the things about which one might have an exchange—would not be appropriate.
  At the moment, without being in any way dramatic, I would think that we are possibly within days or weeks of a major conflict between India and Pakistan, and the thoughts of everyone should be to try to defuse the situation and not make partisan criticisms, however much one is tempted to do so when speaking after the right hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse). Anyhow, I do not intend to yield to that temptation.
  We should consider the position as it is at the moment, and at the moment there is no prospect at all, if we are realistic, of the central Pakistan Government, who are there whether we like it or not, removing their troops from East Pakistan and allowing an independent East Bengal. That is one of the facts with which the Foreign Secretary and the rest of us have to deal.
  Anything that we say here cannot possibly alter a situation in which, at this moment, the West Pakistani forces have

  421
  no intention of withdrawing from East Bengal and allowing there to be a Bangla Desh. This is the situation as it is and as it is likely to be.
  There is a great deal of misery within East Pakistan and a threat to their food supplies. In those circumstances, the acts of sabotage and of interference with the lines of communication and the methods by which food can reach the hinterland are as cruel as any other part of this hideous tragedy. When I was there, a serious attempt was made to mine a number of food ships, and limpet mines were attached to food ships taking supplies to those in the hinterland. Two ships were damaged and the food supplies delayed.
  When a road bridge is blown up or a culvert destroyed, how can anyone possibly say that those responsible have in their hearts the welfare of the ordinary people of Bangla Desh or East Bengal who would have received that food? I should like to see some unanimous condemnation by this House of the present sabotage.
  Every right hon. and hon. Gentleman knows that what I am saying is true. The Foreign Secretary, the United Nations and the Red Cross have spoken about this, regretting and deploring these acts of sabotage, which are preventing the full effectiveness of their relief effort.
  Mr. Stonehouse: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that, in those circumstances, when an armed dispute is going on between the Pakistan Army and the Bangla Desh forces, the best way of achieving what he and all of us want— namely, humanitarian supplies getting through to those who need them—is for the points in the 1949 Geneva Convention to be applied by both sides?
  Sir F. Bennett: I am not aware that that has any relevance. The right hon. Gentleman made his speech and I did not interrupt him: I listened to him closely. I cannot understand how he can argue that it helps to abide by the Geneva Convention or any other convention to put limpet mines on a food ship. That was my point.
  I said how grim the situation was. We heard on the radio only this morning that India has now completely sealed the frontier with East Pakistan and that no foreign visitors or observers are allowed
  422
  in the frontier zones between those two countries. The armies are facing one another in some cases from a distance the same as that across this Chamber. In these circumstances, virtually nothing separates two intensely hostile armies and a careless shot or two even while we are talking could set the whole thing in motion.
  That is the background against which we are talking. To spend our time attributing blame for what may have happened before and ignoring the fact that a nation of 140 million may be at war in a matter of days with a nation of 600 million is not getting our priorities right in trying to solve this problem in the House.
  I have a couple of practical suggestions. They are limited, because one feels humble at the prospect of this conflict, which any Government can do little to avert, but there is especially one point to be made about the refugees.
  India is obviously anxious that the refugees should go back. The U.N. observers whom I met have visited the reception centres and satisfied themselves that the Pakistan authorities are making a genuine attempt to provide rehabilitation for those who go back. There is at present, admittedly, only a trickle going back, but if one wants to increase that trickle one thing which does not help is for armed forces across the borders to shell the frontier areas. No man wants to take his wife and family across an area where gun fire and mortar fire is constantly going on. When I was out there, shells were falling up to 15 miles across the border, very near the routes which the refugees will have to use to get back to the rehabilitation centres.
  Surely, on that ground alone, there is yet another argument for urging that the tension on the frontier should die down and allow the refugees at least the opportunity to come home without the additional risk of being bombarded on their way back.
  If we now regard this refugee problem merely as one in which seven, eight or nine million—there are many rival claims between five million and nine million—will just go back, we are fooling our- selves. There is an element in this problem, too, of the communalism which has

  423
  dogged India and Pakistan ever since they were separated.
  It is readily accepted that about 85 per cent. of the refugees who have crossed in recent weeks are Hindus. If we blind ourselves to this situation, once again we are not being helpful. The long and tragic record of the sub-Continent, ever since Pakistan and India were formed, shows that, when large elements of either Hindus or Moslems go from one country to another, very rarely, whatever the situation—whether there is a war or tension—do they all go back. They do, in fact, despite all the miseries, find them- selves happier being miserable among people with whom they feel a kinship rather than going back.
  There are today in the streets of Calcutta hundreds of thousands of middle-aged Hindus who left East Bengal after partition. They have preferred to spend over 20 years littering the streets of Calcutta living in appalling conditions rather than return to East Bengal. If we think that some sleight of hand will get all the Hindu refugees to go back from India to Pakistan in the present difficulty, we shall be fooling ourselves and cruelly fooling them.
  The present situation requires the Western world to think in terms of a much bigger financial outlay than has yet been envisaged. We must think in terms of a substantial number of refugees never returning. A massive capital rehabilitation scheme is therefore necessary if these people are unwilling to go back, whatever conditions are offered to them, to enable them to have a reason- able standard of life and make a contribution to, instead of being a drain on, India's economy.
  There are perhaps two other pleas that can be made. In the first I have the welcome support of the outgoing Chief of Staff of the Army in India, General Cariappor who, amid the near hysteria on both sides of the border, has issued a quiet warning to his own country. He has said, in effect, "Whether, as the result of war or otherwise, East Bengal should be established as an independent State, as Bangla Desh, it is a nonsense to think that that will be the beginning and end of fragmentation on the Indian
  424
  sub-continent. It will be followed by others."
  Does anybody who knows anything about the history of the Bengal people, about their fierce political sophisticatiton and their attributes, both good and bad, believe that if there is an independent East Bengal—call it Bangla Desh or anything else—West Bengal, which already has a large separatist movement, will continue as a province of another country? In other words, if Bangla Desh has its own flag and representation at the United Nations and so on, can it be imagined for a moment that West Bengal will tolerate presidential rule from Delhi?
  Fragmentation could then become an epidemic. If that were to happen we could see something far worse than the fragmentation of Pakistan. It could develop into the fragmentation of the whole Indian sub-continent. Many influential Indians support this point of view, albeit silently, and it represents a positive danger unless a halt is brought to the present deterioration.
  I appreciate that none of this excuses the Pakistan Government for not doing everything in their power to try to reach a political settlement in Bengal. However, not enough acknowledgement has been given to the efforts of President Yahya Khan to do just this in recent weeks. I will not delay the House by detailing those efforts, some of which were outlined by the Foreign Secretary.
  The only other contribution that could perhaps be made in this situation, in which we are so close to war—with all that that might involve, considering possible Chinese support for Pakistan and Russian support for India—might be for us to manage to get, even at this very late hour, some sort of United Nations defusing presence on the ground between the forces of the two sides.
  I appreciate that Pakistan has agreed to pull back its forces and have U.N. observers in the area if India will do likewise. I also appreciate that India says that there is no reason to equate her with Pakistan. Might it then be possible to pursue an opportunity at the U.N., without the need for a Security Council vote, which would be vetoed by Russia or China, to get such a defusing presence in the area?

  425
  Perhaps Pakistan might then be prepared—I appreciate that 1 have no right to imagine that it would be prepared to do so; I am only making a plea, as it were, because few avenues remain open —unilaterally to pull back its forces, at least for a little while, and have a limited U.N. presence on its side.
  One thing is certain. India continues to value her international reputation as she described herself as a peace-loving democracy. If what I have suggested could be arranged and a watchful U.N. presence could be established along the border, there would be just a chance, at a time when there are not many chances left, that we might avert a conflict which could spread far beyond Bengal and even far beyond the Indian sub-continent.
  Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The Chair is frequently in difficulty over the calling of speakers. So far, since the two Front Bench speakers addressed the House, three back benchers on the Opposition side have taken rather more than 90 minutes and four back bench speakers on the Government side have taken about 70 minutes. That is a considerable imbalance between the two sides which I hope will be adjusted as the debate proceeds.
  7.6 p.m.
  Mr. Alexander W. LyonI promise to be brief, Mr. Speaker. I intend to deal with the central issue which the Foreign Secretary posed both in his speech today and when he addressed the United Nations recently. It also touches on a point which I raised with the hon. Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett), and that is the question of dialogue.
  It is now fashionable for Government spokesmen to say in respect of every conflict in any part of the world, "What we are seeking is dialogue and not confrontation". That seems to be the way in which policy is conducted these days— that is, until one approaches a situation like that which arose over the Russian spy case.
  On that occasion there was need for the problem to be handled with great care, especially over the way in which the British Government approached the Soviet Union and dealt with that
  426
  country's intransigence, if that is what it was—its refusal or attitude towards the Government's request to have certain people removed from the country.
  We were—I hope we still are—on the brink of a real breakthrough in East-West relations, with a genuine possibility of rapprochement with the Soviet Union. It was essential that action of that kind should be taken on the basis of mutual respect and trust. Such an approach was, and still is, vital because the whole of mankind will benefit if the East-West threat which has bedevilled international relations since the war can be removed or at any rate made less dangerous.
  However, on that occasion the Government took the view that not only would they expel the spies—an action which, after all, the Labour Government had been doing progressively over the years —but expel them with the greatest amount of publicity and in a way which looked at one stage likely to lead to a reversion to the cold war attitude all round.
  A similar situation developed in Berlin a few months ago, though not with the same publicity. The Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister referred to it in our debate on South African arms. There was an occasion when the British Government received a notification that the Russians were about to put pressure on the air lanes into Berlin. The British Government took upon their own shoulders a decision to send the R.A.F. through the air corridor, despite the fact that the Americans wanted to play it quietly and take time to see what the Russian position was. Nevertheless, the British Government acted on their own initiative and sent through the R.A.F.
  There was no suggestion on that occasion of dialogue being more important than confrontation. They said that in spite of the Russian threat they must use both dialogue and confrontation. I do not disagree with that sort of approach. In relation to someone with whom one is either unfriendly or sees an international situation in a rather different light, it may be necessary to apply the techniques of confrontation and dialogue.
  I appreciate that it may be necessary to use different responses to different situations at different times and in different measures. But one cannot say that there

  427
  is an antithesis between confrontation and dialogue and that if one selects one, then one cannot select the other. However, that is the dangerous situation into which the British Government are falling because they are constantly approaching international problems on the basis of this false antithesis. Nowhere has this been more false than in Southern Africa, the area about which I wish to speak tonight.
  It is not true that Ghana is now talking about dialogue in the same way as is Malawi. Malawi is talking about dialogue in the relationship of a client State to its main source of employment, in the way that Dr. Banda has been talking about it ever since he had his dispute with his own Opposition and put its Members in jail. He talked about dialogue as merely succumbing to the reality of power in Southern Africa and decided to try to live with it. But that is not what was meant by dialogue when the East African and Central African States came together to proclaim the Lusaka Manifesto. It is an integral part of that Manifesto that there should be dialogue in Southern Africa, but dialogue to remove apartheid—to see whether there is some way in which apartheid can be progressively run down.
  It was in that context that Dr. Busia made his now famous address to the Legislature which, in the copies distributed by the Ghana Government, is entitled "The Elimination of Apartheid". Dr. Busia is not on the side of President Houphet-Boigny or the President of Malawi. He thinks that there ought to be a dual response to the problem of Southern Africa—both confrontation and dialogue; that both should be tried, but that they should be directed to the same end of eliminating apartheid.
  Sir F. Bennett: I did not mention the East African or Central African States and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not give that impression. In regard to Ghana, the impression I got was that it was not dialogue in order to put up with apartheid. Their idea seemed to be dialogue as the best way to eliminate apartheid.
  Mr. Lyon: If that is what the Ghana delegate said at the C.P.A. conference, of course I accept it from the hon. Gentleman, but that was not the attitude of
  428
  Ghana's Prime Minister in the major definitive statement on Government policy to which I have referred. In that statement Dr. Busia made it clear that he was not in favour of dialogue as succumbing to apartheid or that he was not in favour of dialogue as an alternative to confrontation; it was simply that he preferred the one to the other but that both had to be used, and those concerned were not to limit their support for the freedom fighters in Southern Africa. He went out of his way to say that Ghana was maintaining its contribution to those freedom fighters.
  So in relation to these Southern African problems there is not this false antithesis that we cannot have a policy which both encourages dialogue for the purpose of eliminating apartheid and removing the causes of friction in Southern Africa where that is open to us and, at the same time, supports all methods of confrontation which seem to be achieving the same end.
  In those circumstances, I do not see the difference between entertaining, for instance, the party of Southern African Members of Parliament who recently came to this country and putting to them, plainly and without prevarication, the policy of the Labour Party in relation to apartheid and, at the same time, supporting the South African Solidarity Fund of the Labour Party, which decided to raise money for liberating movements in Southern Africa. These are not alternative courses of action, but are all designed to put pressure on the white racialist regimes in Southern Africa to achieve the end we all desire, which is that there should be some kind of multi-racialism throughout all the countries of Southern Africa.
  I come now to the criticism of the way in which Government policy leads us into difficulties, and I instance first the case of the Dean of Johannesburg. Is it to be said that we intend to enter into friendly relationships with a Power which keeps on its Statute Book a Terrorism Act which can make it illegal for a man to follow through his Christian conviction in order to help those in need, who have been put in need because of the oppressive action of the South African Government? If it is to be an offence to contribute to the defence aid fund for the purpose of relieving suffering amongst the dependants of those who

  429
  are now in prison because of political actions that in South Africa are held to be illegal offences, then, with the Rev. Ian Thompson I must say, "Here, take me", because I, too, contribute.
  I have met both the Dean of Johannesburg and the Rev. Ian Thompson. I saw the Dean for only a short time at Easter, in order to ascertain his feelings about the trial, but I met the Rev. Ian Thompson, who has now been arrested for contempt of court, for some considerable time. I have yet to meet a man more dedicated than he to the principles upon which the Christian faith is founded.
  Ian Thompson and his wife live in a vicarage, with a church which was assigned to them because it had been a coloured community church and the coloured community had been moved out because the area was white. So the Rev. Ian Thompson and his wife have taken it up as a kind of industrial mission. They live there and work there, and their place is a haven of multiracialism in complete contravention of the laws of South Africa. Every night in their garage they accommodate people —black, brown, sometimes white—who have been in trouble with the South African authorities, usually because of the pass laws. They take tremendous risks in order to live out what they believe their faith has indicated to them in their political situation.
  It is that kind of agonising dilemma which faces anyone who accepts the Christian faith in South Africa today, and when that dilemma faces the Dean of Johannesburg—a British subject—and brings him into conflict with the law there, I would expect his Government to use every source of confrontation they had to see that the South African Government recognised that that kind of attitude towards a British subject was intolerable.
  What was the attitude of both our Governments towards the Russians when they were imprisoning British subjects for offences we would not recognise? There was a constant succession of debates in the House, constant Questions, constant public pressures from the Foreign Office. I have no doubt that the Foreign Office has been saying things quietly in Pretoria, but it would have been a great deal better had there been some public
  430
  demonstration of our disapproval of convicting a man for offences which would not be offences under our criminal code, and on the most tendentious kind of evidence one could find—evidence which was not only disputed by the defence but, in my judgment, was totally exploded by the defence questioning.
  But there is more to it than that. A great deal of this evidence was uncovered by secret agents working in this country. Had it been a Russian spy trial of a British subject and the Russians had used the evidence of police informers who had been working here in London, there would have been a major outcry from this House and strong diplomatic protests from the Foreign Office. Instead of that, in this case we have the head of the South African Security policy here in this country, apparently without let or hindrance. We have no public proclamation of the British Government's view of what has happened, simply because it is said that we are trying to pursue a policy of dialogue. I do not believe that it is necessary to have that kind of policy of dialogue that mutes our response to that kind of challenge.
  We could have taken a much stronger stand from the moment that the Dean was arrested. I hope that it is not too late yet to express publicly something of our horror and detestation not only at the trial, conviction and sentence of five years on a man in this man's physical condition, but also at the laws which allowed this to happen to a man who was exercising Christian charity.
  That is one aspect of the matter, but there is another aspect in relation to Rhodesia. We are supposed to be trying to get a peaceful settlement with some- one who has proclaimed his intentions to go towards a new style of apartheid in Central Africa. Not only is he making the proclamation but he is actually enforcing the apartheid legislation when his officials are discussing with British Government officials arrangements for discussion between himself and the Foreign Secretary. When we are led to believe that Lord Goodman et al are bringing back hopeful noises from Salisbury and the British Government are smiling benignly upon them, we have the Epworth Mission closed, a mission given to the Methodist Church by Cecil Rhodes himself, where there has been a long

  431
  history of multi-racial life, where black men and white men have lived and worked in the same faith. It is disrupted at the moment when the Foreign Secretary is about to make a statement, according to the Press, that he is going to Salisbury to talk about a new deal with Ian Smith. Can that man be trusted when he allows this to happen at this moment?
  With their inspired leak from Salisbury, the Press say, "Oh, this was some official from a lower echelon who wanted to embarrass the Prime Minister and stop a settlement, and Mr. Ian Smith is as annoyed as the Foreign Secretary and he is going to intervene and stop it." Stop it, yes—until after the settlement. When the settlement is finished, then we shall have the Land Tenure Act applied with the utmost vigour. How can the British Parliament accept with any degree of responsibility that it should move towards a settlement with a man who would do this when we are supposed to be discussing the terms of settlement with him?
  Again, the policy of dialogue here is failing. What is wanted is a greater degree of confrontation, a toughening of sanctions, and not simply the acceptance of humilitating terms which will be put out as coming within the five principles.
  Finally, the area which most undermines the Government's suggested approach of dialogue rather than confrontartion its South-West Africa. I spoke at some length about this in a recent Adjournment debate, but the point ought to be reinforced because far too little attention has been paid to this aspect of Government policy. If the Foreign Secretary meant what he said in the United States, that the policy of dialogue ought to be preferred and could win through to a better settlement of the Southern Africa problem, he ought to have supported the recent Security Council Resolution to accept the ruling of the International Court.
  If the countries of Africa are to be told that they ought to prefer dialogue to confrontation, but when the International Court lays down what is international law in respect of South-West Africa the British and French Governments, as the two major offenders in
  432
  African eyes in Southern Africa, both say that they will not support the Security Council and the International Court of Justice, what are the nations of black Africa to say to that kind of response? They will simply say that it is hypocritical humbug, and I would not blame them.
  The Foreign Secretary must face the fact that dialogue itself may involve certain agonising choices which may have economic repercussions for Britain. But if one believes in the principle of multiracialism in Southern Africa and is genuinely intending to get rid of apartheid in Southern Africa, it will cost this country something; and Britain, properly led, would be prepared to pay that price. But we shall never pay the price if the whole issue is constantly muddied, as if to support the freedom fighters in Southern Africa were the same as supporting the I.R.A. in Northern Ireland. The situation is totally different. It cannot be said that merely because one supports freedom fighters in Southern Africa one is supporting guerrilla or terrorist activities throughout the world. The antithesis, which I have already depicted as being false, is no more false than on this point, because one has to apply one's judgment about what is the best method of achieving a given end according to the specific facts of any geographic situation in the world.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I have been following the hon. Gentleman's arguments closely. I cannot say that I agree with them. Did he say, on the subject of freedom fighters a few moments ago, that the official funds of the Labour Party are going to support what he calls freedom fighters, or is he merely advocating this?
  Mr. Lyon: What I said was what has been represented in the Press—I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has read it that there is a fund which has been set up by the Labour Party, open for contributions, which will be given to the freedom fighters of Southern Africa, without conditions.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: So official funds are being given?
  Mr. Lyon: No, they are not official funds. It is a fund which has been set up to which any member of the party, any

  433
  trade unionist or any member of the public may contribute. I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will make a contribution to help the freedom fighters of Southern Africa to fight for their freedom.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giiles: Armed attack on existing governments?
  Mr. Lyon: Certainly. The freedom fighters whom we envisage will be helped by this are those who are fighting white racialist governments in Southern Africa —yes. I hope that that is clear to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I did not want to burke the issue.
  The kind of policy which embraces both dialogue and confrontation is much more likely to succeeed in changing the racialist attitude in Southern Africa than the present namby-pamby policy of pretending to prefer dialogue but at every stage giving in to the racialists.
  7.27 p.m.
  Mr. Alan Haselhurst: Though the wide-ranging nature of foreign policy debates in the House may appear to belie the fact, nevertheless it is true that for some years Britain has been moving towards a more European-orientated rôle in the world. Under successive Governments and by various devices of policy we have been recognising our inability to pursue active policies on a world-wide basis and have tended to concentrate instead on the essential task of the defence of Western Europe and safeguarding the security and integrity of these islands.
  In some ways last Thursday's decision in the House was only incidental to what has been a continuing process, although obviously it will give a powerful boost to that process if the consequential legislation foreshadowed in the Gracious Speech is approved by the House. This alteration in our position from the once all-powerful nation to a country of more limited capability lying in the shadow of the European continent has tended to nag and depress the British people, so much so that they could react very bitterly to the remarks about our changed circumstances passed by the late Dean Acheson. The change in Britain's position in the world has been accompanied by changes, and continuing changes, all over the world. Not all of these changes have been comprehended by the British people,
  434
  and sometimes they have not been sufficiently taken into account by government.
  Naturally I welcome the decision that the House has taken over the question of joining the European Communities. This represents at once the frankest ad- mission of Britain's altered circumstances in the world and the best way of extracting the maximum advantage from the new situation in which we find ourselves. We are facing the fact that our power base lies in Europe and that, through a strengthened Western Europe moving towards more concerted policies, we may gain a share in the substance rather than the shadow of world influence.
  If we are coming to terms with the world in which we live rather than the world which we read about in our school history books, there is still one embarrassing problem for us. The Gracious Speech refers to
  "a settlement of the Rhodesian problem"
  and adds, I hope significantly—
  " in accordance with the Five Principles".
  For obvious reasons we feel a responsibility for this part of the world, but it is one of those cases where responsibility and power are far divorced. It is faintly ludicrous to go on pretending that we are exercising decisive control over the situation. Sanctions are being widely flouted and others who perhaps see the situation in a de facto sense are helping themselves to trade from which we ourselves hold back.
  We in Britain never like accepting de- feat, but there is little doubt that the regime in Salisbury has got away with its U.D.I., despite certain discomforts which it seems to have been able to absorb. We in Britain are also pragmatists, or so we tell ourselves, and we disdain to live in realms of make-believe.
  For these reasons, I understand and support the efforts of Her Majesty's Government to see whether, even at this late stage, an agreement can be reached with Mr. Ian Smith. I know that the chances may be thought so slim that further talks can do no good.
  I give one additional reason why I think it is right to make the attempt at a settlement. In the last six years in Rhodesia there have been disturbing steps along a racialist road. There are elements in that country which are absolutely determined to bring about a

  435
  system akin to that in the Republic of South Africa. Some of the more recent actions of the Government in Salisbury have displayed all the nastiness which we for long recognised in certain policies in the Republic to the south.
  We should also take into account the fact that there are still some moderate men in Rhodesia. In this last period it has been very difficult indeed for them to put up effective opposition to the policies of the Smith Government, because to do so appears at the same time unpatriotic. I believe that there is at least a chance in the wake of a settlement that moderates can begin to find a place again in the politics of Rhodesia. This possibility is at least worth considering, for otherwise we face the prospect of an ever-worsening situation for the African population in that country.
  Those who resist contacts with Mr. Smith or who proclaim loudly their fears of a sell-out seem to be setting their faces against even so much as the possibility of an early amelioration of the Africans' position. I do not see in that case what can check the slide towards racism. I want to grasp any chance, however faint, of trying to avert that catastrophe.
  Having said that, I must also say that we should not be prepared to pay any price for a settlement. I am glad that the Gracious Speech refers specifically to the five principles, because, much as I believe that there are powerful arguments in favour of reaching a settlement, I do not want to see Britain putting the imprimatur of approval on practices in Rhodesia which can only be deemed racist.
  A settlement with Rhodesia is by no stretch of the imagination a matter which is crucial to Britain. I see no virtue in departing from honourable principles. We must surely stand by what they represent. I see no sense in departing from those principles if we incur the odium of the new forces which are emerging in the world and with which we would wish to have fruitful relations in the future.
  I hope that our accession to the European Communities will assist us also towards shaping common European attitudes regarding events in other parts of the world in which we may have a great
  436
  interest but which at present we have little ability to influence. I believe that the united pressures of Western European Governments can be a very potent force for good in world politics.
  The Gracious Speech mentions the Government's word for peace in the Middle East. Nothing is said about any specific proposals in this direction. We are all conscious how difficult it is for Britain to bring pressure to bear when the situation is dominated by Russia and the United States, each standing behind the principal protagonists. Yet it is the involvement of Russia and the United States which undoubtedly makes the situation so serious for the world as a whole. It is also this confrontation of the super powers which is precluding a solution involving either of them in a peace-keeping rôle.
  Might not this be an area in which the Western European powers could be the keepers of any peace settlement that might emerge? I hope that my right hon. Friend will urge the need for a common European view in this matter, although it might not easily be obtained. I hope that in the meantime he will do all that he can, directly and indirectly, to promote moves towards a settlement. In this context I hope he will find an early opportunity to visit the State of Israel, because there may be some misunderstandings in that quarter about the British position arising from my right hon. Friend's visit to Egypt.
  There is a real need for urgency, because if the parties cannot reach a settlement, even a partial one, in the near future the prospects for peace in that part of the world will grow still more dim. Next year is American election year, and we have much experience of how this inhibits American foreign policy. In that year I am sure that the build-up of the Russian influence in Egypt will continue, and in the meantime Israel cannot be expected to do nothing. Believing as she does that she has only herself to rely on, Israel is bound to be taking actions which in the eyes of the Arabs will be further manifestations of Israel's unwillingness to come to terms for peace. In this way more and more obstacles throughout 1972 are likely to become embedded in this already complicated situation and the task of the peace-makers will become ever more complicated.

  437
  I have visited Egypt and Israel in the last 14 months. I believe that both sides are genuine in their desire for peace. There is enough evidence lying around in terms of action and speeches to enable anyone who is selective to try to show otherwise. The magnitude of the mutual distrust is frightening. The only way forward is to isolate a relatively tiny part of the conflict over which the parties can try to demonstrate some trust without a breach of trust being fatal to the security of either.
  I agree with my right hon. Friend that the moves which have been made over the Suez Canal zone seem to represent at least a promising hope of a move towards a wider settlement. Both sides, in their own best ultimate interests, can afford to take risks. I use the word "risks" in the sense of concessions from their existing positions. They can afford to take such risks to try to get a settlement in this limited area, because I do not think that it would be fatal to the security of either of them. I hope that this is a point of view which my right hon. Friend will be able to press with vigour, because it could well lead to a dramatically improved phase in the relations between Israel and her Arab neighbours.
  I said that I welcome last Thursday's decision in the House. I have outlined some of the reasons why I welcome that decision. I welcome it also for a more fundamental reason. The places of which I have spoken demonstrate how easily people can come into conflict, and we have another terrible example very much closer at hand at the present time. It is so easy for people to be set against people, whether on religious or racial or nationalistic grounds. Europe has set gruesome standards in former centuries, but there is now a chance for something better. I find it difficult to understand why some people worry so much about constitutional developments in Europe It is nationalistic barriers which have been one of the causes in the past of much conflict between nations and of much tragedy and unhappiness in the lives of ordinary people.
  We should be doing better if we were to concentrate much more on those elements which unite mankind and the different peoples of the world, in this context Europe, rather than on those elements which are different between us.
  438
  I see great hopes in the European adventure which I trust we are now embarking upon. If we can set new standards of co-operation in Western Europe this may, in the end, be the best way of contributing to the peace of the wider world.
  Mr. Speaker: We have about an hour and a quarter before the Front Bench speakers wind up the debate. I know that at least six hon. Members want to speak in the interval. I hope that hon. Members will adjust their speeches accordingly.
  7.41 p.m.
  Mr. Frank JuddI congratulate the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Mr. Haselhurst) on an extremely thoughtful and constructive speech. I hope he will forgive me if I do not immediately deal with some of his points, because I hope to include them in the context of my general remarks.
  There is one specific point mentioned by the hon. Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett) which should not be allowed to pass without comment. When referring to dialogue, he suggested that all the former High Commission Territories were in favour of a dialogue of the kind of which he was speaking. This is not the case, because Seretse Khama of Botswana is firmly committed to the principles of the Lusaka Manifesto about which my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) spoke so convincingly.
  I have recently returned from a visit to parts of Africa north of the Zambesi. It would be wrong to miss the opportunity to recount some of my experiences there. One of the most profoundly disturbing experiences I had was to discover the greatly changing attitudes of African countries north of the Zambesi towards this country. Where, until a few years ago, there was strong indignation, even anger, arising out of disappointment at policies which they believed were not convincingly enough on their side in the struggle, now there is a sad acceptance that Britain, when the chips are down, over and over again proves herself to be on the side of the Republic of South Africa, on the side of the administration in South-West Africa and of the Portuguese in Guinea, Mozambique and Angola.

  439
  Whether that assumption is correct or not, we can argue, but we must look at the evidence of our conduct in recent months and see why it is, on that evidence, that responsible and frequently very balanced people in those independent African countries have come to this conclusion. When we look back at this particular era in history, I suspect that it will be seen that we have been involved in a major tragedy. In those independent African countries there had been a genuine and deep feeling of involvement with Britain. Frequently our petulant reactions to outspoken criticism have been totally unfortunate, because that criticism was only possible because of the feeling of affinity and closeness which the people making the criticism felt towards this country.
  I know it is difficult for us in this House to accept that the strength of feeling sometimes expressed by leaders of former British dependencies in the African Continent has been a salutary tribute to Britain. They have been pre pared to speak out about us in a way which they would never have dreamt of adopting towards those with whom they did not have the same degree of affinity. I suspect that their willingness to speak out is slipping away because they see little point in trying to do so. If when the chips are down they see us always to be on the side of the South Africans, on the side of the South African illegal presence in South-West Africa and on the side of the Portuguese in their wars of colonial oppression.
  The House would be deluding itself if it did not recognise that there is a growing confidence in Africa that, at least in the Portuguese territories, there can be no doubt about the final outcome. There is increasing confidence that, in the end, the liberation forces in Guinea, Mozambique and Angola, probably in that order, will triumph.
  What will our predicament be in the African Continent if we fail to speak out as toughly as we should speak out to our partners in the N.A.T.O. Alliance about the way they are conducting those wars? Another distressing feature of the situation is that responsible African leaders will confide to those prepared and able to speak to them that they believe there will be a terrible heritage of bitter-
  440
  ness at the end of those wars, because of the methods now used by the Portuguese of indiscriminate suppression of ordinary villagers who are naturally collaborating and co-operating with the freedom fighters in the struggle.
  Shortly before I was in Dar-es-Salaam the Swedish Prime Minister paid a visit there, and I found it a particularly salutory experience to compare the tremendous impression which he made during his visit with the disillusion about Britain and Britain's failure to stand up for those principles to which she says she is committed. Sweden is deeply committed to the principles of freedom and democracy, and sees no alternative but to identify herself, practically and positively, with the liberation movements in the African continent. When we look at this situation, we must understand that by our failure to identify ourselves with the forces of liberation we are provoking those very things in the African Continent about which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite say they are most exercised. The failure of Western democracy effectively to stand up for those fighting for freedom in the African Continent plays into the hands of those totalitarian Powers prepared to give aid to the liberation movements.
  In conclusion I would say a word about the Rhodesian situation and the possibility that we may be moving towards another round of negotiations in which the Foreign Secretary will be involved. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) I am convinced that the right hon. Gentleman is a man of deep principle, and I believe that he is sincerely anxious to find a solution within the context of the five principles. If he wants to do that he will forgive me if I remind him of two of the basic principles, perhaps the most important of the five principles, namely unimpeded progress towards majority rule and the acceptability of any solution to the people of Rhodesia as a whole.
  When we are evaluating the prospects of fulfilling those two principles we have, as several hon. Members have said, to look at the reality of the political situation as it has been in recent months and years. Since "Fearless" there has undeniably been steady progress within Rhodesia towards the principle of apartheid—if that is not a misuse of the

  441
  word "principle"—and towards a greater degree of racialism in the administration of the State.
  We have seen the republican constitution, the Land Tenure Act, the statements of Mr. Ian Smith and his colleagues in which they have been at pains to point out that they do not share our views on the five principles and do not want to see them implemented. There have been the expulsions from the traditional tribal lands and more recently the expulsion from the mission lands to which my hon. Friend the Member for York referred.
  I find there is a degree of ambiguity about the Government's position which is disturbing. On 1st July this year I wrote to the Foreign Secretary drawing his attention to my concern about the position of the tribal leader Tangwena and his people. I asked whether in the context of the negotiations which would he taking place, efforts would be made to look to the interests of this community. I received a letter from the Under-Secretary of State in which the noble Lord said:
  "As you know, we are still engaged in exploratory discussions to establish whether or not it will be possible to negotiate a settlement on the basis of the five principles. I am sure you will understand that I am not able to reveal the contents of these exchanges. I can, however, reaffirm the assurance that I gave to Lord Alport when he raised the question of the Tangwena in the House of Lords on 22nd January, namely that matters such as the position of the Tangwena would be taken into account if it proves possible to hold negotiations."
  Yet in The Times of 28th October we read the authoritative reports of Sir Philip Adams who said, when asked about the expulsions from the mission lands, now taking place, that:
  "This has not been a hastener or an impediment to what we have been talking about."
  If we are to have any confidence in the Government's integrity as they make their preliminary soundings we cannot have such ambiguities. Either the Government are seeking to raise matters of injustices of this kind as was suggested by the Under-Secretary in his letter of 13th July or they are not, and presumably we hope that they are taking the opportunities presented.
  When it comes to enforcing any so-called settlement on the basis of the
  442
  five principles we must recognise that, by definition, once Rhodesia is independent she will be in a position to go as she pleases. and we have seen what has happened in South Africa since 1910. The only way in which we could ensure the implementation of any agreement based on the five principles would be with some form of guarantees which would amount to infringements of sovereignty. Unless we get such guarantees it would be infinitely better to keep the status quo with all the unsatisfactory dimensions in that situation rather than indulge in what would in the end amount to an ill-disguised sell-out.
  The other point that we must settle has to do with the acceptability of any solution to the people of Rhodesia as a whole. The nature of the proposition put to the people of Rhodesia will be very important in the testing of opinion, and we have no business putting before them a proposition which is not the result of meaningful consultations between representatives of all sections of the Rhodesian community.
  We need reassurance on that point. It is not good enough simply presenting it to the African majority as a proposition. 'The leaders and representatives of the African majority should be involved in drawing up the proposition. When the test of opinion takes place, if it is to mean anything, we will have to see the leaders of the African majority released and able to campaign with equal re- sources. We shall also have to see exiles abroad given the opportunity to return to Rhodesia to take part in a genuine campaign. This is the only acceptable basis for a real test of opinion.
  7.55 p.m.
  Mr. Wyn RobertsThe hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) spoke about political liberation and I hope to follow him in a sense by referring to economic liberation. The Gracious Speech says, dealing with external policies:
  "…My Government will protect and advance the nation's interests."
  The domestic section of the Gracious Speech begins by saying:
  "At home my Government's first care will be to increase employment…"
  My theme is that the two are interrelated and that protection and advancement of the nation's interests abroad are

  443
  essential to increase employment at home. Perhaps we have tended in the recent past to play down the protection of the nation's interests abroad in the sense of straightforward defence. It is coming to the fore once more in our deliberations.
  I want to lay emphasis not so much on protection as on the advancement of our interests abroad. We shall become increasingly aware of the interconnection in the years ahead between the advancement of our interests and increased employment at home. Reference has been made to our decision last Thursday, the decision of principle to join the E.E.C. Some hon. Members saw that decision as a choice between joining an inward-looking, potentially protectionist continental bloc and remaining and developing as a comparatively independent free trading nation within E.F.T.A. and the Commonwealth.
  With respect to those hon. Members who saw the decision in this way, I do not view it like that at all. As a result of the rapid development of E.E.C. trade, internally and externally, the E.E.C. must be as outward-looking as ourselves and seek to extend and develop in the world outside. We may all be going through a protectionist phase now but it cannot last indefinitely because the developed nations are totally committed to expanding world trade which is an internal necessity if they are to maintain the standard of living of their peoples.
  The Chancellor's proposal for the further creation of S.D.R.s and the welcome it received indicated the depth of commitment felt generally. We in Britain realise only too clearly that we need an expanding economy at home to increase employment and that such an economy is dependent on an expanding world economy. Our first concern at home, as the Gracious Speech said, is unemployment. Unemployment is also threatening to become the first concern in the world and is likely to dominate international development in the 1970s much as the food issue did in the 1960s.
  Robert McNamara of the World Bank has already drawn attention to the rising number of what he called "marginal" men in the world—men with no useful role to play in their societies. The causes of this global unemployment crisis are
  444
  fairly well known to us. In most developing countries the impact of the population explosion has been aggravated by an equally unprecedented migration from the countryside to the cities, by the use of increasingly capital-intensive technology and by financial policies favouring the use of capital rather than labour. At the same time living standards are rising rapidly for some, and there is a sharp contrast between them and those who are unemployed or under- employed.
  To be more precise, I am told that
  "…unemployment rates of 15 to 20 per cent. are increasingly common in large cities throughout the developing world."
  The problem is likely to worsen rather than improve with time because the labour force in the non-Communist developing world will increase by 170 million in the 1970s alone, that is, by 25 per cent. during this decade. I need hardly point out that lack of jobs is helping to create the conditions for political upheaval in many countries. It is interesting to note that the unemployment rate in Cuba in 1957 was 16 per cent. But these political upheavals do not necessarily mean a shift to the Left. One can also have a shift to the right in these conditions, as has happened in Brazil.
  There are various answers to the unemployment crisis in the developing world and I shall note only some of the steps that have been taken. First, there is the proposition that growth rates should be stepped up, but it is estimated that even if such rates were increased to between 9 per cent. and 11 per cent. annually, that would be sufficient only to absorb the increase in the labour force in non-agricultural jobs. Secondly, a bias could be developed in favour of labour as opposed to capital-intensive technology. Thirdly, there is the proposition that there should be greater concentration on rural development and agriculture. We know that this is taking place in certain parts of the world.
  One thing is abundantly clear. Despite all the efforts made by developing countries, they cannot cope with the problem of unemployment on their own. The rich countries have an indispensable supporting role to play in providing capital research and technology and access to their markets. But the benefit is not one

  445
  way only. The developed countries need fresh markets for their increasing production, and the realisation of this need is looming ever larger in our thinking, since we know that Britain's share of world trade is declining.
  I was glad to hear the statement of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that Britain had reached its U.N.C.T.A.D. target; and glad, too, to hear him in July name as one of his cardinal reasons for entry into the Common Market the promotion of development in those countries in need of development.
  It seems that many countries are now realising the importance of aid, public and private. The Netherlands, France, Belgium, Australia and Portugal—as well as ourselves—topped 1 per cent. of G.N.P. in 1970. Japan, Germany, and Italy followed close behind. But in terms of absolute amounts, it is interesting to note that Japan moved from fourth place in 1969 to second place in 1970.
  Looking ahead, we can be reasonably certain that those countries generous in aid today are advancing their trading interests for the future. And we may be sure Britain, too, must follow this course as a nation which relies heavily on its trade. We know that perhaps the principal reason for giving aid should be a moral reason, as the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) said, but it would be unwise of us to forget the commercial advantages for Britain. I would not argue that commercial reasons are the only relevant reasons in this context. There are humanitarian reasons as well.
  One of the most striking things about this country is that the desire to help the developing world cuts right across all party political boundaries. The British people as a whole have the will to assist the prosperity and well being of the developing countries, and this desire is common to us all as a people. If the British people could see clearly the relevance of the Prime Minister's July statement that one of the main reasons prompting him to seek entry into the Community was that this step in itself would help to promote development in the world outside, we would see a surge of public opinion for joining the Common Market as a new base for our en-
  446
  deavour to do better by the developing peoples of the world.
  8.6 p.m.>
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Nobody who listened to the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Wyn Roberts) could doubt his genuineness in desiring that this country should do more than it is doing to help the under-developed nations of the world. Where we part company is on the question of whether our accession to the Common Market would assist us to be more effective in that area.
  The evidence I have been able to gather from those nations which already possess associate status with the Common Market is not encouraging. There have been many cases in which nations with associate status, so far from finding such status advantageous, have found them- selves in a poor relation position with respect to the country with which they are closely associated.
  The aspect of the Queen's Speech to which I wish to draw attention is the passage which says that the Government
  "…hope, following the successful conclusion of negotiations, shortly to sign an Instrument of Accession to the European Communities after which legislation will be laid before you."
  The assumption is widespread in the Press that after what happened on Thursday it is all over bar the shouting and that the end is merely a matter of time. I would draw attention to the use of the word "hope", which falls short of accession actually being achieved. There is also the phrase
  "…following the successful conclusion of negotiations…"
  The negotiations are going to be among the most difficult, but, of course, it is always possible to conclude negotiations by surrender. The Government have said that they hope for a successful out- come of the negotiations, but we know that earlier negotiations have reached conclusions which are not satisfactory at all, and these negotiations may reach a conclusion which will not be satisfactory to many of us on this side of the House.
  Then the Gracious Speech says that after the successful conclusion of negotiations:
  "Legislation will be laid before you…".
  Then there is the process by which this House will ratify the signature which the

  447
  Government will be giving to the accession treaty. Incidentally, they propose to sign it before the legislation goes through; the signature is to be before the legislation comes before us but it will only be effective if the legislation to ratify is carried through this House. I should have thought that is something which is very much in doubt. So those of us who are not in favour of this country joining the Market have no need to feel despair. It is generally agreed that that decision of the Government to sign the instrument, if they succeed in bringing their negotiations to a successful conclusion, is not in accordance with public opinion so far as it can be ascertained.
  Thinking about this, it seems to me that those of us who say that on this public opinion ought to be taken into account must answer the charge that we are selective in this view—that for example on such questions as flogging and hanging some of us are prepared to act in advance of public opinion. It seems to me that the answer lies in the distinction which is made in many countries which have written constitutions, a distinction between a great constitutional issue involving surrender of sovereignty or partial surrender of sovereignty and the generality of political, social and economic decision making.
  In countries with written constitutions that distinction is nearly always made by requiring a two-thirds majority on a referendum or some process greater, more difficult, than the ordinary process of decision making of the democracy operating in the countries concerned. I have said that I do not think we shall go in. If we want—and many of us do want—to change the nature of our society in a fundamental way we can do it only if we retain full control in this House, and, indeed, of course, it is true that those who wish to prevent change—and there are some who want to prevent change—can succeed in that only provided control remains in this House.
  This is the common denominator without which it is very difficult to explain how it was that some people who are most anxious to avoid change and those of us who are in favour of fundamental change found ourselves the other night in the same Lobby. The answer is the
  448
  desire common to us all to retain power here and not surrender it elsewhere, so that we in this House, the elected representatives of the people, can control the fate of our country.
  So many marketeers on both sides of the House cannot forget the consensus politics of the 'fifties, but in the 'seventies Butskellism is as dead as the dodo. It may be said that the present Government have destroyed the consensus already. This will be an abrasive, polarised decade. Whether we in this country will avoid the tide of revolution which is travelling over the earth, it is not possible to say. We are not immune from movements which affect the world as a whole, and we in this Chamber must have power to guide and control that revolution in a non-violent and, for us on this side, in a democratic, Socialist way.
  This is, therefore, no time to surrender any scrap of authority. It is a time to gather into this House every single piece of power that we can, and on our side of the House we desire to move with the mass movement of opinion in the trade unions and elsewhere to change our social relationships. That seems to me to be where the tide is now moving and we have to travel with that tide, but we must take complete control of the national boat.
  So I say that I do not think we shall go in. The Government did not get any-think like the two-thirds majority which, if we had had a written constitution, would probably have been necessary to support such a proposal and without which, it is arguable, it is invalid. I say that, because a country without a written constitution depends upon precedent and on analogy with what has happened elsewhere. In countries with a written constitution the decision taken last Thursday would not, in those countries, have been a valid one, but if we look at precedent we find that in this country no change has been made in our external relationships without the consent of the official Opposition. On every occasion, for example in the acceding to the United Nations, and when we decided to join N.A.T.O., when we have surrendered part of our external power, it has always been done with the consent of the official Opposition. In other words, the House as a whole has decided. There has been no precedent whatsoever for a Government taking a decision of this sort against

  449
  the wishes of the official Opposition: no precedent at all.
  I would, therefore, argue on constitutional grounds that the Government have taken action which, in the unwritten constitution of this country, is as invalid as it would have been if we had had a written constitution which the Lord Chancelolr is so anxious to have. Had we had a written constitution it is very probable that at this stage we would not be even contemplating entering the Market.
  So those of us who are opposed have a constitutional duty to frustrate the legislation which will seek to give effect to what is arguably an illegal decision, and I am satisfied that Conservatives who are opposed will see it as their duty to get all stages of the legislation referred to in the Gracious Speech taken on the Floor of this House and will resist any attempt —I hope that the Government will not make the attempt—to cut short debate, to guillotine it, or anything of that sort. If that is done we shall, in the end give effect to the desire of our people, the desire which has resisted the enormous pressure over many years upon them to try to persuade them that the Common Market is something for their good. They know in their hearts, as many of us on this side of the House and some Members on that side of the House, equally know in their hearts, that entry would not be in the true interests of our country.
  The debate today is generally given over to foreign affairs, but I understand from Mr. Speaker that it is in order for me to make a brief reference to a subject to which I shall expect no reply because it is not within the ambit of what we are talking about this evening. I want to say this about the Gracious Speech as a whole.
  I sometimes feel sorry for the Queen, for she has to say things which are put into her mouth by either side of this House, so that on one occasion she makes one statement and on another occasion has to make another statement. We in this House fully understand that the words of her speech are those of the Government, not hers, but sometimes outside this House that is not fully understood. On this occasion there are in the Speech proposals which seem to me to be thoroughly misconceived, pro-
  450
  posals which, so far from improving the position of our people, will worsen it.
  The proposal for the introduction of legislation to provide for an alternative service of local radio broadcasting is surprising and irrelevant. What can be the relevance of that proposal at this time? I will not spend time on this, as we shall be debating this matter next week, but it is extraordinary at a time when the Government are proposing to bring forward much legislation that they should introduce a proposal for which there is no great public desire. This can be explained only on the basis that the Government have made another rash electoral promise and they felt they had to carry out at least one of them.
  8.20 p.m.
  Mr. Toby Jessel: I hope that the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) will forgive me if I do not follow him in commenting on the subjects of the Common Market and the extra channels for radio broadcasting. I should like to return to the grave situation in India and Pakistan to which several hon. Members have referred.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett) was right in saying that the danger of war is grave and imminent. I was one of four Members of Parliament to go on a parliamentary delegation to India and Pakistan, and I endorse what was said by the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) about the appalling and horrifying conditions under which the refugees are living.
  I strongly support the Government decision to give more than the £17 million already being given for relief work. I have had about 40 letters and messages from my constituents asking that more relief aid should go to the refugees. My experience is that what 40 people are saying, 400, or perhaps 4,000, are thinking. The Government's decision to give additional aid to the refugees will command widespread support.
  The Gracious Speech says that the Government:
  "… will continue to work towards a solution of the problems of East Pakistan and the refugees."
  About 30,000 refugees continue to arrive in India every day. That is the figure we have been given, and I see no reason to doubt it. We are being asked, as are

  451
  other countries, to help with the problems caused by the refugees and we are, therefore, entitled to be concerned about the reasons why all these people have left East Pakistan in terror. In terror they undoubtedly are. Nine million people—a number larger than the population of Greater London—do not leave their homes and villages unless they are extremely frightened.
  The Indians find it almost impossible to deal with this colossal influx of population. They cannot be absorbed, and their arrival is causing fearful social and communal problems. There are people living in Calcutta unable to get a job and near starvation. If 50 or 100 miles away refugees in a refugee camp are getting a free bowl of rise every day and are undercutting the local rate for the job, the most terrible communal tension can arise. The Indian Government are doing all they can to deal with this problem and we should have the greatest sympathy with them, but India cannot continue to absorb an unlimited number of refugees, and that is why there is a danger of war.
  The Indians have repeatedly asked the Pakistanis to take action to stem the flood of refugees, with no result. My hon. Friend the Member for Torquay spoke of the need to defuse this alarming situation and of the desirability of the Indian Government admitting United Nations observers. But United Nations observers cannot restore confidence among the refugees that it would be safe to return to East Pakistan or East Bengal so long as refugees continue to arrive each day with stories of terror and horror. stories of villages being shot up and burnt and people being hounded out of them.
  My Friend said that there was no immediate prospect of getting the Pakistan Army to withdraw from East Pakistan into West Pakistan, and I agree with him. Every possible diplomatic pressure should be used to bring about a change in the conduct of the Pakistan Army in East Pakistan and so to stop these large numbers of refugees going into India. I hope that my right hon. Friend will take every possible step, through diplomatic channels, through the United Nations and in every other way, to relieve the situation, even at this late and dangerous stage.
  8.26 p.m.
  Mr. John Mackie: I shall have no difficulty in following the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) because the subject on which he spoke is the one I have chosen, namely the terrible situation in India and East Pakistan and Her Majesty's Government's promise in the Gracious Speech to direct themselves to the solution of the problem of the refugees. The problem is certainly East Pakistan's, but it is India's as well. The hon. Member appealed for more aid, as I shall do later, and he mentioned the difficulty of getting anything done for the refugees who were continually arriving.
  When I was at the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference I took the opportunity to go to East Pakistan, Calcutta and Delhi. I went under my own steam and I was there for six days. What I have to say is purely a personal view of the situation, a situation difficult to assess for anyone who like myself has no real experience of India, Pakistan or the Far East.
  It has been emphasised that, although there are lessons we must learn from how all this happened, the time for recrimination and the placing of blame is past and we should concentrate on a solution to the problem.
  I went first to Delhi and heard the Indian side of the case. I could not but agree that the problem there was very great. I was given a considerable amount of information, particularly by the Pakistan and Indian Press. I was struck, as one has always been since partition, by the appalling antipathy between the two nations. This is one of the big problems.
  I then went to Dacca and met our High Commissioner who was very helpful, and to Sylet in the north-east corner of the country.
  I found a most unhappy country in every way. There is no doubt that the East Pakistan authorities tried to persuade me that things were returning to normal—it is five weeks since I returned —but I could see that economically the situation was ruinous. There was great danger of hunger and starvation. When it was known that I was a farmer I was asked by the High Commission if I would try to assess the rice planting situation.

  453
  One crop about which I know nothing is rice; we do not grow it in this country. However, I was prepared to go, and I did go, into the country. Flying in a low-flying aeroplane from Dacca to Sylhet, and I had a good view of the countryside. I was of the opinion that a considerable amount of rice had been planted. My opinion was confirmed by a Scots tea planter I met who had flown over the same area. He thought that a considerable amount of rice had been planted and that the food situation might not be too bad. But East Pakistan has always been short of grain. Between 1¼ and 1½ million tons are normally brought in. The shortfall this year will be nearly 2½ million tons. The point was made by the hon. Member for Torquay that any upset in the supplies only aggravates the situation and is to be deprecated.
  When I was in Dacca I was given an interview for an hour or more with Dr. Malik, the Governor. It is not for me to say whether he has been put there as a figurehead or to mollify the situation, but I found him very worried and anxious that we should understand the situation. He was anxious to know how we could help and what he could do to help to bring about a solution. I believe that he may rise above the figurehead status if given half a chance by Yahya Khan.
  From there I went to the camps in Calcutta. Two colleagues have already spoken about the appalling conditions there and the fantastic problem of sheer human misery. I went to three camps and I was appalled. One camp which I went to might be called an unofficial camp. It was at the end of the runway of Calcutta Airport and the authorities insisted on its being shifted. The people in the camp had had time to find work in the fields and elsewhere and quite a few of them—between 1,000 and 2,000 —refused to move because they had begun to be integrated in the community. This situation in an area of unemployment and under-employment—and the Indian authorities are scared stiff of such situations—is bound to aggravate an already very difficult situation. It is only one of many situations which will arise unless the problem is solved.
  I talked to literally hundreds of people in the camps, although it was very difficult, because my interpreter was inclined
  454
  to give his own answers instead of interpreting what the people said. However, I discovered that the attitude is that the people will not go back unless there is a free East Bengal and Mujibur Rahman is released to take charge. I pointed out that from what I had seen this was sheer pie in the sky. However, I managed at last to get four people into a tent where we could talk more rationally and I pointed out to them how appalling the situation was, with 9 million people already there and people still coming in. I asked what was the minimum they would take to go back. I felt that I had got somewhere with them in reducing their demands.
  There is very little knowledge of what the Pakistan Government are prepared to do about the amnesty, and to rehabilitate the refugees. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) said that at one time the number of refugees compared roughly with the population of Greater London. Clearly, to take that number of people and return them is a major physical job in itself.
  Many of us heard the Prime Minister of India, Mrs. Gandhi, speaking the other day. I have nothing but admiration for her. I can quite see why she almost accepts the fatalism of the situation. It may be an Indian trait. She said that India has had to bear burdens throughout its history and that it is prepared to bear them again. The great pity is that she says at the same time that the refugees must go back.
  During my visit, I had a brief meeting with an Indian Foreign Office adviser. He was leaving the country at 9 o'clock in the morning, but he was kind enough to talk to me over breakfast. In the course of our discussions, he made the point that the refugees must go back, and soon. When I asked how soon, he replied that it must be done after Christmas. However, that would mean that the only way that that could be done would be to conquer East Bengal and put them back. The hon. Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett) and others have made the point that war is imminent. That is why the situation is so urgent.
  Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I am extremely interested in the hon. Gentleman's first-hand account. Was he able to get any idea about whether the flow

  455
  of refugees from Pakistan is slowing? There are conflicting accounts. The Indians say 40,000 a day, whereas the Pakistanis, in effect, say there are none.
  Mr. Mackie: I put the same question to the Foreign Office official with whom I discussed the problem. In the camps, I saw people who had arrived the very day that I visited them. I did not find anyone who had come direct from East Pakistan. All of them had been wandering about looking for friends or had come from camps which they did not like. I put the question to the Indian authorities. Some put the figure as high as 60,000 a day entering the camps. The average was 30,000. I do not know whether they are still coming in, but any chance of reversing the situation is very slim. I am sorry that I cannot help the Foreign Secretary any further. That is the information that I was given. I found that there was quite a movement between the camps, and probably the numbers involved in that are included in the figures that I was given.
  As the Foreign Secretary knows, India takes the attitude that it is not her problem and that the situation is the result of Pakistan's military action and of the long-term difficulty between East and West Pakistan. That may be so, but, having looked at the situation as carefully as I was able and having made various contacts with the Indian High Commission and the Pakistan High Commission here and with various people out there, I cannot agree that India is not involved. She must be. As I said earlier, a considerable amount of the trouble of not being able to settle the situation between the countries arises from the appalling antipathy that has existed over the years, and there cannot be any settlement unless there is some lessening of the antipathy.
  It would have helped tremendously if only the democratically elected Government of East Pakistan had been allowed to take over. Here again, I am not trying to apportion blame. But it is clear from information that I got from various people in Pakistan that Mujib should not have "upped" his demands and should have realised from his experience as a young man of civil disobedience in India that the reaction of a British civil
  456
  administration was very likely to be totally different from that of a military dictatorship in Pakistan. Quite definitely, he made a political mistake. But that does not mitigate the appalling result of letting loose on the civil population of East Pakistan not only the Pakistan Army but, what is even worse than the military, the reserves.
  I do not want the Government to use all their pressure on Pakistan. They have to put some pressure on India as well. There has to be a climb down on both sides before the matter can be settled. The situation will be exacerbated if all the pressure is put on one side. I realise that sympathy for the refugees has created a greater feeling for India's problems than for Pakistan's, but there has to be a settlement which affects both countries. They must both climb down. On my return I wrote to Dr. Malik and pointed out forcibly that he must climb down. The climb down there would be to get Yahya Khan to talk to Mujibur, to let the people know that he is still there, and to get his opinion on how to arrive at a political settlement.
  India must not be so firm about not allowing United Nations observers to have full scope along her borders. There is no doubt that help is being given to the guerrillas. It is said that it is difficult to prevent training in guerrilla camps. I saw training of a quasi-military nature going on in one camp. India must do her best to discourage it and to let in United Nations observers. The ultimate solution is that put forward by the United Nations. I hope that India will help in that way.
  India is spending all the reserves, which she wanted to use to improve the conditions of her people, in keeping the camps going. I know that rations are low. Nevertheless, food is costing India a tremendous amount. The rest of the world must help. There is the argument that the more comfortable life is made for people in the camps the more difficult it is to get them back. That may be, but we have to see that they are reasonably well fed, particularly the children. Anyone who went to the children's hospital would be appalled to see children literally dying. It is therefore essential that we put pressure on other countries to help. It is not easy. These things are soon

  457
  forgotten. However, I hope that we can keep alive the propaganda for aid.
  My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) mentioned the possibility of dialogue with South Africa. This matter was also raised at the Commonwealth Conference. I was interested in the various arguments of Dr. Banda and some of the other African countries who are having dialogue with South Africa. I wondered whether one could do that and at the same time be against apartheid.
  I should like to tell a story about my youngest son. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) has a good head of hair, but nothing like that of my youngest son, who is a bit of a revolutionary. When the Springboks were here a couple of years ago he was planning to disrupt the game at Aberdeen so that they could not play. I argued with him. I said, "Would it not be better to go to the hotel at night, when there is a get-together after the game, and try to persuade the Springboks than to disrupt their game and make relations worse, not better?" Like all sons, he never took his farther's advice. On the following Monday morning the Daily Telegraph had a photograph of my son—fortunately unnamed—lying in the middle of the pitch at Aberdeen.
  My hon. Friend suggested that one could do both things. I do not know whether my son would have been welcomed at the hotel that night. However, I think there is something in keeping connections and dialogue with South Africa as well as being against apartheid. I am not sure that my son was not right in the first instance, but I think that he should have tried to contact them and have a dialogue as well.
  I am against apartheid. I spent a long weekend in Johannesburg recently and was appalled by what was going on there. The situation which is building up will not be solved in 100 years. They are building townships and making all the coloured people leave towns at night, and so on.
  I hope that the Government will do all that they can to bring about a solution to the problems of East and West Pakistan about which so many hon. Members have spoken.
  8.45 p.m.
  Sir Ronald RussellI apologise to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary for missing about the first five minutes of his speech this afternoon. It may be that during my absence he dealt with one or two of the points that I wish to make. If so, I hope that he will forgive me.
  I am glad to follow what was said by the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) about the value of having a dialogue, whether it be with South Africa, with Rhodesia, or with anyone else. It is much better to have "jaw, rather than war", as Sir Winston Churchill once said in a memorable speech, and I wish my right hon. Friend the greatest possible success in the talks which I hope he will have with the Rhodesian Government for a settlement of the problem, as the Gracious Speech says,
  "in accordance with the Five Principles."
  If there is a settlement in accordance with those principles, I hope that it will meet with the approval of almost everyone in the House because we are all wedded to those principles.
  The Gracious Speech says in paragraph 2 that it will be the Government's purpose
  "to maintain the North Atlantic Alliance".
  I am glad, but not surprised, to find that in the Gracious Speech, and I hope that it will include the Government's doing their utmost to get the French back into N.A.T.O. to play their proper part in it, as they did until President de Gaulle took them out. The gap created by the French is a weakness in the North Atlantic Alliance.
  The Gracious Speech talks about sustaining the Commonwealth association. I support that wholeheartedly, though I am not quite clear exactly what it means. I do not want to get involved in an argument about the Common Market, because I said my piece on that in the recent debate. But it cannot mean maintaining Commonwealth preference because, under the C.A.P., we are pledged to abandon that and to substitute Community preference.
  I hope that it means maintaining such things as the Commonwealth Prime Minister's Conference, to be held from time to time, although perhaps the last one was not the happiest of all those that have been held. I hope, too, that

  459
  the Commonwealth Finance Minister's Conference will be held from time to time, as will conferences of other Ministers, such as conferences of Education Ministers. I hope that there will be kept in being all the many bodies, listed in many reference books, which help to further the Commonwealth association. I take it that even if we join the Common Market the Government will maintain all our relationships in that respect and do all that they can to help them to work well.
  Now I come to a less happy matter, and it may be that my right hon. Friend dealt with this in my absence this afternoon. The Gracious Speech says that the Government will work for
  "improved relations with the People's Republic of China."
  I am sure that every hon. Member will agree with that, but what I am a little worried about is the way in which we supported the Albanian Resolution at the United Nations last week which, although it succeeded in getting approval for China to join the United Nations, which I whole-heartedly support, also succeeded in expelling Formosa, and I think that that is most regrettable.
  I was rather sorry that whereas we and Canada supported the Albanian Resolution, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, and other friendly countries, supported the other Resolution which would not have expelled Taiwan. It seems wrong that we should have to throw out a friend in order to placate a country which I shall not call an enemy, but which kept a number of British citizens in prison without trial over the years—and for all I know some are still in prison there. I am not sure about that—and has not acted in as friendly a way as has Taiwan. I hope that my right hon. Friend will say something about the reasons for that when he replies. That was a most unfortunate occurrence which passed almost unnoticed while we were having our discussions on the Common Market last week.
  Taiwan is a country of 14 million people and a large number of countries which are still members of the United Nations have smaller populations. Whatever its relationship with mainland China and whatever kind of Government it has, I should have thought that Taiwan
  460
  should be represented, even if only in the General Assembly—and presumably it would take its turn in being nominated for the Security Council as the years go on. We approached that subject in a most unfortunate way. I am sorry that we did not support the United States resolution instead of the Albanian resolution.
  Some hon. Members opposite have mentioned support for so-called liberation movements in Africa against Portugal and South Africa. That is not carrying on a dialogue, as an hon. Member said, but carrying on a revolution. I am sorry to think, if it is true, that the Labour Party is sponsoring a fund—presumably it is voluntary—for aiding so-called freedom fighters. It is a monstrous thing to do, because it is aiding revolutionaries and nothing else.
  When I was in South Africa a few weeks ago I was taken to an exhibition of weapons captured by the Rhodesian forces from freedom fighters who had come across the Zambesi, presumably from Zambia. They were a nasty-looking lot of weapons, supplied mainly by Czechoslovakia, Russia and China, with one or two German and French ones. It is natural that arms get mixed up in this way. That is the sort of thing to which they may be subscribing if they launch a fund of that kind.
  I hope that those concerned will put conditions on it, to say that it is to be used not for the purchase of weapons of that kind but only for medical equipment or things like that. These people are not freedom fighters it] our meaning of the word "freedom": they are revolutionaries. They would almost certainly set up a Communist dictatorship as happened in Zanzibar, which we do not seem to be able to do anything about, and not a democracy, as some hon. Members may think. This is not freedom but tyranny, and that is what they would set up.
  Mr. Paget: Perhaps when the Minister replies he will tell us whether it is lawful to raise money to finance assassins in neighbour States and, if it be lawful, whether we have any objection to the Irish doing it to us.
  Sir R. Russell: I leave my right hon. Friend to deal with that point.

  461
  I hope that he will also deal with the points that I have made. I hope that, in the years ahead, in our dealings with the Common Market, we shall do all we can to maintain Commonwealth association and the kindred associations which are listed in so many books and which have helped towards maintaining the Commonwealth and our relations with it in recent years.
  8.54 p.m.
  Mr. Ben FordThe hon. Member for Wembley, South (Sir R. Russell) will no doubt forgive me if I do not follow the sense of his remarks. I should like, first, to apologise to the House for not having sat through the whole of the debate. Among other things, I have had a very heavy mail to deal with.
  I should like to take this opportunity, which is not open in any other way, of diverting the debate away from the direction in which it was opened. I want to direct my remarks to the question of our relations with Latin America.
  Because of its remoteness and lack of revolutions requiring intervention, Latin America is often overlooked in our debates on foreign affairs. In any event, I often think that subjects that arise in our foreign affairs debates are cyclical and subject to fashion. In other words, an area can receive a lot of attention for a while and then not be mentioned for a considerable time.
  I intervene in the debate as an officer of the British-Latin American Joint Parliamentary Group and I feel sure that the Chairman of the Group, the hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple), would wish me to place on record the fact that he is unable to be here because he is a delegate with our United Nations mission in New York.
  Britain has very old and still reasonably solid connections with Latin America, although they have been languishing somewhat of late. Following the independence of countries in Latin America, there is a great residue of affection for Britain, the British people and our ways. This year we celebrated the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Carobobo in Venezuela. An organisation called the British Legion took part in that skirmish and to it is
  462
  ascribed the turning point in the battle for Venezuelan independence.
  Venezuela is now firmly established in the ways of democracy and is extremely proud of the fact that at the last general election the party which had formed the Government was beaten and handed over power to the victors in a genuinely democratic manner. The House will wish to congratulate the Venezuelan people on what they have achieved.
  A number of experiments in government are taking place in Latin America. For example, in Chile there is an attempt at democratic Marxism. President Allende is walking a very difficult path there. Nevertheless, it is interesting and welcoming to note that these experiments are taking place.
  Marxism leads inevitably to public ownership and in Peru, close to Chile, there is a military government who, strangely enough, are taking the path of public ownership There is an interesting situation in Columbia. There was a status quo in government there, where the the parties have been taking it in turn to govern, and some interesting developments should be occurring in that country.
  A country I find particularly fascinating in Latin America is Brazil. The size of that country can scarcely be imagined. The whole map of Europe can easily be superimposed over it. British business men are often at a loss when they are told by their London firms to leave the part of Brazil in which they happen to be staying to see a potential customer in another part of the country. That can mean travelling up to 5,000 miles.
  Brazil has what one might describe as a semi-military government. I visited Brazil earlier this year, following an I.P.U. conference in Venezuela. While there I had the honour of meeting a number of Brazilian Ministers. I got the impression that they were dedicated to raising Brazil from its purely agricultural, semi-illiterate past to a primary power in Latin America and a major power on the world scene.
  They seem to be doing everything at once in Brazil, and their efforts may provide an object lesson to us. There is a strict regime of planning and, astonishing though it may seem, in the last three or four years they have managed to reduce inflation and at the same time to increase

  463
  their gross national product. They are building roads. They are building houses. They have a great educational programme. Social services are being instituted. They have projects so huge as to be almost beyond imagination—hydroelectric power schemes, the trans-Amazonian highway going right across the north of the country—and an organisation called Sudene which is carrying out a very intensive and effective regional development policy in the north-east of Brazil.
  My purpose in intervening now is to ask the Government to pay a little more public attention to Latin America. I believe that there is now in sight political stability for most of the Latin American countries. I realise that the Government receive and offer hospitality to many Latin American visitors, who are always immensely pleased to come to the House of Commons and observe parliamentary practices. There is the very pleasing feature that there appears to be in sight now an opportunity to erect in this country a statute to Simon Bolivar, which will greatly please the Bolivarian States.
  Any assistance, particularly technical assistance, that we can offer to Latin America will give them great hope and great encouragement. I hope that the Government will take note of these remarks and that, perhaps, they may be referred to by the Minister of State.
  9.2 p.m.
  Mrs. Judith HartI am delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Ford), because I, too, was in Latin America during the Summer Recess and visited three of the four countries he mentioned. I have come back feeling very glad that it was during my own period of office in connection with overseas development that we began the initial aid programme for Latin America, stretching a little beyond the limited amount of technical assistance formerly given. I come back, too, feeling that there are immense opportunities in Latin America for extending British co- operation and friendship, and the rest. I was therefore delighted to hear what my hon. Friend said.
  This has been a very extensive and wide-ranging debate, and although the attendance has been small, we have had some extremely interesting and extremely
  464
  good speeches from both sides. I want to concentrate my remarks on two or three of the major themes that have emerged. While I recognise that his hon. Friends will expect from the Minister of State his comments on the British Note to the United Nations on the subject of China, perhaps I can begin by saying to the right hon. Gentleman that this is one area where we wish to say, "Very well done." I should like to tell his hon. Friends that I hope that I have the same view as that which the Minister of State himself will have, which is that it has always seemed very clear that a two-China policy would not be a workable formula for getting China into the United Nations. That being so, it is somewhat naÏve to suppose that one could at the same time wish China in, yet vote in some way other than the way in which the British Government cast their vote. That is the reality of the situation.
  Mr. Woodhouse: Perhaps I may draw the right hon. Lady's attention to the fact that this was clearly not the view of the United States Government and many other United Nations members. Is the right hon. Lady suggesting that they were naïve?
  Mrs. Hart: The problem is that there were varying degrees of the will to have China admitted to the United Nations, and one can only say that those who voted as Britain voted genuinely thought that to bring about Chinese admission at this point, any other vote would not have achieved the same result. It is a difference in the will and purpose of the countries which voted in their different ways.
  In turning to what I think ought to be one of the major themes of the debate, which is East Bengal, I want to point out to the Foreign Secretary and to the Minister of State that while we have been talking, as we have talked in this House since the spring—I think that it was in fairly early April that we had our first discussion of the matter—the situation has escalated to a point at which we are not only talking of the human misery but reading headlines like that in The Guardian last week:
  "Waiting for the war to start."
  and in The Times last week,
  "Obsession with War on the Indian sub-Continent."

  465
  This situation has escalated far beyond the point at which it began and of our original discussions of it in the spring.
  The seriousness of the situation and the elements of the escalation can be put into several categories. There is the serious danger of war, a matter to which I shall return shortly. But first, there is the very considerable likelihood of famine in East Pakistan. There are differing reports, and nobody can be quite certain about it, but most of the authoritative reports suggest that it is very likely that the shortfall in food supplies, taken together with the breakdown of transportation, will result in a very considerable going over the edge from the marginal existence diet into famine for many millions of people in East Pakistan. That is the first element, and it will be upon us within a matter of two or three weeks if the very well-founded reports are correct.
  Second, not only has Sheikh Mujib not been released but he is still under sentence of death. That is hardly a way of fulfilling what Members on both sides of the House were agreed about in the spring and summer—that Sheikh Mujib was a vital element in any political settlement that might persuade the refugees to return home.
  Third—and we should be very wrong and ill-advised to overlook this new factor the Bangla Desh movement has developed very effectively and, more and more, public opinion in many countries is beginning to accept the arguments put forward by the Bangla Desh movement.
  Fourth, there are immense strains on the Indian economy. As the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary said, other countries have certainly not matched the scale of British help. I hope that the recent announcement of further British help will be part of a continuing process that provides more assistance as assistance is needed if the crisis continues. But it is only a tiny fraction of the total cost to India. We now hear that the cost of the refugees, and the cost of increasing defence measures—in itself a reflection of the escalating situation— have led to the introduction of new taxes and to the use of deficit financing. It is clear that the Indian economy will be in considerable danger if the situation continues much longer.
  466
  I turn to the dangers of war. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) mentioned the memorandum issued in July by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. One of the extraordinary features of the impact of that memorandum—I think that my right hon. Friend will agree; I have double checked my facts on this— is that no news of this crucial memorandum was published in any British newspaper at any time. Apparently when something is issued in New York at about four o'clock, it reaches the British Press too late for the next day's editions, and by the time it reaches London the Press is no longer interested.
  This is a most extraordinary state of affairs. In this situation no one, unless he was lucky enough to receive the information direct from the United Nations information service, knew that this was a request from U Thant to the world to take notice of what he was then regarding as a most dire situation and that it was an opportunity for any member of the Security Council to take up that memorandum and to say, "Let us now discuss it in the Security Council".
  The Foreign Secretary knows that during the summer my right hon. Friend and I urged him to give careful thought to the question whether Britain should itself take an initiative in the Security Council to bring the matter before the United Nations. We understood the counter arguments, not those which the right hon. Gentleman put forward specifically but those which we understood to be the counter arguments—that to do that it was necessary to have the agreement of India, certainly, and preferably of Pakistan also; that India was greatly afraid that, if the matter were to be raised at the United Nations, it would become almost inevitably, as she thought, an India-versus-Pakistan issue, as indeed it is now beginning to be.
  Nevertheless, we felt that, as the situation in East Bengal was increasing in seriousness, and as the steps that Yahya Khan was apparently prepared to take were inadequate to solve the problem, perhaps that was the moment when the British Government should have taken the initiative.
  I do not believe that it is any longer sufficient merely—I do not say "merely" in any sense as a deprecation of the

  467
  efforts that the Foreign Secretary has been making—to exercise private pressures. If the private pressures had any hope of being effective, they would have been effective already. That they have not been effective is to be measured by the seriousness of the present situation of the Indian subcontinent.
  We on this side believe that, with the special responsibility of the British Commonwealth and with the membership of the British Commonwealth of both India and Pakistan, Britain has a special international rôle and that, unless that role is exercised publicly, other countries cannot be expected to respond to the urgency of the situation.
  An opportunity will arise soon, for I understand that the Third Committee of the United Nations is to meet on 15th November and that efforts are being made to table a resolution and to have it taken at that Committee, which could then put its report before the General Assembly. What attitude and what action does the British Mission propose to take in view of this possibility?
  U Thant, in a memorandum sent to Mrs. Gandhi and to Yahya Khan on 27th October, said this:
  "I have in mind both recent indications of a worsening situation on the borders of East Pakistan and the reports of the growing tension on the border between West Pakistan and India and on the cease-fire line in Jammu and Kashmir."
  Those words of U Thant, coupled with what he said in July, should make us recognise that we are talking about the kind of war situation which could well, were war to break out, escalate into an involvement of the great Powers. We know of the treaty between the Soviet Union and India, of the traditional rôle which China has been occupying in relation to Pakistan, and of the very unfortunate continuing supply of arms by the United States to Pakistan.
  I cannot envisage a situation in which if war were to break out between India and Pakistan on any of the frontiers involved, there would not be a gradual involvement, first through arms supply and secondly extending possibly into training and help with personnel. In those circumstances I cannot envisage that war being contained totally between India and Pakistan. That is the measure
  468
  of the seriousness of the events facing us. The right initiatives must be taken and these must first of all be a declaration by the international community that it regards itself as involved. That is most likely to come if the British Government are prepared to take a lead and to make that kind of declaration.
  I turn to another matter mentioned by the Foreign Secretary, the difficult question confronting the United States in terms of the Senate decision on aid. It is a classic situation. It has been clear to many of us fortunate enough to have friends in the States deeply concerned over the whole question of the developing countries that there was a familiar pattern of association of ideas operating in the United States. It is rather like the word game one plays at parties. "Foreign aid means foreign involvement, which means military involvement —which led to Vietnam. We must get out of Vietnam, therefore let us have nothing to do with foreign involvement and thus nothing to do with aid."
  This is the motivation that inspires the wide public apathy towards aid in the United States and it is the inspiration of liberal criticism in the States— not conservative criticism. Conservative criticism in the States is much more that aid is a bad thing and that there should be total isolationism. With the liberals it stems directly from the situation produced by the Vietnam War.
  There is a remedy which President Nixon has accepted but for which he has not yet legislated. The difficulty in the United States legislature—and we can be thankful that we are so different—is that foreign and military aid are mixed in their appropriations. What President Nixon did last January was to accept the recommendations of the Peterson Report which recommended a total division of the two, so that people could vote for either military aid or economic aid. The situation would not then arise which arose in Congress and the Senate last week. It is a decision which will be immensely serious unless the President and his advisers can resolve it.
  Although it is correct that the American contribution of official aid has been running in 1969– ·31 per cent., nevertheless that figure represents an immense gross amount and the loss of

  469
  that aid would be a very serious matter for the developing world. We should send out from this House—we seem to be getting used to making comments on each other's affairs—a message that we very much hope that the Senate and Congress will find it possible so to organise their attitudes towards the developing world that it need not be starved of the transfer of resources essential for development.
  That leads me to our Government's attitude towards aid and to a point arising from the Gracious Speech, namely the legislation which the Government promise to introduce by way of an insurance scheme to assist private investment primarily in developing countries. We shall have things to say about that. It is a sensible idea but we observe with great regret that there is this very clear distinction between the Government's policy on development assistance and our own. They consciously seek to give greater emphasis to private investment, whereas we sought to give greater emphasis to official investment. They have not accepted a separate target for official development assistance, whereas we did so in the summer of 1970. Therefore, we shall have our criticisms to make on this matter during the year. Certainly we shall criticise any diversion of official aid resources to support private investment.
  Whatever one may say about aid, what k certain is that these days trade is of infinitely greater importance to the developing countries. I wish to make two brief comments on the effect of entry into the Common Market on the developing countries in terms of their trade prospects. There is a euphoric assumption that, if we go into the Community, the developing world will be greatly helped; that we, and other countries in the Common Market, will be able to do more for the developing world.
  Let me indicate one difficulty in this theory. When we go in—if we go in— we shall have to harmonise, which is a very attractive euphemism in all these matters, our system of generalised preferences with that of the E.E.C. The E.E.C. system came into operation in July ; ours is due to come into operation in January. There are very sharp differences between the two. Unfor-
  470
  tunately, there is little doubt that it will be ours that will be sacrificed to theirs.
  Our scheme has no restrictive quotas. The E.E.C. scheme has restrictive quotas. It is worth noting that a major recommendation of the Pearson Commission was that quota systems, on precisely the goods covered by the E.E.C. scheme, should be abolished. We have observed the Pearson Commission's proposals on this matter, whereas the E.E.C. has not. Yet we shall have to abandon our better behaviour in this country for that of the E.E.C.
  I can best support my argument on this matter by repeating what was said by the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble), Minister for Trade, in Committee on the Finance Bill upstairs in May when the generalised preference scheme was going through the House. The right hon. Gentleman obviously had been well briefed by his officials who know about trade but, unfortunately, the Foreign Office had failed to brief him at all. He then said:
  "I prefer our view"
  that is to say, the British generalised preference scheme—
  "it is more liberal and … much more valuable to the countries concerned."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee H, 24th May, 1971; c. 34.]
  Yet this is what is to be sacrificed. Quotas are highly restrictive and unaccommodating towards developing countries. The details of the E.E.C. scheme make it a very difficult quota scheme indeed. Imports are to be limited to the value of imports of specified items in 1968, with an addition of 5 per cent. of the value of increased imports from E.E.C. sources since then. The way this is likely to operate has been described by more than one economist as a monument to the bureaucrats of Brussels. Let us, there- fore, abandon the assumption that the developing countries will be better off if we go into the Community, because they will not.
  There is one suggestion I should like to make to the Foreign Secretary which is a matter the Chancellor of the Exchequer could think about. The Chancellor will be much involved in the next few months in discussions on international monetary reform. A month or two ago he made an interesting speech which included proposals about special drawing

  471
  rights. If we are to have new proposals on international monetary matters in the next few months, I hope he will give some attention to the possibility of including in any new reforms a system of S.D.R.s to give much greater benefit to the developing countries. This, above all, would be a contribution which could be made in the next 12 months. One of the direst, most acute problems almost always, certainly in Latin America, and in Africa and many Asian countries, too, is the crippling shortage of foreign exchange and balance of payments difficulties, and S.D.R.s can be the key to effective help to the developing world. This could be embraced in the discussions which will be going on over the much wider subject of monetary reform.
  Next I want to make two comments on the African situation. I want, first of all, to take up a comment which one or two of my hon. Friends have made—my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon), my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North and others have mentioned it and that is what the Foreign Secretary said this afternoon about the appalling treatment of the Dean of Johannesburg. We all, I think, accept that there can be the problem of avoiding any ill effects to him of comments which might be made publicly. Of course one accepts that. But I find it very difficult to recall any similar situation, in any South African context, or in the context of any other country, involving the treatment in so appalling a way of a citizen, let alone one of the most distinguished Churchmen we know, which has been allowed to pass without its having been made perfectly clear what are the British Government's reactions. If the Foreign Secretary, as I am quite certain is the case, is ensuring that our Ambassador in South Africa is visiting the Foreign Minister and having discussions on this matter, and would let us know, that would do something to help to meet public opinion.
  I came to the conclusion some time ago that one of the problems in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—and this applies to both Ministers and officials —is that while they are compulsive communicators with one another, they are compulsive non-communicators with the outside world. This is one of the prob-
  472
  lems. The right hon. Gentleman should find a way of making clear to the public the concern which, I am quite sure, he feels about this.
  Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I would say right away to the right hon. Lady that of course we have been making continual representations where we thought they would be most effective for securing proper treatment for the Dean. The British Goverment's responsibility is to do all they can for him as a British citizen. A way of doing it may be after his appeal. Of course we detest the laws under which this kind of thing happens, but we have made constant representations all the time about the Dean and his future.
  Mrs. Hart: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that. I think it will be of some degree of reassurance to a great many people.
  Finally, I would turn to what seems to me to be the general theme which has emerged during our debate, whatever the particular subject we have been discussing. I make reference to what the Prime Minister said at the Conservative Party Conference last month when he talked of the new world, the new patterns of power, the voices of new nations, the exciting and dynamic and dangerous new world. I have no doubt at all that he immensely stirred his audience with what, I suppose, the Press at its most kind would call his clear-eyed vision and his bold analysis. And there was his eagerness—I must not forget this—
  "to walk out into the light—to walk out to meet our destiny".
  Very heady stuff. He claimed—and this has been part of the theme of this debate —that
  "Britain's voice is being heard in the world again."
  What sort of voice? And what is it saying? And on whose behalf? It is saying that Britain shall sell arms to South Africa. It is resisting world opinion on Namibia—South-West Africa. It is regarding support and friendship for the totally oppressive Government of Portugal as overriding any concern for the just and crucial cause of the liberation movements in East Africa. The Foreign Office was adamant in refusing to see Dr. Cabral, a distinguished figure in the liberal movement, when he came here

  473
  I am happy to say that he was entertained in the House of Commons. We do not know what is being said in Salisbury. We must wait for next week's statement, but we wait for it with great anxiety.
  The theme of this debate is that the two sides of the House hear Britain's voice in the world very differently. We on this side do not want to stand proudly alone on South Africa and Portugal at the United Nations. We dissociate ourselves from the narrow and blinkered concept the Government are taking of Britain's international rôle. We see the Government regarding Britain, and Britain within the Common Market, as going into a protective regional bloc with what the Prime Minister has called a unity of political and defence strategy. This has emerged more clearly since the vote was taken last Thursday.
  We want to see our links with the Commonwealth, our links across the Atlantic, our links with the E.F.T.A. countries, and our links, above all, with those nations who are part of the real New World, evolving and changing. As we fight our way through on the Common Market we shall be fighting for our vision of internationalism against that of the Tory Party. In all our attitudes, whether to affairs in Asia or in South Africa, there is clearly to be seen a sharp difference of interpretation, a difference of analysis, a difference of approach, a very different kind of vision.
  9.32 p.m.
  The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Joseph Godber): I am sure the peroration of the right hon. Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) would have been loudly cheered had the troops been behind her, but on this occasion we both lack the degree of support we should have liked to have. We understand that pressure of business has been heavy in recent weeks. No doubt in the international sphere many hon. Members feel a little exhausted after the Common Market marathon. As the right hon. Lady said in opening her speech, we have had an interesting and valuable debate. A number of important issues have been raised, and I shall seek to deal with as many of them as I can in the time remaining.
  Two themes have emerged. One is the concern which has been displayed on both sides of the House about the condi-
  474
  tions in East Bengal and the refugees in India. This is a matter on which we all feel deeply anxious, and I shall come back to it in some detail. The other theme, referred to by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), was the question of East-West dialogue, confrontation or discussion, and that again I will return to.
  Before doing so, I will touch on one or two matters which have been dealt with during the debate. The right hon. Lady when she spoke of aid targets chided us on this side of the House for not having accepted the 0·7 per cent. target for public aid and reminded us that her party had accepted it. It is true that it was in the Labour Party manifesto for the last General Election, but this was not accepted by the Labour Government when they had power to implement it, so we shall have to see what hapens if and when we have a Labour Government again. We believe that both public and private aid is of extreme importance. We wish to see both going ahead, but we are not prepared at this stage to tie ourselves specifically to a percentage for either of them. What my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said about the achievement of a 1 per cent. target overall is something we can all take credit for as a nation.
  May I say how interested I was to hear the comments of the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Ford) about South America. That part of the world is not often discussed in the House, and I welcomed very much what the hon. Gentleman said. The countries of South America have a very important part to play in the future of world affairs and world trade. The hon. Gentleman was absolutely right to draw attention to the enormous potentialities of various South American countries, particularly Brazil. Not only do I share the hon. Gentleman's views but I hope to visit a number of these countries in the fairly near future. We have plans for meetings in this country next spring to call attention to the great opportunities which exist there. I therefore hope that we shall be able to do something to show our interest.
  I do not wish to say anything about Rhodesia because my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has made it clear that he intends to make a statement and we shall be having a debate next week.

  475
  There is therefore no point in my going into detail in answering the comments which have been made, although I am sure that my right hon. Friend will study carefully what has been said.
  Specific mention has however been made of the Epworth mission. As I understand it, no evictions have taken place. What Sir Philip Adams said was because he had ascertained and had received an assurance that any action of that kind would be suspended. He therefore thought it right to make it clear that this matter did not enter into the discussions. If our discussions succeed, this will be one matter which conditions created by an agreement will turn to advantage. We are in no position to enforce anything at the moment, but this is one factor which can be materially helped. The fact that nothing is being done is an indication that there is an attempt to meet us.
  Turning to the question of the Middle East, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East asked about Britain's readiness to participate in some form of guarantee arrangements with the necessary forces. We have made it clear that we should be willing to do so if others were also willing and we would only be too glad to assist in this concrete way to produce results.
  The question of the Middle East is extraordinarily frustrating. I have been involved in it a good deal and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has been even more involved. While we are most anxious to find ways forward, we still have to cling to Resolution 242 as being the only basis on which there can be agreement. While the Americans are going ahead with their efforts to secure an interim arrangement. I think that the general feeling is that it is not possible for us to get much further forward with anything else. I discussed this matter with Dr. Jarring only three weeks ago in New York and he con- firmed that this was his feeling. There- fore, while we shall try to make progress if the opportunity arises—and we are in constant contact with all the other people affected—it is very difficult and we must see if the American proposals for an interim arrangement make progress.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Middle- ton and Prestwich (Mr. Haselhurst)
  476
  spoke about limited measures towards a final solution. I agree with what he said. What I have just said indicates our general approach.
  I turn to the question of India and Pakistan which has deeply aroused the emotions of the House and about which we all feel acutely anxious. Many right hon. and hon. Members have referred to the dangers of conflict between India and Pakistan. I believe that it is a matter which represents the greatest problem of human misery since the Second World War, and it poses the potential disaster of a major armed conflict.
  In addition to the dangers of conflict, many right hon. and hon. Members have dwelt on the urgent and pressing problem of aid to the refugees. This is a matter on which both my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development have spent long and anxious hours. As regards direct aid, Britain was one of the first in the field, and recently we have added to our previous contribution a further £7½ million for refugees in India and £1 million for those in Pakistan. Only the United States has contributed more, and in India we have contributed one- fifth of the total. Of the £7¼ million that we contributed earlier to India, all has now been committed. Most of it was devoted to food, medical supplies, transport and blankets. We are now discussing with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees how the new contribution of £7½ million may be spent most effectively.
  As for the size of the problem, to which the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) referred specifically, the India Consortium at its meeting on 26th October assessed the total requirement during the current financial year as being about £280 million. Of this amount, about £56 million has been contributed already through United Nations channels, and it was estimated earlier that a further £34 million had been contributed through other channels.
  It is clear from those figures that the need for further contributions is urgent and pressing and, having made this further contribution ourselves, I think that we are entitled to call on other nations to match the sort of contributions that

  477
  we have made. To Pakistan, we announced a contribution of a further £1 million on 18th October. This doubles our total contribution so far to East Pakistan.
  The overall need in Pakistan is less than in India, but the situation is very serious, as many right hon. and hon. Members have pointed out today. One of the pressing problems there is the distribution of foodstuffs. What is needed especially is the means of distributing foodstuffs after they arrive at Chittagong. In addition to the supply of road vehicles, we have helped with a number of small vessels for the transport of food by water, and two tugs from this country are due to arrive in Chittagong before the end of the month. At present, we are discussing with the United Nations the possibility of supplying 100 Land Rovers, 50 three- ton trucks and a number of dumper trucks each capable of carrying two tons of food. That is by no means an exhaustive list. I give these details merely to indicate a measure of what we are doing to help.
  Mr. Stonehouse: Will the right hon. Gentleman obtain guarantees from the Pakistan authorities that vehicles provided for spreading relief supplies are not requisitioned by the Pakistan forces?
  Mr. Godber: We have no reason to believe that they have been so far, and the U.N. is very much involved in their distribution. If there were any such action, certainly we should wish to make a strong protest. It is only fair to say that we have no information at all that that has happened.
  As regards the other aspect of immediate need for help which was referred to by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East—the Orissa cyclone, which has caused great devastation and hardship—already we have provided the relief to which I have referred, but in this case we are considering what we can do in addition. If the Indian Government need help, we shall be ready to respond immediately. In particular, we stand ready to supply immediately anti-cholera vaccines, if they are needed. I understand that the authorities have certain supplies available, but we are ready to reinforce those immediately in case of need.
  478
  So far, I have been discussing aid. But, urgent though it is, it is only a part of the story. What is just as urgent is the need for a political solution so that we can get the return of the refugees to their homes. In this regard there is a real danger of war at the present time. The situation is acknowledged on both sides of the House as being extremely dangerous. But both India and Pakistan have stressed that they have no intention of initiating aggressive action. However, the risk of an outbreak of hostilities is there and many believe that it is growing the whole time.
  We have had many references to the possibility of action by the United Nations. A possible peace-keeping rôle for the United Nations cannot be achieved unless and until they have a mandate for such action. This requires the passage of an appropriate resolution by the Security Council. This is only a practical possibility if both the countries concerned agree to such a presence. Up to the pre- sent moment, despite much discussion in private, it has been impossible to make progress on this aspect.
  The right hon. Member for Lanark spoke with feeling on this matter. I understand her feeling. But I do not think that there is any way that we can bypass the feelings of others on the matter. The right hon. Lady spoke of Britain's special position, but it is difficult to see how we can make progress against the general feeling that it would not be helpful to have a discussion at the United Nations. I expect something will emerge before long. Concerning the Third Committee Meeting, I have not seen what resolution may be proposed. I should think that in any case the emphasis in that Committee may be on aid, whereas what is required is emphasis on political action.
  Mrs. Hart: I fully appreciate that. I think that it has been in the minds of some people in New York that at least if we could get a discussion in the Third Committee this could lead to other things on the other aspects.
  Mr. Godber: Yes, it is a possibility. We certainly would not be hostile to anything of this kind. It must depend on the type of resolution which came forward. I think that something could be

  479
  brought forward either in the Security Council, which is where I should prefer to see it, or in the General Assembly. Certainly we should be only too glad to support any proposal which is genuinely believed to be helpful. We certainly do not rule out the suggestion made by the right hon. Lady in this regard.
  Mr. Healey: I understand that there has been some discussion of the problem between the Soviet and the American Governments. Will the Minister tell us whether there is any chance of the major powers external to the conflict reaching agreement in the near future, because I think it will be agreed that this may now be a question of days rather than weeks.
  Mr. Godber: I could not give any indication that this is likely to succeed at the moment. So far we have had no indication that it will be possible to get a consensus. I discussed this matter with U Thant in New York only three weeks ago. The feeling which I got from him, as well as from the other countries involved, was that it was not possible at this stage to get agreement. There will be some complication about attitudes with the arrival of China, and this we have to acknowledge. We are ready to have a discussion in the United Nations, and we have let that be known to all the other people concerned. It is not we who are preventing discussion. If we felt that it would be helpful, we would initiate something ourselves. Indeed, at times we have considered doing this; but, on balance, our feeling has been that it would be better not to do so up to now. I do not rule it out. We are pressing ahead with this very worrying matter so far as we can. In the meantime, we are in close touch with the other governments, including the United States, on all the matters arising from this situation.
  I hope that it will be possible before long to have some adequate discussion so that we can see whether the United Nations can move forward in the matter. Indeed, when I was in New York I said that it was unfortunate, to put it at its lowest, that the international organisation there had been unable so far to initiate action on what is the most dangerous issue in the world at the moment. We feel much the same as many hon. Members who have spoken about this matter.
  480
  I now turn to a question which has been raised by a number of my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse), Torquay (Sir F. Bennett) and Wembley, South (Sir R. Russell), that of our vote on China's joining the United Nations. I was grateful for the congratulations which came from the other side of the House, but I think that at some stage they could embarrass me a little if they became too warm, because I do not think that there is any great difference between myself and my hon. Friends. I think that it is a misunderstanding more than anything else.
  What was at issue on this occasion was quite simply who should represent China at the United Nations. Both the Government in Peking, and the authorities in Taiwan, claimed to be the rightful representatives of the people of China, and there is only one seat for China. There has been a lot of sympathy for the proposition that both mainland China and Taiwan should be represented. The two-Chinas solution is superficially attractive, but it does not take into account the fact that neither Peking nor Taiwan is willing to accept that there could be a two-Chinas solution, since they both claim to represent the whole of China. That is the position.
  Our policy at the United Nations has been consistently to support the seating of Peking. To that end we have voted since 1961. When it was first tabled we voted in favour of the Albanian resolution, and our vote this year was not therefore new. We have been voting in the same way for exactly 10 years, but the difference is in relation to the procedural Motion. Last year the Albanian resolution obtained a simple majority for the first time, although it was not adopted because the Assembly had previously decided that this was an "Important Question", and in the terms of the Charter that means that it requires a two-thirds majority. Up until last year we had always voted for the "Important Question" resolution, but after the voting last year it was clear that if we and others continued to do so, the result could be to keep Peking out merely by a procedural motion.
  Previously the voting had been such that this was really an academic question, but in the changed circumstances we and

  481
  others decided that we could not continue to vote in that way. We therefore made clear that we would not this year support any procedural device designed to delay Peking's entry, and that is the real point to be made to my hon. Friends. The United States realised what the position was, and in moving the "reverse Important Question", as they did, that was designed to maintain the present position. We felt that we could not support that, because we took the view that that would not be right in the circumstances which now exist.
  I repeat that there is one seat for China. Both the Communists and the Nationalists continue to claim to represent all China. In those circumstances, we take the view that the exclusion of the 14 million inhabitants of Taiwan is a lesser evil than the continued exclusion of the representatives of 750 million people in China. That really is the situation, and I think my hon. Friends will realise that this is the best solution that we could work for, because we believe that it is in the interests of the United Nations as a whole that the largest country should not be excluded.
  Peking's admission to the United Nations surely marks the starting point for an entirely new era in what up to now has been looked upon as the problem of East-West relations. What we have been talking about as East-West relations will become more and more a sort of triangular issue in which there will be three different blocs, two of which perhaps have the name of Communists, but which vary very much in their approach. There will be the Western group, and two large Communist Power groups in the United Nations, and I think that that will create an entirely different situation there. It will be a more realistic one, and one which may cause problems for us but, nevertheless, I believe that the reality of these Power blocs has to be acknowledge, and that we hive to work on that basis.
  China's emergence at the United Nations marks a widening of attitudes and of arguments. We do not as yet know how the representatives of Peking will conduct themselves. After their exclusion for all these years no one can blame them if, at first, their interventions are a trifle discordant. It is not for
  482
  us in the West to seek to dictate to others how they should act towards newcomers, but I am sure what our posture should be—that is, to welcome their arrival and to listen with interest to their views.
  We find the ideology which they profess just as distasteful as that of any other Communist régime, because we believe in the virtues of the free democratic society in which we live. But we recognise the importance of the position which a nation of such dominant size must occupy and we will assess their words and actions at the United Nations realistically, on the basis of how they affect Britain's interests and Britain's position in the world.
  I hope that China's emergence will help to impart some new sense of realism to discussions in that body, just as I hope that it will lead to closer bilateral contact between China and other nations—in which I include ourselves.
  Meanwhile, in our relations with the Soviet Union, there are various ways in which we and our N.A.T.O. partners can help to develop the degree of dialogue which is now in train. I do not accept the criticisms in regard to the question of the expulsion of spies which have been uttered in this debate and I do not think there is any need for me to reiterate what my right hon. Friend said—that this was a straightforward issue. I think that the Russians recognise it as such and I do not believe that it will affect our longterm relations in any way.
  But I believe that we now have an important and continuing part to play in expanding dialogues with the Soviet Union and that the N.A.T.O. Powers and the Soviet Union together have many points of contact which can be developed. Among these initiatives, the Ostpolitik of Willy Brandt, as the right hon. Member for Leeds, East said, has helped to bring fresh movement, particularly in regard to Berlin.
  If we can now see this brought to a firm conclusion, the opportunities for a Conference on European Security will begin to take shape. But I must say to the right hon. Gentleman that, not for the first time, I thought that he was talking a degree of nonsense when he talked about Britain acting as a brake in these matters. I reject that.
  Mr. Healey: I was quoting—
  Mr. Godber: The right hon. Gentleman can quote what he likes, but I can tell him what I think of what he quotes and of what he says.
  Britain will be prepared to play a full part in this Conference, but we shall want to see adequate preparations to ensure that it is given some chance to start on a sound basis. In the same way, we believe that the discussion an M.B.F.R.s can bear useful fruit. I myself took part in the Conference of Deputy Foreign Ministers in Brussels a month ago and pledged Britain's full support for the steps which we then discussed.
  In particular, the choice of Signor Brozio was a very happy one and I hope that his activities as "explorer" will pro- vide very fruitful results. That is the best way to help forward this whole question of M.B.F.R.s. There is much more that I could say on the subject but I must curtail my remarks and merely say that the great thing is to get a positive response from the Russians. This depends on the Soviet Union being really willing to move forward on the question of M.B.F.R.s. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East must know better than anyone the complicated nature of getting a fair basis for reductions, and therefore there must be the fullest discussions in this regard.
  The Soviet Union proposed at the United Nations only yesterday a new world disarmament conference. We would be willing to participate in such a body, but there is already the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament. However, if this proposal is designed to bring in the Chinese, we should certainly not be opposed to it.
  It is in this field of East-West dialogue. and with the involvement of other nations including the Peking Government, that we can perhaps look forward at last to better understanding, and, if there is genuine good will, I believe, to the easement of tension. But we must be satisfied in all these matters that there is the good- will and the desire for détente. Then Britain will play her full part. We are not dragging our feet. We have not done so and we are as anxious as anyone to make progress in this field.
  So on these various matters, the Government believe that we are making progress. While in some areas the pro-
  484
  gress is slow, and in regard to the question of India and Pakistan we are most anxious, and worried about the prospects, but we shall not avoid any opportunity of seeking to make that further progress which I know the whole House wishes.
  Debate adjourned—[Mr. Speed].
  Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

  PRIVILEGES
  Ordered,
  That the Committee of Privileges do consist of seventeen members.
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Boyd-Carpentér, Mr. Wiliam Deedes, Mr. Hugh Fraser, Mr. Patrick Gordon Walker, Mr. Douglas Houghton, Sir Elwyn Jones, Mr. Charles Pannell, Mr. Fred Peart, Mr. J. Enoch Powell, Sir Peter Rawlinson, Mr Sandys, Mr. G. R. Strauss, Mr. Jeremy Thorpe, Sir Robin Turton, Sir Derek Walker-Smith. Mr. William Whitelaw, and Mr. Harold Wilson be members of the Committee.
  Ordered,
  That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records.
  Ordered,
  That six be the Quorum of the Committee.
  Ordered,
  That the matters of the complaints—

  (1) made on 14th July, 1971, relating to a matter reported in the Sun newspaper of that day and referred to the Committee of Privileges on 19th July in the last Session of Parliament, and

  (2) made on 21st October, namely, the publication of an article in the Daily Mail newspaper of that day and referred to the Committee of Privileges on 22nd October in the last Session of Parliament,

  be referred to the Committee.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]

  CIVIL LIST
  Ordered,
  That a Select Committee be appointed to consider Her Majesty's most gracious Message of 19th May in the last Session of Parliament relating to the Civil List and other matters connected therewith.
  Ordered,
  That the several Papers presented that day relating to the Civil List be referred to the Committee.
  ordered,
  That the Committee do consist of Seventeen members.
  ordered,
  That Mr. Joel Barnett, Mr. Boyd-Carpenter, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Chichester-Clark, Mrs Peggy Fenner, Mr. W. W. Hamilton, Mr. Douglas Houghton, Mr. Roy Jenkins, Miss Joan Lestor, Sir Fitzroy Maclean, Mr. Charles Pannell, Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas, Mr. John Stradling Thomas, Mr. Jeremy Thorpe, Sir Robert Turton, Mr William Whitelaw, and Mr. Harold Wilson be members of the Committee.
  ordered,
  That the Committee have power to examine all witnesses who voluntarily appear before them, and to report to the House their observations on the matters referred to their consideration.
  ordered,
  That five be the Quorum of the Committee. —[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
  ordered,
  That Mr. Michael Barnes, Mr. Tom Boardman, Mr. Richard Buchanan, Mr. Edmund Dell, Mr. Dick Douglas, Mr. Peter Hordern, Mr. Patrick Jenkin, Mr. James Lamond, Mr. Harold Lever, Mr. Cranley Onslow, Mr. Paget, Mr Rafton Pounder, Miss Quennell, Mr. Julian Ridsdale, and Sir John Rodgers be Members of the Committee of Public Accounts.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]

  PUBLIC PETITIONS
  ordered,
  That a Select Committee be appointed to sshom shall be referred all Petitions presented to the House, with the exception of such as are deposited in the Private Bill Office, and that such Committee do classify and prepare abstracts of the same in such form and wanner as shall appear to them best suited to convey to the House all requisite information respecting their contents, and do report the same from time to time to the House; and that the Reports of the Committee do set forth, in respect of each Petition, the number of signatures which are accompanied by addresses, and which are written on sheets, headed in every case by the prayer of the Petition, or on the back of such sheets provided that on every sheet after the first the prayer may be reproduced in print or by other mechanical process; and that such Committee do have power to direct the printing in extenso of such Petitions, or of such parts of Petitions, as shall appear to require it:
  ordered,
  That Mr. Daniel Awdry, Mr. Benyon, Mr. Richard Body, Mr. Bernard Braine, Mr. Stanley
  486
  Cohen, Miss Janet Fookes, Mr. J. C. Jennings, Mr. Marcus Lipton, Mr. Arthur Probert, and Mr. Leslie Spriggs be Members of the Committee:
  ordered,
  That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records:
  ordered,
  That Three be the Quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]

  PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR ADMINISTRATION
  ordered,
  That a Select Committee be appointed to examine the reports laid before the House by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, and matters in connection therewith:
  ordered,
  That Mr. Antony Buck, Captain Walter Elliot, Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke, Mr. Mark Hughes, Mr. David Jones, Mr. Frederick Lee, Mr. Gilbert Longden, Mr. Michael Stewart, Sir Richard Thompson, and Dame Irene Ward be Members of the Committee:
  ordered,
  That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; and to report from time to time:
  ordered,
  That Four be the Quorum of the Committee —[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]

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

  M6 BIRMINGHAM
  10.4 p.m.
  Mr. Sydney ChapmanI am grateful for this opportunity to raise the important subject of the delay in the completion of the M6 Motorway between Great Barr and Castle Bromwich, on the north-east boundary of Birmingham, including the Aston Expressway, and its likely consequences for Birmingham.
  This is more than a parochial problem, because it concerns the very heart of our motorway network system. I am very conscious, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it would be much easier to explain the problem with a map, an A-Z guide or

  487
  other visual aid, but I know that I would be out of order were I to produce one. I shall therefore have to try to explain what I believe to be a unique problem in terms which may be clearly understood by hon. Members who may not live in the area.
  Later this month an 11-mile section of the M6 will be opened—from Ansty, on the north-east boundary of Coventry, to the M6 junction with the M1 motor- way at Catthorpe. When this stretch is opened it will leave one remaining 7·6 mile stretch between Great Barr and Castle Bromwich unopened—the missing link, as it has been described, of an otherwise continuous motorway from the north of London to Carlisle, a distance of over 300 miles.
  It was intended to open both of these remaining stretches simultaneously, but the opening of the final link has been delayed because of the need for safety checks on the steel box girder bridges, a system of construction that has caused some concern. My point is that this delay is likely to have the most serious consequences for people and traffic in the West Midlands.
  To understand this problem it is necessary to explain the major routes of traffic now and the major routes of traffic there will be after the penultimate stretch from Ansty to the M1 is opened. At present, traffic going from London to the West Midlands tends to go by one of two routes. The first of these routes is up the M1, on to the M45, then along the A45 and onwards to Birmingham. The other is up the M1, the M45, then turn east of Coventry and down that stretch of the M6 that is open, and thus to Castle Bromwich.
  Traffic from London going to the North-West and the great conurbations that exist there has a choice of three routes; the two already mentioned, though turning to the right before reaching Birmingham, and a third, the M1 and the A5. and then joining with the M6, which has the advantage of keeping the traffic well away from the environs of Coventry and Birmingham.
  What is certain is that when the Ansty to Catthorpe section is open later this month—and the Minister may care to say whether a definite date for the open-
  488
  ing has been fixed; rumour says 15th November—nearly all the traffic going from London to the West Midlands or London to the North-West will proceed up the M1, on to the M6 and then to the outskirts of Birmingham where, if I may say so, it will tend to come to an abrupt stop. It is no exaggeration to say that it will then disgorge itself on to narrower and inadequate roads. It is almost incidental but important for me to say that as traffic is a two-way thing, the problem will be exactly the same in reverse for traffic from the North-West or the West Midlands down to London.
  To say the least, this is a prospect causing deep consternation to many people who live in the area. Perhaps the best and most favourite advice that Ministers of Transport gave to motorists in days gone by was to remember the three Cs—care, courtesy and consideration. It is no exaggeration to say that unless special provisions are made, in that part of the West Midlands this winter there will be chaos, confusion and casualties. My purpose in raising this matter on the Adjournment is to express the hope that my hon. Friend will answer certain questions and announce the special action which will be needed to reassure many people.
  I have four series of questions. The first group concerns the steel box-girder bridges. What is the minimum time in which the testing of these steel box-girder bridges can be undertaken? Perhaps my hon. Friend could say how many bridges are involved. What is the nature of the testing? What are the professional consulting civil enginering resources being brought to bear on this problem?
  I hope that I do not appear selfish— because this is an exceptional circumstance—but is it possible for this programme of testing the steel box-girder bridges to be expedited, even if it means delay elsewhere in the country, because the situation is of such critical importance on this section of the motorway that it may deserve just that?
  My second question is whether it is necessary for this stretch of motorway between Great Barr and Castle Bromwich to remain completely closed pending the testing of these bridges. For example, is it not possible to have at least some, if not all, of the six lanes open on that

  489
  stretch of motorway? Or is it possible for at least some vehicles to use the motorway, if not all, perhaps defining them by weight or load? In other wards, is it possible for some or all vehicles to use this stretch of motorway, which is completed in every other respect, perhaps if they conform to lower speed limits? My civil engineering friends tell me that if a bridge can support vehicles safely, it can support them up to at least 30 m.p.h. without any damage or stress to the construction of the bridge.
  I come to my third series of questions —if my hon. Friend has not already got indigestion. What steps do the Government and the local highway authorities intend to take to lessen the congestion, alleviate the pollution and minimise the number of accidents, if it is necessary to keep this stretch of motorway closed? I am reliably informed that an extra 1,000 vehicles an hour—I am told that that is a conservative estimate —are likely to pour on to the lesser road as a result of this stretch remaining closed.
  There are three roads or groups of roads which are of critical importance here, to which special provision and attention will have to be given. The first are the roads from Castle Bromwich into Birmingham. This is a subject of concern to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. Julius Silverman). The second particular road is the Chester Road and the ancillary and adjacent roads between Castle Bromwich and Great Barr, a seven-mile stretch. That is of deep concern to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd), to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Bar (Mr. Kinsey) and to the hon. Member for Aston. At one point the Chester Road is less than 25 ft. wide. Also, putting it very mildly, it is already inadequate for the existing traffic.
  The third road is the Curdworth Bridges section of the A446. This is the penultimate junction before Castle Bromwich junction, where most traffic will go to the right, join the A5 and then on to the M6. This road is, to say the least, narrow, hazardous, overloaded and an accident black spot. This problem is of concern to my hon. Friends the Members for Meriden (Mr. Speed) and for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who lives there now
  490
  and who will continue to live there until he moves to his constituency shortly.
  Fourth, what special provisions are the Government or the highway authorities making for the special road signs, the possibility of diversions, and a general information service that will be needed? As a town planning consultant, I believe that special provisions will be needed to deal with the possibility of accidents. The need may well arise for a special police control point. After all, there will be one for the new section of motorway, and it is even more obvious that one will be needed for the extra chaos and congestion there will be before that section is opened.
  What is perhaps most important of all, what special provision has been made for liaison between the different highway authorities which will be affected in the area? There are three highway authorities within half a mile of the Castle Bromwich junction.
  Finally, I make no apologies for bringing this matter to the Government's attention. It is not an exaggeration to say that it is a grave and unique situation demanding special and urgent attention. This month should have been in a real sense the high water mark of the motorway system. It should have marked the completion of the first phase of a national motorway network. It is to be hoped that it will not be a winter of discontent, damage and disaster. If my hon. Friend can give us information as to when the stretch will be opened, it will reassure many thousands of people living in the area.
  10.17 p.m.
  Mr. Julius Silverman: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Chapman) has raised an important and urgent matter affecting Birmingham traffic. I will not repeat all the geographical details he related. I will mention only two points in amplification.
  First, it is clear that a large number of motorists—perhaps all—who cone to Birmingham at present by the A45, which for various reasons they consider unsatisfactory, will choose the new motorway. I am told that the hon. Genleman's estimate is somewhat moderate and that traffic is expected, certainly at peak times, to be as great as 2,000 an hour or in

  491
  excess of that figure. If the whole of that traffic is disgorged on the Newport road at Castle Bromwich, which will happen if this part of the linkway is opened while the rest is closed, it will be rather like a rupture in a pipe through which water is passing at a rapid rate—the flood will occur somewhere.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned two or three alternative routes—for instance, the Chester road. There is also the Kings-bury Road and people might choose the Alum Rock Road to get into the city. All of these can be and will be very heavily congested. As the hon. Gentleman said, there may be complete chaos.
  What preparations has the Minister made for this? What consultations has the Minister had with Birmingham? What has the result been? What steps has the Minister taken, by signposting or by any other method, to ensure that there is some limitation on the traffic passing along the linkway part of the motorway or to ensure that it does not all disgorge at Castle Bromwich, which is the danger? Will the Minister assure the House that he will be in touch with the situation from 15th November when this road will open so that the necessary urgent action may be taken if our worst apprehensions are realised and there is chaos?
  10.20 p.m.
  Mr. J. R. KinseyI thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Chapman) for allowing time for me to intervene in this debate. He has dealt with the position generally throughout the city, and I want to deal specifically with my constituency where the major problem is that of an inadequate road system. This project will add to the resultant diversions, creating an absolutely chaotic traffic position during the worst months of the year, the dark, treacherous winter months.
  If I refer to the roads by name rather than by number it is because they are special to me and I know them better that way. First is the Scott Arms junction. We have already experienced terrific traffic hold-ups during the peak hours. It is a most dangerous intersection already, without adding to the traffic using it. There is not even a plan on the drawing board to improve it at present, and that worries us. The Walsall
  492
  road is the main feeder road to this section and is quite inadequate. It was a priority in 1939 and it is only due to be started in early 1972, when it will clash with possible diversions. I ask my hon. Friend not to stop it when we have only just got it under way because that would make it even worse for us.
  Queslett Road is already dangerous for pedestrians. I have put in requests to the City of Birmingham for pedestrian crossings, but it tells me that it will be better when the linkway opens. That will not be opened until those dark winter months. The Minister will be aware of the accident black spot of Kings Road. We have had special campaigns there and there have already been four child fatalities on this dual carriageway, two of the children from the same family. We cannot afford to dice with the lives of young children in this area. The Kings Road is fed and crossed by the Kingstanding Road which is again an inadequate single carriageway feeding mainly the outskirts of the city, carrying commuters, crossing other roads with an excess of traffic. It is really too terrible to contemplate.
  I am comforted by the knowledge that my hon. Friend knows the position, and I was delighted to meet him in the area on his recent tour which will stand him in good stead. He not only has the knowledge but the energy to get the job done. I have a great respect for him. Whatever he does it will be important to the country and to Perry Barr.
  10.24 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): This is an important debate and, understandably, a large number of issues have been raised. I very much share the anxieties surrounding these issues with my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. Julius Silverman). If I am not able to cover all the points raised in the short time available, I will add to my remarks in greater detail in letters to hon. Members who have spoken. Perhaps I can say that particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Kinsey), who referred to a number of road schemes which are important but which do not come strictly within the context of the main issue we are discussing.

  493
  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Chapman) for his courtesy in giving me detailed advance notice of the issues he wished to raise. This was of great help to me in preparing my answer to his questions as adequately as possible. I much enjoyed my meeting with my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr on the site of the Gravelly Hill interchange when 1 was able to see something of the problem for myself.
  I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Handsworth for enabling me to say a word or two about the reasons for the deferred opening of the last section of the Midland links motor-way. I am glad to have this opportunity of telling the House about the problems on the 7½-mile length between Castle Bromwich and Great Barr which is needed to complete the whole of the links and how we hope to tackle them.
  Work on the construction of this last section is nearing completion, but the Yarra Bridge and Milford Haven Bridge disasters have obviously introduced a new dimension into this matter which no one could have foreseen at the time. There can be no doubt that the Secretary of State had to take the moist extreme precautions in the circumstances which then arose.
  On the roads in use where box girder bridges were in existence we have carried out the most thorough investigation into all the structures on the trunk roads, including the steel box girders. In each case we have imposed restrictions to reduce the load on the structures until we have carried out those checks. Roads still under construction will not be opened until we are satisfied that those checks have been carried out. On the unopened section of the Midland links there are about 400 steel box girder bridges on all three contract lengths between Castle Bromwich and Great Barr.
  The checks being made are those recommended by the Merrison Committee set up by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to advise on the detailed steps which should be taken following the two disasters I have mentioned. I am sure that the House would not wish me to go into detail about those checks which gave rise to the establishment of the rules which followed the report of the Merrison
  494
  Committee which set out a completely new system for looking at the design of box girders. The analyses include several specially devised computer programmes and are supplemented by physical examination of the bridges, including the taking of the detailed measurements of each girder.
  The Merrison rules are being applied to all box girder bridges throughout the country. Existing bridges are being carefully examined and all those not yet opened are being critically looked at in the way we have announced.
  We are doing everything possible with the manpower available to complete the tests as quickly as possible, but I am sure that if the House had to weigh the balance, on the one hand, between expediency and efficiency and taking the fullest advantage of the benefits which flow from an improved road programme and, on the other hand, taking even the most minimal risks to safety, the minimal risks would prove decisive. The best technical resources have been allocated to the problem and as many people as we can sensibly make available have been allocated to the task. They are working as speedily as is practicable. But examining the bridges on this length of the Midland links, which includes the very complicated interchange at Gravelly Hill, is an enormous task. There are 12,000 tons of steel involved and at Gravelly Hill alone there are 240 steel box girders in the 23 spans of the viaducts.
  That indicates the scale of the problem. There are 38 qualified engineers fully employed all the time on the project, as well as a number of other staff. There is no possibility of completing this difficult and exhaustive survey by the end of this year. Already, the studies that we have carried out have indicated a need for some remedial works, which are currently in hand. I anticipate that these could be completed in a relatively short period, though at this stage I cannot rule out the possibility of a more substantial delay if further works are shown to be necessary. The investigations now in progress may indicate a need for further investigations, and, until that exercise is finished, no one can forecast what it may show should be done to put matters right. So, although a great deal of the investigation has been

  495
  completed, there is considerable uncertainty over what more we shall find that has to be done. That is why it would be foolhardy, if not irresponsible, of me to attempt to say when the links will be fully opened. It may be some time before I can give this information.
  I share the anxiety which hon. Members have expressed about this matter I take into account all their points about road safety and the delaying of the benefits which will flow from the creation of this magnificent link between the two major motorways. But the ultimate responsibility for safety is such that we must not take risks of the sort which would be involved otherwise.
  I want now to say a word about the construction work on the section of the M6 between Ansty and Catthorpe on the M1, which is almost complete. After careful consideration of all the factors and consultation with all the local authorities principally concerned, we have decided that a further 11½ miles of motorway will open on 15th November. There is no doubt that this will be a great benefit to traffic heading from the northern districts of Birmingham and Coventry from the south on the M1, since the major part of their journey will be on continuous motorway.
  Consultations have been thorough. We have consulted the police, the county councils of Leicestershire, Staffordshire and Warwickshire, and the county boroughs of Coventry and Birmingham, who have concurred in the signing arrangements, which obviously have been the subject of a great deal of consultation between the authorities concerned.
  The opening of this section will also bring immediate substantial relief to the A45 trunk road, which is heavily congested and has a high accident record. It will also bring some relief to the A5.
  496
  From the economic point of view, there would be considerable loss to the nation if we failed to make full immediate use of our investment of £24 million on the completed works between Catthorpe and Castle Bromwich. This loss would out- weigh any loss which might be attributable to additional traffic on local roads following the opening. Hon. Members have expressed their concern that, once the Ml to M6 route is open as far as Castle Bromwich, there will be more congestion on the local roads beyond this point. We have not overlooked this possibility, and we are taking steps to forestall it by the sensible signing of routes to meet the temporary situation.
  Traffic on the M1 for the South and East of Birmingham will be directed at Watford Gap to use the M45 and A45 route. Through traffic for the North- West will be given the choice at Crick of leaving the M1 at its junction with the A5, as at present, or of leaving it at the new junction with the M6 at Catthorpe. However, I suggest that, rather than giving only half the picture, it will be more sensible if I write to those hon. Members who have taken part in the debate with details of the way in which the system is intended to work. I know that signs do not compel drivers to follow specific routes, but he will be a foolish driver who uses the slow and congested minor roads in North Birmingham in order to bridge the gap in the links. There will be alternatives, and they will be signposted—
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at twenty-six minutes to Eleven o'clock.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Apple and Pear Trees
  Apple and Pear Trees
DEFENCE
  Worthy Down
  Worthy Down
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Greece
  Greece
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Nursery Schools
  Nursery Schools
EMPLOYMENT
  Lost Time
  Lost Time
  Employment Placings
  Employment Placings
  Professional and Executive Register
  Professional and Executive Register
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Retirement Age
  Retirement Age
ENVIRONMENT
  Structure Plans
  Structure Plans
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Arab Republic of Egypt
  Arab Republic of Egypt
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Monopolies Commission (Takeovers)
  Monopolies Commission (Takeovers)
  Aircraft Noise (Survey)
  Aircraft Noise (Survey)
  Development Areas
  Development Areas
  Upper Clyde Shipbuilders, Ltd.
  Upper Clyde Shipbuilders, Ltd.
  Nationalised Industries (Superannuitants)
  Nationalised Industries (Superannuitants)
  Hunterston (Greenfield Development)
  Hunterston (Greenfield Development)
  Industrial Development Certificates
  Industrial Development Certificates
  Ayrshire (Advance Factories)
  Ayrshire (Advance Factories)
  British Export Board
  British Export Board
  English Channel Collision (Tanker "Efplia ")
  English Channel Collision (Tanker "Efplia ")
  Dan Air Comet Aircraft (Report)
  Dan Air Comet Aircraft (Report)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Retirement Pension
  Retirement Pension
  Value-added Tax
  Value-added Tax

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.

PROPOSED NUCLEAR TEST IN ALEUTIANS
3.5 p.m.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, I hope that the House will forgive me if at this moment I raise a point which I consider to be of extreme importance. I informed the noble Earl the Leader of the House that I desired to put a Question of which I had given Private Notice. I have spoken to him and he courteously has said that he himself would not allow this Question, but I hope that he will reconsider the position and that the House will support him and me (perhaps he will put the Question himself later on —I do not know—and allow this Question which, in my view, concerns one of the most urgent matters of the day. I beg leave, therefore, to ask this Question:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make representations to the Government of the United States of America in view of the alleged adverse reports which they have received from some of their agencies"—
and I say in parenthesis that five out of seven of their agencies have turned this down—
"in relation to the nuclear test proposed to take place on November 6 on Amchitka Island in the Aleutians with a view to their postponing or abandoning this project."
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Janner, if I may say so, has placed me in a position of some difficulty. I fully recognise the importance of the issues which the Question would raise,
128
and the last thing I should wish to do is to deny any noble Lord any right to which he is entitled. It is true that I happened to be at a meeting so I do not quite know when the noble Lord gave Notice, but I think he gave it at a certain time before the statutory 12 o'clock—I think it was 11.30 a.m. or so, from what I understand. I heard of this only at 1 o'clock as I happened to be at another meeting.
I would remind your Lordships that the Companion to the Standing Orders says this:
"A Lord who wishes to give Her Majesty's Government private notice of his intention to ask a Question on a matter of urgency should submit his Question in writing to the Leader of the House by Twelve noon on the day on which he proposes to ask the Question."
The noble Lord was inhibited from submitting it to me personally because I happened to be at a Cabinet meeting.
"The decision as to whether the Question is of sufficient urgency to justify an immediate reply rests in the first place with the Leader of the House and ultimately with the general sense of the House".
In advising the noble Lord that the Question was not of sufficient urgency, I fully recognised the importance of this question, but I also had in mind the fact that this matter was raised by his noble friend Lord Chalfont at considerable length in yesterday's debate in your Lordships' House, and also that my noble friend Lord Lothian gave a considered reply, which will be found in cols. 117 and 118 of Hansard for yesterday. I was also advised that my noble friend would not be able to give any further reply in substance to the noble Lord's Question. In view of this, while not in any way wishing to minimise the importance of this matter, I felt that it was right to advise the noble Lord not to press this particular Question.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am bound to urge the House, with whom the ultimate decision rests, to support the views expressed by the noble Earl the Leader of the House. It is a most invidious task for the Leader of the House to decide whether or not to allow a Private Notice Question. He has no formal authority, but the House has endowed him in the first instance with the decision whether or not such a Question should be allowed. I myself do not recall an

129
occasion, although I believe there have been one or two, where a decision of the Leader—and I know how difficult these decisions are—has been disputed. As the noble Earl sympathetically said, and as I know, my noble friend feels very strongly that this is a matter of the greatest importance. None the less, it was raised yesterday; indeed, I believe that my noble friend intervened on it briefly. Although Standing Orders do not rule this out, the whole of the House runs not on Standing Orders but on its practice, and if we departed from our usual practice—there might be an occasion where it would be right for the House in fact to go contrary to the Leader's judgment—we should be completely lost. I hope that we can leave the matter there. It is not really open to debate. I suppose it could be, but it is for the House to express its view. I hope that the view of the House will be that, with the greatest sympathy with its importance, we should leave the matter there.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, in view of the statements made, I have no desire to press upon the House any procedure which is unusual. The explosion is likely to take place on Saturday and I have, as a matter of fact, a friend who is here from those islands—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
LORD JANNER: He is in terrible fear, as are all the other citizens there. I hope that in the meanwhile something will be done by the Government in the matter. In the circumstances, I do not propose to press the Question.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I may be out of Order, but I should like just to express my appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Janner. I would also emphasise that in these matters I feel myself the custodian of the rights of all the House, wherever Members may sit. I hope the noble Lord will appreciate the fact that in coming to my decision, right or wrong, I had his rights in mind as well as, as I hope is always the case, the rights of every Member of your Lordships' House.
Loan SHACKLETON: My Lords, I would only say that I think we have to be very careful. We descend into complete chaos if noble Lords do not take the advice of the Leader of the House, even if we discuss at any length the urgency or
130
otherwise of a certain matter. From time to time we all feel that matters are desperately urgent, and I agree that this is an urgent matter, but I hope that what has just now happened will not become a precedent.

MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES BILL [H.L.]
3.13 p.m.
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (VISCOUNT ECCLES): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to remove impediments to the making of charges for admission to the National Museums and Galleries in Great Britain. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read la. —(Viscount Eccles.)
LORD BESWICK: Shame!
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

SUNDAY THEATRE BILL [H.L.]
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to permit and regulate the opening and use of theatres on Sundays, and for purposes connected therewith. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read P.
—(Baroness Lee of Asheridge.)
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, pursuant to Standing Order No. 46A, the Lords following be appointed to join with a Committee of the Commons as the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills:—

V. Colville of Culross

V. Brent ford

L. Rathcreedan

L. Cawley

L. Meston

131

L. Guest L.

Ilford L.

Segal

L. Wells-Pestell

L. Lloyd of Hampstead

L. Diplock

L. Janner.

That such Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the House of Commons in the appointment of a Chairman.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith and to desire them to appoint an equal number of their Members to be joined with the said Lords.
ADDRESS IN REPLY TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH
3.17 p.m.
Debate resumed on the Motion moved on Tuesday last by Baroness Macleod of Borve—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."
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I have always found that these debates on the Queen's Speech present us with a certain difficulty. One can try to cover the waterfront and be thin and superficial or one can be fatter and more selective and concentrate in an arbitrary way on a limited number of issues. On balance, like my noble friend the Secretary of State for Defence yesterday, I have decided to opt for the second alternative. There may be plenty enough to separate the lordly sheep from the lordly goats across the Party boundaries. There is no point in masking our differences because it is true that we look at a number of important issues of national life at the present time from a number of different angles. Equally so, when we have common objectives it seems to me to be
132
silly not to recognise the fact; and one important objective which I believe we all share is our common desire to help to raise the quality of life in these islands —to make it easier for all of us to live fuller, more varied, more engaged and more pleasant lives.
This of course means a great deal more than finding the elusive key to steady and sustained economic growth. It is quite clear—and here I happen to be with the noble Lord, Lord Balogh—that those societies which seem to be assured of economic success—for example the American society—are not necessarily able to achieve that distinction in terms of social stability or human happiness which they have been able to secure in the economic sphere. A symptom of this failure is the increasing inability of modern industrial society to give their citizens even the most elementary sense of physical protection. Life in the United States of America, my Lords, may for most be rich, but at the heart of the average American city it is poor, miserable, and all too often brutal and violent. We should be unwise if we were to suppose that our more relaxed society is in any way immune from this infection of crime and violence. Only last weekend we saw a particularly inane manifestation of the cult of violence in the bombing of the Post Office Tower.
The Government have this problem in the forefront of their minds, and it is right that this should be so. My noble friend Lord Windlesham will wind up this debate. As your Lordships well know, he is the present Minister of State at the Home Office as your Lordships perhaps do not know equally well, eight years or so ago I happened to hold the same office. In that year, 1963, there were less than one million indictable offences known to the police in this country; last year that figure had risen to over one and a half million. Our prison population is now 40,000 or so; when I was concerned with these matters it was three-quarters of that figure— 30,000. These are doleful figures, my Lords, and that is why I must emphasise that the Government propose to bend every effort to honour their pledge to maintain the law to protect the freedom and safety of the citizens of this country. My noble friend will be expanding on this matter when he winds up the debate.

133
I would only add now that the likelihood of detection is the best deterrent to crime and that the Government stand solidly behind the Police Service in the performance of their vital tasks. Crime, especially violent crime, is a very complicated phenomenon indeed and there can he no easy answer to it. I should again like to stress that the Government are determined to devote their energies, not only to improving methods of dealing with crime but equally to discovering and treating its causes. Of course a great deal is uncertain in this highly uncertain area of human affairs; but I think many of us suspect that the pattern of crime and violence in our society is closely worked into other strands of that society, such as the quality of its environment, housing and the nature of family life. By the same token, of course, I think many of us have been disillusioned by what we have seen in the past two or three decades. We thought that with improving material standards we should be able to sterilise the seeds of crime and violence in our society. Things happen to have worked out the other way, and this has left us all with a great deal of food for thought.
It is against that background that I wish to concentrate, in this, I hope, short speech, on the approach of Her Majesty's Government to matters affecting the physical environment in which we live. This is not because I underestimate the relevance of the quality of our social services, for example, to the quality of life in these islands. Education, of course, is absolutely vital here, and its cardinal role is recognised by the Government. We are putting about three times the effort which the last Government put into the primary school programme, and plans are now far advanced for raising the school leaving age to 16; my noble friend Lady Macleod rightly emphasised the importance of this in her notable speech at the outset of our debate, and I am very glad that in a week or so we shall be debating educational matters.
By the same token, I do not for one moment underestimate the importance of our Health Service and hospital programme to the quality of life in this country. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is already devoting an additional £110 million to improving care for those sec-
134
tors of our community who are least able to care for themselves in these respects, and great gains are undoubtedly to be won through an improved, tauter and more efficient National Health Service. Again, this is an area which I am glad that we shall be debating later this month.
Meanwhile, as the Queen's Speech has made clear, the legislative framework for Scotland in this respect will be constructed during this Session, and I think it possible that my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie will introduce this legislation into your Lordships' House. And the re-organisation of the health services in England and Wales is also being prepared. No, my Lords, the only reason why I do not dwell on (these areas is a desire to compress my speech into an acceptably small package. That is why I wish to concentrate these relatively brief remarks on the improvement of our physical environment.
My Lords, you can have marvellous ideas about dealing with the blots and wants on our physical environment, many of which are, of course, the legacy from our first industrial revolution. You can have the biggest and the best plans, but unless you have the structure to process these plans and to carry them through into action, you are not likely to get very far. We have, therefore, been devoting a great deal of attention to getting the structure here right. In the first place, we have tackled it at the centre. We have brought together in the Department of the Environment, in that not particularly alluring new Government office just off Horseferry Road, the three Departments of Government chiefly concerned with this area, Housing and Local Government, Public Building and Works and Transport.
There was a tendency to criticise this structure at the time that it was introduced as being top-heavy and as giving the Secretary of State concerned more than enough to do. I personally believe that the team of Ministers in this power ful new Department have in fact confounded the critics. It is quite clear to me that not only is this large new Department of the Environment working pretty well—there are, of course, teething troubles, as in any new department—but there is also the inestimable advantage in being able to bring together under one

135
roof all those areas of Government chiefly concerned with physical development in all its manifestations, be it ports or railway systems or roads; be it housing or construction, be it the planning of new towns or the development of not-so-new towns, or the care of the countryside; be it questions of land use or planning, or the vary varied and extraordinarily complicated problems of local government.
Moreover, this organisation at the centre has recently been complemented by a comprehensive reorganisation of the regional offices. Under the new arrangements the old offices of the Regional Economic Planning Board Chairman, the divisional road engineers of the old Ministry of Transport and the regional offices of the former Ministry of Housing and Local Government are being brought together in the regions. This means that in each region a single office will now be capable of taking a wide-ranging look at policies in the environmental field. This reorganisation has the advantage of making it possible for the headquarters organisation of the Department of the Environment really to concentrate on what I think we all believe they should be concentrating on; namely, matters of national policy, and on the integration of planning at a national level.
But reorganisation at the centre and in the regions is not enough. It is quite clear that the time has now come to embark on major local government reform. The prospects for local government reform have been endlessly canvassed up and down the country since the end of the war and a good deal before that. In our debate last Session my right honourable friend's proposals for England and Wales received a pretty wide measure of support in your Lordships' House, and not only from Members on this side of the House. I for one was particularly heartened by the broad endorsement which they received from the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, himself, the father of the Maud Report, and from its mother, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. Apart from this fairly broad consensus, it was, I think, the unanimous view—and here I think we are all agreed that reorganisation, warts and all, should now be carried out with the least possible delay. I remem-
136
ber very well what the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, said in urging this particular point. I am sure, therefore, that your Lordships will be glad that we shall be introducing the necessary legislation for England and Wales in this Session.
Our fundamental objective is a clear one. It is to establish more efficient instruments of local administration and thereby to do what we can to strengthen local democracy. We plan to do this by creating a pattern of stronger and bigger authorities, and, what is equally important, by devolving on them considerable discretion in the management of their own affairs and the organisation of their own services. If we really want to see vigorous local democracy, we must give responsible local authorities the power to take their own decisions and then allow them to do so.
The Local Government Bill is in fact being published to-day. My right honourable friend and his colleagues have been carrying on intensive discussions with those concerned since the White Paper, and the Bill embodies the fruits of those discussions. That is why there have been modifications in some of the geographical areas proposed in the White Paper; and that is why there has been a shift of some functions—for example, most local planning, certain highway responsibilities, and so on—from the county to the district level. I mentioned two days ago that this was a Bill of formidable size, about as large—I think I used the term—as an early version of the Old Testament. I was not, I must confess and fear, exaggerating. It is about 350 pages long; it contains about 250 clauses, and it weighs, I am told, about a pound and a quarter. It will therefore, I suspect, give your Lordships quite a lot on which to masticate later in this Session.
My Lords, so much for what we intend to do about reshaping the structure—the bottles, if I may so term them. What about the wine of policy we should like to pour into these bottles? May I briefly traverse some of the policies designed to help to slaughter the dragon of pollution—policies which were foreshadowed in the Queen's Speech? First, there is the pollution of our national life which I believe is brought about and encouraged by drab and shoddy housing. I have always believed that if one was

137
going to put one's finger on any one material factor which contributes to lowering the tone of life in our society, that factor is indeed squalid housing. Let us make no bones about this. When the present Government came to power we inherited a poor situation in the housing field, as did other Governments which came to power before us. The output of new building was declining in both the public and the private sector, and this trend had been evident for three years or so. But the problem was complex; it was not just a shortage of new houses. The difficulties were local and regional. Where conditions are bad they are very bad indeed, as anyone who knows the worst of London housing, or the worst of Liverpool housing, or the worst of Glasgow housing knows only too well. In many parts of this country stand far too many dwellings totally unfit for any idea of human habitation. Apart from this, we have hundreds and thousands of houses which are structurally sound but which lack the most elementary amenities.
We are determined to make a real advance on this housing front. We are deeply committed to doing what we can to secure a better physical environment for all our citizens. Not only should there be decent homes for all, but there has to he a range of quality, and a real choice of quality, available to suit every pocket. An important consideration in our mind is the fact that the problem of sheer quantity has begun to disappear, if it has not already disappeared. There are no gross numerical shortages in the house field to overcome any longer. Indeed, the old crude, simplistic view has persisted for far too long that housing policy means as many new council houses as possible. Of course, there was much evidence of a strong demand for home ownership which was not being realised in June, 1970, and indeed long before that.
I should like to sum up our policies in the housing field as fourfold. First, we intend to relieve overcrowding and obsolescence. Second, we intend to clear the slums and the unfit dwellings. Third, we intend to improve the housing stock, and fourth, we intend to widen the scope of home ownership. I think it fair to claim that on all these fronts some progress—I do not wish to exaggerate here —has already been made. I think, paren-
138
thetically, that it would be useful to debate these matters at greater length one day. The noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, for example, could bring a great amount of experience and expertise to this matter. I should like to enumerate the progress in rather staccato form. So far as slum clearance is concerned, nearly 37,000 slums were pulled down in the first half of 1971. That. although it is not nearly good enough, is an improvement on past performances. Indeed, we see no reason why local councils should not be able to clear away all the existing slums—those which are at present designated as slums—within this decade. I think that this would be a very reasonable national target for all of us to set ourselves.
Second, there has been a real push on the improvement front—the best way of mounting a short, sharp attack on poor housing and drab surroundings. A record number of nearly 157,000 improvement grants were approved in 1970, well over 40 per cent, above the 1969 level, and there has been a significant increase in the percentage of discretionary grants, which are perhaps the most help here. Again, there has been an encouraging increase in housing starts in the private sector. As my right honourable friend the Minister for Housing, Mr. Amery, put it recently in a short address at a seaside resort on the South Coast:
"There is no reason why in the 13 years we have ahead of us in power we should not make Britain a nation of home owners."
Well, I believe that to be true. Fifty-two per cent. of our fellow countrymen at the present time own their own houses. I think it is in the interests of many things that we should help to create the conditions in which that figure is pushed a great deal higher.
What stands out a mile—and I think that many noble Lords opposite will agree with this—is the need for a real reform of housing finance. The cornerstone of the policy was embodied in the White Paper, Fair Deal for Housing, which will now, as shown in the Queen's Speech, be translated into legislation this year for England and Wales. The basic question that we have to ask ourselves is whether the system of housing finance which has enabled successive Governments ever since the Macmillan housing era to build, or help to build (we say "build" but of course it is erroneous), 300,000 or even

139
more houses a year is best suited to our contemporary conditions. We must remember that in 1951, and for perhaps a decade and a half after that, we were faced in this country with a gross and overall housing shortage. But although the housing shoe pinches, and pinches terribly hard in some areas to-day, we must recognise that the back of this overall housing shortage has now been broken, at any rate in large areas of the country. Council houses, for example, stand empty in Hull to-day. The rate of re-lettings in towns like Bradford is very rapid indeed.
The system of housing finance which we have inherited and which has been developed since the war served its purpose reasonably well, but we must ask ourselves whether it is appropriate to modern conditions. We must ask—and indeed I question—whether it has mobilised enough resources to enable us, and to enable local authorities, to deal with the real sore spots; the areas of homelessness and slums. We must ask ourselves whether it really helps us, and helps local authorities, to assist those most in need. Only 60 per cent. of local authorities, for example, operate rent-rebate schemes, and the scope and extent of such rent-rebate schemes may be very limited. I know of one scheme, for instance, where only five or six council tenants out of 600 or so receive any assistance. Of course, rent-rebate schemes do not bite on the private sector of housing where we all know need and deprivation are most acutely felt.
Finally, we must ask whether the present system is fair as between private sector tenants and public sector tenants; whether it is fair as between landlord and tenant; whether it is fair in its incidence as between one local authority and another. I have no doubt whatever that our present arrangements do not stand up to this test of fairness. We believe, and we believe profoundly, that a new system is needed: a fairer system, and one more attuned to the more sophisticated and more selective housing needs of the coming decades. That is the philosophy behind our approach to the Bill now before Parliament. I do not doubt for one moment that some of the proposals embodied in that draft legislation will he contentious, although, broadly speaking, many of them have re-
140
ceived a pretty fair reception from the public as a whole. But I hope that, when we come to debate this Bill, your Lordships will carefully examine the great advantages which we believe should flow from this new approach.
It should mean that we shall be matching resources to needs in the public sector. It should greatly help those housing authorities which have the most urgent and acute problems; those which are really grappling with their slums and with homelessness. It will introduce the idea of the fair rent throughout the public sector, and extend it within the private sector. Rent rebates and allowances will in future be payable to ail who need them. All needy tenants of unfurnished dwellings will stand to gain, as also will the landlord who wants to keep his property in good repair and to improve it. And the nation will, of course, be getting far better value for money with a subsidy bill that, instead of soaring upwards, will stay much as it is now at current prices.
One particular benefit of the reform will be the new subsidy to aid slum clearance. This will be a subsidy available to cover 75 per cent. of any deficit on the clearance operation itself, including the cost of the land, no matter what the eventual use of land concerned. This, I think—although I agree that these are matters of judgment—should very much accelerate the clearance of the slums which disfigure all too many of our great urban concentrations. The Government are therefore confident that this legislation, if passed, will accelerate the realisation of one of their major objectives; that is, to get rid of those slum dwellings which stain and pollute much too much of our urban environment.
My Lords, may I now turn briefly, and in conclusion, to what is more conventionally characterised as the pollution of our environment; for example, the pollution of the air we breathe? I am glad to say that we have just passed the 5 million mark for premises covered by smoke control orders. Nearly 60 per cent. of all premises in the black areas are now covered, and local authorities are now being encouraged by my right honourable friend to go full steam ahead in extending their areas of smoke control. There is the pollution of the rivers we swim in, which are a source of a great deal of the water we drink. Here again

141
there are encouraging signs of progress. Over the next five years, for example, sewerage authorities are expected to spend something like £700 million—no small sum, my Lords—on new sewers and disposal works. And, parenthetically, I believe it is true to say that two salmon trout were sighted in the river Thames not far from here this summer.
There is also the pollution of our land by dereliction. We have—let us admit it —a very long pull ahead of us as a country here. In England alone, some 63,000 acres are classified as derelict within the meaning of the Act. But the acreage dealt with in England in 1970 was almost 50 per cent. up on that dealt with the year before. It remains our aim—and we shall do everything we can to help local authorities to achieve this aim—as it was the aim of the last Government, to encourage and stimulate local authorities to deal 3with their strategic heritage of derelict land in the worst areas within ten years. There is a tremendous task ahead, a great national task, confronting us over this whole field. But it is, I think, an area in which we have begun to make some impact since the war; an area in which we are certainly not doing worse—in fact, we are doing better—than almost any other major industrialised country. I am quite certain that we must keep up our momentum here, because I believe that the attack on pollution in all its forms is a really vital aspect of regional policy.
Ever since the days when my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor stomped the North-East in his cloth cap, I think we have all been conscious of the fact that a successful regional policy depends upon raising the whole quality of the environment in the region. That does riot, in my view, go only for the negative factors, like trying to remove the heritage of the first Industrial Revolution. It also goes for things to which my noble friend the Paymaster General, for example, is deeply committed, as is our noble friend Lord Goodman; that is, helping to raise the quality of life in the regions through the encouragement and stimulation of the arts and crafts, which is the positive side of the coin. This is also an area which calls for the international approach. Pollution in many of its nastiest aspects recognises no frontiers, and here again is a field wide open for
142
constructive endeavour with our partners in Europe.
There are parts of our inheritance—dereliction, dirty rivers and sooty air—which we need to get rid of as fast as we can. Conversely, we need to treasure what is valuable and beautiful in the legacy of the past, and I think there are two modest measures embodied in the Queen's Speech which will, in their different ways and over a period of time, give significant help towards this end. First, my Lords, we aim to give local authorities new power to control the demolition of buildings and thus preserve the quality of the conservation areas which they have chosen to designate under the Civic Amenities Act. This should really help. I forget the figure, but I think there have now been getting on for 2,000 conservation areas designated in this country.
Next, the gracious Speech foreshadows legislation to increase protection for our ancient monuments which embellish so many parts of our countryside. I happen to live in Wessex which is, above all an area of enormous archæological wealth. The Downs above me are studded with long barrows and with traces and marks of our neolithic ancestors. But a pilot survey conducted years ago showed that, out of 600 ancient monuments of this sort, more than half had been damaged, some of them irredeemably damaged, in the past ten years. For those who care about our inheritance there is a very real problem here, and I am therefore glad that this relatively minor—though not unimportant—piece of legislation has its place in the gracious Speech.
The scheme which is embodied in the draft Bill will apply to thousands of scheduled field monuments. In return for an undertaking to respect such a monument, the occupier—the farmer, or whoever it may be—will be entitled to a payment from the Government in acknowledgment of the consequential interference which he will suffer with his agricultural or forestry operations. This scheme, which will be known as the Acknowledgment Payment Scheme, is strongly supported—and I am very glad that this is the case—by the archæological world, and has also been warmly welcomed by the agricultural, forestry and landowning organisations. I am par-

143
ticularly glad that this, with a certain amount of other legislation, is being introduced in your Lordships' House.
May I say this in final conclusion? We are in for a long Session. It will, I suppose, to a certain extent be overshadowed by the European legislation which the Government will be submitting to Parliament in implementation of the vote of principle so decisevely carried in both Houses a week past to-day. But, be that as it may, there is going to be a great deal, I suspect, to occupy us on the home front. There will be two or three major Bills: the two housing Bills for England and Wales. and for Scotland; and of course this vast Bill—but I think necessarily vast Bill—for the reorganisation of local government in England and Wales. My belief is that this programme can make a real impact in securing a very real improvement in our physical environment, and it is because of my belief in this that I have no hesitation at all in commending to your Lordships those parts of the legislation foreshadowed in the gracious Speech.
3.50 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, home affairs are the subject of to-day's debate on the Address. And although, of course. there is no reason why any noble Lord who was not able to be present yesterday should not address us to-day on foreign affairs, I do not doubt that it is a convenient course that we should try, so far as possible, to confine ourselves to separate subject matters on these different days. Like the noble Earl, I must I think be selective because the subject is such a vast one, but I am fortunate in that my noble friend Lady Serota, who knows so much more than I do about many of its aspects, is to wind un for the Opposition. The noble Earl the Leader of the House will not mind, I hope, if I do not follow him on his particular subject. There are, of course, a number of things in the gracious Speech of which we on this side of the House approve. We are not likely, I think, to oppose anything which in our view would improve the environment.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, may I put the noble and learned Lord's mind at rest straight away? Nothing delights me more than the fact that he is not going to follow me on the particular subjects which I chose.
LORD GARDINER: I am much obliged to the noble Earl.
My Lords, we find in the Address a reference to legislation
"… to extend customers' protection in the sale of goods".
If, as I understand, that refers to exemption clauses, this is of course a subject in which many of your Lordships, in all parts of the House, have been equally concerned for some years. I observed that the Minister of Trade and Industry, in announcing legislation in this field yesterday, did not say what I understand is the fact, that this legislation is to be entirely based on two Reports from the Law Commission. But, from whatever source it comes, we shall, I am sure, welcome it. "The … replacement and improvement of primary school buildings" and the raising of the school-leaving age are two other things of which, of course, we approve. Increased protection for ancient monuments is also something that we all, I think, welcome; and if, as I understand, a Transport Bill is going to do something to limit the size and weight of the largest forms of road transport, that is something which many of us would very much like to see. Law and order I had perhaps better leave until later.
Then, the gracious Speech says that,
"a Bill will he introduced to improve the facilities for giving legal advice and assistance to persons of moderate means."
If this means what is commonly called the £25 scheme, I can only say that implementation of that scheme was a matter which we had undertaken had we been returned to power. We were disappointed that it was not done last year; we are very glad that it is to be done in this Session. I should like, if I may, to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, and her Committee on again having their recommendations accepted. Indeed, so many of the recommendations in their last Report have by now been accepted that I hope the Committee will soon be starting again to look at the future and to see where we go from here.
There are, however, in our view, sins of commission and omission in the gracious Speech, but before coaling to any of them may I just say this? I find among the public some misapprehension as to what we are doing in debating the humble Address to the gracious Speech from the

145
Throne. They know that we receive the Speech from the Sovereign and that then, for some reason which is not clear to people, it is read to us all over again, in Her Majesty's own words, by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, though meanwhile we have got copies of it in our pockets from the Printed Paper Office, as is very evident when it becomes necessary to turn over the page. I know a number of ordinary members of the public who really believe that the Speech is written by the Sovereign. Therefore, before I start to criticise it, though I do not need to remind your Lordships it may be necessary for people outside that I should mention that, in fact, of course, the gracious Speech is all written by the Government.
If I am to say what I think is the most signal feature of the gracious Speech this year, without wishing to trespass on matters which it may be more proper to discuss on Tuesday, I would say that it is the fact that it nowhere contains the words "unemployed" or "unemployment". We have now about a million unemployed—I suppose, with their families, three or four million of our fellow citizens. I should have thought that room could have been found for some expression of sympathy for the lives which this large segment of our people arc being forced to lead. If I speak strongly about this, it is because, as your Lordships know, I never intended to be a politician and am not at all a good politician. In fact, I did not join any political Party until I was in the thirties; and the main reason why I then joined the Labour Party was that we had had years and years of Conservative Governments, and we had found in practice that a Conservative Government always meant at least a million unemployed. I thought then and I think now—
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I apologise to the noble and learned Lord, but I think he is being a little less than fair. I am looking at the gracious Speech texturally. When we turn to the home front, the very first sentence in the gracious Speech reads as follows:
"At home my Government's first care —"
"first care", my Lords—
"will be to increase employment by strengthening the economy and promoting the sound growth of output."
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, if the noble Earl had given me time I was going to point out that that was so, and that it was exactly what they said in the gracious Speech in July, 1970. It was almost in the same words, and we know what has happened since. I am not thinking of the technical question of employment but of the tragedies to the human beings involved. I thought in the 'twenties and 'thirties, and I think now, that while there are many tragedies which may come to men and women in life, one of the worst, partly because it has been so common, certainly in the past, is to be a man with a wife and children whom you naturally want to support and to be quite unable to find any work to do—"Not wanted on voyage". My Lords, I say no more about that because we shall probably hear more about it on Tuesday; but that is the first thought that struck me: that it should have been possible to express some sympathy with the position of the human beings concerned.
My Lords, as to the largest Bills, I cannot say anything useful to-day about the Common Market Bill, which in any case we have, of course, not seen yet. The noble Earl referred to the Local Government Bill, which we have got; and, again, we shall have plenty of opportunity to consider its detail later. There is only one point in it to which I should like to refer, because it affects a great many people and is, I think, one of some urgency. The whole of Part X of this Bill refers to justices of the peace. Now your Lordships will remember that the Beeching Royal Commission on Assizes and Quarter Sessions could not have reported in the last Session if, in addition to courts of assize and quarter sessions, the whole of our civil High Court and to some extent county courts, it had also had to consider the future of the magistrates' courts. But that unanimous Report was so warmly welcomed in all quarters that Parliament has been able to enact the Courts Bill and put it into force. This, as was always obvious, has left the whole future of the magistrates' courts in the melting pot. The Government might have decided what was to be done about the magistrates' courts. They might have appointed a Royal Commission on them; they might have appointed a Committee. Instead, the Home Office—and, as I commented at the time, why the Home Office

147
and not the Lord Chancellor's Office is obscure to me—sent out a circular to those concerned saying, "Do you want to come into the Beeching system and be part of the administration in a way in which all the other courts in the country will in future be administered? And, if you want to be centrally administered, is it to be by the Lord Chancellor or the Home Office? Or, alternatively, do you want to stay as you are—the only courts which have any direct connection at all with local government?" It seemed to me, as I have said, that the fact that that was sent out by the Home Office perhaps rather begged the question.
In their memorandum they sought, as they said, to put the principal arguments on both sides; but by some strange oversight they never mentioned the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act which your Lordships passed in the last Session. Those are courts which are the nearest equivalent to magistrates' courts: they are a kind of combined magistrates' and county courts—and they had always been administered by the local authorities; but they were taken away from any local authority connection and their administration was given to the Central Government. That fact was not mentioned. We have never been told why this Government thought that what was right for Scotland was not right for England.
I should like to ask these questions. Part X breaks up all the existing justices of the peace and magistrates' courts committees and so on. This will be an enormous upheaval for the magistrates' courts. It appears again to be a Home Office move to "jump the gun". This Bill is not to come into force until April, 1974. Does that mean that the Government do not intend to decide the future of the magistrates' courts until April, 1974? In their circular they called for replied by the end of September. I do not know what is stopping them now from reaching a conclusion. We know that the Magistrates' Association have consulted all their branches and are strongly in favour of being divorced from the local authorities and coming into the Beeching administration; we know that the Justices Clerks' Society feel even more strongly about it. I should like to ask whether all the memoranda which have been received by the Home Office in answer to their circu-
148
lar are going to be published; and if so, when. Further, when do the Government intend to come to a conclusion? Unless they are proposing to postpone this until 1974, what is the use of taking up the whole of Part X with a complete redistribution of all the commissioners of the peace and of all the magistrates' courts committees?
My Lords, I turn to law and order. I was a little disappointed—and I do not mean this in the least as a criticism—that we have not so far been told in either House what are the Government proposals for law and order. We have had reports in the Press which have not been denied; and, as I understand, it is proposed to increase the penalties for the use of firearms. I do not suppose that any of us would have any strong objection to that; but whether it will do any good I do not know. T was interested to read an Answer given in reply to a Written Question by my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger as to the number of policemen murdered in the last 20 years; and I was interested to see that if you take each of them separately, the numbers in the four 5-year periods were: 4, 3, 4, 5. Allowing for the increase in population, that seems remarkably static. It was stated a day or two ago in the other place (and, as I understood it, accepted by the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary) that, out of 7,000 successful prosecutions relating to firearms, the average sentence imposed by the courts was 4 per cent. of the permitted sentence. Whether, in those circumstances, you do any good by increasing the maximum appears to be something like a piece of window dressing. As a lawyer I have always been against fixed punishments; but I have suggested before, and I think that there is something to be said for it, that if, in addition to the sentence that he gets for his offence, you had a fixed punishment of, say, five years' imprisonment, when the person concerned was carrying a firearm, this might have some effect.
I agreed with a certain amount of the very able speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, about this difficult subject of law and order. I particularly agreed with her that lawyers, and particularly judges, tend to overestimate the effect on a crime rate of almost anything which the courts can do; and I, like her, believe that while

149
there is no doubt that there are many causes for an increase in the crime rate, what is more important than anything else in any generation is the way in which the children are brought up. There is a need at present for more good sense in the home.
I agree with what the Home Secretary said the other day in the other place as to the great importance of detection and of the police. One of the few certain facts in this field, if you take the records of any police station, if you look at the conviction rate—that is, the proportion which convictions bear to all the crimes known to the police—is that if the conviction rate goes up, then the crime rate goes down; and if the conviction rate goes down, the crime rate goes up. That is not astonishing; because I suppose it means that when you get some young man who is wobbling as to whether to do a job of housebreaking or not, then on the whole what decides him more than anything else is that if he thinks that when he does the job he will get away with it, he does it; and if he thinks that he will be caught and punished, he does not do it. The chief difference in this field since the war lies in the conviction rate. Before the war, the conviction rate for indictable offences was always over 50 per cent.; so that if you committed a serious crime in England the probability was that you would be caught and punished.
In a debate in which I took part in the summer of 1964, before the election of the Government of which I was a member, I pointed out the enormous fall in the conviction rate since the war; and that if you committed a robbery with violence in London there was a 3–1 chance that you would not he caught and punished at all; if you carried out a housebreaking there was a 6-1 chance that you would not be caught and punished; and if you stole from a stationary car there was a 12–1 chance that you would not be caught and punished at all. The great trouble, as it seemed to me then and as it does now, is that we have never increased the police force to deal with the increase in crime. On the day that we took office there were fewer police in the Metropolitan Police than there had been when the war broke out. We were in the great difficulty that people did not want to join the police because they were overworked;
150
and I knew of C.I.D. officers who did a 70-hour week.
But, while the crime rate has not fallen, the increase has fallen. That, think, is due to the measures that we took to increase the police force. We had to break this vicious circle, and we did so in two ways: first, by taking the police off all their extraneous duties, such as clerical work, carrying the mace for the mayor, acting as Shops Act inspectors and Market Act inspectors, collecting maintenance money, and in some cases acting as mortuary attendants; and, secondly, by increasing the number of traffic wardens and giving the policy modern equipment. While any increase in crime, and particularly violent crime, is a serious thing, it is a fact that the rate of increase while we were in office tended to fall.
What other measures we are to have in this field we do not really know. We understand that there may be sentences alternative to imprisonment. I think we should welcome that. In any case, in front of my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger, I should not like to say too much about that since she knows so much more about it than I. There are rumours that provision is to be made by a Bill to increase compensation to be payable by criminals and for making them bankrupt. That, again, I should have thought, with respect—though I do not suppose that we shall oppose it—is largely window-dressing; because the numbers of criminals who have money which you can get at is extremely limited. It may apply to train robbers, if you can find out where they put the money, or to bank robbers; but the proportion is small. I remember coming across a man in the sixties who had spent nearly all his life, certainly over 30 years, in prison. He had had 30 or 40 convictions. He was a rather curious character because whenever he was charged he always pleaded guilty and whenever he was asked if he wanted legal aid he always answered "No". Nobody ever said anything for him in the whole of his life. I totalled the value of the goods that he had stolen throughout his life. It was about £200. It would very soon be exhausted in the cost of keeping him.
I agree, and I think that the Home Secretary would probably agree, with

151
what the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, said about making prisoners work and earn their keep. Many of us have always thought this; but it is one of those things which is very much easier to say than to bring about. Considerable improvements—I draw no distinction between Governments—have been made in recent years. We have overcome the difficulties of not being able to get orders for the goods from employers and the objections from the trade unions. The main difficulties relate to the buildings. If there is no room in a prison in which to create additional workshops, they cannot be created. If you have the additional workshops you may not have the prison officers to man them. I am sure that the Government are doing their best in this regard. It has been stated in the Press that changes are to be made in suspended sentences. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Windlesharn, could tell us about that when he replies. As he knows, a great many of us—and this is not in any way a Party political statement—have not been at all happy about the mandatory provisions in relation to suspended sentences.
My Lords, so far as compensation is concerned, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and I have always been a little puzzled about the scheme of compensation for criminal injuries. It was started as an experiment and we have both suggested for some years now that it should be put on a statutory basis. It seemed to me odd at the time that the Home Office should say, "We have a million pounds that we do not want so we will spend it in this way". It has always been a strange sort of scheme, which has had no legislative sanction at all. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, what proposals he has in that field.
Your Lordships would think it strange, I expect, if I did not say something in relation to law reform in general, and if I may I will start with four old friends, really to inquire as to their health. The first is the Crowther Report on the Constitution. I should like to know when we are likely to have that Report. The second old friend is the Committee on Adoption Law Reform and I should like to know when we are likely to get that Committee's Report. The third old friend is the Report of the Finer Com-
152
mittee on one-parent families; and the fourth, which I think must have broken some Parliamentary record, is the extraordinary case of the Broderick Committee Report on Coroners. I have always very much doubted whether we need any coroners—I do not think they have any coroners in Scotland. But whether or not they are necessary should not take long to decide. The Broderick Committee was not appointed by this Government or by the last Government. It was appointed something like eight years ago, and I think that it must have broken all records for the time it has taken. Rumour has it that the Committee has now reported, and if it has I should like to know when we are to see what must be a wonderful work after all that time. When is it to be published?
The second group is concerned with my old friend the Department of Trade and Industry. Have we any news of bankruptcy law reform? Fourteen years ago the Blagden Committee set out 50 recommendations on reform which every Government have accepted ever since. Ever since then the Board of Trade—now the Department of Trade and Industry—have gone on saying, "Yes, certainly, we very much approve of this. We have accepted all the recommendations and legislation will be introduced as soon as time permits." May I ask what is the last word in relation to that matter?
In respect of the same Ministry, what about company law reform? I should think—I may be quite wrong—that a Conservative Government would be rather more concerned to see that our company law is kept up-to-date and in good working order than a Labour Government. Why is it that in the last half century the only Company Acts that we have had are the Labour Government's Company Acts of 1949 and 1966? We are always hearing that the Ministry is going to produce another, and I know that many Members of your Lordships' House consider that the 1966 measure did not go nearly far enough and should have included a lot of things which it did not. So may I ask for news about that?
To a commercial community hallmarking, is important. We have had the recommendations of the Select Committee of 1856. the Select Committee of 1879 and the Departmental Committee of 1959, so

153
it is now 113 years since the first of those Committees sat. Our hallmarking law—which is mostly of the 14th and 15th centuries, is quite incapable of being understood. When is it going to be modernised? And last, my Lords, what about insurance law reform?
May I now deal with one or two matters with which the Home Office is concerned? I am sorry to see that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, has left the Chamber because I was going again to join him. During the debate on the Queen's Speech a couple of years ago, he spoke somewhat scathingly about why the last Government had not implemented the Report on Juries from the Committee of which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, was the chairman. As a Government I do not think that we have a bad record on the implementing of Reports, but I agree that we did not get round to that one. The noble Lord complained then that it was four years old and should be considered at once. As it is now six years old, perhaps I may make the same inquiry. The noble Lord wanted to know why the Littlewood Report on Cruelty to Animals had not been implemented. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, can tell us something about that.
May I now come to one matter about which I am much more concerned than the two I have mentioned; that is, the Bill first drafted in 1931, and then approved, to enable this country, if it thinks fit, to make reciprocal agreements for the enforcement of maintenance and affiliation orders. We have, of course, an Act which enables us to make agreements about maintenance orders, though not affiliation orders, with Commonwealth countries. But for about forty years now everybody has known that it is very unsatisfactory that we should be quite unable to make reciprocal agreements with other countries. The reason why I say that I feel more strongly about this than the others is that a great many women for a great many years have been deprived of any support at all from husbands who have gone to foreign countries. When I say "foreign countries", I must make plain that, in terms of human misery, I of course include Eire. We cannot make an agreement with them.
154
I know, and the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, knows, that we have been strongly pressed for some years by the Government of Eire to make a reciprocal agreement with them. At the moment, if Irish husbands desert their wives and go back to Ireland, we can do nothing because there is no such agreement. Every year we tend to be told that we are going to have a Bill. I know that no Government ever pledge themselves to introduce a Bill in a particular Session, but we judge by the form of words and I certainly understood, by what was said in the House in the last Session, that we should get a Bill this Session. I hope very much that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, who, I think, then intimated that it was pretty well ready, will be able to give us some good news about that.
Finally, my Lords, may I come to those matters for which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is responsible. Although the noble and learned Lord is fulfilling other public duties elsewhere, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, may be able, when he replies to the debate, to tell me what is the position about these matters. The first is blood tests. In October, 1968, I received a report from the Law Commission saying, "Injustice is being done. Judges are having to find that the husband or the co-respondent is the father of a child, but they think that the probability is that it is really the other way round, and if a blood test could be ordered, with the advance of technology in this field, it would be of the greatest assistance." Thinking that this was a matter of urgency, I took the unusual course of introducing the Bill a week before the Law Commission's Paper was published. It of course takes a little time to get the Report printed and published, but it was published before we came to Second Reading. The Bill was widely acceptable to both Houses, but it always takes a little time to get the Royal Assent. It received the Royal Assent, however, before the end of the summer; namely, on July 25, 1969, but it does not work yet, and the reason why it does not work is that the Act provides that rules of court as to who are to take the tests, analyse them and so forth should be made by the Home Office. As I understand it, we have never been able to get the

155
rules from the Home Office. I can well understand that medical bodies have to be consulted, fees have to be arranged and so on, but after 24 years nothing is happening. I hope the noble Lord will be able to tell us that something is being done about that.
Then, to run through the rest quickly, over a year ago there was a Report of the Lord Chancellor's Law Reform Committee on opinion evidence and expert evidence. We have not yet even heard whether the Government have accepted those recommendations. There has been a Report of importance to those buying or renting houses; namely, the Report of the Law Commission on the civil liability of vendors and lessors for defective premises. We have not yet been told whether the Government have accepted those recommendations. The year before last the Law Commission produced a Report on administrative law; and they have recently followed it up with a second one as to procedure in certain cases of administrative law. May 1 ask what the Government are proposing to do about that?
Then there was a Law Commission Report on polygamous marriages. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was, I think, fighting a little shy of that, because I understood from him that he expected a good deal of opposition from the women's organisations. Others perhaps more in contact with the women's organisations than the noble and learned Lord, thought otherwise, and my noble friend Lady Summerskill introduced the Bill. It received a Second Reading without any really substantial objections being taken to it. One knows the difficulties of Private Members' Bills starting in this House when they reach the other place. I should like to ask whether, in those circumstances, and having regard to the very little time it will take up, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will not introduce the Bill himself in this Session. I observe that in the gracious Speech there is no reference to family courts, though the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has indicated in broad terms that he personally would be in favour of a system of family courts. This, I suppose, cannot happen until the Government have made up their mind what the future of
156
the magistrates' courts is to be; but if the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, could tell us anything about that, I should be grateful.
Lastly, I should like to mention a more cheerful matter. As your Lordships know, Parliament usually passes every year about 75 new Acts; that is the average number which they have passed in the last seven years. Therefore in seven years we should expect to see the number of Acts on the Statute Book increased by 500. When I took office I think the number was 3,600—I am referring to Public General Acts—so one might expect that there would now be 4,100. The Law Commission got round to the Statute Book rather late, as I know, simply because they could not get people who were qualified to do this kind of work. It is a measure of the progress that they have made—as some of your Lordships may have seen from an Answer to a Question I put down the other day—that, so far from there being 500 more Acts on the Statute Book than there were in 1964, there are more than 150 fewer. So we are not only not losing ground, but are actually making ground. I express the hope—and I have no reason to doubt that it will be so—that this Government will do what they can to speed that task.
My Lords, I am sorry that the list of things of which we approve is rather short, and that to which we take exception is rather long. I can only say that of the matters that we think are wrong your Lordships will be relieved to hear that I have mentioned very few, and I am sure there will be many behind me who have a great deal to add.
4.26 p.m.
LORD FOOT: My Lords, this debate is taking a rather curious course, because the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, in opening, began by saying that he did not intend to cover the whole field and would be selective. But when I come to look down the list of things which might be described in the gracious Speech as being matters of home affairs, it is difficult to find any item to which the noble Earl did not refer. Possibly what he meant when he said he was going to be selective was that he was not going to give us any useful information on any of them. But that was improved upon by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, be-

157
cause not only did he start off by saying that he did not intend to cover all the ground but, having covered most of it, he then went on to deal with a great many matters that are not on the agenda at all. I can give the House a firm assurance that I am indeed going to be selective, because I intend to speak only on matters that I know something about, which limits the field—or possibly I should qualify that by saying that I am going to talk about things that I think I know something about.
One matter which I think the noble Earl omitted from his list is the last point that appears in the gracious Speech; namely, the reference to what the Government propose to do to provide legal advice and assistance for persons with moderate incomes. I should like to say first that I entirely support what has been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, about that. If it is the Government's intention to implement the £25 legal advice scheme, then that is something which will be welcomed not only by lawyers but by the public generally, and by all those who are interested in the good administration of justice in this country. It is a long overdue reform, and the fact that it will he a good thing for lawyers does not make it any less a good thing for the public.
There is one aspect of legal aid on which I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, a question. I refer not to legal aid in civil actions, to which this passage in the gracious Speech obviously refers, but to the administration of legal aid in criminal cases in magistrates' courts. The present situation, which may not be known to all your Lordships, is that if anybody seeks to get legal aid to be defended or to be represented in a criminal matter in the magistrates' courts he makes his application to the magistrates. The magistrates then have an absolute discretion as to whether or not they grant legal aid. If they refuse, there is no appeal against their decision; and, further, they are under no obligation—indeed, they are under an obligation to the contrary—to disclose the reason why legal aid has been refused. I should perhaps qualify that by saying that in the Criminal Justice Act 1967 there are two statutory indications of how the magistrates should exercise their discretion.
158
The first question they have to ask themselves is whether they are satisfied that the particular applicant has not the means with which to pay for his legal representation. The second test is in these wide words: they have to consider whether to grant legal aid would be in the interests of justice. Because those words are so vague and uncertain, there has been a wide variation of practice in the grant of legal aid in magistrates' courts throughout the country: and not only throughout the country in different areas of the country, but sometimes between one division and an adjoining division. In my own part of the world it is notorious that in one magistrates' court it is very difficult to get legal aid yet in others it is almost always automatic. This results in two serious blemishes, as I believe them to be, in the administration of justice in magistrates' courts. First, it leads to these wide variations between one court and another. It used to be said of one judge who sat somewhere in the Midlands that he was so severe in his sentencing that burglars operating in that particular city were careful to commit their burglaries in an area outside his jurisdiction. In the matter of granting legal aid in magistrates' courts to-day, it makes a very great deal of difference whether a man happens to have been born on one side of the boundary or the other.
The second blemish of the system is that, as various recent investigations have shown, there are still a significant number of people who are appearing before the courts unrepresented and denied legal aid, and who are as a result going to prison—some of them for the first time. I should have thought that in this year of 1971, where any person stands at risk of going to prison, and particularly of going to prison for the first time, it should be an absolute rule that he or she should have the advantage of legal aid and legal representation. I would therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, if he will tell us later whether the Government have this problem under review and intend to introduce any legislation to ameliorate the situation.
My Lords, may I now turn briefly to my second subject, which is violent crime? I suppose that nobody would quarrel with the fact which is mentioned in the gracious Speech, that there has

159
been this steady growth of violent crime. I do not suppose that anybody would fail to share the grave concern of the Government and the public over these developments. The type of violent crime over which I am particularly concerned as being possibly the most savage illustration of the problem is, first of all, the armed robber gangs which move through our streets and commit their crimes almost daily, especially in this great capital city. These people are enemies of society: they are at war with society, and more often than not the victims of their savagery are innocent and helpless people. The other type of violent crime, or of threatened violence, which I find almost more detestable, is the operation of the protection racketeers, because their victims are very often unidentified and unknown—they are people who are living their lives and going about their avocations under the perpetual shadow of fear and violence from thugs of this kind.
I agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, said: that one of the criteria of a healthy and decent society is whether it is possible for ordinary people to walk in the streets and pursue their occupations in security and confidence. Therefore, my Lords, nothing that I say is in any way intended to diminish the size and gravity of this problem with which we are confronted. Everybody will agree that we have to find the means of building up our defences against these people who threaten the whole structure of society. But, when that has been said, the controversy begins. When you begin to ask what are the measures that will be effective in order to deal with the size and gravity of this problem, you come to the parting of the ways.
Everybody knows that during this next Session the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and his right honourable friend in the other place are going to be under great pressure on this issue of law and order. The pressure will come not from this side of the House but from the other side of the House, and it will come particularly from the Tory grass root Members in the country. We saw the other day at the Tory Conference something of the kinds of pressure that will be brought to bear and of the reaction of the ordinary Tory, when confronted with a problem of
160
this kind. What is so dismal and depressing, to my mind, is that there is this loud clamour for some kind of action but that the loudness of the clamour is matched only by the paucity of constructive proposals.
What are we told? We have not yet been told by the noble Earl exactly what measures the Government have in mind for dealing with violent crime; but we know what demands arc coming from the Tory Party. The first reaction, inevitably, is to stiffen the penalties. But when one talks about stiffening the penalties, surely the first question that has to be asked is: in what way are the present penalties inadequate, and in what way are the courts not armed with sufficient power to deal with crime of this kind?—especially in view of the fact that in almost every case of robbery by armed gangs or racketeers the prosecution can always, if it wishes, bring a charge of conspiracy, and then under Common Law the limits upon sentencing are non-existent.
The second cry we always hear, and which we have been hearing at the Tory Conference, is that we should seek to make the conditions of people in prison even more intolerable than they are now. Yet when we come to talk about prisons in the debates which we have annually in this House everybody is agreed that if you confine under conditions of strict security some of the most dangerous men in the country you create a private hell, not only for them but for the poor people who have the misfortune of having to look after them. And these people, the prison officers and so on, are at constant risk because of the conditions which we ourselves have created. Yet we do all that, knowing that degrading these people in that way has no effect in deterring those who are still abroad in the streets.
May I conclude, my Lords, by saying that I think this is one of the subjects on which, above all things, it is important to keep our balance and our "coolth". What is needed, if we are to fight violent crime successfully, is not toughness but intelligence; it is not inhumanity but ingenuity. As I said just now, I do not believe that you are going to deter those people who are still abroad in the land, people of this intention and of this kind, by degrading those people upon whom you have already put your hands. Therefore I shall wait with some anxiety to

161
hear—and possibly the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, will be able to tell us later —in what way the Government propose to amend the criminal law of this country in order to try to cope with this problem.
4.40 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Foot, will forgive me if I do not follow him in his arguments, much though I disagreed with many of them. I should like to turn to some remarks made by my noble Leader, Lord Jellicoe, in his interesting speech. I, too, commend the statement in the gracious Speech that:
"… the Government will pursue with vigour their policies for improving the environment."
This is no mere form of words. I wish to congratulate the Government on the courageous and firm action they have just taken in respect of disasters like the "Torrey Canyon". They have promulgated an Order in Council which will enable them to take immediate and firm action if such a disaster should occur again; and there can be no more serious threat to the environment than one like the "Torrey Canyon". I only ask the Government to assure themselves that they have discussed the matter with the insurance world, Lloyd's and other bodies, because if they do not do it before such a disaster occurs there will be a monumental argument afterwards.
This is a very interesting item to find in the Queen's Speech, because I cannot imagine such a statement concerning the environment ever occurring in a gracious Speech of 25 years ago. It is a change in the whole of our approach to vandalism, the loss of our amenities and the general concept of the environment affecting all aspects of our lives. This has come gradually upon us. This awakening of conscience is something which is quite new. It is a new approach for Governments, for local authority departments and for commercial enterprises. It is not quite so new for individuals because it is from the individual that this demand for a greater protection of our environment has come during the past 25 years. It has been the man below who has always been prodding. Nearly every great reform was once some man's private opinion. It is not the man on top who asks for reform; the man who has four aces never asks for a re-deal. It is illustrative of what has happened that the amenities societies, the
162
local groups, the people who have been caretakers and watchdogs of our society, have had their views maintained and encouraged in the gracious Speech.
May I give your Lordships one small example? You will see at the corner of the North-East end of Bryanston Square the new Swiss Embassy which is nearly completed. This is an elegant building. Many years ago the Swiss decided to pull down their Embassy and re-build it. They put forward a building which was decent enough, but it was a complete clash with the other three pavilion buildings at the corners of Bryanston Square. Appeals were made to the local authority, the G.L.C., and to the Government, but no action was thought possible. Then the local people started to nag and grumble. Successive Swiss Ambassadors were sympathetic, and finally the Swiss Government reversed its opinion, tore up the original plans and built a new Embassy which matches the other three houses at the corners of the Square. That was done as the result of local people nagging. We owe a debt of gratitude to the Swiss Government for their humane and decent behaviour in this matter.
When the Government are looking at the question of the environment and the way in which we can protect it, I wonder if they would stand back a little and view the matter in the round. We have made great improvements in our planning, but there is still a risk of plans going too far before anybody is aware of what is happening. Then it is too late to do anything about it. Piccadilly Circus is the classic example: if it had not been for the late Jack Cotton's magnanimity in publishing his plans out of the goodness of his heart—he had no reason to do it y law2he development would have one through. It was only after he published the plans that people became aware of what was happening, and so. fortuitously, we shall not see Piccadilly Circus redesigned in our lifetime.
There is something wrong with the whole planning system. There are bits and pieces which are good, but it does not add up to a satisfactory whole. I look back myself with quiet satisfaction on a plan to put up a grotesquely disproportionate hotel in the western area of London. Some friends and I decided that we would do our best to stop the hotel being built. We could not find who was

163
actually responsible, and we could not get our hands on the plans. Finally, I ran the man responsible to earth and I decided to go down and take him to task. I made an appointment to see him, but I arrived a little before my time. I was shown into his room and on his table were the plans. Attached to them was a small note, "On no account are these plans to be shown to Lord Mancroft". The hotel was not erected.
On the other hand, and slightly against my own argument, I do not think we should allow the "amenity boys" to get away with absurdities. You can make too much unnecessary fuss. If somebody ants to move a tree, or shift a bench in the park, you do not want an Act of Parliament to approve it. There must be a certain amount of give and take; but we have seen a little absurdity recently in protests about possible damage to the environment which have gone too far the other way and detract from what we are all trying to do, and what the noble Lord was outlining to us in his speech. I do not want an answer to-day, but I should be grateful if my noble friend who is to reply for the Government could give me an assurance that the system will be looked at to see whether there are loopholes where action can he taken without people being given the proper chance to study what is afoot.
We all have our hobby horses on matters of environment—I have a whole stable full of them. I do not intend to ride them all round your Lordships' House in what would be an increasingly hostile environment. But may I take out one and give it a few minutes' airing? My noble landlord the Duke of Westminster has recently published an extremely interesting document entitled Strategy for Mayfair and Belgravia. It weighs about two tons, costs £7 and is full of interesting information. Fortunately we, the tenantry, have been given a popular edition to study. You could not possibly call it a niggling or half-hearted document in view of the fact that it discusses, among other things, the possibility of pulling down St. George's Hospital and opening Buckingham Palace to the public. There is also an interesting picture in it entitled:
"Traffic should be discouraged from penetrating streets where it disrupts the character and environment."
164
Well and good. Walking through Belgrave Square this morning, I noticed two container lorries from Holland, both about the size of your Lordships' Chamber, and there were two more from Belgium equally vast. And that in Belgrave Square, probably the most distinguished piece of town and country planning in London, if not in Europe—old Cubitt would have turned in his grave! The police also tell me that three days ago they found an American lorry with this notice written on the back:
"This lorry stops for cross roads, level crossings, blondes and brunettes. For redheads it will reverse 100 yards."
The situation is already bad enough in this country—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, also touched on this —with our own domestic lorries. Many of our small country towns are being shaken to pieces. My own little market town, Malmesbury—one of the prettiest towns in England—is in dire peril. The amount and weight of lorries that goes through that town is intolerable. The situation may be better when the M.4 is opened up; but many other towns are not by-passed at all. Although the M.4 was due to be finished in about three weeks' time, I think it will be finished at about the same time as the Piccadilly Circus development.
About 400 years ago a very high wind brought down the spire of Malmesbury Abbey, and as that was a taller spire than Salisbury Cathedral it must have caused quite a mess in Malmesbury High Street. But now lorries are trying to bring down the rest of the Abbey. This is happening in towns all over the country; lorries are getting bigger and bigger. Trade must move; transport must carry the goods. But, going back to Belgrave Square, although I am a strong supporter of our entry into the Common Market—I was delighted with the result of the vote the other evening—what worries me is that we are going to have more and more of these foreign lorries of enormous size coming in which are difficult to control because they are not subject to our rules and regulations. They are subject of course to the rules of the road, and I am not criticising the standard of driving because, as we know, long distance lorry drivers are among the most courteous and skilful drivers on the roads. But these lorries, so far as I can find

165
out, are not subject to many of the normal rules and regulations of British lorries. Again I do not press the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, to give me an answer today, but I should like him, if he would be kind enough, to assure me that he will look at this matter to see whether, in the welter of legislation we have to face on the entry into the Common Market, down at the bottom of about page 721, something could be put in to assure us that lorries are subject to the same control in coming into this country as are our own domestic lorries. If we do not do this, my Lords, if we do not have control of some kind, there will in point of fact be no ancient buildings left for us to protect.
4.51 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I turn to an entirely different subject. I wish to draw the attention of the House to a law reform which has not been touched upon by the noble and learned Lords who have already spoken. It is concerned with the Working Paper which was published last week by the Law Commission. I am sorry that my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner did not mention the Law Commission because it is his "baby" and he should be very proud of it, although at times it does not, in my opinion, cry loud enough. However, the Commission last week published this Paper which in my opinion is of tremendous importance, and I hope I may persuade the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, who quite understandably probably knows a little about family law, to take a personal interest in this matter.
It will be recalled that it was in 1970 that the divorce reform Act reached the Statute Book, and it came into operation this year. All of your Lordships have no doubt been reading your newspapers and you will have noticed that, quite understandably, the divorce rate has increased. As was to be expected, the greatest sufferers are to be found among the older women who have been divorced against their will although innocent of any matrimonial offence. By a curious coincidence, the last letter I have received, which has just been handed to me, came from a woman who told me about her life. I have just read it through, and undoubtedly all of us have the great-
166
est sympathy with such a woman, who has toiled for her family for many years, who cannot possibly take up any kind of job because she has no qualifications and is too old, but who has suddenly received a letter saying she is going to be totally discarded.
I must apologise to the House if I seem guilty of tedious repetition, but your Lordships may remember that throughout the debate to which I have referred, which seemed to cover two or three years, I emphasised that, while I do not object in principle to divorce, nevertheless I believe it is grossly unjust for the woman who has cooked, cleaned and cared for her family for many years to be discarded, without specific provisions being incorporated in the Act regarding her rights to the family assets. During that period my noble friend informed me (and I was pleased to hear it) that the Law Commission were engaged on a Paper concerned with family property which would meet most of my objections. At long last, the Law Commission have published a Working Paper, No. 42, on Family Law and Family Property. It was published last week. I ask the Government to regard this Paper as a document of supreme social importance. Obviously, the Law Commission would like the comments not only of the Government but of the Opposition and women's organisations, and even of individuals who care to suggest amendments. When that has been dealt with during the next few months, I ask the Government to introduce the appropriate legislation.
Of course, in this context it must be realised that the word "property" should be interpreted as meaning land, goods, money and insurance, and in the home as meaning furniture, the car, savings and pensions, because all these items are typical family assets. In addressing himself to this Paper last week Mr. Justice Scarman, Chairman of the Law Commission, said:
"Women—good women—often have no opportunity to acquire property during their married lives. If a woman is deserted she has a difficult and often unpleasant fight to secure any property at all. Inequality could be changed in two ways: altering social habits so that married women in fact have the same opportunity to acquire property "—
he might have used the word "assets"—
"as their husbands; or the law could be redesigned."

167
He went on to say that these are not true alternatives; a little of each would do us good. But he then added:
"I think that we will respond in our usual madly irritating piecemeal way."
My Lords, I cannot help but concur with everything the chairman said.
It was in 1953 that I introduced the Married Women's Legal Disabilities Bill in another place, but, despite the magnificent support of Sir Jocelyn Simon (as he was in those days; now I am pleased to say he is with us here), we failed to pierce the armour of prejudice which confronts those who seek to remove discrimination in any form. I believe it is harder to remove sex discrimination than it is to remove race discrimination. Nevertheless, by a piecemeal approach, I managed, with the help of this House, to pilot Bills such as the Married Women's Property Bill and the Matrimonial Homes Bill to the Statute Book. I would say to noble Lords who are sitting here, many of whom sat and helped with those Bills (if not by speaking, then at least by their support in the Division Lobbies) that although those Bills reached the Statute Book it was piecemeal work.
Although the Married Women's Property Act 1964 established the principle that a wife has a legal right to half the savings from the housekeeping money, this of course is of little value if a woman is married to a mean husband. It means little, but that was all I could get Parliament to accept at that time because that was all that was recommended by the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce which sat to discuss these matters. Again, the Matrimonial Homes Act guarantees the wife and her children a roof on the desertion of the husband. Before that Act the husband could say, "Get out" and could make life so unpleasant that the wife had to get out; and he would leave the next morning and bring his mistress in later that day. That was the law of the land until two or three years ago. That Act of course can prove only a temporary shelter, for she has no legal right to the ownership of the house. Some of the changes considered in the Law Commission's Paper would provide permanent protection for her by giving her co-ownership of the matrimonial home, the right on the husband's death to inherit a share of his
168
estate, even though he makes a will disinheriting his wife, and equal sharing of the assets acquired during the marriage when it ends.
It may be thought that the provisions in the 1970 Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act are a wise and adequate protection. But this is far from the case. It applies only to situations of marriage breakdown and, furthermore, it is not a property Statute. It does not alter the legal rules which determine the ownership of property; it does not declare that a wife's contribution of looking after the home confers upon her a right to a share in the assets of the family. In a small home the assets of the family mean the washing machine that the wife has helped to buy: the new furniture in the kitchen—all these little things which she went without for weeks and months, and which she finally managed to buy, perhaps on hire-purchase, and bring into the home. I am not talking about large houses—stately homes with many acres of land; I am talking about the assets which the lawyers call "property", a term which is a little deceptive because most of us, when we think of property, certainly do not think in terms of washing machines.
The Working Paper which was published last week says:
"What women are saying, and saying with considerable male support, is that they are no longer content with a system whereby their rights in family assets depend on the whim of their husbands or on the discretion of the judge. They demand definite property rights, not possible discretionary benefits".
My Lords, any protestations of affection in marriage become meaningless if there is gross unfairness in the sharing of the material assets of marriage. For generations the bride has been "conned" (if I may use the term used by the youth of our country to-day), at the altar into believing that the vicar's words concerning the endowing or sharing of worldly goods have some sacred significance. Some women learn differently, sometimes only a month or two after marriage. Of course these are empty words with no legal validity whatsoever, and I am sorry that the Bishops' Bench is empty for, having regard to the support which the Church gave to the Divorce Reform Act —particularly the hierarchy of the Church —it is disappointing that it has not thought fit to undertake the revision of

169
that part of the marriage service concerned with the disposal of the worldly goods of the bridegroom so that it might be given some legal validity.
While the financial position of the wife and mother should be safeguarded on divorce or death, nevertheless most of her married life will be concerned with the day-to-day chores, which frees her husband to pursue his work outside the home and to improve his skills. This is really the crux of the situation. A highly intelligent woman who has already had a good education nevertheless has maternal instincts which, quite understandably, urge her to marry the man who asks her and to have children. But there is her brain, which should be allowed to remain active, and if she is wise she cultivates various interests. Her brain is very much alive to the situation. The Law Commission summed up the whole matter in this way. They said:
"Marriage is a form of partnership to which both spouses contribute, each in a different way, and the contribution of each is equally important to the family welfare and to society".
I believe that it is neither just nor conducive to marital harmony for a woman to be compelled to devote herself to the chores in a house all day, for very long hours, while she alone is deprived of a legal right to a share of the family income. Men say that women are difficult to understand. Of course all women understand each other; all women know perfectly well why, after a time, the intelligent woman who is confined to the chores of the housework becomes a little mute when pressed by her husband to tell him what is the matter. She feels that he should understand; she feels as she stands over the sink, hour after hour —and in these days, when domestic help is difficult to get, the kitchen sink is a familiar object to every wife, and to many husbands—he should realise that she alone in the house is deprived of a legal right to any share of the family income. That this woman is deprived in this way, and that society is ignoring the situation, is short-sighted on the part of society.
Any measure which seeks to deal equitably with the family assets must contain a provision (I say this particularly to the Law Commission, and I am sure the members of the Law Commission will agree with me, because I think this
170
is the first speech that has been made on this very important Paper) to ensure not only that the woman is safeguarded on death or divorce but also that she is safeguarded in her home while she is doing these jobs—jobs which must be done but which nevertheless, for some reason or other, have not attracted the attention of her husband or of the lawyers. Most lawyers are men; Parliament is made up of men—these institutions are male and, quite understandably, these matters have escaped their notice for very many years. I would say to the Law Commission that any measure which seeks to deal equitably with the family assets must contain a provision which establishes marriage as an equal partnership in which financial recognition should not depend on whether the service Ito the family is rendered in the home or outside. My Lords, I ask you to-day—about ten days after this Paper was published—not only to read it yourselves, not only to recognise the justice of the case, but also, as the months go by, to see to it that you do your best to identify yourselves with the emancipation of the housewife.
5.7 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I have listened with great interest and considerable sympathy to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, but I wish to turn to an entirely different subject. I wish to discuss the situation to-day of certain old age pensioners. Having listened to the debate so far, I am not altogether sure that I should be bringing up this matter to-day—perhaps it should be brought up in the debate next Tuesday under the heading of economics—but, having heard the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, about the speeches of the noble Earl the Leader of the House and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, I feel encouraged perhaps to deviate somewhat from the line of country which has hitherto been pursued. To tell the truth, it never occurred to me that the subject of old age pensioners was not suitable for discussion in a debate on home affairs, because it seems to me that it relates so very much to our affairs at home, and in particular to the home of the old age pensioner himself. Therefore I hope I shall have the indulgence of your Lordships if I bring up the matter this after-

171
noon, quite apart from the fact that I shall not be able to attend your Lordships' House next Tuesday.
In the Queen's Speech it says that Her Majesty's Ministers
"will pursue their proposals for reforming the tax system."
That, of course, is a policy with which I am in wholehearted agreement. I have in my hand a little pamphlet, put out by the Board of Inland Revenue, entitled Income Tax and the Elderly, and published in 1970, so it is just a year out-of-date, but it does very well for the purposes of my argument. In this little pamphlet, which I rather doubt whether many old age pensioners have ever seen, Question No. 2 on the first page is as follows:
"Is the National Insurance retirement pension taxable?"
The answer is:
"Yes, it counts as earned income."
This, of course, is the first point of disagreement from the point of view of the old age pensioner. He simply does not see why, when he has paid his taxes regularly throughout his working life according to the law and has had substantial sums deducted from his income over a period of perhaps fifty years—or not so long as that, because there was not any scheme of this nature fifty years ago, but at least over a very long time, and those sums have been put aside to contribute towards his old age pension—that pension should be assessed in his gross income if he should wish to continue working after his retirement. This is in fact what happens, and it is the first point with which the old age pensioner does not agree. It is linked very closely with a question later in this pamphlet which is put like this:
"I am married with an income of just above £740 a year …"
That brings in the marginal relief allowance, and the figure is now in fact £786 a year. The question goes on:
"Why should I pay such a heavy rate of tax as 50 per cent. on my income above £786?"
Because that is the effect; the earnings above that rate are taxed at 50 per cent., and the old age pensioner simply cannot understand why he should pay this seemingly higher rate, although of course over the aggregate the rate does not work out at that figure.
172
These are matters which are extremely difficult to explain to somebody in this situation, and the explanation which the Board of Inland Revenue has seen fit to start off with here is:
"This is not the right way to look at it. The test must be whether it pays you to claim the marginal relief or not."
The old age pensioner simply does not know what you are talking about, and he does not know how this marginal relief is worked out or why they choose that figure of £786. All he knows is that he is paying a considerable slice of tax when he continues to work after getting his old age pension, and he thought he was not going to pay any. When he is told that this is not the right way to look at it, it produces an explosion of wrath. I know, because I have tried it, and this is the reaction; and if your Lordships found yourselves in the same situation I think that that would very likely be your own point of view.
I think it is only fair to elucidate this point and give a case which I have come across very recently. It is the case of an old age pensioner who was among the lower paid workers in some rural employment all his life, and he was earning only £15 a week on his retirement. Now, because the old age pension for a married couple is £9·50 and the limitation of earnings without deduction of pension is also, from October 1, £9·50, that man can, by doing part-time work, achieve a gross income of £19, whereas before he was earning only £15. This has led to some anomalies; but the anomaly is not that he is earning more than he was but that he was getting paid so little during his working life. This is rather a reflection upon our society and standard of living, which we all hope will improve.
I can see nothing morally wrong about a man, because of our present legislation, earning more in his retirement, or any reason why he should not have more in his pocket after retirement than before. Good luck to him! I think that after fifty years of work a man is entitled to a comfortable life in his retirement and some pleasures hitherto denied to him. But the effect on his tax is quite extraordinary. He was paying 90p. or 95p. per week on his previous earnings. Many old age pensioners wish to go on working; they wish to continue an interest in

173
the life they have been working in before; they wish to maintain themselves mentally alert and physically fit; they wish to have some occupation and maintain the self respect which comes from some form of employment. That is very natural.
He is allowed to earn £9.50 a week without deduction of pension; but whereas he was paying just 90p. or 95p. before, suddenly he finds himself paying nearly 2½ times as much in tax—£2.10 or £2.20. He simply cannot understand it, and he will not pay it, or makes a very good attempt not to pay it. He says, "Why should I pay this? If I am going to work and I am taxed more than before, I will not work. I will sit on my backside, draw a pension and apply for Supplementary Benefit. This will cost the State much more and they will not get the benefit of my output." It is a logical argument and one which must be taken account of. If I refer back to this £9·50 again, it is for the purpose of making a suggestion. I have discovered that one thing the old age pensioner cannot understand is why he should pay tax on any of it, and he does not believe he will have to until it happens. He knows that if he earns more he will lose some pension, but he really believes that this will be free of tax, and it is not. Then he takes up this attitude, and I think it is understandable. He has had a long working life, wants a part-time occupation and does not see why he should pay tax. He Chas made his contribution and earned what he thinks are his rights, and he wants his comfort in his retirement.
I feel that it would simplify matters enormously if the limit for non-deduction of pension could also be the limit for non-deduction of tax. What that would mean is that instead of paying, as it turns out, about £100 a year under the present system, he would not pay that. It would result in an enormous simplification of administration. It would also, in my view, be eminently fair and just. The Treasury can easily make the calculation, and I hope the Government will make the calculation, of how much money they would lose if this figure were the tax exemption figure as well as the figure for exemption from deduction of pension. And they can put against that what they will save by not having to pay the Sup-
174
plementary Benefit which would otherwise be applied for. I believe the sum is not so large that this country could not easily afford it. I commend this point to the Government, because I really believe that OUT attitude towards the old age pensioner must change if they are to enjoy that very quality of life to which my noble friend the Leader of the House referred with such emphasis in his opening remarks today. If the Government are going to reform taxation they must start at the bottom and make the old age pensioner a special case, simplifying the whole procedure so that he can understand it and agree with it. I think we shall all be the gainers from that.
5.8 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, this is a very wide-ranging debate in which almost every subject seems in order, but I propose to confine my few remarks to the Government s concern at the growth of violent crime. I am aware that in so doing I shall probably cover at least some of the ground covered by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, but since I agree with most of what he said it will probably curtail what I have to say. The Government are quite right to be concerned about this subject, because violence is of great concern to an overwhelming majority of the public and, understandably, they expect something to be done about it. To my mind, however, the important thing is that we should keep a sense of proportion and not allow ourselves to be stampeded into actions which will make matters worse than they are now; because, having a sense of proportion, we are not a violent people; we are not a violent nation.
Our police forces are the best in the world. It was heartening to hear from the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, that the Government stand solidly behind the Police Service. I can only hope that they do not stand too far behind, because there has not been much public evidence of support for the police in their pay or in other matters. I should very much like to see the Government take action to strengthen our police forces in every way possible. They are the best in the world, they are in control, and they discharge their duties in a manner which gains for them the respect and support of the people.

175
The gracious Speech speaks of
"provisions to strengthen the administration of criminal justice."
That is good, but I hope that it does not necessarily mean more savage sentences. I am afraid that many people do not want the trouble of trying the more difficult solutions, and they cry out for more severe and more savage sentences. When they get their way they are temporarily satisfied. They can go home to tea, and feel that they have done a good job. But they have not; they have made it worse. All the evidence shows that the increase in sentences, or the imposition of what I might call "legal violence". serves only to increase illegal violence because it raises the level of public tolerance, of what the public are willing to accept, and there is an increase all round.
When you think of other countries compare, for example, New York with London. I mention New York because they have stepped up "legal violence" there. The police arc armed, and their method is to shoot first and get the evidence afterwards. What is the result? In the words of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoc, this afternoon, "the heart of the average American city is all too often brutal and violent." Of course it is, because they have taken the one step to ensure increased brutality and violence. To-day in New York there are many parts of that great city where honest, respectable citizens dare not walk abroad at night. Murder, rape, and robbery with violence are momentary occurrences. There are six times the number of murders in New York than there are in the whole of the United Kingdom, crowded as we are with our 55 million people. These are the facts; they cannot be overlooked. We dare not allow such a situation to arise here.
The other week I watched on television the report of the Conservative Party Conference at Brighton, and the debates on crime. From different speakers there were insistent and much cheered demands for such things as the return of the death penalty, for flogging, and the birch. This is all old ground. So far as corporal punishment is concerned, it has been considered by top level impartial Committees, and it has been utterly rejected. We do
176
not want these old controversies again. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, when he replies this evening, will underline the Government's rejection of these methods and reaffirm that such measures have no place in the Government's policies.
Of course the demand of these good people is understandable. The kind, gentle woman is affronted and horrified by the details of a horrible, brutal murder, or of cruelty inflicted on a child. Understandably, she cries out for the man to be hanged or flogged, as the case may be. The thing is that they want a short cut; they want to be able to wipe out at a stroke these frightful things which horrify everyone. But there is no short cut, my Lords. We should all want it if one were available; but there is not. We have not one here, or in Northern Ireland. That is why I am sure the Government are disastrously wrong with their policy of internment without trial in Northern Ireland. It is another extension of "legal violence", and it has led to an awful escalation of conscienceless illegal violence, of which the principal victims are our 14,000 brave British boys who find themselves stuck in the middle. It is no good, and we should realise and acknowledge these things, and be big enough to adjust our policies accordingly.
Like all other noble Lords, I feel nothing but loathing and horror at the daily actions of the I.R.A. I feel exactly the same about the sickening cruelties of our own violent criminals. They must be caught and punished according to the law, and that is why we want a stronger police force. If the sentences are inadequate, by all means let us adjust them, but in many cases now the courts do not impose the maximum sentences available to them. So the problem is not inadequate maximum sentences. I remember that when we considered the Criminal Justice Act 1967 there were some who objected to the stiffer sentences in that Act for crimes committed when carrying a firearm. We enacted that if a man goes out with intent to commit a crime carrying a gun he should be liable to a total sentence of 14 years' imprisonment. I thought that was right in 1967, and I still think that it is right to-day.
Fourteen years is a very stiff sentence; it is virtually the equivalent of a life

177
sentence. I do not think that the adding of three, four or five years to it is going to make any practical difference to a criminal, but it means an added burden to those who have to keep him inside. In fact, I feel—and I say this seriously —that we have to keep on doing what we are doing, but do it more energetically. Give the police whatever additional help they need to catch them, and then punish these men. Meanwhile, let us press on with our policy of prison reform which is undoubtedly producing results. I do not think that we can reform these hardened criminals, especially the gunmen, but the gunmen are only a minute fraction of our prison population. With all the rest we have a chance, especially when the new prisons are built to relieve the disgusting and dangerous overcrowding which afflicts us now.
Last evening on B.B.C. Television there was a 20-minute film which showed the work being done to make the River Avon navigable from Birmingham to Stratford. It is a very big scheme. The work, under a young architect, is being done almost entirely by volunteers and prisoners. The prisoners, from Gloucester Prison, are also volunteers and they work for nothing. They come out each day, under a prison officer, and do very hard, very dirty and sometimes what is clearly quite dangerous work, as well as wet work, fitting up locks and weirs. They built a weir in a quarter of the time that it would take a contractor. It is only by employing such labour that this very worthwhile job can be done at all, and hundreds of thousands of people will enjoy their work. This is the way to treat prisoners. Bring them out and give them a job to do that is satisfying in the sense that they are taking part of their own free will, and really getting on with it. That film showed it being done before your eyes. This is not a fairy tale.
There are signs that the prison tide may have turned; that all the work that has been done has not been done in vain. A few months ago, the prison population was some 41,000, but the figure yesterday morning was 39,500. It is not a lot, but it is a reduction of 1,500 on 41,000. What is important is that there is a reduction, despite the enormous number of new committals to prison which the courts are making every day.
178
The tide from the courts is slowing and the numbers in prison are reducing.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, will the noble Lord excuse my interruption? I intervene only because I feel very moved by what he has been saying and I, like many other noble Lords, agree with almost every one of the points that he has made. But does the noble Lord agree that, so often, one of the difficulties about prison is the inactivity inside? If the noble Lord could devote his tremendous knowledge and experience in this field to helping to devise activities for people who have to have custodial treatment, as well as for people who have non-custodial treatment, he could not perform a greater service to the cause of which he has been speaking so movingly.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I agree with the noble Viscount and I am grateful for what he has said. Of course Gloucester Prison is an ordinary prison, and there are ordinary prisoners there. Nevertheless, in any ordinary prison there are a great many who are suitable for work outside; and there is certainly great scope for non-custodial treatment, which I hope can be an alternative to a prison sentence. The Government are aware of this and it would mean a separate organisation, which I hope the gracious Speech indicates the Government are going to provide. But I do not want to pursue that aspect now, as I have already spoken long enough.
I do not think there is any need for gloom or panic, despicable and horrible as some crimes are and arousing in us the feeling that something must be done. What we must not do is to give way and destroy all the first-class work that is being done by devoted people who are achieving results. If I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, a great deal will depend on whether or not the Government are really prepared to back the Probation Service. Their plans demand a substantial expansion of that Service. We are recruiting the new men but not h sufficient numbers, and we cannot do that unless we can offer them something. If only the Government will do that in a real sense, and will also back the many voluntary organisations which are doing such wonderful work, despite the lack of funds, then we may

179
reduce our prison population to a level which will not be a disgrace to a civilised society.
5.38 p.m.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, though I sit on this side of the House I count myself a conservative, if the word is spelt with a small "c", my principle being to leave alone any institution or system, or lack of system, such as the British Constitution, which appears to be working well, in order to conserve energy for the reform of institutions which are not working well. And, God knows!— and I know, too—there are plenty of them. When I read the gracious Speech from the Throne I found myself comparing it with the mythical curate's egg and saying, "Parts of it arc excellent." Among the excellent parts I would put the commitment of the Government to support the direct grant schools. I think that those schools are doing good work, and they have done good work in the past. So far from being socially divisive, they offer opportunities for academic advance and cultural life to people who otherwise would not enjoy those privileges. It is one of the amenities of this House that I can make remarks like that without opening myself to the fear of being bullied, as many Members who deviate from the Party line in another place are in fact bullied. I am not in the least afraid of being bullied by my noble friend Lady Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe.
Coming to another section of the gracious Speech, I think we on this side can applaud what is proposed from the other side; that is, the intention to promote legislation
"… to increase protection for ancient monuments and to extend the powers of local authorities to protect buildings in conservation areas."
I am very glad that the words "conservation" and "protection" are used, instead of the word "preservation". After all, one preserves dead things; one conserves live things. I shall not say any more in praise of that part of the Speech, because it has been so well dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. But it is possible that some of my noble friends on this side share my fear that certain powerful financial interests, such as hotel developers and office developers, may be
180
given undue consideration by members of the present Government. Of course, it is not only financial interests that we have to fear as regards our environment, because, after all, the worst pollution to the skyline of Hyde Park is constituted not by the Royal Lancaster or the Hilton but by the banausic excrescence which Sir Basil Spence has erected on the site of Knightsbridge Barracks—and that under the auspices, I think, of a Government Department which is not, for some reason (I do not know why not) constrained by any public planning authority.
That brings me to a part of the gracious Speech which I think is not only not excellent but thoroughly rotten. It says:
"Legislation will be introduced to provide for an alternative service of local radio broadcasting."
My Lords, we in this country have a system of local, regional and national broadcasting in the hands of the B.B.C. The B.B.C. has its faults. It is sometimes biased to the Left, sometimes to the Right. Thank God! the biases cancel one another out. It is sometimes lacking in taste. It sometimes promotes trivial programmes, such as "Petticoat Line". One can find fault with it; but it is, I think, the best radio service in the world, and I choose to think—I hope—that it still bears traces of that integrity and devotion to a public service which was bestowed on it by its first rather over-austere Director-General, the late Lord Reith. Why interfere with it? Whence comes the demand for such interference? We all know that a certain age group has an insatiable desire for "pop" music. That desire was satisfied to some extent by the old "pirate" radio stations, financed by advertisements. Unfortunately, of course, they were not constrained, as the B.B.C. is constrained and as the new broadcasting authority will be constrained, by the limitation of needle time imposed by agreement with the Musicians Union. But, on the whole, the B.B.C. is doing its level best to produce the kind of "pop" music which so many of the young people enjoy, and which they can enjoy on Radio 1.
I have never seen any good reason why Radio 1 should not be allowed to make a little money out of advertisements. It could at any rate concentrate its advertising spots on those products which are good for us instead of those products

181
which are not good for us, as indeed is done by commercial television companies. For instance, as a medical officer recently said, as reported in The Times of October 8:
"It isn't much good telling parents that they ought to be giving their children more protein and fewer sweets when the T.V. commercials come on and urge them to eat more sweets and bread and cereals",
which the medical profession agrees is conducive to rotting our schoolchildren's teeth. So here, my Lords, we have an unnecessary, unwanted, expensive innovation. I have scarcely had time to read the Bill in detail, but it involves a loan of public money to the tune of £2 million and the addition of 150 more officials to the bureaucracy of the Independent Television Authority. It is probably going to involve much more expense than that one way or another. Why do we have it? It is unwanted. I suppose it is the result of a commercial racket which is powerful, and I suppose that when we have local sound commercial radio, if the Government remain in power, we shall very soon have commercial national radio in competition with the B.B.C.
What have successive Conservative Governments given us? In the early 'fifties they gave us commercial television. That was the result of a very strongly organised pressure group adequately financed. It was carried through against the united opposition of the whole teaching world, teachers and universities, and certain noble Lords in this House. including Lord Halifax, Lord Waverley, Lord Brand and the noble and learned Lord who now normally sits upon the Woolsack. There was some excuse in those days, I think, for that particular innovation. Television was a relatively new medium of communication: one had scarcely had time to assess its effects or its values. Moreover the B.B.C. Televison Service was then in a state of flux, and I am afraid its reorganisation was carried out most ineptly by the then Director-General. Since then, what have we been given by successive Conservative Governments? We have been given a proliferation of casinos, we have been given betting offices and we have been given bingo clubs, and the very successful, adequately working Carlisle experiment of State management was destroyed last Session. Now we are going to be
182
given unwanted, expensive, local sound radio. A Party that does that sort of thing is in fact wasting money and wasting time. It is polluting our cultural environment. It is committing itself to a policy of squalid commercialism, and it ought to be ashamed of itself.
5.47 p.m.
LORD VIVIAN: My Lords, I do not intend to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Stocks, in the interesting themes of her speech, but first of all would ask your Lordships to bear with me if, as a Back-Bencher, I add my congratulations to those which were so rightly given yesterday to my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve for the expertise and the statesmanlike manner in which she moved the Motion for an humble Address to Her Majesty. I offer my personal congratulations today because I intend to refer to my noble friend's speech in particular. We are fortunate indeed, my Lords, to be able to include the noble Baroness on these Benches, for she has shown so much courage and has never spared herself when faced with public service in the interests of the community. Having paid tribute to my noble friend Lady Macleod, I feel it would not be right if I did not just briefly refer to my noble friend Lord Selsdon, who seconded the Motion for an humble Address. Back-Benchers on this side of your Lordships' Chamber would like to pay tribute to him, I feel sure, for the excellent speech he made, and to congratulate him on the great sense of leadership he showed as one of the younger hereditary Peers in your Lordships' House.
My Lords, I should like to return for three or four minutes to the speech made by my noble friend Lady Macleod, and in particular to that part in which she stressed, as a magistrate of great experience, the urgent need that more could and should be done by research to prevent crime by preventing people from becoming criminals. My noble friend Lady Macleod said:
"We need more facilities in our hospitals for possible young criminals, for preventing young thugs from becoming old thugs, places where brain rhythms and other tests could be made. I can get a psychiatrist's report, which of course is always helpful, but when I feel that a child needs treatment then it is almost impossible to obtain".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2/11/71, col. 9]

183
Noble Lords will also agree, I feel sure, with my noble friend when she went on to remark—and here I use her own words:
"At least some of our present difficulty with juvenile delinquents stems from the attitude of the parents. Some seem to have so little concern … "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2/11/71;col. 9.]
How right is my noble friend! I can recall during the Second Reading of the Children and Young Persons Bill on June 19, 1969, that I said in a speech in your Lordships' House:
"The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, rightly pointed out that we have a very sizeable number of children in need of care and guidance at the present time. To the noble Earl's wise words, I would add that they are in need of love, also. I have mentioned love because, as every noble Baroness and noble Lord will realise, that is the most important factor, together with family discipline. It is these two important factors, together with those which the noble Earl mentioned, which can prevent some of these unfortunate children from coming under the care of juvenile courts or probation officers, for whom I have the greatest respect. The word love' is not mentioned in the Bill, nor did I expect it to be, but I claim, like Mr. Godfrey Winn—a very human and celebrated author of our times, who is well-known to your Lordships—that there would be very little juvenile delinquency but for the fact that there is a great deal of parental delinquency at the present time. It is my firm belief that if only we could stem or control parental delinquency, there would be fewer children to be cared for in the future under this important Bill."
This is a subject which is very close to the hearts of my noble friend the Leader of the House and of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, who with great expertise introduced the Bill into this House. It is also dear to the heart of the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, who, while in Office, did much valuable research on this important subject; and it is of primary interest to noble Lords on all sides of the House. When my noble friend Lord Windlesham winds up to-day's debate perhaps he may be able to say what plans the Government have to stem the rising tide of juvenile delinquency which, I repeat, can in the main he attributed to parental delinquency. Can my noble friend say what plans the Government have for increasing the number of approved schools for delinquent children? This, together with bad housing conditions, is shown to be the chief cause of juvenile offences.
184
I was greatly heartened by the firm assurances of the noble Earl the Leader of the House when in his speech he told noble Lords that squalid houses are to be razed to the ground and slum hovels done away with in London, in the north of England, and in the Liverpool and Glasgow areas. I have mentioned this because from the 11th Home Office Research Study, Thirteen-year-old Approved School Boys in 1962, which is currently available in the Printed Paper Office, we learn that (and I quote from page 43):
"The third finding of importance is the extremely unfavourable background from which the boys came; a third of them were not brought up by both parents and about half lived in overcrowded conditions. Only 58 per cent. of the fathers were regularly employed and a quarter were out of work at the time of the boys' committal."
I know that the Government will do all in their power to remedy the state of unemployment, in view of the finding that
"Only 58 per cent. of the fathers were regularly employed and a quarter were out of work at the time of the boys' committal."
It is only fair to say that my Party inherited a rising debit figure of unemployment from the previous Government, and I am convinced that we on the Government side of this House, through the introduction of the Industrial Relations Act, have shown that we are going to do (and in fact are doing) all that we can to help industry and to help the industrial worker to get a grip of things where industry is concerned. I know that to a great degree the Parties are opposed in their thinking on this Act; but my personal feeling is the same as that of my Party; namely, that the great British working man has a new deal under the Act and that if he will take off his coat, roll up his sleeves and get on with the job, the resulting upward surge in industry through the Act and through our entry into the E.E.C. will quickly stem the rising unemployment figures, and the British working man, so much revered in the past for his skill and tenacity, will once again come into his own.
My Lords, I apologise for having somewhat diverged from my main reason for speaking to-day. To get back to my original subject, the care of juvenile offenders. knowing that the subject is so close to the heart of my noble friend

185
the Leader of the House, I am convinced that we shall do all that is possible to help those who are maladjusted, and thereby to improve their lot and their future chances in the community. I should like to end on an encouraging note with regard to the youth of this great country. My noble friend Lord Selsdon in his excellent speech when seconding the Motion for an humble Reply to Her Majesty's most gracious Speech, said:
"Now, for the first time in my life, at any rate, a new, fresh wind of optimism, enthusiasm and, above all, of realism is beginning to blow across the country. We are set on a course which is the right one …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2/11/71, col. 12.]
This, at least, is the tone of leadership in the youth of Britain to-day. Too often our newspapers bore us with the tawdry affairs of minorities in the permissive society. In the past, as a journalist I learned that bad news is good news in that it sells papers. Too little is written about the youth of to-day to whom pride of country and the spirit of adventure and public service is of primary importance. I would ask your Lordships this question: Can we pay sufficient respect and honour to the youth of to-day who are serving in the Forces in Northern Ireland? I will say no more than that; for a worthy and wonderfully-worded tribute was paid to them by my noble friend the Secretary of State for Defence in his speech yesterday.
Before resuming my seat I should like to say a word or two on parental responsibility. In this connection I wonder how many noble Lords were able to watch "Big Jack's Other World", the programme on I.T.V., last Tuesday evening. To those who were unable to do so, I would say that it was a strangely moving programme in which that ace of footballers, Jackie Charlton, visited his home town for a weekend. In a photographed sequence of the Charlton family having their Sunday lunch Jackie remarked, while turning to his seven year old daughter, "Oh yes, I shall want to know all about her when she grows up. I shall take an interest in who her boy friends are and how they are getting along."My Lords, that remark symbolises parental responsibility. I hope that millions of not-so-responsible parents were able to view and to hear the parental feelings of this deservedly loved star of soccer.
6.1 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I do not wish to speak too long and I shall not follow the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, except to say that when he was speaking about the care of the young I feel sure we all appreciated his interest and understanding and, if I may say so, his deep and real sense of compassion. I found myself in considerable agreement with a great deal of what he said about that question, but I shall resist some of his more provocative remarks on other subjects. The gracious Speech refers, among other matters, to education, reorganisation of local government in England outside Greater London and rented housing. I do not propose to say very much about education as it is to be the subject of a debate next week, but I will remark that while welcoming all the new building that we are promised to replace and improve primary schools, I cannot forget and I will not forget or pardon that behind the new walls when they are built there will be children, aged between seven and eleven, deprived by the present Secretary of State for Education and Science of one-third of a pint of free milk each school day. One day perhaps this Government will appreciate that well-nourished bodies are an essential ingredient in the acquisition of education.
So far as local government reorganisation is concerned we have been led to expect that local authorities would enjoy greater freedom under this Government. I find it a singularly odd way to extend that freedom, by depriving those authorities of the power that they have long possessed to manage the financing of their own housing affairs. I gather that the promised Bill follows pretty closely the White Paper entitled A Fair Deal for Housing, so that local housing authorities are to be told what they have to do and also, in some detail, just how it must be done. If ever there was an area where clear lines of policy should be laid down at national level, surely it is in the field of secondary education, and this is just where the present Secretary of State for Education and Science is all for local options—except when it suits her purpose to interfere with what local authorities want to do.
So far as housing is concerned it seems that the view of the Government is quite

187
different. Let us cherish no illusions, my Lords; this Government are determined to force higher rents on a large section of the community and to extend the operation of the means test. As a result, there is little doubt that rents for a large number of the tenants of council homes will be increased very sharply. It has been computed that on average they will be doubled. Some may say, "Quite right, too; they are all subsidised anyway." That myth has been debunked completely in a recent report of the Rating and Valuation Association entitled Housing Finance Myth, Reality and Reform. They state frankly:
"Nowadays most council tenants, probably most of those living in houses built before 1960, are paying more than the cost of their houses. They are not subsidised at all."
Under this promised legislation rents for tenants of private houses are expected to rise, in many instances at least 2ŧ times. The gracious Speech informs us that the Government's aim will be to curb inflation. No one should be surprised if these rent increases, if and when they take place, spark off demands for higher wages. No one should be surprised if those who feel that they are threatened feel provoked to anticipate these rent increases. Surely it is unreasonable to expect people to accept a reduction in their standard of living without making a serious attempt to avoid it.
My Lords, these higher rents will persuade a number of people that it would be well to acquire their own homes. While the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, was speaking I had a feeling that this was very much in mind. That would bring even more people into the market to buy and give a further fillip to house prices. It would mean, in turn, that the inflationary spiral would go rocketing higher and higher. The continually rising inflationary spiral is affected in a very serious way by the ever rising, rocketing cost of housing. The position is already serious, as is instanced by what was stated recently in the Building Society's Gazette:
"1971 has shown the greatest increase in prices ever recorded. In some south-eastern areas the demand is so great that negotiations almost amount to panic buying, with prices not only 20 per cent. above last year's figures but above the asking price of the sometimes bewildered vendor."
188
In the district where I live, my Lords, prices for smaller properties particularly have rocketed in a quite astronomical way. They make no sense to me. Newly married couples seem to plunge into purchases which, so far as I can appreciate, represent a very poor buy—old, semidetached cottages, or terraced houses with two rooms up and two down and with a bathroom tacked on downstairs at the back, with no garage or room for a garage, or houses built fifty years ago. One case recently came to my notice where a young couple entered into a contract to buy a house such as I have been talking about at a cost of close on £7,000. I do not know what valuation the building society put on it. Undoubtedly it covered the amount borrowed. But that figure, I am quite certain, would have been well below the price that was paid, because the purchasers put down a fairly substantial deposit. I have a feeling that when consideration was being given to the application for a mortgage it was the creditworthiness of the applicant that counted a very great deal. They paid the building society an amount to cover a survey. I think I am right in saying—and I believe it is usually the position—that in such cases a copy of the survey is not given to the would-be purchaser and borrower. I know that after contracts had been exchanged and the purchase had been completed, the first thing that this young couple discovered when they got in was that they had to have the whole place completely rewired.
I think that building societies could do a little more than they seem to be doing, so far as I understand it, to help check this spectacular and indeed astronomical rise in prices. Could they not at least issue to the prospective purchaser who has paid for a survey a report which covers the soundness of the structure, possibly with particular reference to the wiring system, the drains and the condition of the roof. Or perhaps the time has come when we ought to consider calling on the vendor to produce a report on the state of the property by an accredited surveyor, with special reference to the items that I have mentioned. It may be that the time has come when we ought to be asking for a code of practice for surveyors in cases such as this, for, after all, the gracious Speech promises a

189
code of practice so far as industrial relations are concerned. I feel that, at least, advice ought to be given to prospective purchasers, if building societies cannot help. Building societies, or somebody, ought to make a point of advising them that they should obtain an independent survey of the property that they are considering purchasing. It may be said that we can do too much to protect people against their own folly; that people ought to learn how to look after themselves. So far as most people are concerned, including young people, they have never entered into this kind of business before, and they need guidance and help. I am aware of the fact that, so far as new houses are concerned, those who purchase them today have the benefit of the interest of the National Housebuilders' Registration Council. Why should we not give some sort of safeguard to purchasers of older properties? I ask the Government to look into this matter and in the meantime to give us some indication, if they can, of what proposals they have for containing the meteoric escalation of house prices.
My Lords, before I sit down I should like to raise the problem of the homeless. Recently, near where I live on Epsom Downs, a friend of mine discovered that a young married couple were sleeping in a van at night. The wife was pregnant. I was asked to help persuade the county council and the rural district council to accept responsibility for housing them. My mind went immediately to the literally hundreds of newly-built empty houses in what are know as the expanding towns. I refer particularly to those in East Anglia, in places like Haverhill and Sudbury. Here we have this mass of empty houses and this young couple with nowhere to go that they can call their own. Somehow or other something ought to be done by somebody to bring together the empty houses and the persons needing a home. I appreciate that the consequence of moving people to areas like those I have mentioned, where there may be no jobs available, is not a light matter; but I feel that a heavy responsibility rests on the Government to get work opportunities provided in those areas. It seems to me to border on the criminal to accept at one and the same time empty houses and families without homes.
190
I do not feel that the gracious Speech offers any remedy to the problem of continually exaggerated increases for house prices. It threatens hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens with increased rents—a provocation to a demand for higher wages, with resulting inflationary consequences. I think that many on both sides of this House would welcome some assurance that the Government would be a little more responsive on the matters to which I have referred than they have shown themselves to be regarding free school milk for children aged seven to eleven.
6.16 p.m.
LORD ARWYN: My Lords, yesterday the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in his capacity as Secretary of State for Defence, gave a very serious warning of the imminent dangers that we can expect from the policy of cold-blooded murder which is the declared method of the I.R.A. to achieve their aims, to create chaos, and by so doing become sufficiently powerful to exercise the authority over the destinies of all Ireland which would otherwise be beyond their reach. Our soldiers are being killed by automatic weapons and precision rifles. This risk is one of the hazards of war. The civilians, as well as the soldiers, are in the firing line. But the real terrorist weapon is the gelignite bomb.
The manufacture of gelignite is a precise chemical process involving an expensive plant which is under the surveillance of Government Departments. In Britain, we have two companies manufacturing gelignite: one is the I.C.I., and the other is the French-owned Explosives and Chemical Products Company. In Ireland, I understand that there is one company. The I.R.A. have to get their gelignite from one of these three sources of manufacture. From the date of manufacture to that of danger to the handler is a maximum of six months. This is due to the chemical changes. I will not go into that matter because it is rather complicated. I should prefer to use gelignite which is not more than four months old. if we allow a minimum period of six weeks from the date of manufacture to what I call the risk period, when a parcel of gelignite is in the hands of the I.R.A., we then have a theoretical maximum of 4· months' life, which I prefer to assess as 2· months.

191
I am guilty perhaps of lecturing your Lordships' House unnecessarily, but the object is to point out the need for immediate consultation between our Government, that of the Irish Republic and the three sources of supply; and also the need for an entirely new system of control over explosives magazines in mines and quarries, not only on the issuing of gelignite for blasting, but on detonators as well. A mine or quarry manager leaves these matters too much in the hands of an appointed official, who may be under a variety of pressures. This laxity of adequate control has resulted in supplies of gelignite being obtainable by bribery or threats from the magazines of the manufacturers, or those of the legitimate users: there is no other way of getting it.
It is only by the co-operation of the manufacturers or the licensed users that any control can be exercised. The cost of this control may be repugnant, but we have to exercise the authority and to demand a more effective control. I shall spare your Lordships the details of my views on how such controls could be made more effective than they are. It can be a complicated matter, but it is one which can be solved by the wholehearted co-operation of manufacturers, the users and the Army. Having been involved in the use and manufacture of explosives for the greater part of my life I am fully aware of the problem, but I am certainly not pessimistic about the possibility of finding an adequate solution. Unless we can solve this problem we shall always be in danger from this method of attack, or a variation of it.
I cannot let the opportunity pass, in a wide-ranging debate, of congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, on her speech yesterday. Those of us who have served on committees of the North Atlantic Assembly—I happen to be on the Military Committee—sometimes feel that we are wasting our time because it is extremely difficult for us to communicate the value of these conferences to colleagues who are denied the experience. I should like to endorse the views of the noble Baroness on "Trudeau's Canada". I also have friends in Canada and have observed the change in attitudes in the last few years.
192
In conclusion, my Lords, may I ask this question: are we letting our obsession with the pros and cons of the Common Market atrophy our long-term perspectives? What was achieved under our guidance when we were the centre of the British Empire is a source of pride to us, and will be so until we cease to be the centre of the Commonwealth—which could follow our joining the Common Market. We have gained the respect of many millions, and our pattern of democracy has been established in most of our old Colonial Empire. If we withdraw too much into a more confined sphere we shall no longer be known as "Great" Britain and the "G.B." on our cars will no longer be a valid identification. May I fall back on a very old adage:
"Never throw away that which you think is dirty water before you can replace it with that which you have proved to be dean".
6.24 p.m.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: My Lords, in following the noble Lord, Lord Arwyn, I should like to say how right he was to bring up the point of explosives. That is not to be my main subject, but there is one thing that I have never felt to be in the interests of national security, and that is that explosives magazines arc marked as such on many Ordnance Survey maps.
Following on from the very interesting speech of my noble friend Lord Hastings, I also hope that I have chosen the right day to say a few words on four subjects. First, tax reform. I am sure that the country as a whole will welcome any simplification of our tax system, which is now so complicated that the ordinary house-owner, married with one child, having a life assurance policy and a small amount of money invested to supplement his earned income, has to seek the assistance of some professional person to fill in his tax return for the year, because each of the matters I have just mentioned affects his net income and the amount of tax to be paid at the end of the year.
Up to 1944 a person's income tax could be considered as the difference between his gross income and what he took home at the end of the week. To-day the total tax position has completely changed, and in considering an employee's tax and income Her Majesty's Government—and this is true whichever Party are in power

193
—should consider an employee's tax as the difference between what it costs the employer to employ him and what that worker takes home in his pocket at the end of the week.
May I give your Lordships one small example'? An employee employed almost exclusively on the maintenance of property in 1965 cost his employer £12 a week, out of which he took home £10. In 1970, the same man, with the same conditions—married with one child—cost his employer £18, out of which he took home £12. In other words, this comparatively low-paid worker was paying 33 per cent. tax. Without boring your Lordships with figures, I may explain that this is accounted for by deducting from the cost of employment the amounts attributable to income tax, graduated pension, National Health Insurance—that is the employer's and employee's contribution—and selective employment tax. Incidentally, the cost of the National Health Insurance stamp is the same, irrespective of a person's earnings, and for all practical purposes must be regarded as a tax. National Health is not free: it costs us all a great deal of money, despite being a very wonderful Service. Referring to the excellent speech of my noble friend, Lord Selsdon, in seconding the humble Address I would also emphasise what he said about the value-added tax; and although I have shown by my one example how unfair the tax system can become, I hope that the Government will take infinite care to explain at the working man's level, to us all how V.A.T. will affect the lower income groups.
On my second point, unemployment, with our present system of tax an employer would rather offer, particularly to the lower paid worker, every inducement to work overtime rather than take on increased staff, because he has no increase in his contribution for National Health Insurance, and so on, if his employees work overtime, whereas if he employs additional staff not only does he have to pay more in stamps but he runs the risk of having to pay redundancy money if his business becomes slack and he has to pay off the additional staff. This is particularly true of the building industry, in which so many unskilled workers are to-day employed on contract, a system which relieves the employer of liability to buy stamps and any responsibility, but
194
is often unfair to the men and to the country.
One thing that has always boosted the economy is a strong pound. If the pound is weak so is the economy, and the reason why people could do so much with a month's wages in 1938–39 was that, although there had been only a small increase in wages between the wars, the value of the pound had increased so much. It is no comfort to anybody if his wage is increased by, say, 20 per cent., if the pound is devalued also by 20 per cent. I have supreme confidence in the present Government's Administration, and that our intention to join the European Economic Community will strengthen the pound.
A final point on unemployment, my Lords, and one which both unions and management forget, is that if an industry is not making a profit and investing a good proportion of the profit into improving its production through time and motion study, then that industry is being left behind by world development. Management and unions must not expect public money to be invested in every industry that has been left behind. The Government have no capital and can get their public funds only from the profits of industry and the taxes paid by those of us who are working. May we never go back to the days when a man carried two hundredweight on his back or wielded a hammer all day long! Unions should concentrate on conditions of work rather than increases in salary.
My third point is just to touch on the Common Market, following on from what I have just said. I hope that in our negotiations to enter the European Economic Community there can be a close co-operation in industry, a true Common Market in development and research. Originally the E.E.C. was set up to improve agriculture, and I am proud to state that it is internationally the most co-operative industry in Europe. Let me give your Lordships one example. I well remember some years ago attending, at Dunblane, in Scotland, a conference on storage at which there were speeches, films, facts and mistakes, figures and problems, threshed out by agricultural professors and farmers from Denmark, Holland, Belgium, England, Wales

195
and Scotland. It was an education to everybody attending. How wonderful it would be if, for example, the owners of all the steel rolling mills of the E.E.C. could get together to improve the rolling of steel strip!
The Government have always supported international labour relations. How important it is also to support and encourage management co-operation in every industry through the E.E.C.! No one country can any longer afford the cost of research to develop the vitally important aircraft industry. Europe can afford to do this, but Britain on her own cannot. Europe can compete with the U.S.A., Russia or Japan, and it would be to our mutual benefit if the engines of an aircraft were built in Britain, the controls in Germany, the electronics in Holland, the fuselage in France and if other parts came, say, from Italy. This is my idea of a common market. Perhaps I may here quote a few words from the charming speech by my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve in moving the Address in reply to Her Majesty's Speech, when she so rightly said:
"We shall be one of the leaders of Europe making those decisions."
On housing, I want to say a few words on the finance of rented housing which has always been, in my opinion quite unnecessarily, a controversial subject at every level of government, from national to the smallest local authority. I was very interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy said, and I shall be interested to read his remarks in to-morrow's Hansard. I was not able to agree with him on all points, but I should like to comment on one part of his speech, which concerned young people trying to buy their own property. I sincerely ask any of your Lordships who know any young person doing that to tell him to seek the help of the local sanitary inspector or master of works. They will give advice about grants, loans, standards of housing, and many other matters. This is certainly the case in Scotland. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, lives in London and it may be that conditions here are very different.
196
We should not forget that the original 1919 Housing Act was designed to provide homes for those people who could not afford even a fair rent. To-day this is no longer the case: persons who are earning over £2,000 a year, and who could easily afford to buy their own homes, are living in these subsidised houses. Therefore reform is badly needed. But just as the national Government has no capital, nor has the local authority. When council houses are built the local authority has to borrow the money to do it. It has to borrow the money to buy the land, to build the houses, to put in the drainage, to provide all the services, and so on, with the result that a three to four apartment house costs in Scotland about £4,000. Most people investing money would expect a return of at least 6 per cent., which means that the minimum rent on a £4,000 house, without even considering paying off the loan, is about f4-60 per week; and, above everything else, a local authority must remain solvent. Therefore people who can afford to do so should pay an economic rent. But, equally, those who cannot afford to pay should receive generous rent and rate rebates.
One of the reasons for the political controversy is this—and let me give your Lordships a very simple example. Suppose that a local authority had in its area 20 houses, 10 private and 10 council houses, and that out of the 10 local authority houses one tenant could not afford to pay rent. That one tenant's rent should be considered as a subsidy from the local authority welfare fund coming out of the general rates, and not as a deficit on the housing account being met out of the rent of the other 9 council tenants. Equally, it is quite wrong for the rent of the 10 council houses to be kept at a figure which the poorest can afford, because in that case the deficit is landed on the rates of all the houses, both public and private, and it means that a private occupier, comparatively poor, is subsidising a council tenant who may possibly be earning much more money. Suppose that a local authority took over all the 20 houses—nationalised them, if you like. Rent and rates would then be rolled into one, and the local authority would have to charge an economic rent/rate to meet its expenses

197
because it would no longer be able to rely upon private property to subsidise its own tenants.
Now let us consider the occupants of two more of these 20 houses, each having a husband, his wife and three children; but in the one house the children are young and in the other they are grown up and earning. In the house with small children there may be only £12 coming in each week, but in the other, with the grown-up family, there may be £50 or £60 coming in each week. The two families should not be paying the same rent and rates. It is in so many cases like this that grown-up people living with their parents are contributing very little of their earnings to the household, a situation which has given them the impression that the world owes them a living, whereas previous generations took all their pay back to mother, which gave them a sense of responsibility. I have a great confidence that the present Government may restore this sense of responsibility in young people. But if they fail, all is lost.
6.42 p.m.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, this part of the debate on the gracious Speech is, I believe, intended to focus so far as possible on home affairs, which of course includes the subjects of lawlessness and crime. I know little about crime or indeed about Home Office affairs. Nevertheless, I propose to touch on the subject by putting it into what may appear to your Lordships to be a somewhat unusual context. The number of our working population who are now employed, as distinct from self-employed or employers, is in excess of 90 per cent. I am indebted to the Bolton Report on small companies, published I think yesterday, for the additional information that fewer than five million people out of the working population are employed in small companies. This leaves us with the fact that the major proportion of our working population is now employed by large institutions of various kinds. This is one of the sometimes overlooked but striking phenomena of the latter half of this century.
Many observers and researchers have noted that, with a considerable number of honourable exceptions, admittedly, large employment hierarchies frequently give rise to intense feelings of frustration,
198
hostility and, in particular, lack of confidence in nearly all forms of authority. They produce a kind of "catch as catch can" relationship between employers, managers, representatives of employees and employees themselves. They breed false polarisation of attitudes into "for" or "against" attitudes, or into "we" and "they" attitudes. There must be millions of people who as members of trade unions or of management teams behave in employment in a manner which they would not personally countenance as individual citizens. Indeed, the contrast between the growing behaviour of people at work and their erstwhile behaviour as citizens of our community is striking and the two are becoming more separate than they used to be. We are faced almost daily in some parts of industry with the contrasting phenomena of group irresponsibility, on the one hand, and individual responsibility, on the other.
The sources of increased lack of respect for the law are variously attributed by the experts to many causes. I seek to suggest an additional and important source of increased crime. I name it as the increasing frustration, hostility and cynicism towards those entrusted with authority on the part of millions employed in large employment hierarchies. I suggest that it would be unreasonable to assume that the growing hostility which we observe to-day at work is not having its effect on people in their other roles of citizen. My first point, therefore, is to suggest that one of the important reasons —I do not want to overstate my case, bat one of them—why crime rates continue to grow (although I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, give us the figures of the reduction in the prison population this year) is the advancing level of cynicism about the values which underlie our society on the part of millions of people at work. It is breeding a contempt for essential authority, an unwillingness towards co-operation and negotiation, and a growing belief in the rectitude of the use of power, or even violence, as a means of achieving the ends sought.
This House must have heard very often the words of Lord Acton:
"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

199
Until recently, power certainly corrupted many managements. Terrible things were done, particularly in the early stages of our industrial development, by managements using the power that they possessed. But power to disrupt is now beginning to corrupt employees and some of those who represent them, and that I believe to be one source of lawlessness in civil life.
During a recent visit I made to the United States, many of those whom I met were profoundly concerned about the growing lawlessness of United States society. I would sum up the general message they conveyed to me in their various contributions as follows: "We in the United States have been astonishingly successful in achieving our materialistic targets, but apparently we are becoming one of the most unhappy and lawless societies in the Western world. We ought to be thinking out again what this business of living is all about."
Her Majesty's Government have to an extreme extent decided to worship the same idols which have led to this unhappy situation in the United States. They have needlessly allowed unemployment to grow to the highest level since 1940, with consequent denial of work to some and the freezing of millions of others in occupations which have become uncongenial to them and which fail fully to satisfy their talents. That is one of the hidden consequences of unemployment. The consequent rising tide of anxiety and hostility is, I submit, a contribution to the crime rate. The Government, while placing grossly overdue emphasis on the virtues of competition in the market—I do not deny that competition has virtues, but the extent to which the Government are now trumpeting this aspect of their policy shakes me —appear at the same time to be somewhat illogically aggrieved when powerful trade unions, taking the Government's competitive philosophy at its face value, use their full market power to win the largest wage awards they have ever achieved. That Government stimulation of the use of power as a result of the philosophies they are pursuing is a potential stimulus to lawlessness in our
200
society. People learn how to be lawless in industry.
This year the nation is faced with the co-existence of maximum wage inflation and maximum unemployment. In spite of this, the Government apparently adhere still to the now time-expired assumption that the level of wages will behave in the same way as a commodity on the market. I have not yet heard a Government spokesman or a leading economist stand up and say that the market theory of wages is no longer operating.. Accordingly, the Government abolish the Prices and Incomes Board—because to them it looks like a form of regulation—they repudiate the need for any form of national wage policy, and the country is Left with a socially disruptive "free-for-all" fight over differential earnings. This is the negation of an equitable differential wage policy and is rapidly increasing earnings where there is power, and depriving the weaker occupations of their proper economic rewards. The results are increasing envy, hostility and struggle for power in employment—and that, too, is a contribution to general lawlessness.
The Labour Government set up the I.R.C. as an agency to protect companies whose continued existence was felt, in the long term, to be of economic and social value to the nation; to protect them from the short-term market pressures which might destroy them. This Government have needlessly abolished that institution and adopted their so-called "lame duck" policy, which is tantamount to a policy which says that any company which gets into financial trouble is ipso facto of no importance, however damaging its demise may be socially or in the long-term economic interest of the country. One result is the disaster of the Upper Clyde Shipbuilders: and who can doubt that the resultant increase in unemployment in Scotland will not make its own contribution to lawlessness and division of society in that part of our country?
My Lords, in the last 18 months I have twice outlined proposals in this House which might enable our country to begin moving towards a more equitable pattern of wage and salary distribution, which would allow full employment without the risk of general inflation and

201
balance of payments problems, and which might free the managements of our companies from the terrible daily battle over wages and release their energies so that they could turn their attention to the many growing sociological and psychological problems of industry which really are beginning to require their most urgent attention. But they are inhibited from doing these things by the economic power battle for wages.
I do not propose to detain your Lordships with a repetition of my ideas, for they are on record elsewhere. But I most sincerely believe that conditions in the employment zone of our society and increasing lawlessness among our citizens are closely linked phenomena. I hope that my contribution to this debate may in some small way help not only to stimulate an examination of this linkage but also to draw attention to what I believe are some of the evil consequences of the current economic policies which are being pursued by the Government.
6.54 p.m.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, my noble friend has made a most powerful and impressive and original speech. I only wish I were competent to follow it, but I am not. My world does not include either economics or successful business, but I do recognise clearly the ill-ease to which he refers, and one finds something not dissimilar in a badly run prison—an overcrowded prison—in comparison with a well run and properly staffed prison. That brings me back to the subject of which I have some knowledge; namely, the narrow subject of crime. I had wondered whether to intervene and say something about the reference in the gracious Speech to crime and criminal justice. I knew very well that my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner and my noble friend Lord Stonham would deal with this subject very fully, and I knew that the noble Lord, Lord Foot, would, too. However, my first feeling was that as a good Life Peer I ought to observe the "Carrington barrier" and remain silent, but on reflection I thought that there was a way of intervening which even the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, would probably have allowed, which is to offer my support to the Government against their own supporters, with whom I differ probably no more strongly than the Government them-
202
selves. It is terribly important that the Government should not yield to their sillier supporters and try to cure a difficult situation by means which can only make it worse—by an attempt to decrease the number of crimes by increasing the severity of sentence. This has been referred to several times before to-day and I think one must look at it a little more closely.
Some crimes can be reduced in this way and others cannot. Those that can are usually trivial. If, for example, you were to castrate everybody who had a T.V. set without a licence you would get a 100 per cent. take-up of licences in double quick time. It would be an entirely effective method and there are no emotional overtones. It is really a question of taking enough trouble to remember, and a very severe punishment is a potent reminder. But where deeper things are involved this simply is not true. I do not know whether your Lordships have ever read accounts of what the planters did to recaptured runaway slaves. I will not oppress your Lordships with the facts, but they are terrible—and they were totally ineffective. Runaway slaves had a reasonable chance of crossing the State line or, in the Caribbean, of reaching another island into safety, so when their conditions became intolerable some would take the chance, irrespective of the unspeakable treatment which in some cases awaited them if recaptured.
To come nearer home, let us take the most plausible case for reintroducing capital punishment, the killing of a prison officer. The logic is clear. A man who is in for life has nothing to lose; a man who is serving a long sentence has very little to lose. Yet in fact no "lifer" has ever killed a prison officer. The only prison officer to be killed in this country in the last 25 years was killed by a borstal boy. There was a prison matron some few years before that who was also killed by a borstal boy. But the logic to which this argument is meant to apply simply does not exist. This kind of crime is not the result of careful planning which a deterrent, whether severe or not, can deter; it is the result of an explosion of rage, on which a deterrent has no effect whatever. I do not believe that a man who is prepared to risk five years' imprisonment will be deterred if one makes it seven years. To increase

203
a maximum penalty from 12 to 14 years, as we did in this House a few months ago in relation to drug offences, is in itself meaningless, but also dangerous, as it seems to give official blessing to the theory of increasing severity. From the deterrent point of view, if it were left to me I would have one year, five years, 10 years and life as the only categories, and in each case consideration for parole after a third of the sentence had been served, as is the case now, and after four years for the "lifers". In no case would I allow a judge to demand a minimum period in prison; he would select the category, and the decision as to release would be in the hands of the Home Secretary on the advice of the Parole Board. It is nonsensical to decide at the time of sentence when a man will be fit to come out. It may very well be never.
The one case where an increase in severity of sentence may be justified is, as has already been said, the case of illegally possessing or carrying arms. I should be happy to raise all crimes involving the possession or carrying of arms into the ten-year category. It is true that this would work in reverse in some cases, and might encourage a man who was carrying a gun to use it on the "In for a penny, in for a pound" principle. But it would also act as a genuine deterrent, in that each professional would face a moment of decision before he set out on a job, as to whether to carry a gun and put himself straight away into the higher category of sentence or to leave it behind and risk less. Deterrents to be effective must be a factor in the making of the decision, and here I think they would be.
The other point some speakers at Brighton made was that prisons are too soft and too comfortable. This is palpably untrue of most local prisons, where most of the overcrowding is to be found. There are 26,000 adult males under sentence in prison over half of whom are sleeping two or three to a cell, in cells built for a single occupant. No punishment can be worse than to be banged up for sixteen hours a day or more with two people you cordially dislike; it is a nightmare like Sartre's Huis Clos. The need is to make prisons better, not worse, and this can only be done by
204
sending fewer people there. So I can wholeheartedly welcome the reference in the gracious Speech to the provision of alternatives to prison, so well discussed in the excellent report of my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger.
The Government will, I am sure, resist demands to make prisons more like Belsen and less like Butlin's. When you sentence a man for life or to a long sentence and the paramount need to protect society gives him little or no prospect of parole, humanity demands that you should give him decent conditions in which to eke out his existence. But if you sentence a man to a determinate sentence, which is normal in this country, then you must try to prepare him to come out not as a confirmed and embittered thug, but as a potentially cooperative citizen. This can only be done by accepting and enhancing his self-respect. Harsh prison conditions have the opposite effect. Even the surrender of clothes, belongings and name in return for a number is a very difficult start. Nobody wants weakness in prisons, but firm and clear rules which are obeyed and seen to be obeyed, against a background of decent food, constructive work —and not mail bags—good conditions for recreation, evening classes and personal attention from staff which can lead to good and easy relations. From such conditions some men may return to society as conforming citizens. If the conditions are worsened, none will. So I offer my support, and I think the support of many of my colleagues, to the noble Lord who is to reply, in his expressed intention to follow the general line of sensible and humane treatment of offenders which we followed before him. And, above all, we will always support him in any effort to strengthen the police.
If I may now turn for a brief moment from the serious to the absurd, I must report to you with what delighted fascination Dame Elizabeth Ackroyd and I read that the Government are going to extend customers' protection in the sale of goods. They will probably want to set up some machinery to do this, and we shall be happy to put at their disposal the files of the Consumer Council, which will tell them all they need to know.
I have left criticism of the gracious Speech to my noble friends, but I should particularly like to associate myself with

205
Lady Stocks in her condemnation of commercial radio, Lord Garnsworthy in his plea for the homeless, and Lord Arwyn in his plans for controlling dynamite. They seem to be three very important points. We shall study my noble friend Lord Brown's remarks very carefully, though I am not sure where they may take us. I think they would make the situation more, not less, difficult. My sole concern has been to strengthen the Government's power of resistance to the bad advice on penal affairs which flows into them from so many of their supporters.
7.5 p.m.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, we have listened to some very interesting speeches, but I am sure that at this late hour the Ministers on the Front Bench and also the Opposition will be glad to hear that my intervention will be very brief, and is really to say "Thank you". One very rarely in politics has an opportunity to say "Thank you". I am referring to the paragraph in the gracious Speech which indicates further extension of legal aid. It says:
"Further measures of law reform will be brought forward and a Bill will be introduced to improve the facilities for giving legal advice and assistance to persons of moderate means."
I understand that that really means that the so-called £25 scheme proposed by the Law Society and strongly supported by the Lord Chancellor's Legal Aid Committee for the last three years is to be implemented. This will, I know, give the noble and learned Lord on the opposite Benches as much pleasure as it does me and my committee.
I thank him for the kind words he said about the Legal Aid Committee. We have been pressing for this improvement for the last three years, and I know it is no fault of the noble and learned Lord that we have not had it sooner. In the first place it will mean increased expenditure for the taxpayer in order adequately to help the less well-off members of our society. But we hope and believe that in time, as this scheme is developed, it will possibly result in the diminution of actual litigation in the courts, in that if people get good advice early enough, they may be able to settle out of court or not proceed with their case. It will also help in what we have called the "desert" areas, the areas where legal firms have not found it
206
possible to run an office. The £25 scheme, we hope, will encourage them to do so. I think there is no doubt with the increased complication of our legislation—every year new laws are enacted—that the ordinary man and woman in the street really needs early legal advice when in a difficulty.
I have only one further observation to make in addition to expressing my thanks; namely, that I still feel that the taxpayers' money is very unevenly expended between civil legal aid and criminal legal aid. While I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Foot, that there is a great deal of variation between different magistrates' committees in the granting of legal aid, I also believe that sometimes it is granted very freely and without enough discrimination. Then, of course, the sums are added together, and we on the civil legal aid side feel that we are held up to ransom, as it were, by the criminal side, which gets far more money than we do. I think this is due to there being this dual procedure, with criminal legal aid being under the Home Office and civil legal aid being the concern of the Lord Chancellor. The question of civil legal aid is most carefully gone into, and as a long-standing magistrate. I feel that on the criminal side that is not always the case. I think that this matter needs looking into, and that if one could get some homogeneity in the dispensation of this money on the one side and the other, it would not only help the legal aid client but also the taxpayer.
7.9 p.m.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, I rise to make two very short points, both of them in support of Her Majesty's Government's endeavours and my noble friend Lord Donaldson's ideas. Like so many of your Lordships, I have watched throughout the years and been saddened by the fact that all our endeavours to reduce delinquency of one kind or another seem fated to failure. We have had quite extraordinarily little success, in spite of the attentions of many extremely clever men and expenditure of a great deal of money. From where I stand as a youth leader, now with over six years' experience of running a club of my own, I have slowly come to the conclusion that the trouble lies extremely early. It lies in a lesion, not a physical lesion but a

207
mental or moral lesion, inflicted on a child at an age which is certainly far below that of criminal responsibility, and is indeed below the age at which I normally see children in my club, which is mainly between the ages of 8 and 14. I believe that the age at which a child is damaged is considerably below that, and that if Her Majesty's Government wish to make an all-out attack on delinquency they should be concentrating their attention and their finances on the earliest age of all, right down in the nursery schools—as low, in fact, as you can start. I believe that if attention is concentrated there, it will yield the best dividends of all.
Once a child has been damaged in its early years, once the lesion has been established, it is extremely hard to eradicate. The sooner you act the easier it is to get rid of. But, as the years go by, if the lesion is not eradicated it becomes more and more difficult to remove it, until, in the adult, it can become totally impossible. You then have a person who is damaged for life, as so many of our criminals are, and we find that, in spite of anything that can be done, they return to prison again and again. One knows that, whatever is done, and whatever sentences are passed, they will simply return. You can keep them in for the protection of the population if you wish, but at a certain point reformation becomes extremely difficult.
The first request I would make is to ask Her Majesty's Government to concentrate their attention and their money on this particular area, because it is one which has so far been quite neglected, compared to other areas. Even the money expended on youth clubs—which I must say was originally the result of a form of blackmail on the Government in an effort to make them pay out "Danegeld" in an attempt to make the young behave, although it may have grown better purposes later—does not go to an early enough period. At the moment, the major finance goes to the 14-year-olds and upwards, whereas if real advantage is to be gained from the money I am sure that it has to be concentrated much lower down. I may say that I have no personal interest in making this point: the young for whom I am responsible start largely at the age of 8,
208
so I am putting my finger on a period much lower than that. I do not know at what age you must start—whether it is four, three or two—but I am sure that it is on these very young children that the money and the research ought to be concentrated.
There is a second problem. Even if Her Majesty's Government did this, and if it was extraordinarily successful and was done instantly, it would still not get over the fact that we have a number of adult criminals who must, somehow or other, be handled. The trouble is that prison is not the right place to learn how to behave at liberty. A man who is going to be a top-level athlete, is not going to do very well if he is bedridden. Nevertheless, if he happens to be seriously sick he must suffer a bedridden period while he gets over his serious sickness and before he can start to become a top-level athlete. There is a most important point during which he passes from one to the other; it is the period of therapy in hospital, when he gets out of bed for a short time and is put through exercises of one kind and another to strengthen his physical framework. Exactly the same is needed for the moral framework: a period of therapy when a man is passing from the incarceration within prison walls to liberty. It must be so.
I have recently seen with my own eyes that period of therapy carried out to great success. I rushed round this House yesterday evening asking a few of my noble friends to see a television show on B.B.C.2; and I know that some of them saw it, because this matter has already been referred to this evening by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. It is most important that a man should not stay within prison walls until the day when the gates open and let him out into full liberty. He must go through a period during which he learns to work. The most valuable thing that I have seen done in recent years is being done by a great friend of mine, a brilliant young architect called David Hutchings. He is restoring to navigation the upper end of the River Avon, which leads up to Stratford, and he has been doing it with an extraordinary mixture of madkeen volunteers and prison labour.
I am happy to say, having seen them at work, that it is impossible to tell,

209
seeing the characters waist-deep in mud and water, who are the I.W.A. volunteers and who are the prison labour—and, indeed, which is David Hutchings—because they are all in the mud together. The first thing that struck me was the mad keenness and speed at which they were working. On paper, these men were being paid nothing, no money; nevertheless, it was quite obvious that they were receiving something that they valued very much. You cannot make an unhappy man work fast. These men were working as fast as any men I have seen working in all my life—indeed, faster. David Hutchings is a perfectly extraordinary man. He had to dig the river deeper for navigation, and among other things he had to deepen the foundations of an ancient stone bridge. The county council, after many objections, let him do so, but asked him to submit monthly reports on his work. I do not know what they would call a monthly report; he finished the job in four days in excellent style. Also, he is the only engineer that I have known in recent years who has reported to the committee financing him that he was two years ahead of time, and under estimated cost. I may add that the estimated cost to which he was working was that computed by a committee headed by Mr. Neville Chamberlain fifty years ago. That is what is going on in the River Avon. It is being done by a brilliant young man rekindling the enthusiasm of men whose enthusiasm had been killed.
I want to ask Her Majesty's Government why we cannot have a body, an organisation, not necessarily for the purpose of rebuilding all our ancient navigation rivers and canals—it is true I would applaud if they did that—but for other more important work. Many places need attending to. Why cannot we have a body constituted to do this? The financing of it would be a great saving to Her Majesty's Government. It would rank as prison therapy, and it would also do an extremely valuable job in putting back into order so many parts of our country which one knows very well are not in order—not merely our ancient river navigations, but our blighted areas, our ancient hutted camps left strewn with wreckage over our beautiful cliffs, and all the rest of it. Why cannot all this be put right by such an organisation?
210
This needs a bit of imagination and it needs a man of imagination to run it. If only somebody like David Hutchings could be put in charge of it! This is what is needed to make these creatures, who are coming out of prison weak as a man comes out of hospital, morally strong again. I throw that idea out for Her Majesty's Government.
7.21 p.m.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I shall try not to detain the House for too long as we move towards the conclusion of this second day of our resumed debate on the humble Address, which has ranged with its customary breadth over the many economic, social and legal issues which can be regarded as falling within the generic heading of Home Affairs.
May I preface my remarks by offering my warm congratulations to the Mover and Seconder of the Motion for the clarity and freshness of their speeches, which did not in any way betray the strain of what must inevitably be a testing ordeal as well as a very great honour to those noble Lords invited to undertake it. While I respect their sincerity, neither they nor certain other noble Lords who have taken part in this debate will expect me to view either the Government's record or the priorities which underlie their legislative programme for the coming heavy Session, as outlined in the gracious Speech, with quite the same satisfaction as they do. For example, the superfluous and repugnant proposal to introduce commercial radio would never have been included, either in principle or in practice, in a Queen's Speech from this side of the House. I felt that the noble Baroness, Lady Stocks, both fairly and forcibly summed up our view when she described it as an unnecessary, an expensive and an unwanted piece of legislation.
Commentators, both inside and outside Parliament, have been generally agreed that the gracious Speech contained little in the way of surprises, though of course there were plenty of trailers in a certain seaside town. But there certainly was one glaring omission; namely, the complete lack of any reference in the gracious Speech to the reorganisation of the National Health Service in England and Wales. Noble Lords North of the Border have been more fortunate, and I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady

211
Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, on having secured a place in this Session's legislation for the reorganisation of the Health Service in her part of the United Kingdom. Perhaps her feminine charm and persistence won through where others failed.
In his foreword to the Consultative Document on the Reorganisation of the National Health Service, which was published in May of this year, the Secretary of State wrote:
"The debate about means of achieving this has been going on now for a decade. Two Green Papers on the structure of the National Health Service have been published. We are perhaps in danger of a surfeit of plans and prospectuses. There must be early decisions, so that enthusiasm for reform does not wither away."
On page 5 of the same document there is an unequivocal statement that the aim is to bring the reorganisation of local government and of the National Health Service into operation on April 1, 1974. It continues:
"Work is now starting on the preparation of legislation to unify the administration of the National Health Service."
Can the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, who is to reply at the end of this debate confirm that this is still so; and can he at least tell the House to-night when we may expect the White Paper which the document also promised containing the Government's decisions and statement of the principles on which the legislation for an integrated Health Service is to be based?
Noble Lords may recall that this is the second year that this matter has received no mention whatsoever in the Queen's Speech. Last year it was just possible to excuse it on the ground that any new Government needed time to review the situation and decide the very complex and interlocking issues, when one is considering a fundamental reorganisation of such an important Service in association with major local government reform. But this is no longer the situation some 16 months later. We on this side of the House have been very patient on this issue, in that we have not pressed it until now; but I must ask the Government to say just where this matter stands. In introducing this debate, the noble Earl, the Leader of the House, said that thought was being given
212
to it, but I very much hope that we shall be given a much clearer statement than that at the end of the debate.
I am deliberately refraining to-night from embarking on the detailed examination of the proposals in the Consultative Document, because I believe that we are to have a full debate on it later this month—rather late, perhaps, in that, as I read the Consultative Document, the end of July was said to be the last date by which representations and views should be received to enable final decisions to be made and work on the drafting of the legislation to proceed. But I felt bound to express my deep concern about the inevitable anxieties that the present state of continuing uncertainty is causing among hospital authorities and their staffs; and, most particularly, perhaps, among those concerned with local authority personal health services which are to he transferred from local government to an integrated Health Service in 1974, since their social work functions have already been incorporated in the new Local Authority Social Services Act as from April 1 this year. I suggest to noble Lords opposite that the case for change is at least as urgent as, and indeed is complementary to, the reorganisation of local government for which the Bill has already been presented to Parliament. I hope that the Minister will be able to set our minds at rest, and tell us where the Government stand on the future of this major social service whose quality and effective and smooth working are literally vital to all of us at some stage or other in our lives.
To turn now to one of the major areas of this debate, several noble Lords, including the noble Earl the Leader of the House, have concentrated our attention on the current concern with violent crime and the need to reduce the level of violence in our society. My noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner spoke at the outset on the possible contents of the Criminal Justice Bill, foreshadowed in the gracious Speech, which will apparently, if rumour is right, increase penalties for the use of firearms and for violent crime. The views that have been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, and by my noble friends Lord Stonham and Lord Donaldson, on the effectiveness of long sentences in deterring hardened criminals or the aggressive young adult

213
will undoubtedly be ventilated in full when we see and debate the detailed provisions of the Bill. At this stage, I would only wish to add to the views already expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, that this might be one of the measures which could be considered first in this House in view of the very wide range of legal, medical and social expertise which undoubtedly exists among its Members, and against the background of the two major debates that we had last year: one on the Motion of my noble friend Lord Stonham, on the serious state of overcrowding in our prisons; and the other on the Motion of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, on the problems created by a relatively small, but rapidly growing, proportion of the prison population made up of a number of dangerous and violent offenders who have received very long sentences, and by the increasing number sentenced to life imprisonment since the abolition of the death penalty.
One likely effect of this new Bill is that the penal system would have to provide appropriate facilities on an increasing scale for this relatively small hut highly significant group of offenders who will he sentenced to determinate periods of 10 or 14 years or life. In this context, may I remind the Minister of the recommendation of the subcommittee of the Advisory Council on the Penal System under the chairmanship of Sir Leon Radzinowicz, for it is now just three years since they recommended that the position should be reviewed after three years to see whether the possibility of using a special part of one of our maximum security prisons exclusively for such prisoners should be considered, as opposed to our current general policy of dispersal.
I should also like to take this opportunity to express the hope, together with other noble Lords, that the Bill will include the proposal stemming from the recommendation of the Committee chaired by my noble friend Baroness Wootton, to develop an effective new range of alternatives to custodial penalties for less serious offences, and discover new ways of supervising and treating offenders in the community. But this proposal, my Lords, will undoubtedly require a considerable strengthening of
214
the resources of an already overburdened Probation and After-Care Service if they are to administer the new schemes for the greater use of non-custodial penalties. Could the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham—and I must confess that he is beginning to have my sympathy when I think of the number of questions we are all asking him to-night—when he comes to reply to the debate tell the House what progress has been made with the Government's policy, announced a year ago by the Under-Secretary of State, to increase the strength of the Probation Service to 4,700 by 1975 and expand the training output from 350 to 500 a year? Could he also tell us whether these targets are now to be revised upwards in the light of the legislation envisaged?
The noble Lord will recall that many noble Lords expressed their doubts at the time whether the targets then planned would be adequate for the then known need. The new Bill will undoubtedly increase the responsibilities and the work of the Probation Service. Moreover, as the service expands to undertake these new tasks I believe it will need to work increasingly in the closest cooperation and collaboration with the new local authority social services departments if scarce resources are to be used effectively and if there is to be true community involvement and participation in the new projects. Noble Lords will remember that some three years ago the Seebohm Committee pointed out the dangers of unplanned overlapping as new developments in after-care and parole, and now community service, brought the Probation and After-Care Services increasingly into working with the community in addition to their traditional role of supervising individual offenders and acting as a separate social case-work service to the courts.
Yet another factor which will affect the future of the service is the consultations that my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner referred to earlier this afternoon; namely, the consultations that are being undertaken by the Home Office on the future organisation of the magistrates' courts following the Beeching reorganisation and the Courts Act 1971. The document that was circulated in June by

215
the Home Office for discussion contains the following statement:
"The transfer of responsibility for magistrates' courts administration to the central Government would have important repercussions on the position of the probation and after-care service. … The choice would then appear to lie between converting the service into a national service for which the Home Office would be directly responsible, or incorporating it in the new local authority social work departments".
Surely, my Lords, the future of this important service is far too central to the progressive development of our services for the treatment of offenders for it to be considered as a mere by-blow of another problem. It is now ten years since the Morrison Report was published, which considered the operation of the service in all its aspects in some depth, and, as I have already indicated, much has in fact happened since then to change its nature and responsibilities. I believe the time has now come for an immediate and independent inquiry into the problems facing the Probation and After-Care Service, and the shape of its future development in relation to other social services in the community, to the courts and the administration of justice, and to the penal system. I would urge the Government to consider this as a matter of very great urgency in the light of the present state of the morale of the service, caused partly by their pay and conditions of service in comparison with other social work services and partly by the very real uncertainty that they undoubtedly feel about the future of the service.
I warmly welcomed the reference in the speech of the mover of the Motion, the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, which was supported to-night by the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, to the need to concentrate more resources on the prevention of crime through research and the development of more and better treatment facilities for children and young people. I only wish that the gracious Speech had given more weight to this aspect of our current problems. I hope the noble Baroness will forgive me if I found the quotation she appeared to endorse from a recent speech by her right honourable friend the Home Secretary on the causes of delinquency to-day somewhat over-simplistic in its analysis of the situation. No doubt she would have
216
developed her own views in greater depth if time had allowed, and will do so on a future occasion.
Juvenile delinquency, like violent crime, is too complex a phenomenon to be explained by a single formula; but statistics and studies carried out not only in this country but in various parts of the world generally lead to the conclusion that children and young people are more prone to anti-social behaviour when their connections with their family have been disrupted by disharmony or divorce or separation, or when these connections become tenuous or remote.
The noble Lord, Lord Vivian, drew the attention of the House to the study, which has just been published by the Home Office Research Unit, setting out the results of the work initiated by Professor Tizard and Dr. Hammond with a group of boys in junior and intermediate approved schools. Like the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, I commend it to Members of the House. He has given its basic findings already: the only one I would add, which I find very sombre reading at this moment of time, is that a quarter of the boys' fathers were unemployed at the time their sons were committed to an approved school. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, that the prime responsibility for children does, and should, rest with their parents, but in our highly developed and very complex society there are now a variety of circumstances where it is generally accepted that aspects of this responsibility are shared by services in the community, particularly those relating to education and medical care. There is, unfortunately, as yet no such clarity in relation to their social care except in crisis situations, either when children are abandoned, neglected or ill-treated by their parents or when they commit an offence.
The problem is to know how to strengthen, to support and to sustain the family to prevent breakdown and forestall and reduce delinquency and all the damage, misery and waste that it entails. It was originally for these reasons that the previous Government set up the Committee on the Local Authority and Allied Personal Social Services to consider the changes needed to provide more effective services for the family, and subsequently

217
embodied the Committee's recommendations in the Local Authority Social Services Act last year. The previous Government also introduced, as the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, again reminded us, the Children and Young Persons Act, incorporating certain changes in the law relating to children and young people in trouble and at risk. What is now needed, I believe, is for the Government to channel additional resources to local authorities and to voluntary organisations to enable them to develop the range of services and facilities in the community, both day and residential, within this legislative framework, to assist parents, wherever possible on a voluntary basis, to deal with the problems that they are facing, remembering that these are frequently inarticulate groups whose problems are not so publicly attractive as those canvassed by more acceptable pressure groups.
I am afraid that the Government's increasingly selective policies, to which the noble Earl the Leader of the House earlier referred, are steadily eroding the universal concepts which underlie the social legislation of the immediate postwar period and the Seebohm Report some twenty years later. I would agree with the noble Earl— and I say this in a combination of both sorrow and anger —that we have come to the end of consensus both in the economic and the social field.
Noble Lords on this side of the House do not see the social services merely as minority services rescuing and assisting the "deserving" casualties of our rapidly changing society and acting as agents of social control for those who are deviant. We believe that these services should be universal and acceptable to all sections of the community and concerned with the prevention of social distress and the development of mutual and reciprocal aid, acting as agents of social change as well as of social care, in a participating and oaring society with special concern for those individuals and groups facing particular problems. These are the concepts that I believe lay at the heart of the Labour Government's social policy and of the Urban Aid Programme.
I greatly regret the apparent lack of any intention by the Government of
218
increasing expenditure on this programme, especially in areas of high social need with a concentration of multiple problems. The noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, has just reminded us that it is in the early years that a child's character is formed. I believe that the play group and day care schemes for the under-fives set up under the Urban Aid Programme have done more in terms of prevention than perhaps any other single social programme to assist in the healthy development of young children in urban areas. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham will be strengthened by this plea from this side of the House for an increase in the Urban Aid Programme.
In conclusion, my Lords, since we last debated this Motion some 16 months ago and most particularly since the publication of the White Paper New Policies for Public Spending, we have seen the inexorable development of the Government's upwardly redistributive fiscal and social policies and their effects on the family budget, tempered only partially successfully by their attempts to insulate the poorest families through the Family Income Supplement and the "season ticket" schemes from the worst impact of the multiple means-testing that their selective policies inevitably involve with all the costly administrative procedures they entail. The reduction of 6d. in the standard rate of income tax and the S.E.T. handback this summer have scarcely resulted in a new release of activity and a buoyant economy when nearly 1 million of our people are still unemployed. Nor, am I afraid, has it resulted in a reduction in price levels to the housewife—and I speak as a housewife who shops regularly. The increased charge for prescriptions and for dental treatment, the increased charges for school meals and the abolition of milk for the under-sevens, to which the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, again referred to-night, at a time when food prices have been rising at an unprecedented rate, have undoubtedly reduced the general standard of living of the lower and middle income groups. I was interested in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, on the problems that face old age pensioners. Many of us feel that even the increase of £1 in the retirement pension this September was meaningless,

219
in real terms, by the time it actually reached the old people.
The debate has also included reference to the policy of the Government in relation to rented housing and their determination to reduce housing subsidies by some £200 million. This will require a massive increase in means testing as the result of the legislation provided to implement the so-called Fair Deal for Housing "which will, as I read the Bill, still exclude the furnished sector. The extension of security of tenure to furnished tenants as recommended by the Minority Report of the Francis Committee would have made it possible to bring this most vulnerable group of families, including many of the poorest families of the community, into eligibility for the proposed rent allowance scheme. I should have liked to say more in reply to the noble Earl the Leader of the House on the Government's new policies in relation to the Labour Government housing record, but I know that Lord Windlesham is waiting to speak. I will therefore conclude by saying that we all know that we are facing a very heavy and controversial legislative Session. I can assure noble Lords opposite that we on this side will scrutinise all the measures brought before us critically and responsibly. We will not hesitate, however, to oppose with all the vigour that we can muster on this side—and after the big battalions of last week, one sometimes loses heart—those measures which we believe will divide rather than unite the nation and undermine the wellbeing and welfare of all the people in this country whom we in Parliament exist to serve.
7.47 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, I can assure noble Lords that it is no ordeal that lies before me. I regard it as a pleasure to take part in a debate of this sort and to listen to noble Lords who speak with such tremendous experience and authority on the subjects that we have been discussing. As the noble Baroness remarked, the debate has ranged very wide. This is inevitable because we have an opportunity to raise any matter which is in the Queen's Speech or any matter which any noble Lord thinks should be in the Government programme for the coming Session. The noble Lord,
220
Lord Mancroft, and a number of other noble Lords followed my noble friend the Leader of the House in discussing the environment. Baroness Stocks spoke about the cultural environment. The noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, and the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, spoke on aspects of housing policy and on the homeless. The noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, talked about the rights of women and the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, made a long and thoughtful speech on the subject of retirement pensions. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, spoke of law refolin, to which I should like to return in a moment; and the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, following what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, about legal aid, said how much she appreciated the decision taken by the Government to implement the £25 Legal Aid Scheme as proposed by the Law Society. My noble friend Lord Vivian, the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids and the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, from the Benches opposite, reminded us of the concern that we should have for very young people in the case of the age group that Lord St. Davids had in mind. The noble Baroness also referred to the reorganisation of the National Health Service.
But, my Lords, if there was a main theme, it was crime and lawlessness and the policies towards crime generally, about which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, spoke in opening for the Opposition. He was followed by the noble Lords, Lord Foot, Lord Stonham. Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge and Lord Brown. It is to this topic that I should like to return for the main part of my reply. But before doing so, perhaps I may answer a few of the points which have been raised. Inevitably my answers will be very selective, but noble Lords opposite know only too well that it is not possible in a debate of this kind to deal with all the questions which have been put to me and to my noble friends on this Bench. But I can undertake to go through Hansard and make sure that the Departments concerned pick up any requests for information or any specific proposals put to the Government. so that either I myself or an appropriate Minister can write in reply.
As regards Northern Ireland, my noble friend the Secretary of State for Defence

221
made a fairly full statement yesterday. The noble Baroness, Lady White, also made a long speech to which Lord Carrington and I listened with close attention when she wound up from the Front Bench opposite. My noble friend Lord Lothian said that I would deal with the political aspects to-day, and indeed I prepared myself to do so at some length. But as the debate developed this has not been a major theme. Only three speakers in fact referred to Northern Ireland, the noble Lords, Lord Arwyn, Lord Vivian and Lord Stonham, and, they only touched on it. Since there will, I think inevitably, be an opportunity for a further debate on Northern Ireland before we get too far into the Session, it may be better if I move on to the other subjects discussed during this afternoon's debate.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I entirely appreciate the position of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and I fully understand the reason why he does not wish to go into the matter at great length to-night. Naturally he would wish to reply to points raised by noble Lords who are present. On the assumption that we have a fairly early debate in your Lordships' House, I should not wish to press the matter now, more particularly as I hope that when the time comes we shall have a very substantial contribution from the Government Benches on new and more effective policies which they hope to undertake.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, my noble friend the Leader of the House is sitting beside me and I am sure he has listened to what the noble Baroness said about an opportunity for a debate. The noble Baroness will appreciate that these things are not in my hands but in those of the House authorities and the usual channels on both sides.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, gave us a check list of law reform proposals on which he asked for further information. There were 17 of them. I wrote them down as he rattled them off, and I was enabled to do so fairly quickly because some of them were quite familiar to me. I should like to ask the Departments concerned to let the noble and learned Lord know what the state of play is. As he knows, these items run across a number of Departments. I can say to him that two
222
"old friends" will be off the list before very much longer: the Report of the Broderick Committee on coroners and the question of the reciprocal enforcement of maintenance orders. I was asked whether the Committee looking into coroners would achieve some sort of record, but I am told, alas!, that although it is some six years since the Committee was set up by the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, who was then Home Secretary, this is very far from a record. My Lords, we hope to introduce a Bill this Session on the reciprocal enforcement of maintenance orders. I think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, will appreciate that it is difficult to be more specific than that.
The noble and learned Lord also asked about the reorganisation of magistrates' courts and why it was necessary to include a provision about magistrates' courts in a local government Bill when local government reorganisation is not due to take place until 1974, by which time magistrates' courts could be reorganised. My Lords, the answer to this question is that, because of the timetable for preparation of the very large and complex local government legislation, it was necessary to make provision for magistrates' courts on the basis that the present local links would be maintained, since it would be some time before it was possible to take a final decision on whether magistrates' courts should come under central control or not. If it should be decided that the essentials of the present system should be retained, the Local Government Bill makes suitable provision without the necessity for further legislation. If the decision goes in favour of central control, the provision in the Local Government Bill safeguards the position in the event of the changeover not being effected before April 1, 1974. But I can assure the noble and learned Lord, as we assured those to whom we sent the second Circular—two Circulars were sent out—the Circular in August made quite clear that there was no intention to prejudice the final decision, which will be taken after consideration of replies received by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor as well as by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. My Lords, the Government are keenly aware of the difficulties to which

223
my noble friend Lord Mancroft referred in his speech—
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, if the noble Lord is leaving that point, may I ask whether he can reply to my question whether the memoranda sent into the Home Office will be published?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, it is not intended to publish these replies, but it is a master for each organisation whether or not it wishes to publicise its view, and I am informed that some of them have already done so.
May I say how welcome was the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, in this debate? I believe it is two years since he took part in a debate in your Lordships' House, although at one time he held the Office that I now hold, so that he was a very familiar figure at this Box. The Government, my Lords, are keenly aware of the difficulties caused by heavy lorries travelling in the streets of small towns which were not designed for them. Measures are being taken urgently to improve parking facilities for heavy vehicles and to bypass historic towns. I think I can be even more specific and give the noble Lord some satisfaction on one point. My right honourable friend the Minister for Transport Industries has refused to allow an increase in the maximum weight and size of lorries and has announced new and stricter standards on the noise and smoke they are allowed to inflict upon us. Research is now being carried out which, we hope, will show how, in due course, new lorries may be made as quiet as private cars are now. A Bill will be introduced shortly in your Lordships' House to enable us to enforce our size and weight limits more effectively against the increasing numbers of heavy vehicles entering this country from abroad.
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, asked about the National Health Service reorganisation in England and Wales. The National Health Service reorganisation in Scotland is referred to in the Queen's Speech, as she said. Although the Government's proposals for unifying the administration of the health services in England and Wales are not included in the programme for 1971–72, I confirm that it is still our firm intention that the
224
reorganised Health Service should come into effect in April, 1974; that is, at the same time as local government reorganisation. The Secretary of State for Social Services is completing an intensive round of discussions with the main National Health Service and local authority interests, and the Government's decisions, which will take account of these discussions, will be announced in a White Paper to be issued during this Session of Parliament. As part of the consultative process there will be an opportunity for a full debate in your Lordships' House later this month, and my noble friend the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Social Security will then set out the Government's proposals more fully and will be in a position to reply to the comments of the noble Baroness.
My Lords, the Queen's Speech acknowledges and shares public concern at the growth of violent crime. It is a fact that indictable crime has been increasing for many years now. As long ago as 1952 I recall that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, who has joined us for the debate, addressed himself to the question: Why have delinquency and material improvement and the abolition of extreme poverty increased apparently together? The Nuffield Enquiry into the causes of crime, and indeed the noble Lord's own book, Causes of Crime, followed, and were supplemented later by several other studies. But now, nearly twenty years later, I do not think that many people who have investigated this question would want to be at all certain in explaining why it is that crime has increased so much in recent years.
The noble Lord, Lord Brown, suggested that it might, in part, be caused by the growing frustration of people employed in large industrial units. Other people have pointed to the break-up of the family, community grouping, increased urbanisation and greater affluence. If they are right, then, as my noble friend Lord Jellicoe said in his opening, it may be that in the long run it is through education, the social services, housing and the environment as a whole that we must hope to influence the crime rate. And action in these spheres may do more than action which is aimed directly at it. Other people, on the other hand, attach importance to certain factors

225
which may have helped to inflate the statistics, such as greater police efficiency, improved methods of recording offences and the need to report crimes before making insurance claims. A great deal of recorded crime is comparatively trivial. and we simply do not know how many offences of this sort took place in the past which were not notified to the police.
But, as many noble Lords have said, it is the increase in violent crime that is particularly worrying. A high proportion of crimes involving violence against the person are known about and are cleared up. The record of the police in this respect is outstanding. Quite extraordinary cases, like the kidnapping and murder of Mrs. Mackay, have been unravelled patiently and skilfully, and those responsible brought to justice. It is also a remarkable achievement that, so far as we have been able to look back in Home Office records, no one wanted in connection with the murder of a police officer has ever managed to get away with it. This is a fact that cannot be too strongly emphasised.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord this question. Has any study ever been carried out into the correlation between high unemployment and the crime rate? If it has not been done, could the noble Lord consider whether something could be done in this respect?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I should like notice of that question. My instinctive response would be to say that one would expect a correlation as regards petty crime. But my concern in what I have to say now, and I think the concern of people who have studied the question, is with the more serious offender who commits the organised, planned crime, and now, very often, resorts to violence. I should not necessarily expect to find a connection there. But if I may look into this—a great deal of research work is done in these matters—and let the noble Lord know, I certainly will.
It is the trend towards certain crimes of violence with which most people are concerned. Perhaps the most serious aspect of the problem is the number of planned robberies and burglaries directed at particular targets in which firearms and other weapons are used. My right
226
honourable friend the Home Secretary has made clear his great concern at this trend, and has said that he intends to ask Parliament for heavier maximum penalties for offences which involve carrying or using firearms. I should like to study what the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, said on this point.
In view of the reference in the Queen's Speech to the prospect of legislation to strengthen the administration of criminal justice, it might be helpful if I were to say something for the remainder of my time about the Government's approach towards crime and penal policy generally. First of all, we would distinguish between prevention, detection and punishment—in that order. If, for whatever reason, prospective offenders are dissuaded from committing an offence, the subsequent stages will not then arise. Nor can there be any doubt that the possibility of getting caught is a more effective deterrent than the length of the sentence an offender may receive in the courts if he is detected. No calculating criminal will commit an offence if he believes that there is a strong probability that he will be caught; conversely, others may be induced to take part if they believe that there is little risk of detection.
In between these two extremes lies a whole range in which risks of detection are balanced against the anticipated rewards of the crime. One way to achieve greater protection of the public is to work on altering this balance, and two of our policies are aimed at doing this. The first concerns the strength and effectiveness of the police; and the second involves personal reparation by the offender, including an experimental scheme of criminal bankruptcy. This will mean that certain offenders whose depredations have been on a large scale can be made bankrupt with a view to depriving them of the fruits of their crime for the benefit of the victims. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, referred in his opening to the question of reparation. I think he put the question in a rather critical way as to whether or not this was window-dressing. My Lords, this is far from the case. What the Criminal Justice Bill will do is to implement the main recommendations of the Advisory Council on the Penal System, a sub-committee of which. under the present Lord Chief Justice,

227
Lord Widgery, reported in 1970 Reparation by the Offender.
The police themselves (this was the subject of much of Lord Stonham's speech) are being strengthened and better rewarded. There was a substantial pay award earlier this year which may have helped towards the very welcome slowing down in the rate at which trained police officers leave the force prematurely. Coupled with this, there has been an encouraging improvement in the rate of recruitment. The result is that in the first nine months of this year police strength in England and Wales has increased by 2,177 officers. This compares with a figure of less than 2,000 for the whole of 1970. So in the first nine months of this year, we have already surpassed the total for twelve months last year. The number of police cadets, which is also a useful and important indicator, has increased by 500 compared with a year ago. Duties which do not need to be performed by the police are being turned over to civilians wherever it is possible to do so, and much thought has been given to making the police more efficient. The advent of the personal radio and the Panda car have already transformed the traditional methods of the man on the beat, although in certain situations foot patrols remain the best form of policing. A new era in police communication and intelligence will be inaugurated when the police national computer becomes operational. All these changes in police methods, transport and equipment are designed to make sure that the police are well able to combat the greater mobility and sophistication of the modern criminal.
While I am on the subject of prevention, perhaps I may refer to the National Crime Prevention Campaign which was launched on October 6 by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary. This will encourage the public to participate, and participate directly, in the containment of crime, particularly as regards the protection of property and the reporting of suspicious activities to the police. Local forces are mounting their own crime prevention campaigns against the background of the national effort.
My Lords, I have deliberately discussed these two aspects, the prevention of crime and, where it does take place, its detection, before coming on to the ques-
228
tion of punishment. If our main concern is the protection of the public, it seems to me that there is a logical sequence of prevention, detection and punishment. Moreover, where a crime has been committed and an offender has been sentenced by the courts to a term of imprisonment or borstal training, the custodial regime should also have among its aims the prevention of further crimes in the future. Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, remarked in his speech, not all prisoners or borstal trainees are susceptible to the attempts that are made to rehabilitate them. But it is worth remembering that, quite apart from the redemption of the individual, society itself will benefit if an offender, who may have believed himself to be rejected by society, comes to see during his time in prison that he can lead a normal and law-abiding life on his release. So for this reason, if for no other, we cannot allow ourselves to be influenced by those voices which demand a return to a rough and tough prison régime.
Owing to overcrowding and obsolescent buildings the majority of prisoners are already contained in highly unpleasant conditions. Our aim is to improve these conditions; to provide better opportunities for work and training; for exercise and family visits; for psychiatric care and for counselling. These are the things that hold out hope of leading the lawbreaker back into society; and if they succeed in preventing a man from offending further who can argue that the public interest has not been served? Bad conditions and harsh methods of treatment can lead only to deepening feelings of resentment and bitterness and a determination to strike back again at a hostile society as soon as possible after release. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, who has made a great contribution in this field, made the same point in his speech earlier in the debate to-day.
A major programme of prison building is already in progress. In 1969–70 there was only one scheme started, with 80 places. In 1970–71, work started on schemes to provide an additional 1,500 places, and in the current financial year we hope to reach a figure of 3,000 places. Many of these will be provided by way of extensions to existing establishments.

229
but in addition to the completely new prisons which have been opened at Long Lartin and Ranby earlier this year, planning clearances have now been obtained for 14 new prisons and borstals. Further schemes are still under negotiation with local authorities. This full-scale prison building programme is the largest that this country has ever known. For many years, imprisonment, particularly for young offenders or first offenders, has been regarded as appropriate only after all other alternatives have been considered and discarded. But we are anxious to widen the range of alternatives which are available to the courts.
Last year a sub-committee of the Advisory Council on the Penal System, under the chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, reported on Non-Custodial and Semi-Custodial Penalties. We hope to find an opportunity during the coming Session to implement a number of recommendations made in the sub-committee's report, notably by authorising the courts, on an experimental basis, to require offenders to carry out work of service to the community in their spare time. I think that this answers the question put to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Serota. It seems entirely appropriate that one of the punishments for crime should be to give service to the community against whom the wrong has been committed; and although the work
230
being done on this is still in its early stages I should be inclined to say to the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, that the type of work we have been talking about would not be excluded from the range of this scheme. We believe that the courts should also be enabled to defer sentence, to order forfeiture of property which is used or intended for use in the commission of crime and to disqualify from driving those who use vehicles for this purpose.
My Lords, this is a large subject—I have spoken on it rather longer than I intended—and it is one to which we shall have an opportunity to return later in this Session. But I hope that I have now said enough to give an outline of the Government's general approach to the problem of crime and of how we believe that crime will be most effectively countered.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, Lord Delacourt-Smith, I beg to move that this debate be now adourned until Tuesday.
Moved, That the debate be adjourned until Tuesday next.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned until Tuesday next.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes past eight o'clock.