Sitting of 28 June 1973

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

    ASHDOWN FOREST BILL [Lords]
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Wednesday next at Seven o'clock.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Wheat (Denaturing)
    Sir Robin Turtonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions have been held with the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce and with the relevant trade association in the light of the unwillingness of many seed mechants to claim denaturing premia on seed wheat.
    Mr. Biffenasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with other Common Market Agriculture Ministers concerning the availability of denaturing premia for seed wheat.
    The Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Anthony Stodart): My Department's officials are in constant touch with the Intervention Board and interested trade associations on all aspects of denaturing. There have been no discussions in the Council of Ministers about the availability of denaturing premia for seed wheat, but I would refer my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) to the answer I gave him on 8th May.—[Vol. 856, c. 82.]
    Sir Robin Turton: As other farmers in the Community are taking advantage
    1704
    of this extraordinary loophole in the common agricultural policy regulations, and as British taxpayers are contributing to the cost, surely either the British farmers should be enabled to participate or my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should take up the matter with the Council of Ministers to stop the loophole?
    Mr. Stodart: I am aware that some merchants have said—I think on ethical grounds—that they would prefer not to handle denatured wheat, but there is no reason why others should not do so and in that way give farmers the benefit of cheaper seed wheat.
    Mr. Biffen: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the denaturing premia on wheat was intended to render it suitable for non-human consumption rather than to provide a subsidy for seed wheat? Does not the common agricultural policy cost the taxpayers and consumers of Europe collectively quite enough without this piece of nonsense? Will not the Minister take an initiative at the Council of Ministers to secure an agreed arrangement whereby the denaturing premia will not apply to seed wheat?
    Mr. Stodart: This matter may well be discussed in future, but at the moment the regulation allows seed wheat to qualify for the premia. So long as that regulation is in existence it is right that the British farmer should be enabled to get the benefit of it. The British taxpayer also gets the benefit of it because denaturing premia payments come from EEC funds.
    Mr. Mackie: Are not denaturing premia simply a subsidy to reduce the price of feeding stuffs and seed wheat, which is what hon. Members on both sides of the House want?
    Mr. Stodart: I absolutely agree. I had that in my note on a later Question.
    Dr. Gilbertasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much has been paid by the United Kingdom Intervention Board for the denaturing of wheat since 1st February 1973.
    Mr. Liptonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much

    1705
    the Intervention Board has paid in subsidies for the denaturing of grain since February 1973.
    Mr. Anthony Stodart: By 20th June 1973 the Intervention Board had paid out approximately £4,043,000 in respect of the wheat denaturing subsidy.
    Dr. Gilbert: Regardless of the trailer that the Minister has given of his answer to a supplementary question, does he not think that a system that involves us in the expenditure of large sums of money just to keep the price of food for human beings high is crazy? The Minister wants to keep the price of beef low, but has not the system been so unsuccessful that the price of beef is now higher than it was before?
    Mr. Stodart: After having exhausted himself on the study of the sex life of hops, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on turning to the study of the denaturing of wheat. There is nothing new about it. For years wheat has been used for animal feeding, and in this way it becomes a useful and cheaper product for human consumption at the end of the day.
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: How large is the wheat crop in the United Kingdom and how much of it is usually sold as feeding stuffs?
    Mr. Stodart: Knowing that the hon. wheat crop is about 4½ million tons, and about 2½ million tons is used for feed.
    Mr. Lipton: What is the point of denaturing wheat—which animals will eat anyway without its being denatured—unless the idea is to maintain an artificially high price for grain and to increase bread prices as a result?
    Mr. Stodart: Knowing that the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) has an interest in the rolling acres and waving wheatfields of Brixton, I assure him that the object is to assist in a process on which I thought the Opposition were quite keen, namely in helping to produce a subsidy.
    Mr. Jay: But as animals are willing to eat wheat that has not been denatured, is not the sole purpose of denaturing to keep up the price of wheat for home consumption?
    Mr. Stodart: No, Sir; it is to make wheat cheaper for animal feed.

    Fishing Grounds
    Mr. Laurance Reedasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what efforts his Department is making towards identifying and developing fishing grounds as an alternative to the Icelandic catch.
    Mr. Anthony Stodart: The identification and development of new fishing grounds is a regular part of fisheries research and development programmes. One of the Ministry's vessels recently completed a voyage to the west of the British Isles to establish the practicability of trawling in deep water. The results are being evaluated and plans for further investigations are being made.
    Mr. Reed: Bearing in mind what happened in the last dispute with Iceland and the weight of international opinion towards fishery limits, does not my hon. Friend agree that it would be of more help to our fishermen if we were prepared to offer them effective and generous assistance now in adjusting to the changes in sea law that will come?
    Mr. Stodart: I would say firmly to my hon. Friend that the object of the explorations is not primarily to find alternatives to traditional grounds where we have the right to fish but to find additional resources which are not as yet exploited.
    Mr. Charles Morrison: What hopes has my hon. Friend of the development of fish farming replacing the traditional fishing grounds in respect of all sorts of fish?
    Mr. Stodart: As my hon. Friend knows, experiments are taking place, which are showing signs of considerable success. Trout farming is already an established commercial proposition. The White Fish Authority is being successful in the commercial production of white fish, and successful experiments are also taking place with salmon.

    Prices
    Mr. Molloyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the increase in food prices since the general election.
    Mr. Carterasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by what percentage the cost of food has increased since 18th June 1970.
    Mr. William Priceasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by what percentage food prices have risen since June 1970.
    Mr. R. C. Mitchellasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the percentage increase in food prices from June 1970 to the latest available date.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Joseph Godber): Between 16th June 1970 and 22nd May 1973, the latest date for which information is available, the Food Index rose by 36·5 per cent.
    Mr. Molloy: Would the Minister agree that he has just made an appalling admission of the Tory Government's useless endeavours to try to redeem their election pledges? Is he aware that the Department of Employment figures now reveal that average household expenditure has risen three times as much as have average incomes? Is he further aware that the British people are fed up to the teeth with his lamentable excuses when trying to redeem the discreditable promises made by the Conservatives at the last election? Will he say something to ease the situation to which the present Government have exposed so many old people?
    Mr. Godber: No, Sir, I do not accept the hon. Member's analysis. I accept that this is a serious matter, but as the House knows perfectly well, these increases are the result of an acute world shortage, which no Government of this country could have prevented. Attempts by members of the Labour Party to prove otherwise are useless, because the facts completely deny what they say.
    Mr. Trew: Will my right hon. Friend say what proportion of the retirement pension is now spent on food compared with the situation three years ago?
    Mr. Godber: If my hon. Friend is referring to the period when the Labour Party was in power—in the second quarter of 1970, slightly over 45 per cent. of the retirement pension was spent on food. At present the amount of retire-
    1708
    ment pension spent on food is 40 per cent. That figure is taken from the National Food Survey, which shows a distinct drop in the percentage of pension spent on food.
    Mr. Price: Has the Minister ever wondered why no Tory backbenchers ever table Questions on rising food prices?
    Sir G. Nabarro: But we do.
    Mr. Price: You are daft enough to do anything. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that remark. Is it because we are getting some of the most shocking answers in this House? Is the Minister aware that if he is the housewives' friend, then the British housewife is in far more trouble than she imagines? Does he not agree that by the time of the next election, whenever it may be, food prices will have risen by 50 per cent.?
    Mr. Godber: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his view. My hon. Friends have tabled many questions on this subject and they are just as concerned about rising prices as are Labour Members. In regard to the position as a whole, what the Government are doing, and have constantly sought to do, is to increase the production of food here at home, since that is the best safeguard against world shortages. If the Labour Government had done the same during their period of office, the position now might be very different.
    Mr. John Wells: Can my right hon. Friend give any breakdown in the rise in prices between imported food and home-grown food and any further breakdown between imported horticultural products and British horticulture? This will surely reveal the fact that the British producer is producing at a very reasonable price.
    Mr. Godber: There are certain figures given in the National Food Survey which seek to break down the position. Those figures show that in recent months the increase in the imported price of produce has been slightly higher than that of home produce. This is in relation to fresh food. It is the shortage of imports and their high price which has drawn up the price of home produce. I cannot answer the question on horticulture without notice.
    Mr. Mitchell: Is the Minister aware that every single day of the week we see substantial rises in food prices in all our shops? Is he also aware that we are getting tired of being told that this is all due to drought in Patagonia, or some other stupid reason? When will he get hold of the problem and do something about the sitation?
    Mr. Godber: It is not a question of stupid reasons. These are factual reasons. So far as rises in prices are concerned, under the standstill manufactured food was controlled. During the standstill period the figures show that there was a slight drop in the price of manufactured foods. It was in fresh foods that the increase took place. Nobody pretended that these would be controlled, and they were not controlled by the Labour Government. The present Government have shown that in a country that imports a large proportion of its food, it is impossible and, indeed, impracticable, to control prices in the way suggested.
    Mr. Evelyn King: Is it not a fact that there is no identifiable wage group or pension group in respect of which the increase in income has not far exceeded the increase in food prices, with the net result that people are better off? Is there not a separate problem to which a recent survey has drawn attention—namely, that only 40 per cent. of wage earners have passed on their increased wage to their wives?
    Mr. Godber: On the point about passing on wage increases, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has commented on other occasions. It is well known that there is an indication that those increases have not been passed on. As for the indices, the only fair comparison is with the all-items index, which has risen by 27·2 per cent., wages by 27·8 per cent., and pensions by 35 per cent., [HON. MEMBERS: "Before tax."] When hon. Gentlemen make the comment "Before tax", they must have in mind the fact that no Government in this country has reduced tax by as much as the present Government have reduced it.
    Mr. Buchan: Is the Minister aware that the people of this country bitterly resent the suggestion that the reason for the fall in the standard of living is due to husbands and wives not co-operating
    1710
    in their budget? It is a disgraceful suggestion to make, and I wish Conservative Members would withdraw it. Does the Minister agree that, according to his own Government's report in the Department of Employment Gazette, whereas incomes, even up to 1972—before the freeze—rose after taxation by only 10·6 per cent., all prices rose by 37 per cent.—three times the level. Will he stop this nonsense? May I take this opportunity of congratulating the Minister on managing to convince nearly 700 people in Manchester of the rightness of his policy?
    Mr. Godber: The index to which the hon. Gentleman refers shows that while expenditure on food has risen substantially, expenditure on vehicles, travel, entertainment and in terms of saving has increased a great deal more in percentage terms. This indicates that the public have substantial reserves to spend, and I do not accept that there is a fall in the standard of living in terms of food.
    Mr. Charles R. Morrisasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the percentage increase in the retail price of food in the United Kingdom between the date of opening negotiations with the EEC and 1st June 1973.
    Mr. Godber: The present Government confirmed the decision to open negotiations at a meeting of Ministers on 30th June 1970. The increase in the food index since June 1970 was given in my reply earlier this afternoon to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) and others.
    Mr. Morris: The staggering increase that the right hon. Gentleman announced earlier this afternoon will serve only to increase the anxiety of the British housewife about the increased cost of food as a result of entering the Community. Is he aware that this was one of the major issues that was responsible for the Government's disastrous lost deposit in the Manchester, Exchange, by-election yesterday? As a result of those two facts, would he indicate what consideration the Government are now giving to the introduction of food subsidies?
    Mr. Godber: If the hon. Gentleman claims that the reason for the rise in prices is due to our entry into the Community, somebody has been misleading

    1711
    the electors in that area very considerably. I remind him that the rise due to entry into the Community is extremely small so far. I have spelt it out on many occasions in the House. The total estimate for this year would certainly not be more than 2 per cent., allowing for the negotiations concluded in April and at the beginning of May, which allowed us to make certain subsidies on butter and other commodities. The rise in prices, as the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, is due entirely to other matters, and to world conditions of which I have reminded the House before.
    Mr. Charles Morrison: Is it not a fact that this country used to enjoy cheap food prices because of a cheap world food price situation which no longer exists? Is this not emphasised today by the announcement in the United States that they are banning the export of certain animal feeding stuff raw materials, such as soya bean and cotton seed meal, which will have a considerably adverse effect on the cost of animal feeding stuffs?
    Mr. Godber: My hon. Friend is right to call attention to the serious developments in the world situation. I am asking for an urgent report on the particular matter to which he referred concerning soya bean and cotton seed meal which we have seen in the Press today. I understand that it is a temporary suspension. I hope that it is not as serious as first appears, but it emphasises the extent to which we are dependent on world conditions. We should have stimulated greater production earlier. The Government are stimulating greater production and the housewife will get the benefit of it.
    Mr. Shore: The Tight hon. Gentleman must know that even more staggering than the increase in food prices generally that we have experienced over the last three years has been the increase in land prices, in particular, agricultural land prices. Surely he will not suggest that the increase of 100 per cent. in the last year alone in the price of agricultural land in Britain is due to world food prices. Surely it is due to the general incompetence of the Government in dealing with inflation and, even more so, to the exact anticipation by farmers of increased prices for agricultural product
    1712
    as a result of joining the Common Market.
    Mr. Godber: I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman on this matter. I do not like to see such high prices for agricultural land. I do not believe that it is healthy from an agricultural point of view. On the other hand, I think that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise, as I do, that prices were artificially depressed when the Labour Government depressed agriculture so much in the past.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the rise in the price of butter since the Treaty of Accession with the EEC was signed.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): The Department of Employment's General Index of retail prices shows that between 18th January 1972 and 22nd May 1973, the latest date for which information is available, the average retail prices of New Zealand and Danish butter fell by 30 and 24 per cent. respectively.
    Mr. Jenkins: I am most grateful to to the hon. Lady—[An HON. MEMBER: "No, you are not."] Yes I am, as I shall show in a moment. Is it not the case that, in the Luxembourg Agreement in May, the price of butter was effectively raised from £390 a ton to £427 a ton? Is this fact not being disguised by the subsidy, and is it not time that the Government came clean about it?
    Mrs. Fenner: Over the transitional period, the United Kingdom intervention price will move up in steps to that of the Community. But this year, of course, in negotiations, my right hon. Friend ensured the consumer subsidy at 2p a lb. which undoubtedly has led to the reduction in the price of butter this year.
    Mr. Winterton: Does my hon. Friend not consider that the Opposition are spending far too much time on the price of food? [Laughter.] Although we agree —[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. If the Opposition wish to curtail the length of Question Time, they are going the right way about it.
    Mr. Winterton: Although we agree that it is very important, I would have thought that they would show equal concern for the farming community as a whole and the income—[Interruption.] They preach about agricultural wages. Where do they think the increased wages are going to come from unless it is from increased income for the farming community?
    Mrs. Fenner: My hon. Friend—[Interruption.] No amount of bellowing like bulls from the back bench will get an answer for the Opposition. My hon. Friend has properly made the point that wages in agriculture, whose workers are among the lower income groups, I accept —[Interruption.] They were in fact among the lower income groups when the party opposite left Government, but the fact remains that they have had an increase in average wages of £5·75, which is far in advance of all the food prices that we have been talking about.
    Mr. Farr: Will my hon. Friend consider extending to pensioners and all old people the butter subsidy that we discussed last night? Will she also consider advising our right hon. Friend to extend this system of subsidy to all food products that may be in excess as a result of the CAP, such as sugar and other commodities that may well be coming on the market in this way?
    Mrs. Fenner: The limitations of what has come to be known as the social butter subsidy are agreed in negotiations in the Community and, of course, it is in negotiations in the Community that any extension of that subsidy or, indeed, any other can be agreed.
    Mr. Torney: What steps do the Government propose to ensure that the stupidity of the butter mountain is not extended to many other foods—for instance, sugar, of which we expect a mountain soon? Will the Government take action to stop the waste of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money to bolster up this stupid Intervention Board? We want positive action on this.
    Mrs. Fenner: The presence of the Conservative Party in the deliberations in Europe will ensure that rather more than the absence of the Labour Party.
    Mr. David Clark: Would the Minister reassure her hon. Friend the Member for
    1714
    Harborough (Mr. Farr) that the Government have just removed the subsidy on sugar? Furthermore, would she confirm that, whereas the intervention price for butter in this country is just under £400 per ton, in the original Six it is over £800 a ton, and that, on these figures, the price of butter will have to double over the next five years?
    Mrs. Fenner: The sugar subsidy was introduced last spring with an end date of the end of last year, so it was no surprise when it finished. With regard to the comments on the intervention price, United Kingdom prices move into intervention prices over the transitional period, and what that price will be in five years is not as yet known.

    Grain Market
    Mr. Farrasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he proposes to take in conjunction with the EEC to restore stable trading conditions in the United Kingdom grain market.
    Mr. Godber: I am very much aware of the problems now being faced by United Kingdom grain traders. They largely reflect difficulties in the international market arising from bad harvests, high world prices and fluctuations in currency values. The transitional arrangements agreed with the Community have enabled us to import cereals at less than the EEC threshold prices but of course leave us subject to all the fluctuations in world prices.
    The new system of monetary compensatory amounts introduced recently is simpler in operation and will be of some help. We are also having discussions with our partners in the Community about the prefixing of levies and of accession compensatory amounts.
    Mr. Farr: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that forward buying of grain on the domestic market at present is virtually impossible? Will he take urgent steps to restore the position? If forward stable buying is able to take place it will do a great deal to bring about stability in the prices of all products derived from cereals.
    Mr. Godber: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for those comments. I have discussed this matter recently with representatives of the grain trade, and we shall do all that we can to facilitate an improvement here. The real problem is not only very short world harvests but difficulties of supply between countries and doubts about the availability of supplies. It is this which has led the grain market to be very uneven in recent weeks.

    Foot-and-Mouth Disease
    Mr. Martenasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on foot-and-mouth disease policy in the EEC.
    Mr. Godber: The differences between the foot-and-mouth disease control policies of the new member States and those of the original Six members have been recognised. We and the other new member States have the right to continue our present livestock and meat import policies, pending a review designed to arrive at mutually acceptable common policies to operate from 1st January 1978.
    Mr. Marten: Does not my right hon. Friend recognise that the only mutually acceptable policy for this country is the slaughter policy, and that we have no wish to go over to the vaccination policy? Is not the present raging outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Eastern Europe and Austria underlining this?
    Mr. Godber: I fully understand my hon. Friend's concern. I myself do not wish to see any change which would weaken our safeguards. I emphasise that we are not being asked at the moment to abandon our slaughter policy. I accept what my hon. Frinend says about the outbreak of the disease in Eastern Europe. However, in the original Six members of the Community, by the use of vaccines they have reduced outbreaks from 23,000 in 1965 to only 41 in 1972. So my hon. Friend will recognise that there is a case for argument here. But we have time to thrash out a concerted policy.
    Mr. Elystan Morgan: May we have an asurance that whatever proposals are put forward by other member countries in the Community the right hon. Gentleman will not contemplate any relaxation in the high standards of restriction now employed in this country, and that he
    1716
    will not contemplate a situation where, due to vaccination or otherwise, the disease is ever tolerated as endemic in Britain?
    Mr. Godber: The hon. Gentleman will recall the Northumberland Committee set up by the Labour Administration, which did valuable work on this subject. That committee indicated that in certain circumstances vaccination might be desirable. Therefore, I wish to keep an open mind about it. But my own preference is certainly for a slaughter policy.
    Mr. Biffen: What will be the consequences for the Government of the draft decision of the Council of Ministers concerning A22 foot-and-mouth virus? Shall we be under any obligation to contribute to its production? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if we should unhappily be inflicted with an outbreak of A22-type foot-and-mouth virus we shall insist on implementing a slaughter policy?
    Mr. Godber: I would wish to refresh my mind by looking again at the matter to which my hon. Friend has referred. In this country we have at Pirbright some of the best expert advice on all the different strains of the virus. Whether there is any question of producing it for vaccination purposes I do not know. But in the past we have produced a great deal to help other countries, and I should not rule that out.
    Mr. Deakins: As we are still an island, although part of the Common Market, is there any need, on animal health grounds, to harmonise our policy with that of the Common Market?
    Mr. Godber: I see no reason why in theory we should not harmonise. I hope that we can persuade the Community that it should adopt our policy. This is what we sought to achieve long before we joined, and I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have supported me in that policy.

    Food (Family Expenditure)
    Mr. Ralph Howellasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, to assist in his monitoring of food prices, he will compare the overall percentage increase in the United Kingdom's national spending on food since

    1717
    1970 with the United Kingdom's increased expenditure under the heading personal income-current grants from public authorities and also with increased personal savings during the corresponding period.
    Mrs. Fenner: Between 1970 and 1972, expenditure on food by consumers in the United Kingdom increased by 16·4 per cent., whereas personal income from current grants from public authorities rose by 35·4 per cent. and estimated personal savings increased by 38·6 per cent.
    Mr. Howell: Does not my hon. Friend's reply prove the falseness of the claim made by the Opposition and that their crocodile tears are just so much eyewash?
    Mrs. Fenner: The Family Expenditure Survey, published annually, shows a continuing trend towards a higher standard of living. Between 1970 and 1972 expenditure on food increased by 16·4 per cent., whereas consumer spending on radio and electrical goods rose by 45½ per cent., on cars and motor cycles by 81 per cent. as well as there being an increase in savings as my hon. Friend pointed out, which is an indication of money left after the priorities have been met in a family.
    Mr. Marks: Is not it the Government's view that until last October the standard of living was going up too quickly and, as a result, the policy since then has been deliberately to make the rise in prices more than the rise in wages? Has not this been deliberate, and successful?
    Mrs. Fenner: The cost inflation since 1970 was at too high a rate. That is why the counter-inflation policy was brought into being as well as being in order to ensure a better deal for the most vulnerable people in the community.
    Mr. Leadbitter: Surely these figures are misleading. The hon. Lady must bear in mind that the Question talks about national spending on food. According to her reply it increased by some 16 per cent. However the other day in answer to a Question I was told that the price of food went up by 36 per cent. in the period that we are considering. The hon. Lady is also ignor-
    1718
    ing prices in terms of rents, rates, fares and the rest. Therefore, will she be honest with the House and say that the margins of saving and spending are not true in the context that she has put them to the House?
    Mrs. Fenner: The statistics which are quoted are those produced by the Family Expenditure Survey, an annual publication which was used heavily by the Opposition when they were in Government. I should have thought that it was a reputable statistical source.
    Mr. David Clark: Has the hon. Lady seen the latest edition of the Department of Employment Gazette which shows that until the end of 1972 incomes after tax were up by only 10½56 per cent., during which time food prices went up more that 20 per cent.?
    Mrs. Fenner: Yes, because food prices represent a portion of prices as a whole. It is the retail price index as a whole at which hon. Members should be looking. I realise that for the housewife expenditure on food is a very high proportion of total expenditure, and I trust that the increase in average earnings last year went in part to the housewives, but I doubt it.

    Cattle (Export for Slaughter)
    Miss Fookesasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has completed his review of the evidence about the conditions under which British cattle are transported and slaughtered on the Continent; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Anthony Stodart: These disturbing reports have warranted the most careful investigation. Replies recently received from the Governments concerned show that further investigations on certain matters are desirable and these are being made. I would like to complete these before making a full statement to the House.
    Miss Fookes: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the patience of many hon. Members is becoming rapidly exhausted? Will he ensure that these inquiries are completed as quickly as possible in view of the overwhelming evidence that we have already of the cruelty inflicted on these unfortunate cattle?
    Mr. Stodart: I hope that my hon. Friend and the House will believe me when I say that I fully appreciate the public's anxiety. That is why I am determined to make the fullest investigations. However, I ask the House to believe that there is a certain conflict of evidence which must be resolved before a full statement can be made.
    Mr. Loughlin: Should we not all be ashamed that we have connived at the type of cruelty to animals that has been exposed in this trade? Does there need to be any more evidence? Why not stop it now? If the evidence proves that we were wrong we can resume it.
    Mr. Stodart: The hon. Gentleman knows that when we were satisfied that the evidence about the treatment of sheep was conclusive, all sheep exports were suspended. I do not agree with him in having a ban on live exports until we have sufficient evidence. I am against cutting down on, for example, the export of store animals, for which this country is famous.
    Sir Robin Turton: Surely there is a case for an early independent inquiry into this matter, bearing in mind the films that have been taken overseas showing not only sheep but calves being treated in a most horrible manner on export.
    Mr. Stodart: These inquiries have to do with the shipment of cattle. One point that we have ascertained and which causes further inquiries to be made is that on that particular day loads of cattle arrived in the same port from both Ireland and Britain, and at the moment I cannot tell the House for certain whether the photographs taken were of cattle from this country.
    Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman must realise the deep anxiety in this country on this whole matter. Will he listen again to the view expressed by his right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton), with which the Opposition concur, that the time has come for an immediate and urgent inquiry, if necessary in public, to look into this increasing traffic which we believe should be diminished?
    Mr. Stodart: I must inform the House that in order to make further investigations we are sending Ministry staff to the countries concerned. I hope that the House will agree that it is right that we
    1720
    should try to establish the facts, after which I shall make a full report.

    Canned Ham (Import Levy)
    Mr. David Stoddartasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current rate of levy or import duty on imports of canned ham.
    Mr. Anthony Stodart: The levy on canned ham imported into the United Kingdom from countries outside the EEC is this week about £136 per ton.
    Mr. David Stoddart: How can the Minister of State be so brazen and barefaced as to stand at that Dispatch Box and announce such a swingeing tax on food? Is he aware that that figure represents sixpence per pound to the housewife buying canned ham in the shops? Is he further aware that in percentage terms it represents 10 per cent. on the retail price and 12½ per cent. on the wholesale price of canned ham? Does not the Government's claim that there will be no tax on food look absolutely silly and absurd?
    Mr. Molloy: And obscene.
    Mr. David Stoddart: And obscene, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) said. Will the hon. Gentleman do something to eradicate this tax on the housewife's purse.
    Mr. Anthony Stodart: The hon. Gentleman, my namesake, is totally and utterly wrong, because by far the bulk of our supplies come from within the Common Market and carry no levy at all.
    Mr. Jay: If the Government claim that they are not responsible for the present high food prices, why do they not remove this and other import taxes forthwith?
    Mr. Anthony Stodart: The right hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that prior to joining the Community—I am quite certain that he is attempting to make a Community point—there was a 10 per cent. ad valorem tax upon this particular commodity, making the duty not very far off what it is at the moment.

    DEPARTMENTAL ACTION
    Mr. Raphael Tuckasked the Prime Minister if he will make it the

    1721
    practice of his Administration to ensure that continuity of action is ensured when work is transferred from one division in a Ministry or department to another division.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): This is already the practice.
    Mr. Tuck: The Prime Minister will be aware, will he not, that the Ombudsman has recently delivered a sharp rap over the knuckles to the Department of the Environment for breaking its promise to the North Watford Allotments Society because the right hand of the Department did not know what the left hand was doing? Does he realise that if this sort of muddle had occurred on his yacht "Morning Cloud" he would be at the bottom of the ocean by now? Will he undertake to have the Civil Service thoroughly spring-cleaned, so that this kind of thing does not happen again?
    The Prime Minister: This was an isolated case of human error by one of the members of the Department at a point when certain work affecting the hon. Member's constituency was transferred from the head office to a regional office. It has been thoroughly investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner and I offer my apologies to the hon. Member and his constituents for the human error that was made. But this does not mean that any change is required in the procedures that Departments have for carrying out these responsibilities.
    Sir Gilbert Longden: Which Department is responsible for providing this House with Parliamentary papers? Could my right hon. Friend transfer that function to another Department as quickly as possible?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will recognise that, whichever Department it is under, the fact that these men are on strike would still mean that the papers were not provided.

    GOVERNMENT POLICY (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
    Mr. Ashtonasked the Prime Minister whether he will place a copy of his public speech at Shotover, Oxfordshire, on 2nd June on the trade unions in the Library.
    Mr. Wyn Robertsasked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on nationalisation delivered at Shotover, Oxfordshire on 2nd June.
    The Prime Minister: I did so on 6th June, Sir.
    Mr. Ashton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in that speech he did not speak only of trade unions but also said that the people of this country were fed up with the nationalisation proposals trotted out by the penny-farthing machine of Transport House and that they were more and more fed up with the left-wing doctrines of the Labour Party? In view of what happened yesterday at Manchester Exchange, will he either call a General Election or sit there today and eat humble pie?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving so much publicity to my quotation. All he needs is to go on and quote the remarks of hon. Members on his own side about how much they dislike these proposals as well, including the repudiation by the Leader of the Opposition.
    Mr. Roberts: Will my right hon. Friend enlighten me as to how these nationalisation plans will encourage the prospects for investment and growth in this country which are so desperately needed in view of the rapid growth of our competitor countries, particularly in the Common Market?
    The Prime Minister: In no way whatever. The only effect that they could have—I do not know whether they will, but they could—is to damage those prospects.
    Mr. Harold Wilson: Since the right hon. Gentleman has shown himself capable of reading 26 words, will he now read 70,000? Does he not recognise the primary importance, as we have set it out in dealing with the problems for industry, for workers and for the consumer, of the inordinate power both of domestic and of multinational companies? Is he aware that, having condemned the unpleasant and unacceptable face of capitalism, his condemnation was rejected by a card vote of 29 million to 5 million at the shareholders' meeting? What will he do about it?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is a little confused. Concerning his 70,000 words, perhaps he will tell the House whether he supports them, objects to them, throws them out, or abstains.
    Mr. Wilson: I have made quite clear—and I did so again this morning—that this document, in my view, fully faces up to the problems that the right hon. Gentleman recognises, makes speeches about, and refuses to do anything about.
    The Prime Minister: One of the main purposes of the talks with the CBI and the TUC is to deal with exactly these problems, and we are getting action on them.
    Mr. Tapsell: Will my right hon. Friend draw to the attention of the CBI and the TUC the fact that yesterday Reuter's Commodity Index, which reflects the price movements in the 17 major international commodities, went through 1,000 for the first time, reflecting an increase in these international commodities, of 80 per cent. over the past 12 months, which is some measure of the inflationary crisis which still faces this country?
    The Prime Minister: That is undoubtedly true. There has been an immense increase in the costs of basic raw materials and foodstuffs. As we have to import such a vast proportion of our raw materials for our industry and a good 50 per cent. of our foodstuffs, this is bound to affect the price levels. The right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, flatly refuses to recognise these facts of life about world prices, which makes his criticism so ineffective.
    Mr. Harold Wilson: I think that there are HANSARDS available for the last Queen's Speech; it was since then that they have become unavailable. Will the right hon. Gentleman look at HANSARD for the Queen's Speech, when I drew to his attention the fact that the Economist commodity index was 40 per cent. over the previous year? I told him what it meant in terms of anti-inflation policy, which he refuses to carry out. The right hon. Gentleman made light of this point at the time, but as he is now aware of world prices, why did he ignore them in June 1970?
    The Prime Minister: The figures which my hon. Friend the Member for Horn-castle (Mr. Tapsell) has just given are for the past 12 months when the rises have been taking place.

    CBI AND TUC (TALKS)
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Prime Minister what further plans he has to meet the CBI, and the TUC leaders; and if he will make a statement.
    The Prime Minister: As I have already told the House, further meetings are planned with both the CBI and the TUC to discuss specific matters agreed upon at the meetings with the TUC on the 13th of June and with the CBI on the 18th of June.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Prime Minister aware that it looks, to most of us at least, as though the 12 months' honeymoon period with the TUC is over? It seems as though the working class within the trade union movement has rumbled what the Prime Minister is up to. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] Does not the Prime Minister realise that three in a bed never works?
    The Prime Minister: As these happen to be bilateral talks, the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question does not apply.
    The House will see that the hon. Gentleman can scarcely conceal his pleasure at the thought that the trade union movement may be at the point of refusing to have discussions with a democratically elected Government of this country. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong. These talks will continue, because the trade union movement is infinitely more sensible than he is.
    Mr. Awdry: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is deplorable that some trade unions are so militant and bloody-minded that they are not even prepared to talk to the Prime Minister about the issues that face us?
    The Prime Minister: I am glad to say that the talks are continuing. The great majority of trade unionists in this country want their leaders to carry on discussions with the Government over the very wide aspects of affairs that have already been agreed.
    Mr. Joel Barnett: In order to reach agreement with the TUC, will the Prime Minister say whether he is prepared to consider further food subsidies, even if that is not altogether the acceptable sort of face of capitalism which his hon. Friends would like?
    The Prime Minister: I have already told the TUC—the TUC was told this as long ago as last summer, when we started the talks—that all these matters can be discussed and considered. This was repeated to them at our first meeting —not the second meeting—as well as the second meeting when we started this new series.

    NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES (CHAIRMEN)
    Mr. Edward Taylorasked the Prime Minister when he next plans to meet the chairmen of the boards of the nationalised industries.
    The Prime Minister: A representative of the nationalised industries takes part in the meetings between the Government and the CBI. I am always willing to meet the Chairmen collectively when it would be useful to do so but I have no plans at present for such a meeting.
    Mr. Taylor: Now that the Hardman Report has proposed the dispersal of 30,000 Civil Service jobs from the London area, does not my right hon. Friend consider that the chairmen of nationalised industries should now be invited to consider whether it would be appropriate to disperse their massive and growing offices in the heart of London.
    The Prime Minister: I am quite prepared to ask my right hon. Friends who are departmentally responsible for dealing with the chairmen of nationalised industries to put this question to them. In fairness to the nationalised industries, I think that they have all got a considerable proportion of their staff already placed outside London and in the regions of this country. Some problems have arisen because in the process of rationalisation they have amalgamated some regional offices and this has caused anxiety, but they have taken great care to ensure that this is a gradual process which can be handled properly. I shall certainly ask my
    1726
    right hon. Friends to discuss this matter with the chairmen of the nationalized industries.
    Mr. Stonehouse: When the Prime Minister meets the chairmen of the nationalised industries, will he acknowledge that it is no contribution to their efficiency or their investment programmes artificially to hold down prices in publicly-owned industry when other sections of industry are allowed to increase prices?
    The Prime Minister: There are very strict controls over other sections of industry. Under the code, the nationalised industries are treated in the same way as private industry. There is no point in hon. Members shaking their heads. The code is published and is public. If they go to the Price Commission, the Price Commission acts under the code. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will boldly say in public, therefore, that he believes that the nationalised industries' prices should be put up, than the consumer should pay, and that inflation should be increased in this way.

    COMMONWEALTH IMMIGRATION
    Mr. Bidwellasked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the coordination between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Home Department on Commonwealth immigration.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Bidwell: With regard to the retrospective effect of the Immigration Act 1971, does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this has caused very deep and genuine anxiety among thousands of legally settled, coloured, new Commonwealth immigrant people in this country? In that connection, will he undertake to look at the amnesty provisions which have been carried out in France and the amnesty policy which has been carried out in West Germany, with regard to workers who have come in illegally and eventually have settled? As the Head of the Government, will he personally assure the House and the country that he will do everything he can to relieve the anxiety among the coloured portion of communities in this country?
    The Prime Minister: The House debated this matter on Tuesday and my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary, explained the Government's position very clearly. I have had discussions about this policy with my colleagues frequently since the House of Lords decision. It was not retrospective, since at the time that the immigrants entered they were illegal and they are still here illegally. But the Home Secretary has assured the House that we shall deal with this matter with understanding.
    Mr. Fowler: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is essential that our concern should be for better community relations and that nothing can do more harm to good community relations in this country than illegal immigration?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, I think that this is so. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said that it is right that where there are particularly compassionate reasons he will take note of those in the case of immigrants who are here illegally. But we want good community relations and one has to think of the impact on those immigrants who came here legally, those who are waiting to come and who know that they have a right to come, and those who are not immigrants here and believe that the position can be abused by illegal immigration. To have good community relations one has to consider all three groups.
    Mr. Clinton Davis: What discussions did the Prime Minister or the Home Office have on this issue with Sir Geoffrey Wilson, Chairman of the Race Relations Board, or with Mr. Mark Bonham Carter, Chairman of the Community Relations Commission? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that theirs are views worth taking into account, and is he aware that both those gentlemen, speaking with great authority in this sphere, have expressed their condemnation of the Government's policy?
    The Prime Minister: I am well aware of that, but I am afraid that I completely disagree with them. In my view, they are taking into account only one aspect of this very difficult problem, and I consider that they have a responsibility also to take the other aspects into account.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Edward Short: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 2ND JULY—Supply (24th Allotted Day). Until seven o'clock, there will be a debate on French Nuclear Tests, and afterwards on Teacher Supply. Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
Consideration of Lords amendments to the National Health Service Reorganisation Bill [Lords].
Motion on the Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations.
TUESDAY 3RD JULY—Remaining stages of the Northern Ireland Constitution Bill.
WEDNESDAY 4TH JULY—Supply (25th Allotted Day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion on The Future of The Railways.
At seven o'clock the Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private buisness for consideration.
Motion on the Regulation of Prices (Tranquilising Drugs) (No. 3) Order.
THURSDAY 5TH JULY—Remaining stages of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill.
FRIDAY 6TH JULY—Second Reading of Ulster Defence Regiment Bill [Lords].
Motions on the Northern Ireland Orders relating to Enterprise Ulster and Appropriation (No. 2).
Debate on a motion to take note of the Quirk Committee Report on Speech Therapy Services.
MONDAY 9TH JULY—Supply (26th Allotted Day). Debate on motions to take note of the Second Report from the Select Committee on Expenditure in Session 1972–73, on Urban Transport Planning, and on the Report from the Expenditure Committee in Session 1972–73 on Further and Higher Education, and the relevant Government observations.
Mr. Short: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman three questions? The first relates to the business for Monday, 9th July, when we are to have a debate on the Report of the Expenditure Committee on further and higher education. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that there is also the Russell Report, which we have not yet debated. Could we not innovate on this day and have a motion to take note of both the Select Committee's Report and the Russell Report? I believe that to be possible under our rules. If, on the other hand, it is not, may we have an assurance that there will be a debate on the Russell Report in the near future?
Second, when are we to have the debate, which the right hon. Gentleman promised us, on the Younger Report on privacy—one of the great blind spots in English law?
Third, may I draw to the right hon. Gentleman's attention the exchange which we had last week on the subject of parliamentary papers and the difficulties which we are encountering, especially is not having HANSARD? May we be told what the state of play is in the dispute, a dispute which arises out of the Government's grossly unjust phase 2? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]Yes, of course. Could the Leader of the House tell us when the dispute will be settled, and could he tell us also when the emergency procedure will be put into operation, and whether the Government propose to honour the promise to consult through the usual channels about essential parliamentary papers?
Mr. Prior: First, with regard to the debate on Monday 9th July. I shall consider whether it will be possible to have a motion which combines consideration of both the Russell Report and the Select Committee's Report; but, even apart from that, I think that it might be possible for the Russell Report to be taken into consideration during the course of that debate. I should like to consider that further.
As regards the Younger Report, I still very much hope that we can have a debate towards the middle of next month, but, of course, all the relevant papers—the Statistical Society's Report and the Computer Society's Report—will first need to be published and made available to the House ahead of that debate taking place.
1730
On the question of the dispute, I recognise the burden under which the House is working at present in not having available as quickly or in the form which hon. Members would like all the necessary documents essential to the carrying out of our business. We are making strenuous efforts to make available all the documents, and we have now arranged for 250 copies of a partially retyped version of HANSARD to be available. I do not think that all hon. Members realise this at the moment, and they are still receiving only the typed version of the Official Reporters' notes. In fact, we are now having it retyped in a much better form. I hope that all the other papers which are required are available in time for Report stages, and so on.
As regards the dispute itself, let us get the facts rights. These men are paid £75 a week for day work, and £90 a week if they are on night work. They are asking for an award which falls outside phase 2 because it would give them an increase of more than £250 a year. What the Opposition have to ask themselves is whether they are prepared, under an incomes policy, to see these people get more than a £250 a year increase when there are very many people at the lower end of the scale whose margins are all the time being squeezed. I should have thought that there was a perfectly reasonable offer made to them, and I hope that they will accept it.
Sir D. Renton: In view of the strongly held opinions on both sides of the House for and against the Lords amendment on family planning, will my right hon. Friend initiate discussions through the usual channels for a free vote on both sides on that issue, especially as the Lords have given this House an opportunity to think again?
Mr. Prior: As my right hon. and learned Friend knows, the Government's view on the Lords amendment was made perfectly clear, and I thought that, when he answered the debate on the matter, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services put a very convincing case to the House. I must tell my right hon. and learned Friend that I think that the course which he recommends, although it might be attractive, is not one which the Government took on the previous occasion. However, it is a

1731
matter for my right hon. Friend, not for me, and he will have heard my right hon. and learned Friend's remarks.
Mr. William Hamilton: Reverting to the question of parliamentary papers, is the Leader of the House aware that the Select Committee on the Anti-Discrimination Bill has now completed its report and it is ready for publication? Will he, therefore, arrange for 300 or 400 copies of the report to be made available to hon. Members so that we may have a debate on the matter before the House rises for the Summer Recess?
Mr. Prior: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a problem in printing Select Committee reports at the moment. I shall have to consider whether anything can be done about that. However, I must tell him that I think it unlikely that there will now be time for a debate before the recess.
Mr. Cormack: Again on the question of parliamentary papers, will my right hon. Friend give serious consideration to making alternative arrangements, since it is quite absurd that the House and the country should be held to ransom by a group of totally irresponsible people? In any event, may we have a debate or, at the very least, a full statement on the situation as soon as possible?
Mr. Prior: If the dispute is not settled within the next few days, I shall arrange to make a statement about it to the House. As regards taking other measures, I must tell the House and my hon. Friend that the amount of printing has increased enormously in recent years. We are at present having consultations between Her Majesty's Stationery Office and the Civil Service Department to see whether any changes are necessary in the way that we do our printing. It is an extremely difficult job, and at this stage I think that it would be better if we waited for the end of the dispute and could then look at the whole matter in a more reasonable and calmer atmosphere.
Mr. Pardoe: Will the Leader of the House give some idea of the Government's intentions for legislation on firearms control as the Government have now extended the period for consultation on the Green Paper? Will he say whether he believes that, as there is now a direct
1732
contradiction between the statistics given in the Green Paper and the research carried out by the Cambridge Institute of Criminology, this is such a technical matter that it should be referred to a Select Committee before the Government commit themselves on legislation?
Mr. Prior: Of course I shall consider the matter and ask my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to consider the views put forward by the hon. Member. We have given extra time for consultation on the Green Paper and I think that it is the general wish of the House that action should be taken as soon as it can be after that.
Sir Robin Turton: May I revert to the question of parliamentary papers? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the date of publication of reports of Select Committees cannot now be determined and is left to the discretion of the strikers and those going slow in the printing shop? Can that be tolerated when the work of this House is being impeded as a result of their action? Surely the work on the Select Committee reports can be taken away from the offending firms and sent to be printed elsewhere outside this country—in the Commonwealth, for example, or, if my right hon. Friend would prefer it, to the Common Market?
Mr. Prior: What we must all consider is whether by taking such a course we should be more likely to get the printing of these committee reports done more quickly. These are very delicate matters and all I had better say is that I have noted my right hon. Friend's suggestion.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: During next week will the Leader of the House spare some of his precious time to investigate how and why someone somewhere is confiscating hon. Members' mail, including mail sent to Mr. Speaker, which is being intercepted either on the advice or at the suggestion of the Prime Minister? Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the matter?
Mr. Prior: The whole House will be sorry to hear that the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) is having so much trouble with his mail because generally he worries more about other people's mail than his own. As for his reference to obstruction being placed

1733
in the way of Members' mail, I can give him a categorical assurance that nothing of the sort is taking place but that if he is concerned about the matter it is probably for Mr. Speaker. I shall certainly look into any problem he raises which comes within my jurisdiction.
Mr. Edward Taylor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a decision must be made by Sunday on the designation by the Common Market of the central and peripheral areas of Great Britain? Will he therefore say when a statement is to be made, how it will be made, and will we have a statement on Monday?
Mr. Prior: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster expects to make a statement on this and related matters early next week.
Mr. Shore: Will the right hon. Gentleman also consider that as the Opposition made possible a debate on the important matter of the control of British regional policy by the Brussels Commission, the other half of the matter—the future of the Community regional policy—should also be debated, I hope in Government time and long before the recess?
Mr. Prior: We had better await my right hon. Friend's statement before I consider the question raised by the right hon. Gentleman.
Dame Irene Ward: Will my right hon. Friend give me a pledge about the Booz-Allen Report, a pledge which I sought from him last week and which I did not get? When the Government have considered the report and representations and have made up their mind what they wish to do about it, may I be assured that no action will be taken until the House has had an opportunity to discuss the Government's policy in detail? It is most important to the shipbuilding and shipping interests that no Government action to implement their policy is taken until the House has had an opportunity to discuss the Government's reaction to the report.
Mr. Prior: The majority of the written observations on the report have now been received and are now providing the basis for discussion prior to the formulation of the Government's long-term policy for the industry. The consultation with the
1734
trade unions, the industry and the EEC will obviously take some time and a statement will be made as quickly as possible. It is best that we should await that statement will be made as quickly as possible. a debate, but I have noted my hon. Friend's remarks.
Dame Irene Ward: I want a pledge.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have a long list of names of hon. Members who wish to speak in the next debate. May we have very short supplementary questions?
Mr. Palmer: Will the Leader of the House consider issuing an up-to-date statement telling hon. Members to which Ministers questions about the workings of Community institutions in Brussels should be directed in view of the present apparent confusion in the Table Office?
Mr. Prior: I shall look into the matter, but I did not think there was any confusion.
Mr. Marten: The business for Monday week provides that the two Select Committee reports may be debated. Can the time be allocated equally between the two reports? When are we to have the promised debate on driving licences?
Mr. Prior: I should have thought that it would have been for the convenience of the House to divide the time on Monday week equally between the two reports, but I shall have a further look at that. On the other question, I am prepared to arrange a debate on the draft directive before the Summer Recess.
Dr. Miller: Deliberations are to be resumed on the Bill concerning the reorganisation of the National Health Service in respect of the family planning clause. In view of the clear and unequivocal decision in another place, will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Social Services to think again about the Government's views on this matter?
Mr. Prior: My right hon. Friend has made his views well known in what I thought was an excellent speech in winding up the debate in the House. I am certain that his views remain unchanged.
Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: On the problem of parliamentary papers, is my right hon. Friend aware of the extreme difficulty faced by the Standing Committees? This week the Scottish Standing Committee has had to try to process a piece of retrospective legislation designed to overturn a decision of the courts—it is therefore a serious piece of legislation—without any text of the previous proceedings being available in advance of its meeting. If the circumstances of the dispute are completely in defiance of phase 2, what was the point of passing legislation to make it illegal to strike in defiance of phase 2 if we do not activate it?
Mr. Prior: Photocopies of Official Reporters' transcripts are made available to hon. Members on Standing Committees. They are available. My hon. Friend should therefore be able to get them, although I admit that they are in a fairly rough form. They are available—
Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: They were not.
Mr. Prior: I apologise to my hon. Friend if they were not. They are now. I hope to that extent, therefore, that he will take my word for it.
Mr. Lawson: Does the Leader of the House recall that many months ago the Government published a consultative document on afforestation which gave rise to a great deal of disquiet in the indus-
1736
try and in the Select Committee which deals with Scottish affairs? Is the right hon. Gentleman able to say that the Government's views on that document have been revised and that the new policy is to be issued shortly?
Mr. Prior: There has been debate recently in another place and I shall see whether my right hon. Friend is in a position to give further information to this House.
Mr. Hornby: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider what he said about the publication of the report of the Select Committee on the Anti-Discrimination (No. 2) Bill, particularly bearing in mind that the Committee decided to organise its proceedings in such a way that its report could be available to the House in advance of any publication by the Government on the subject? Are not those proceedings in danger of becoming rather pointless to the House and the Committee unless the report can be made available quickly?
Mr. Prior: I shall examine the matter again. There is enormous pressure on the printing resources available to the House to print the papers required on a daily basis, but I shall see whether anything can be done.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [23RD ALLOTTED DAY],—Considered
  CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1973–74

    CLASS II, VOTE 1, DIPLOMATIC SERVICE
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That a sum, not exceeding £61,547,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1974, for the salaries and expenses of the office of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs; Her Majesty's Diplomatic Service; and sundry other services connected therewith.—[Mr. Patrick Jenkin.]

    FOREIGN AFFAIRS
    Mr. Speaker: Before I call upon the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), may I repeat that many hon. Members want to speak in the debate. More than 20 back benchers have already indicated to me their desire to catch my eye. With a little compression, it should be possible to call most of them. Yesterday one back bencher spoke for 25 minutes and another for 22 minutes, and the latter would not believe that he had spoken for so long. Therefore, may I ask for a degree of conciseness and an eye on the clock.
    3.52 p.m.
    Mr. James Callaghan: I beg to move, That the Vote be reduced by £5. We are discussing the salary of the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and his Ministers, and we are very grateful to them for being here.
    I am told that the usual form is to move a reduction by £5. I do not think that many of my hon. Friends would regard that as very appropriate. Indeed, it seemed to me that, allowing for the depreciation of the value of the pound since the Government came to office, the electors of Manchester Exchange might think that £1,000 would be more appropriate. If you would allow me to move a reduction by that sum later,
    1738
    Mr. Speaker, I should be very happy to do so.
    Mr. Speaker: It was the Procedure Committee that recommended in 1965–66 that the sum should always be £5. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will comply with that procedure.
    Mr. Callaghan: I have had to accept that I must move a reduction by that derisory sum, Mr. Speaker, but I am sure that the country will feel that it does not begin to represent the depths of its disillusionment.
    I shall have harsh things to say about the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary's conduct of affairs a little later, but I am sure that my hon. Friends will agree to my felicitating him on the approach of his seventieth birthday next month. We do so genuinely. Our personal good wishes to the right hon. Gentleman are completely unaffected by what we have to say about his policy and his Administration. The right hon. Gentleman's honesty and sense of public service are a model to us all, and we gladly congratulate him on this anniversary.
    The Government and the Conservative Central Office have apparently decided to make a great occasion of it, and so they should. But the naughty thought crossed my mind that perhaps they are preparing a niche for the right hon. Gentleman in the Pantheon of Conservative heroes. I seem to remember the same process of Stanley Baldwin and later Winston Churchill being enveloped in the Conservative Party's love. I can only hope for the right hon. Gentleman's sake that the same process is not now about to happen to him.
    My suspicions were even greater when I heard of the great birthday party on Monday evening. I was reminded of that very amusing film "Some Like it Hot", starring Marilyn Monroe, in which the gangsters of New York had no idea how to get rid of their principal rival. So they invited him to a whacking great birthday party, in the middle of which they wheeled in a tremendous birthday cake on a trolley. As our hero went up to cut the first slice, the top of the cake flew open and a man with a Thompson machine gun emerged and sprayed him with bullets.

    1739
    That was the end of our hero. If I were the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary at that birthday party on Monday, I should watch the birthday cake very closely. We hope that he will be with us for a long time to come.
    The right hon. Gentleman was good enough yesterday to send me a copy of his speech, and that has given me the opportunity of reflecting on it. I am much obliged to him. He emphasised the theme of change, repeated change, widespread change. If there was another sub-theme that emerged throughout the speech, it was that of advising us all to keep calm and to keep cool. Those were the thoughts that emerged on many occasions.
    The right hon. Gentleman spoke, for example, of the rather shrill rhetoric in the United States about its problems with Europe, which should give way to a calm examination of the facts. But in talking about world trade he did not refer, as I understood his speech, to the apparent exclusion of the Common Agricultural Policy from the talks and negotiations that are about to take place, particularly those that are to take place later in the GATT. The right hon. Gentleman can hardly expect the United States to approach the discussions in a calm and philosophical frame of mind if one of its principal objections to the developing policies of Europe is that of being excluded from the negotiations.
    I do not think that this is a very suitable debate for us to discuss the matter in detail. What the Opposition ask from the Government is that there shall be a separate day for the discussion of the very important GATT negotiations, which will determine the future trade of the world and determine to what extent we can look for a prosperous world.
    Then, according to The Times report, he advised us, in connection with the negotiations between the EEC and the developing countries to replace the present Yaoundé Convention, that:
    "Here again emotions would have to be kept out of the way. Everybody realised that the Community could be of benefit".
    In the case of Greece and Portugal he says that there is a need to keep calm. He asked:
    "How would a drastic blow to the security of the West, exposing the Portuguese seaboard of the Atlantic Alliance and the south-east
    1740
    corner of Europe, result in a change of the internal policies of those two countries? Foreign policy and defence are matters too serious to be conducted on the basis of emotional reactions to aspects of other Government's policies over which we have no control."
    I do not think that a little genuine indignation would come amiss in the Foreign Secretary's approach to the problems of either Greece or Portugal. Many people take the view that the combined expression of opinion and condemnation by the EEC and the NATO countries would have a considerable impact on Greek public opinion. I understand that some of our NATO allies take that stand, but we seem to be lagging behind.
    In what the right hon. Gentleman said I can read nothing which expresses the views that have come from both sides, particularly from the Opposition, about the absence of democratic procedures, about the arbitrary arrests that are taking place in Greece today, or about the attitude towards the Portuguese in the celebration of the alliance. [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make my speech in my own way.
    When I read the words again, and I think of them in the context of the 1930s, they seem to me to make a perfect defence for the attitude of the Government at that time:
    "Foreign policy and defence are matters too serious to be conducted on the basis of emotional reactions to aspects of other Governments' policies over which we have no control."
    We awoke almost too late last time when we took that line of non-intervention. I wish the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary had found it possible to express the indignation and concern felt in the West about what is going on.
    In any case, even on the right hon. Gentleman's own test, I wonder whether it is true that Greece is capable of playing an effective rôle in NATO. I should be glad if the Minister who is to reply would tell me whether the information I have been given is correct. I understand that the Greek navy has a total of 34 ships, not all of them in service. Five of the captains of the 13 destroyers have been arrested, and one has sought asylum in Italy. Seven commanders of the torpedo boat fleet of 15 have been arrested, and all six commanders of the submarine fleet of six vessels have been arrested.

    1741
    Leave aside the morality of the situation, leave aside the need to express an opinion about what we think of that kind of behaviour by the Greek colonels, does that sound like an effective force, in which all the submarine fleet, if not immobilised, at least has been seriously denuded of its experienced commanders? I urge the right hon. Gentleman to give an expression and to give a lead to European opinion on these matters. If my information is right I believe that we can exercise influence on Greek opinion. By no means all the means of communication have closed with that country.
    We are to discuss the French nuclear tests on Monday. The China tests have come too late for the right hon. Gentleman to express an opinion about them. I regret very much that his voice has been muffled when the Commonwealth has been speaking out. It is due to a false sense of need perhaps not to keep in line with France but not to be openly antagonistic. It is a matter of great regret if we have to choose between the Commonwealth and France on this matter.
    I speak for the people of this country when I say that they would prefer to hear the right hon. Gentleman speaking out openly and clearly and condemning the French nuclear tests not only on behalf of New Zealand and Australia but on behalf of those people who live and who are indigenous to that part of the world.
    The right hon. Gentleman is asking us to be calm, unemotional and open-minded. I was reminded of that when I read his speech this morning. I was also reminded that a few days ago my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) took up a point which I had made and had presented to the right hon. Gentleman about the Law of the Sea Conference. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) has also raised the matter—namely, the British attitude to the Law of the Sea Conference.
    Where do we stand? We are a seagoing nation with great traditions. In the past we have played a part in arranging and helping international settlement of these affairs. In fact, the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) took up the matter and not my hon.
    1742
    Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland, who is also present.
    Mr. Robert Maclennan: I also raised the matter.
    Mr. Callaghan: I am sure that my hon. Friend did so, and with even greater eloquence. My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sunderland, the hon. Member for Inverness and myself, if I may modestly include myself, were saying to the right hon. Gentleman, "Please tell us what the British attitude will be when you go to the Law of the Sea Conference? Shall we stick to the three mile limit or shall we go for a 12-mile limit? Shall we say that there must be an extension to a 30-mile limit?" A whole range of options is open. The right hon. Gentleman replied that he did not think that we should want to lay down a position before the International Conference on the Law of the Sea assembles. He thought that it would be better to go to the conference with a fairly open mind and to negotiate something reasonable.
    That will not do. The law of the seabed, the mining of the minerals which are to be found, fishing and the degree of pollution are all matters on which Britain should take a strong position. That is especially the case when—and I remind the right hon. Gentleman once again—we have taken a lead in the past on these matters. But no, we shall be going to the conference with a fairly open mind.
    Yesterday, when discussing Helsinki, the right hon. Gentleman was asked what would follow the discussions which are to take place in Helsinki and how any agreement which is reached can be consolidated. The right hon. Gentleman replied that we have an open mind on the possibilities. Calmness, coolness and open-mindedness can be taken to the point when it can be asked whether there is any opinion at all.
    Let us consider Rhodesia. No doubt there is a case for saying, "Let the Rhodesians and the Africans get together. Maybe that should be so. Maybe we should sit back and wait for them to develop negotiations and the agreement which they must come to at some time. It may be right to counsel calmness, open-mindedness, patience and coolness, in relation to some problems in some areas. I am sure that is right.

    1743
    But it cannot be right in all cases. Other middle-ranking countries like this country have clear, active, positive policies. They do not hesitate to state their positions and to give a lead.
    Whatever views hon. Members may take on France's attitude, there is a clear example of a middle-sized country which knows what it wants and where it is going. France has shown how much leverage such a country can exercise.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home)indicated dissent.
    Mr. Callaghan: The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to appreciate that. Perhaps he will tell me why middle-sized countries should not try to exercise the leverage which their influence permits. If he does not choose to do so, then my proposition stands.
    I am not saying and nor am I arguing about the way in which influence should be exercised. I am not claiming that France is necessarily exercising its influence in the best way. I am saying to the right hon. Gentleman that instead of being inert the French are playing a positive rôle. I am saying that a middle-sized country, if it chooses to exercise its influence, can exercise a great deal of leverage. I am complaining that apart from the one great spasm to get us into Europe we seem to have been drifting on all other fronts with an open-minded calm, and cool approach to all problems whilst others take the lead. British foreign policy under the right hon. Gentleman has the glacial coolness and inertness of Scottish salmon stretched out on the fishmonger's slab.
    I shall mention two considerable areas of agreement. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's assessment of Asia. It seems that China is seeking non-alignment in South-East Asia. Recently I had the good fortune to visit that area. It is true to say that China is not employing a forward strategy. China is attempting to withdraw. It would much prefer to see Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam detached from the West but not necessarily attached to China.
    On the other hand, it is true to say that the United States is actively promoting a policy of disengagement in that area. If that is so, there are better prospects for peace in Vietnam, Laos and
    1744
    Cambodia than we have seen for many years past. Of course, the communists in Vietnam, and President Thieu, will continue with their internal struggle for power. The fact that the Chinese and, as the right hon. Gentleman says, the United States—I assume that there is no disagreement about this—are pulling back from the area does not mean that all the tensions will be removed.
    It was quite clear to me when I was on the spot that President Thieu is much more durable than many people give him credit for. Further, it is clear that the communists believe that in the end President Thieu's system will collapse under the weight of its own contradictions.
    There are millions of people in that area who do not support President Thieu or the communists. If only a third force could be created, such as was provided in the Paris agreement between Le Duc Tho and Dr. Kissinger, there is no doubt that it would probably represent a majority view. Although the prospects of great power involvement are much less than they were and to that extent, the prospect that the area will not become the scene of a potential war is made a little better, why has not the right hon. Gentleman made any progress so far in the recognition of North Vietnam?
    I put that question to him on my return from North Vietnam with a Labour Party delegation in the early spring. He indicated that he was examining the problem and that it would arise in due time. What is the reason for the delay? Is recognition supposed to be some sort of prize for good behaviour? Is North Vietnam on trial to see whether it will live up to the Paris agreement? If so, it may be that we shall have to wait a long time. I hope that that is not the position.
    Our influence at the moment with North Vietnam is negligible. I accept that we have a man stationed out there. He has been given a car in which to ride but a very small petrol allowance. He mostly uses a bicycle when he makes his reports. He does so not to the Prime Minister of North Vietnam but to the municipal authority. Perhaps the Prime Minister does not know that.
    Hon. Members: He is asleep.
    The Prime Minister: I am not asleep; I am bored.
    Mr. Callaghan: The right hon. Gentleman must not get too impatient. There are occasions when even the Prime Minister's Government is open to a little criticism. The Prime Minister need not sit here and be bored; he can go if he wants to.
    I am sorry if I am boring the right hon. Gentleman but perhaps he would nevertheless like to listen and open his eyes for a second to what is happening in North Vietnam. His representative there has no official connection with the Government of North Vietnam. When the Labour Party delegation went there, we had to use the good offices of the Swedish Government to enable us to see the Prime Minister of North Vietnam because the British representative there is accredited—if that is the right word —to the municipality of the city. Is that boring? Does not the right hon. Gentleman understand the situation? Can he not see it through the eyes of people out there, such as other legations and embassies? He may laugh or think the whole thing boring but—and of course I would not want to involve his representative—no one concerned with that situation who is British comes out very well.
    I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he wants to exercise influence or not. If Her Majesty's Government want to exercise influence they should recognise the accredited Government there, and when they do so perhaps they will be able to talk to the Prime Minister of North Vietnam and other leaders. That in no sense implies any moral approbation of the régime, but it implies the reality of the situation and the ability to discuss matters with a Government who can influence South-East Asia more than anyone else, except the Chinese or the Americans.
    Mr. Patrick Cormack: What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. That also applies to Greece.
    Mr. Callaghan: I said earlier that I thought that the Foreign Secretary should try to get a united EEC or NATO attitude on the subject of Greece, and that if that combined attitude resulted in a withdrawal of recognition from Greece and of the ambassadors it would have the most tremendous impact upon Greek public opinion. That view is held by
    1746
    many exiled Greeks. What we are discussing here is the best way to get the restoration of a democratic régime in Greece and not ways to influence the régime, which is what I am discussing in the case of North Vietnam.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles>rose—
    Mr. Callaghan: No. I have already given way once.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Callaghan: I have given way to the hon. and gallant Gentleman on previous occasions. He seems to make a point of asking me to give way to him. I will do so again.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Is it not a bit thick for him to lecture my right hon. Friend about lack of British influence east of Suez when the Labour Government abandoned our position east of Suez, despite what the then Foreign Secretary, Lord George-Brown, had said —that no country with a sense of international responsibility would do any such thing?
    Mr. Callaghan: One day the hon. and gallant admiral will awaken to the fact that it is possible to exercise influence without having gunboats. The whole tenor of my argument is that in pursuing British policy we shall have to learn to exercise influence without our gunboats. I have already illustrated how France, which, as far as I know, has no troops east of Suez, manages to exercise and use a very considerable leverage.
    I turn to the subject of the Middle East. The Foreign Secretary says, and no one can deny it, that the future there is depressing. I was glad to read that he still accepts the implementation of United Nations Resolution No. 242. There is no doubt that both Israel and Egypt are extremely sensitive at present, with the situation being debated in the United Nations. Our position becomes more important because, when the debate is resumed, I understand that the United Kingdom representative will be the President of the Security Council in July.
    So far the debate at the United Nations has not produced any draft resolution or concrete proposal. I have not read all of

    1747
    it, but I believe that it demonstrates that peace in the Middle East will doubtfully be promoted by public debate and will be produced only by negotiations between the parties principally concerned. The basis for such negotiations exists already, as the right hon. Gentleman made clear again yesterday, in Resolution No. 242, sponsored by Britain, unanimously adopted by the Security Council, and accepted by both parties.
    What I fear is—and my fear is shared to some extent by the Israeli representative—that the resolution could be seriously impaired, if not destroyed, if others should attempt to add to it or interpret it or otherwise tamper with it, directly or by implication. I do not wish to disturb any possibility of negotiation, even if any words of mine could. I think that perhaps the best thing we can do as a result of the United Nations debate, initiated by Egypt, is to ask once again the countries principally concerned, Egypt and Israel, to follow a step-by-step approach. This commends itself to the Opposition as the best tactic.
    The United Nations could perhaps best help by providing help, as in the past, for a process which will achieve direct negotiations between the two main parties. The United States has recently called for an interim settlement. In my judgment I do not think that we can ever hope to get a one-stage settlement all tied up in pink ribbon. I believe that the process has to be achieved step by step. I hope that everything that we do will be directed to achieving that end. I do not differ from the statement of the Foreign Secretary on this point.
    Mr. Christopher Mayhew: My right hon. Friend has given further welcome to Resolution No. 242. Is he aware that it was embodied and amplified in a General Assembly resolution last December which was passed by 86 votes including the British, to 7 votes —the 7 being Israel and 6 of the smaller Latin-American countries? Can he explain—I understand that this has been publicly stated by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—why the Opposition Front Bench opposed this resolution?
    Mr. Callaghan: I am not proposing to go any further on the question of the Middle East. I know that there are fierce
    1748
    protagonists on both sides of the issue. I do not happen to be one of them. I believe that it is our task to try to ensure that there are step-by-step negotiations. Both Israel and Egypt have legitimate claims. There are arguments about words and resolutions. I repeat that too much public debate on this issue will not help the parties to come together. What they need is a period of quiet. I apply this ordinance to myself in that I restrain myself in public utterances on the issue, although I have many private views, which I will gladly discuss with my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew).
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Open-minded, patient and cool, in fact.
    Mr. Callaghan: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is in ebullient mood today. I hope he enjoyed his lunch.
    I turn to the question of Rhodesia. The results of the latest mission and the reports and speeches I have read seem to show that no settlement is possible. I go further, and perhaps the Foreign Secretary has reached the same conclusion. It seems to me as an observer that the 1971 agreement in its present form is now comatose and will shortly be dead. I do not see how it can be implemented because the more time that elapses between when the agreement was made and when it is implemented, the weaker will be the prospects of implementing it unchanged. There will have to be substantial alterations to it.
    There is the question of the detained Africans. Peter Niesewand, whose case for release we all supported, rightly, was lucky because world attention focused on him. But the House has the same responsibility towards those Africans, their names unknown here, who are detained in the same circumstances in the same conditions and by the same arbitrary behaviour but do not seem to have had the attention of the world's Press focused upon them. I know that the Foreign Secretary has made representations about these men before. I trust that he will continue to make fresh representations about them to the Rhodesian régime.
    Secondly. I believe that we must now press for Africans to be brought into the constitution-making process. One day, as Sir Roy Welensky said recently—and it

    1749
    is strange to hear this from him, certainly for those of us who saw him 14 or 15 years ago—one day, he said, a black majority will rule and that day is perhaps closer than many people think. His thinking has undoubtedly changed since many of us went to Rhodesia in 1957. The longer this goes on without negotiations between the two parties, the worse will be the deterioration in relations between them.
    I was reading that a Government Minister in Rhodesia said the other day that the determination and sense of purpose of the present attacks by the guerillas is greater than it has ever been. This is an accelerating process. It is surely a classic process in terms of the fighting of freedom movements and the giving way to violence if reasonableness does not seem to prevail. The Smith régime is fortunate in the sense that there are still many Africans, Bishop Muzorewa at their head, who are still willing and ready to speak in the accents of moderation and reason.
    I understand that there is little we can do to influence Smith in this, but we must continue to make clear, as the Foreign Secretary has done, that if these 200,000 Europeans and their children wish to lead a happy and peaceful life, they must come to terms with the rising African nationalism before it is too late and before the situation gives way to something that will be intolerable for them.
    The main burden of the Foreign Secretary's speech was naturally and rightly about the consequences, either foreseen or expected or hoped for, or feared perhaps by some, of the Nixon-Brezhnev meeting. The cold war is dead, it is said. We all hope so. It will take me a little time to adjust to that thought after 25 years of listening to the cold war being preached. When we think back through all those long periods—the blockade of Berlin, the Cuban missile crisis, the Berlin Wall, they are all engraved on the minds of all of us who have lived through this period—the cold war was a fact. It is a period through which we lived and the NATO and Warsaw pacts were a response to it.
    We must approach this with caution. Mr. Brezhnev's policy was not, as far as I know, achieved unanimously in the USSR. It is at least possible that he will find himself attacked in his own country
    1750
    unless there are active signs of success for this policy. We have to take this into account. We do not have to do so sceptically. We have to make it more certain that Mr. Brezhnev's policy will succeed. In other words our attitude must be that if the policy fails, if it breaks down, if there is a change in attitude, if must not be our fault. We cannot guarantee what will happen inside the USSR, but we can at least ensure that we approach this new turn of events with hope, certainly with caution, but also with a determination to make it succeed as far as lies in our power.
    If it succeeds then it will have profound consequences for the improvement of our relations. It will decrease the prospects of war. It could lift the great burden of arms expenditure. I read the other day that a recent UN survey showed that the total cost of the world's armed forces is equal to one-third of the total income of the human race. It is an astonishing figure. Put in that way we can see what a lifting of the arms burden could mean to a raising of the standard of life. To put it another way, we spend 30 times as much on arms as we spend on official aid. We shall watch the progress at Helsinki in July and at the arms disarmament conference on 30th October with great hope for mankind.
    We are looking for a positive approach to these problems. We should take the chance to improve our relations with the USSR. The Foreign Secretary said yesterday that they were a vitally important element in his policy. All I can say is that I do not think he is making much of a fist of it at the moment. Mr. Brezhnev has been to Washington. He has visited Bonn and Paris. When is he to be invited to London?
    Mr. Cormack: Not yet.
    Mr. Callaghan: That is the true voice of Conservatism speaking. "Let us always lap in the rear, let us always be behind everyone else." I notice that in his talks with Mr. Brezhnev, as they are reported in the Press, President Pompidou has not given way on any points which he thinks are vital to the interest of France. Does the hon. Member not trust the Foreign Secretary to meet him. Is that why we should not talk? Are we so uncertain about our

    1751
    own stance? Do we not understand that it is our job to present our position to Mr. Brezhnev? Why not invite him? Why has he been to all the other principal capitals in Europe and the new world but not here?
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Because he has not been invited.
    Mr. Callahan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out the obvious conclusion.
    I hope Mr. Brezhnev will be invited soon and will come here. It is high time he did. I hope that he will be exposed even to the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack). [HON. MEMBERS: "Not that."] After all he has dealt with a lot of Republican businessmen in Washington and I guess that if he can deal with them he will eat the hon. Member before breakfast.
    Mr. Cormack: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Callaghan: Very well, it is after lunch.
    Mr. Cormack: The right hon. Gentleman could certainly be eaten before breakfast by Mr. Brezhnev. If Mr. Brezhnev comes to London perhaps he will listen to some of the representations made in this country about the way in which certain citizens of the Soviet Union are treated. Perhaps when the right hon. Gentleman is upbraiding the Greek Government and talking in eulogistic terms of North Vietnam, he will spare a word of derision for the way in which freedom is controlled in that country.
    Mr. Callaghan: I would want to see such things discussed with Mr. Brezhnev, in a spirit of détente. As I understand it, some pertinent questions were put to Mr. Brezhnev during his visit to Washington by Members of Congress on precisely such points. It is surely best if we could have such a meaningful discussion. What I am complaining of is that he has not been asked. It is high time he was.
    Some of the matters which we need to discuss, not only with the USSR, but with Eastern Europe generally, are such things as the freedom of movement of citizens in and out of countries, the arrest
    1752
    and trial of political prisoners in those countries and the growth of the media and the capacity to express freedom. Does the hon. Member for Cannock disagree with any of that? Why do the Government funk meeting him? What is the objection?
    Mr. Cormack: Why did you not ask them?
    Mr. Callaghan: We did and the Russians came. Some frank views were expressed. I am interested to hear the reaction of Conservative Members to this. It bears out the view of them that I frequently hear expressed in Europe that from the Prime Minister downwards, they are all backward in an understanding of the spirit developing there today. They are showing themselves unfitted—and the Foreign Secretary has never in any way shown himself fitted—to conduct this dialogue. We do not have to agree with those with whom we discuss matters. Otherwise the Prime Minister and I would never meet in this House. If the West has a position, if Britain has a case, if social democracy means anything, and it will increasingly mean something if we are to live in the atmosphere of détente, it is high time we were talking. I put it in this way, and I must say I do not think that Conservative Members will understand, but I believe my hon. Friends will. It was made clear to me by the Russians when we discussed it that détente will mean that there will be better relations between Governments but that this will not stop them or prevent them preaching their own ideology or their own social system. That struggle will go on. Do not we have an answer to that struggle? We on this side of the House believe that we do. We believe that the form of democratic Socialism that is growing not only in this country but elsewhere is the best answer to the form of Communism. So let us argue it out with them.
    There is a growing wish—I had the good fortune last weekend to be in France, and I beg hon. Members to try to understand the claims by workers in different countries—to take greater control over their own resources and their own means of production, and to have a different relationship with their machine. It is not confined to militant trade unionists in this country. The solutions

    1753
    take different forms. In the EEC the solution for transforming this relationship is called participation. In this country the solution advocated by many people in the trade union movement is nationalisation. In the case of France it seems to me that there is growing up a system which 60 years ago G. D. H. Cole would have called syndicalism. But I beg even the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles), who so often sits laughing, to understand that here is a change, a transition, taking place in people's attitudes to the relationship between the worker and his means of production; and unless we understand that and argue it out with the Communists, we in this country have very little chance of ensuring that we are standing on firm ground. I would be prepared to take that stand and to argue it with them, even if the hon. and gallant Member does not show a sense of occasion in being willing to do so.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has come to a very important part of his speech on which I must interrupt him on one important point. This Government have always been willing to discuss international affairs, and indeed any problems of the kind he has just mentioned, with any Government. If he wants one example alone of major importance, it is this Government who have brought about full diplomatic relations with Peking, with whom we have had discussions, and on which I was talking with the Foreign Minister of that country only a fortnight ago; and on which I myself have had an invitation to go to Peking.
    If the right hon. Gentleman looks back he will find that in the autumn of 1971 relations between this country and the Soviet Union became strained but that was not through any wish of this country or this Government. The results of that are now diminishing, I am glad to say. This Government have always shown themselves willing to discuss. For example, the Soviet Ambassador has always at any time had direct access to myself and the Foreign Secretary, and has used it. This has not been the case in Moscow, although again it is easier. So I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not accuse this Government of not wishing to talk about any problems which
    1754
    affect East-West relations or indeed any other problems. We have always been perfectly willing to do so. The right hon. Gentleman will recall why the strain developed. We believed that our first duty was to the security of this country and then to discuss.
    Mr. Callaghan: I believe the House will note rather wryly that when I say it, Conservatives laugh but when the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister says it they applaud. The Prime Minister makes a fair point in relation to Peking. I do not take too much pleasure though perhaps a certain malicious enjoyment in thinking that relations between the Conservative Government of this country and the USSR have been so bad. We do not want to go over the spies issue again but maybe that could have been handled differently. I know the Foreign Secretary tried, but it is true that that has embittered relations between us. I ask the House to accept as a fact—and the last time I made this point I was again jeered at by the same hon. Members although the Prime Minister accepts it—that relations between our country and the USSR have been and are still frostier than they are between USSR and other major powers in the West.
    The Prime Minister accepts this. I accept and thank him for what he has said about his desire to improve relations, because this is not yet fully understood in the USSR or in the eastern European countries. It is something we have to go on saying, though some of his own back benchers do not encourage it, I readily admit. But I believe the Prime Minister understands that, as he understands its significance for this country; and what he has said this afternoon is of very great importance. I hope it will be fully reported, not only here in the absence of HANSARD but throughout eastern Europe and the USSR, that it is the desire of this Government and certainly of our party that there should be a resumption of relations with the USSR at the highest possible level; and I hope that those who jeer on the back benches opposite will remember that what has been said now has the authority of the Prime Minister.
    I must apologise to the House for taking so long but I was provoked a little earlier when I said I would turn to the

    1755
    way in which a middle-sized country like ours can exert leverage without gun boats. I would like to say in a sentence how it can be done. It should be done through the United Nations. [Interruption.] Again, an expression of disgust until no doubt, the Prime Minister at the next Foreign Affairs debate comes down and says he agrees.
    We have the astonishing phenomenon that in the last 25 years the population of the world has increased by 50 per cent. against the preceding millennia, and we know of the problems of hunger and starvation in places such as India and Africa, referred to by the right hon. Gentleman yesterday, and such things as the problem of energy. I remember Aneurin Bevan in one of his poetic moods talking of the population starving whilst it watched its television sets. If we are not careful we shall find our cities cluttered with cars which cannot move because there is no petrol to run them. There is the problem of pollution, one of immense importance, and there is the significance of the Law of the Sea Conference on which we must quickly get our own approach to secure proper authority.
    These problems cannot be dealt with regionally or nationally. The EEC has only limited uses for these matters but they must be dealt with. We hear of ideas such as political union by 1980 and a single economic monetary policy within six years. I do not believe it. Sometimes, when one reads communiqués from summit conferences one feels that because Prime Ministers have been unable to agree on concrete practical issues they take refuge in high-flown sentiments about long-range objectives that they know will not come, and they hope that when the bells are ringing they will drown the noise of the problems still waiting to be solved.
    I believe firmly that this will be the attitude of the next Labour Government, that we shall use the United Nations and its institutions, whatever jeers may come, as the main thrust of our policy. We shall endeavour, despite the difficulties that undoubtedly there will be, to bring new vigour and a new sense of purpose to these problems that I have mentioned. We believe they are ripe to be tackled on a world basis. We believe it is right to encourage the idea of
    1756
    détente while preserving our own alliances. We believe the right approach is with caution and hope, constructively. We believe that if we do use the United Nations in the way that I have outlined, with British policy expressing the view of a middle-range power with, I hope, still a sense of idealism and still a sense of purpose outside as well as inside Europe, this country can play its part in meeting its responsibilities to the world.
    4.39 p.m.
    The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Lord Balniel): The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) always speaks agreeably in this House, but I am bound to say that on this occasion, while there were aspects of his speech with which I agreed, there was a great deal of substance on which I found myself in disagreement. With his opening remarks, however, there was general agreement, namely, over the way he extended the good wishes of the House to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for his forthcoming seventieth birthday. Undoubtedly he echoed the general goodwill that the whole House feels towards my right hon. Friend.
    But a quite remarkable lack of logic permeated the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He wishes us to establish relations with North Vietnam—which, incidentally, my right hon. Friend will deal with in his final speech. That is no doubt a highly desirable objective, but, while the right hon. Gentleman says that the purpose of establishing relationships with North Vietnam is to wield influence, almost in the same breath he says that the European Economic Community should get together and that Britain should withdraw her ambassador from Greece in order to wield influence in Greece. That is a contradiction in logic which passes the comprehension of the House.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Lord BaIniel: I must get on, because time is passing and the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East was reluctant to give way.
    Hon. Members: Oh.
    Mr. Allaun: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and I shall be brief. Is not there a difference? We are arming against Russia. If we were arming against

    1757
    Greece and there was a danger of war, I should be opposed to it. That is a different situation from arming against a nation and doing everything possible to prevent war. There is no threat of war with Greece. There is a distinction here.
    Lord Balniel: The argument was about the wielding of influence.
    The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East criticised the Government's representations on the subject of French nuclear tests. He completely ignored the attitude taken by the Labour Government. In July 1966 the Leader of the Opposition—then the Prime Minister—was asked what approaches he had made to General de Gaulle after the first French nuclear tests in the Pacific on 2nd July, to which he replied:
    "None, Sir. The French are fully aware of our concern about their current programme of nuclear tests in the Pacific."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th July 1966; Vol. 732, c. 1436.]
    To take another example, the right hon. Gentleman was highly critical of the Government's attitude towards détente, but in practice we have supported the Ostpolitik of the German Government, we have supported all the initiatives to improve our relationships with the East, we have supported the quadripartite agreement on Berlin, we have participated in discussions on the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, we have taken initiatives on the Mutual and Balanced Force Reduction Talks and it may reasonably be said that we have taken a leading part in the preparations for the European Security Conference which begins next Tuesday.
    The right hon. Gentleman constantly refers to another European country which is so influential, but I cannot think of any other country of our scale and which has our influence in the world which has been so positive in trying to secure détente and good relations with the eastern world. Indeed, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, we have established relationships with Peking.
    The general tenor of the right hon. Gentleman's argument was to accuse the Government of drift and of not exercising influence. The right hon. Gentleman wanted us to throw our weight about much more. But, as my later remarks will prove, not strident diplomacy, but
    1758
    quiet, steady enhancement of influence is the best rôle for this country to play.
    I want to devote most of what I say to two areas of the world in which the House has shown a sustained interest which were referred to by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State but not covered in great detail. These are two areas where we have much at stake but where political problems have injected tension—sometimes serious tension—into the lives of the countries concerned. I am referring to the Middle East and the Indian sub-continent.
    In the Middle East our attention focuses on the central political problem of the Arab—Israel conflict. Our concern is about this conflict and our preoccupation is about the human tragedies involved and the dangers which flow from the unsettled conflict. All this tends to overshadow in public attention what has in fact been achieved—namely, a striking improvement in our relations with this part of the world, in particular in the last three years—which is what the right hon. Gentleman criticised us for not having achieved.
    We have strengthened the traditional ties with some of these countries. We have based relations with certain others on a new footing, freed from the old suspicions and misunderstandings of the past. It is easier to gauge the scale of change if I refer briefly to our relations with various countries which play an important rôle in the area.
    Turning first to Iran, relations between the two countries are very good indeed. His Imperial Majesty the Shahanshah visited London as the guest of Her Majesty the Queen last June. There have been other important exchanges, including the visit to London of the Iranian Prime Minister last April, and the visit to Tehran by my right hon. Friend earlier this month. During that visit my right hon. Friend was able to have valuable talks with the Shah. The conversations were confidential, but this series of visits is symbolic of a close sharing of viewpoint on international affairs. The relationship between the United Kingdom and Iran is based on the growing volume of trade between our two countries. As an example, British exports to Iran in the first five months of 1973 were running at an annual rate

    1759
    of almost £144 million, a 30 per cent. increase on the same period last year.
    In the Gulf, whilst of course there are anxieties, peace and stability, to which Her Majesty's Government have devoted enormous effort, have been maintained, and all aspects of our relations with the Gulf States continue to be excellent. We maintain a close dialogue with them, and we have made clear our readiness to cooperate with them in accordance with our Treaties of Friendship. In the United Arab Emirates, British loan service personnel play a positive rôle in the Union Defence Force—the old Trucial Oman Scouts—the Abu Dhabi Defence Force and the Dubai Defence Force.
    A growing number of Gulf States recognise that the Sultanate of Oman is the bulwark of the Gulf against subversion. They are providing assistance to the Sultan for the defence and development of his country. We welcome this. We have had close and cordial relations with the Sultanate for many years and provide military assistance under the terms of the 1958 Exchange of Letters.
    The rebellion in Dhofar still continues, but the Sultan's armed forces have reasserted their control over large areas of the province. When one visits Oman, one cannot fail to be greatly struck by the scale of civil development. Although the Sultanate has to devote much effort to defending the country against attack from outside and against armed subversion, the impact of building new schools, houses, hospitals and industry has led to an increase in the rate of desertion from the rebel ranks.
    Hon. Members have heard much talk recently—and much concern has been expressed—about the so-called energy crisis. Our friendship with Saudi Arabia is long-standing, but world attention has recently focused itself on this problem and, therefore, on Saudi Arabia and some of the smaller oil-producing members. Our good relationship, within which we can mutually help each other, has therefore a very special significance. This is exemplified, for instance, in terms of trade. Our exports to Saudi Arabia so far this year show an increase of about 30 per cent. over 1972: £17·5 million from January to May 1972 and £22·6 million for the same period this year.
    1760
    In the last few years Saudi Arabia has played a more active rôle in Middle Eastern politics, and particularly in the affairs of the Arabian peninsula. For example, she has established close and friendly relations with the Yemen Arab Republic and Oman, and is helping the Sultanate of Oman in their struggle to defend their sovereignty.
    We welcome the assumption by Saudi Arabia of these responsibilities in the peninsula. King Faisal's experience and statesmanship and the vast resources of his kingdom equip Saudi Arabia admirably for this rôle.
    Our relations with Jordan and the Hashemite family are traditionally close. The stability of Jordan is one of the key factors which will contribute to the stability of the whole area. It is our policy to give Jordan high priority in all fields of co-operation, particularly capital aid, technical assistance and military training. When I visited Amman this year, I was impressed by the Jordan Government's efforts—in the face of every kind of difficulty—to boost their economy. I was able to announce that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development would make available a further capital aid loan of £10 million to be spent on projects in the Jordanian development plan.
    The Syrian Arabic Republic broke off diplomatic relations with us at the time of the Arab/Israeli war of June 1967. Over the past nine months there have been contacts between ourselves and the Syrian Government through friendly intermediaries which led to the resumption of full diplomatic relations on 28th May. We hope to exchange Ambassadors in the near future and we expect that relations, particularly in the field of trade, will continue to improve.
    The activities of the fedayeen have placed the Lebanese Government in a cruel predicament. Lebanon has our most profound sympathy and support in the incredibly difficult circumstances in which she finds herself.
    Another transformation of relations—which was ignored in the remarks of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East was symbolised a short while ago when we had a visit from the President of the Sudan. Since mid-1971 we have

    1761
    responded in many ways to the Sudan's desire to reach a position of genuine non-alignment and balance between East and West.
    We warmly welcomed the signing of the Addis Ababa Agreement in February 1972 which ended the civil war in the Southern region of the Sudan. We responded to requests for help there with grants both to the Government of the Sudan and to the special fund set up by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. I should like to refer to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) who plays a major rôle in helping refugees. We wholeheartedly agree with the comments which my hon. Friend made yesterday.
    We have also in connection with the Sudan reached agreement on compensation for nationalised British firms. This in turn enabled Her Majesty's Government to resume a programme of capital aid and technical assistance amounting to £15·7 million over the next four years.
    Nowhere is the improvement in our relations with the Arab world more evident than in the change which has taken place in Anglo-Egyptian relations. The visit to Cairo of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in September 1971 has been followed by a number of valuable exchanges between British and Egyptian Ministers. The signature of the nationalised property agreement in 1971 and the agreement of March this year for the transfer of the balance of blocked bank accounts have removed the last remaining irritants in our bilateral relations.
    The Egyptian Government were remarkably generous in lending us Tutankhamun treasures. They were seen by over 1½ million people, symbolising the new phase in our relations. I hope that we can continue to consolidate this relationship. In 1971 we granted Egypt a £5 million loan as a contribution to her economy. This has restored the historical association of Britain with Egypt's economic development. I believe we can do more to help in this field. My right hon. Friend announced last night that we have offered Egypt a further loan of £10 million, repayable over 25 years at 2 per cent. interest with a 7 year grace period. This offer has been accepted by the Egyptian Government and we will shortly be
    1762
    discussing with the Egyptian authorities a list of suitable projects.
    I must confess not everything on the horizon is good and it would be wrong of me not to refer to our relations with Libya in this review. Here the tale is not so happy. We have tried hard to wipe the slate clean of disagreements arising out of our relationship with the former regime there. We have so far not succeeded. Our task has not been made any easier by the support expressed by the Libyan Government for the IRA, in language which betrays a profound ignorance of the situation in Northern Ireland nor has it been made any easier by the expropriation, without compensation, of British assets in Libya.
    We have no wish to quarrel with Libya. There, as with other countries, all we want is a stable relationship based on mutual respect and non-interference in internal affairs.
    We do not want this improvement in our relations with the Arab world—an improvement again ignored by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East—to be at the expense of our friendship with Israel. This friendship is solidly based on our common respect for freedom and democracy and for intellectual and cultural achievement. I am looking forward to visiting Israel at the end of this month, and I shall assure the Israeli Government of our deep and continuing interest in the security and prosperity of their country.
    I come now to the larger problem of the conflict between Israel and the Arabs. We cannot regard with equanimity the present unsatisfactory and fragile state of "no peace, no war". We have consistently tried to inject some movement into the situation. But all efforts so far to break the stalemate have failed.
    In passing, I have been given an account of the constructive speech made by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen), in which he emphasised the importance of concentrating our studies on the demilitarisation of the Sinai to provide security for Egypt and for Israel. I understand that it was a most remarkable contribution to the debate and I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall study with the utmost care his constructive suggestions.
    Our desire to break the stalemate makes us anxious that the present meeting of the Security Council—which is the

    1763
    first time the Security Council has considered the Middle East problem as a whole since the adoption of Resolution 242 of November 1967—should make the most of the present opportunity. We must take the opportunity to break out of what Dr. Waldheim has described as a
    "vicious circle of action and reaction, violence and reprisal".
    Our own policy is clear and, I believe, widely respected. We continue to believe that Resolution 242 provides the basis for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. Our views on how this resolution should be implemented remain as set out by my right hon. Friend in his Harrogate speech of October 1970 and I shall not expand on them here. It is this resolution which provides a formula for marrying Arab sovereignty with Israeli security, and it is the duty of us all, whether in the Security Council or elsewhere, to make progress towards putting that resolution into practical effect.
    I wish that we could move forward with large bounds. But the emotions and passions surrounding the situation are such that we must be content with small steps, as the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East indicated. I only hope that such small steps will be obtainable.
    The short-term aim of Her Majesty's Government is that when the Security Council resumes some kind of genuine diplomatic process can be got going. In our view, the mission of Dr. Jarring should be not only retained but re-energised. It is important that there should be progress, however achieved, towards breaking the present intolerable deadlock. The story of the Arab-Israeli dispute is one of lost opportunities. This is one opportunity which should not be lost.
    Dr. M. S. Miller: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the policy of Her Majesty's Government in respect of the Arab-Israeli dispute is based on Resolution No. 242 or upon the speech of the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary at Harrogate, because the two are not exactly the same?
    Lord Balniel: Resolution No. 242, which was initiated by the British Government, sets out this attempt to marry
    1764
    the security interests of Israel with the sovereignty interests of other countries involved. In his speech at Harrogate, my right hon. Friend amplified that. The resolution is in short, concise language. In that speech my right hon. Friend explained the attitude of the British Government. It would be wrong for me in such a very delicate matter to attempt to make any elaboration in answer to an intervention from the hon. Gentleman. But I make it clear that the policy of the Government is as represented by my right hon. Friend in his Harrogate speech, which is in full conformity with Resolution No. 242.
    Mr. Ivor Richard: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that in the Security Council debate the Israeli Ambassador said:
    "If the experience of the last few years has demonstrated an incontrovertible fact, it is that there can be no imposition of a solution from the outside. If there is a message to be retained from that experience, it is that Israel will not be drawn into any process that would introduce third powers, and their own differences, whether as members of committees or participants in consulting groups, into a conflict which only the parties themselves can settle."
    In view of that statement, do Her Majesty's Government still hold the view that it is a hopeful step in trying to settle this dispute to reconstitute the Jarring mission and that it is only through some such international intervention that a settlement is likely to be achieved?
    Lord Balniel: I do not say that it is the only way that progress can be made. Like the right hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Goronwy Roberts), the Government feel that this is the way most likely to achieve an advance in this very difficult area. That is our view. I recognise that the Israeli Ambassador has put forward his view. But that is what we are striving to achieve in the Security Council.
    I now wish to say a word or two about the Indian sub-continent. Our links with this part of the world are long-established and close. But I find one of the most exciting aspects is that the links of today are not of nostalgia and sentiment about the past simply confined to an older generation. Links are being formed every day by young men and women in business, in diplomacy amongst those who implement our technical aid programmes,

    1765
    and in professional relationships which exist between our countries. One has only to read British newspapers to understand the widespread concern in this country about the drought in parts of the sub-continent.
    Hon. Members have shown a very close interest in the complex of unresolved issues which still exist between the three major States in the area of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. These issues are a legacy of the conflict which led to Bangladesh becoming an independent State. They are issues involving not only the recognition of constitutional change but the happiness or misery of human beings.
    I believe that the House has been right to recognise that our rôle can only be to provide what help may be jointly requested by the parties concerned. Passionate concern may lead one to wish for a more active policy. Yesterday the right hon. Member for Caernarvon said that we should ask to be asked to help. But the truth is that we shall help no one if we act in a way that the countries concerned do not accept.
    Mr. William Molloy: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that those of us who were in Bangladesh and India at the time were aware of the magnificent feeling towards the British Government and people because of the immediate response of the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary to provide aid? The right hon. Gentleman has just made reference to the drought on the sub-continent. Why could not we have behaved in the way that we did during the crisis in Bangladesh, which did so much good for us and for both India and Pakistan? It was a lost opportunity.
    Lord Balniel: We give more aid to the sub-continent than we do to any other part of the world. We have made it clear that we are willing to help if it is felt to be useful. This matter was referred to by my right hon. Friend yesterday.
    During the past three months there has been some movement, if as yet little progress, towards negotiations on the major points at issue. On 17th April the Indian and Bangladesh Governments issued a joint declaration which offered the Government of Pakistan joint negotiations
    1766
    with the Government of India on three inter-dependent humanitarian issues: the repatriation of the Pakistani prisoners of war at present held in India, except for those required to stand trial in Dacca for alleged war crimes; the transfer from Bangladesh to Pakistan of those Biharis opting to go to Pakistan; the transfer of the Bengalis in Pakistan to Bangladesh. On the same day the Government of Bangladesh announced that the number of prisoners of war that they would require to stand trial in Dacca for alleged war crimes was 195.
    Since then various messages have been exchanged, and we understand that the response of the Government of Pakistan has been to state that they are prepared to discuss each of the three issues in the joint declaration but that they do not consider them interdependent.
    We have also had reports that legislative action may be set in train in Pakistan to make possible the recognition of Bangladesh. Too much should not be built on this, but there is some ground for cautious optimism.
    We hope that these various proposals will lead to negotiations between the countries of the sub-continent. We are anxious to see a speedy resolution of all the problems. As I have said, we are willing to help in any way that we can to find an acceptable solution.
    I ought perhaps to mention that earlier this week the Prime Minister of India, Mrs. Gandhi, made a short stop-over in London on her way back to India from Canada. This provided her with an opportunity for talks with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. In their discussions they covered, amongst many other subjects, the effect on Anglo-Indian trade of our entry into the European Economic Community, the problems of immigration, and the current situation in the sub-continent. This is in fact the third informal meeting during the present administration which my right hon. Friend has been able to have with Mrs. Gandhi. He greatly welcomes the opportunities that these have provided for friendly, useful and constructive exchanges of views.
    Sir Frederic Bennett: Will my right hon. Friend agree that at present the most dangerous issue likely to prevent a satisfactory outcome to all these matters is the emotive trial of prisoners of war?

    1767
    Does my right hon. Friend hope that there will be the maximum restraint shown by both sides in this context?
    Lord Balniel: I share my hon. Friend's view. We hope that the maximum restraint will be shown by all the parties on the many emotional issues involved in this conflict. My hon. Friend has touched on one issue which is exceedingly important. There are other emotional issues which are very relevant. But, as I say, I hope that some movement is gradually being made. We are very willing to play our part in it.
    Mr. Sydney Bidwell: On the subject of Pakistan leaving the Commonwealth, does the right hon. Gentleman hold out any hope of the future readmission of Pakistan, given the build-up of a mood leading eventually to a return to the Commonwealth?
    Lord Balniel: That is always possible. But President Bhutto made a very firm statement at the time of leaving the Commonwealth. I think that any statement on that subject should come from the Government of Pakistan, not from myself.
    In conclusion, I want to mention the Commonwealth. For Britain and the Commonwealth this is an important year. It marks Britain's entry into the European Economic Community. It is also a year of great activity within the Commonwealth. At this moment the Commonwealth Press Union is meeting in London. In addition, we are actively preparing for the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Ottawa, and not long after that the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association will be holding an important conference in London in September.
    A real effort is being made by all member countries to ensure that whatever changes are necessary as a result of our entry into the European Community—there must inevitably be some, notably in the trade and tariff sphere—are brought about in an orderly way and without damage to the distinctive character of the Commonwealth.
    Before the Ottawa conference, on 25th and 26th July, will take place the opening conference of the negotiations for the
    1768
    new Convention of Association. In this conference the 20 Commonwealth developing countries in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific will negotiate their relationship with the Community. The total number of associations could be as many as 43, covering the whole of black Africa south of the Sahara, the Caribbean and the Pacific.
    The annual conference of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, which will take place in September in London, will be opened by Her Majesty the Queen. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will take the chair at some of the conference sessions, and as leader of the British delegation I look forward to taking part in the debates. There will also be 20 Members of this House participating in that conference.
    Perhaps—I should at this point mention the Heads of Government meeting which is to take place in Ottawa in August. The world has changed dramatically since the Commonwealth leaders last met in Singapore in January 1971, not least because of our entry into the European Economic Community. The representatives of the 32 independent Commonwealth countries will have a great deal to discuss.
    The increase in the number of participants has made it difficult to maintain the informality and intimacy which used to be an outstanding feature of Commonwealth gatherings. However, I believe that there is a will to return to the traditional style of Commonwealth meetings.
    The Commonwealth is unique amongst political associations, past or present. There are no irksome rules, there are no regulations, there is no common constitution, and there is no military alliance. But underlying the whole is the principle of discussion and co-operation and of a constant exchange of views and ideas. The links which bring it together are human, not formal. I am certain that the Ottawa conference, under Mr. Trudeau's chairmanship, will try to return to the informality and intimacy which made the Commonwealth Heads of Government conference so sucessful in the past. When they meet in Ottawa there will for the first time at such a gathering be representatives of the Heads of Government of Bangladesh and the Bahamas.

    1769
    On that happy note, welcoming two additional members to the Commonwealth Conference, I conclude my remarks.
    5.15 p.m.
    Mr. Christopher Mayhew: The Minister of State has created a record. He spoke for longer about the Middle East while creating fewer emotional reactions than any previous speaker in the House. A lot of what he said was welcomed by all shades of opinion on this subject—for example, the undoubted increase in good will between this country and the Arab world. Granted this increase of interest, business and good will, has not the time come to upgrade some of our posts in the Middle East? Admittedly, we have a Grade 1 post in Cairo. But why are there no Grade 2 posts anywhere in the Arab world? This matter appears to have been forgotten and should be looked into.
    I was particularly glad that the Minister mentioned the successful progress of the Gulf. Many hon. Members on this side of the House remember the forecasts made by hon. Members opposite of dire disaster that would take place in the Gulf as soon as the British left. The Foreign Secretary made a speech in which he said that he was very much afraid that when we left the Gulf the Egyptians would walk in. Indeed, I recall recounting to the Foreign Secretary some years ago a special personal message from President Nasser, who said, "Tell, Sir Alec when you get back that there will be no Egyptian soldiers in the Gulf." I am glad that, looking at the Gulf in the light of what the Minister has said, President Nasser was right on that occasion and the Foreign Secretary was wrong. It is a fact that the development of the Gulf has been going well and that Britain's prestige and influence there is greater today than when we had a military presence there.
    I was also glad when the Minister said that it was the Government's policy to try to reactivate the Jarring method of negotiating a peaceful settlement in the Middle East. I was sorry to hear my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) intervening in the opposite sense and putting the Israeli view for face-to-face talks.
    Mr. Richard: My hon. Friend is quite wrong. I quoted a sentence from the Israeli Ambassador's speech and asked, in view of that, what chance there was of getting a Jarring type mission going and whether it was the best way out of the situation. I was not expressing any view. My hon. Friend is wrong.
    Mr. Mayhew: I am glad to have that interpretation by my hon. and learned Friend, because he quoted the Israeli Ambassador as making a number of points against the possibility of a Jarring type mission succeeding. He asked the Minister whether, in the light of the Israeli Ambassador's remarks, it was worth proceeding in the way that was being suggested.
    Mr. Richard: My hon. Friend must not do this. He is a much older parliamentary hand than I and knows what he is doing. I quoted from a speech at the United Nations. I expressed no view on the rightness or wrongness of what was said. I merely asked for the Government's view. There is nothing wrong in that.
    Mr. Mayhew: Since my hon. and learned Friend has given me some advice, perhaps I may give him some. It is better to make these points in one's own language than to be misunderstood by quoting at length the views of the Israeli Ambassador on the subject.
    Having cleared that aside, I come back to agree—it seems that my hon. and learned Friend also agrees—that the best way to proceed is through a Jarring mission. There is no question that, without any assurances from the Israelis about their acceptance of Resolution 242, the idea of simply envisaging direct face-to-face talks is not the best way. We should proceed on the Jarring basis.
    The difficulties of getting a face-to-face negotiation are sometimes underrated. We must recognise that in practice the Israelis lay down two important preconditions: first, that Jerusalem shall not be discussed and, secondly, that the Palestinians should not be represented. These are grave stumbling blocks to this alternative method of negotiation.
    We must see the Arab view here. It is a fact that the Israelis are the party in possession. They have the loot. Perhaps I may bring this out with a homely

    1771
    analogy in order to restore relations with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Barons Court. Those who advocate face-to-face talks are sincere and honourable and the last people who would run away with one's wallet. But if one of them were caught red-handed with one's wallet it would not be enough for him to say, "Let us sit round a table and discuss this controversy between us. What I want is to be left alone in peace." When one says, "I will certainly sit around the table with you on condition that you return my wallet", they reply, "No preconditions before face-to-face talks."
    This may sound exaggerated, but it is a point of view held in the Arab world. The Israelis occupy tens of thousands of square miles of Arab territory and the Arabs say, "Before we can agree to face-to-face talks, we ask you to say in advance that you will withdraw from territories that you have conquered." That is what Mr. Jarring asked the Israelis to say and it was because they would not say it that the Jarring talks broke down, and we have never got negotiations going on Resolution No. 242.
    Dr. Miller: Would it not be more accurate to say that what the Israelis are in effect saying to the Arabs is, "If you agree to negotiate with us, we will not permit you to put a sword back at our throat again"?
    Mr. Mayhew: I leave the House to judge. I think that the analogy is that the Arabs are asking for an understanding, not that the Israelis should withdraw before the negotiations—certainly not—but that they will agree to withdraw under Resolution 242 as part of a settlement. That is what the Israelis have not given. They have spelled out the territories that they wish to maintain —Jerusalem, Sharm el Sheikh and so on. These are the realities. To ask for face-to-face talks is making no positive contribution. The Jarring procedure is much better.
    The whole House agrees, I think, judging from speeches both today and yesterday, that the prospects of a peaceful settlement in the immediate future are nil. They have receded year by year for some time now. Our problem has become how to create the conditions in which, on some future occasion, a peaceful settle-
    1772
    ment can become practicable or, even less than that, how to prevent the conditions arising in the Middle East which will prevent a peaceful settlement ever coming.
    From the Israeli point of view, on the surface, there seems a lot to be said for the status quo. After all, they now control the whole of Palestine, they dominate the area militarily and they have severely crippled the Palestinian liberation forces with their policy of reprisals and assassination. Yet they are further away than ever from the absolutely vital aim that they must have, which is to be accepted in the Middle East by the Arab world. This is a literally indispensable thing for them. Today, although they represent only 2 per cent. of the population and 2 per cent. of the territory of the Middle East, so vast is their lead technologically, in the power of their weapons and their capacity to use them, their general competence and their greater efficiency of government, that the 2 per cent. can dominate the 98 per cent. But the question is, how long can the 2 per cent. dominate the 98 per cent.?
    When we look behind the chaos of Arab politics and calmly consider the marked and steady growth of educational standards, population, wealth and technology, plus the growth of the power of the oil-producing countries, it is plain not only that 2 per cent. of the Middle East cannot indefinitely dominate 98 per cent. but that, within 15 or 20 years at the outside. Arab power will be dominant in the Middle East.
    The next question is, in that event and assuming no settlement has been reached, can the State of Israel survive? I have no hesitation in answering, "No". To the extent that the creation of facts by Israel in Jerusalem and on the West Bank eradicates the old 1948 boundaries, to the extent that Israel succeeds in consolidating and incorporating its conquests and squeezing out more Palestinians from Palestine, as it is doing by economic pressures, so the 1948 frontiers become meaningless and so the whole concept of Resolution No. 242, of a compromise settlement based on withdrawal to the 1948 frontiers, becomes meaningless too.
    In practice, whether they want it or not, the Israelis will have opted for all or nothing at that time, and the Arabs in their turn, when they are strong enough will demand all or nothing. The State

    1773
    of Israel will in practice then be dismantled and Palestine will again become predominantly Arab. This is long-distance thinking, but it is as certain as any historical prediction can be.
    What can we do to avoid this happening? The Israelis have put their short-term military domination in front of their long-term political acceptance and this is a disastrous strategy. I am afraid that it could provide a terrible disaster for them. None of us wants this. I have always maintained that within her proper frontiers, Israel has a right to exist. I have always been willing to urge any forms of defence arrangement for Israel within her proper frontiers. I would willingly see arms sold to Israel as part of a settlement to defend her within her proper frontiers.
    We have to ask how to avoid this almost certain long-term disaster. It is, therefore, in everyone's interests, especially those of the Israelis, to try to get a peaceful settlement. The only possible way of doing so, both sides will agree, is along the lines of Resolution No. 242. Unfortunately, if we are realistic, we know that, at present, there is no chance of that happening.
    The most recent restatement of Resolution No. 242 is General Assembly Resolution No. 2949 of December last year. Of its six recommendations, the Arabs accept all and indeed voted for the resolution. The Israelis do not at present accept three of the recommendations, and voted against. The first of these recommendations was
    "withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;"
    The second was the Assembly's invitation to Israel
    "to publicly declare its adherence to the principle of non-annexation of territories through the use of force;"
    The third was the statement that the Assembly
    "Recognises that the respect of the rights of the Palastinians is an indispensable element in the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East."
    These are not at present acceptable to Israel, who voted against the resolution, as I explained in my intervention. We must recognise also that the United States is not prepared to pressurise Israel into acceptance.
    1774
    The resolution was passed by 86 votes to seven, the seven being Israel and half-a-dozen of the smaller Latin American States. I was deeply disturbed to hear my right hon. Friend say that the British Labour Party lines itself up with the six banana republics in opposing Resolution 2949 I cannot conceive how this has come about. My right hon. Friend gave no explanation. If my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Barons Court wishes to do his party good service, he will at least spell out tonight the precise reasons, which clauses in this resolution, backed by an overwhelming majority of world opinion—practically the whole of Europe, the whole third world, practically the whole Communist world—have led the Labour Party to oppose it. We are entitled to know all these facts and we have never had them spelled out.
    Although, at the moment, bearing in mind the American attitude, the essential recommendations regarding a settlement are not practicable, but there are two recommendations which are practicable. They call upon us not to recognise the creation of facts by Israel, the eradication of her 1948 frontiers, on which a future settlement is bound to depend. I would urge that everything that we do, on both sides of the House, should carefully follow this resolution in refusing to acquiesce in the creation of facts, which is the enemy of a settlement.
    Again, I was very sorry—I am sad to have to say these things—to see that, whereas the Foreign Secretary, when he visited Jerusalem, was careful not to do so under Israeli auspices—no doubt the Minister of State will take the same care when he visits Jerusalem—and therefore to accept the annexation of Arab Jerusalem by the Israelis, when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition visited Jerusalem he acquiesced in the creation of facts by visiting Jerusalem under Israeli auspices, especially as he found occasion to praise the new building in Jerusalem when there. Of all Israel's creation of facts, the worst is the erection by Israeli property developers of monstrous flats and offices in conquered Jerusalem.
    Not for the first time in history, the Holy City has been desecrated by Barbarians.
    On a more constructive note, however, may I say that the whole future must

    1775
    rest, if we are to have any hope, with the United Nations. In his peroration, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), very inconsistently, assured the House that the next Labour Government would operate their foreign policy through the United Nations. That was his main message. Yet that is what we are asking for in this case, and it is my right hon. Friend himself who opposes the main resolution passed by the General Assembly.
    I am afraid that the Opposition may be accused, if we are not careful, of double standards in some of these things, of separating ourselves from the Third World in particular. We heard much about Africa yesterday. We on the Opposition benches have a fine policy towards Africa. However, I point out to the Opposition Front Bench that the OAU recently went far beyond the United Nations' resolutions in criticising Israel and called for unconditional withdrawal of Israel from her conquered territories, which include a great part of Africa. Sinai is the biggest part of Africa under military occupation. These colleagues of ours in Africa, with whom we are fighting against colonialism and racialism, see in that fight South Africa, Portugal, Rhodesia and Israel grouped together.
    Mr. Clinton Davis: Rubbish.
    Mr. Mayhew: My hon. Friend has only to follow their diplomatic activities and speeches to see that this is true. That may be right or wrong. Let us avoid controversy and leave that in doubt. I am simply saying that we shall find our whole position in southern Africa and our relations with our allies in the fight against colonialism and racialism very much undermined if we appear to be adopting double standards and attacking racialism and colonialism everywhere except where practised by Israel.
    Finally, I seem to have criticised my party leaders rather more than usual. Let me hastily say that all parties have things of which to be ashamed in their records in the Middle East. The Tory Party is the party of Suez. That puts it beyond the pale to begin with. The Liberal Party attacks colonialism and racialism in every part of the world, except where it is practised by Israel. I hope that the Labour Party will carefully consider the
    1776
    possible double standards in its approach to this colonial question.—[Interruption.] I am sorry to have aroused my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis). I hope that he will have an opportunity to speak later. He will no doubt say quite different things on this subject with equal sincerity.
    The way home for all my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench is to study carefully the latest Resolution 2949 of the General Assembly. It is the best hope, it is supported by world opinion, and I do not understand why they are so strongly against it. If we cannot immediately go forward to a peaceful settlement under Resolution 242, let us at least do those things which are set out in Resolution 2949 which will help to keep the conditions so that we can eventually reach a peaceful settlement which would be in the interests of everyone in the world, including, in the long run, the State of Israel.
    5.34 p.m.
    Sir John Peel: I thought that it was pretty rich of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) to inform the Government side of the House that the Europeans regard the Conservative Party as being wholly ignorant of the changed feelings and views of the Western Europeans. That does not come well from a member of a party which is boycotting the European Parliament, has no representatives there, and is not even in touch with them, despite the remarks and opinions of their party-political faith in Europe.
    That was not the only inconsistency in the right hon. Gentleman's speech. I am very glad that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State drew attention to one of them. A great deal has been said, particularly in the debate yesterday, about the underdeveloped countries of Europe, and particularly Greece and Portugal. I should like for a moment to include Turkey, because in the business of inconsistency I notice that there is a tendency to want to stick our noses into the affairs of Turkey because we do not approve of certain political happenings there.
    No one can deny that Turkey, Greece and Portugal are vital to the Grand

    1777
    Alliance. In view of the enormous expansion in the last year or two of the Russian Fleet, the Central Treaty Organisation assumes greater importance than ever.
    One point about dealing with these under-developed countries of Europe disturbs me a great deal. Some of us seem to get muddled between the political, the security and the economic sides to this question. It is very often overlooked that some of these countries, at least, have only known parliamentary democracy for a very short time indeed, and certainly have not had the immensely long experience of it that we have had in Britain. They are trying to produce democratic forms of government and they are going through a very difficult period. On the other hand, on the economic side, most people agree that they should be helped. But when their political difficulties become apparent, there is a great tendency particularly among the Left wing, to want to ostracise them, to break off relations with them and to cut off economic assistance to them.
    I was very sorry yesterday to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse) paint a very grim picture of Greece. I am not saying that in many respects he was not right. But his only solution was to suggest that we should use as a lever the association agreement between the EEC and Greece, which is an economic agreement and an attempt to help the Greeks to improve their economic position. But that agreement is being used now as a lever, because the whole thing is frozen. I am a member of the Greece-EEC sub-committee of the European Parliament. We have had no meetings at all, and the whole thing is in cold storage.
    The only other thing that we can do about that agreement is to abrogate it completely. Will that help the Greek people? Will that be of any benefit to them? Will it bring down the Greek Government? I do not believe it. We continue to try these economic sanctions. We have tried them on Rhodesia. They were supposed to succeed in weeks rather than months, but the Rhodesian Government is still in power. We need to take a hard, common-sense view of these things. I know that they are difficult. I
    1778
    do not hold any brief for the Greek Government or the Greek Colonels. Wherever cruelty and injustice are practised, I condemn them. That applies just as much to the extreme left as it does to the extreme right. I think it a great mistake, therefore, to imagine that we shall help the ordinary common people of a country by ostracising them and putting them into Coventry.
    Mr. Molloy: Does the hon. Gentleman think that we help ordinary people anywhere if we supply their illegal regimes with arms under the guise of NATO, as we appear to be doing in relation to both Portugal and Greece?
    Sir J. Peel: That is not the point. I am reminding hon. Members that we say in one breath that we must help them economically to improve their situation, and in another breath, because they are having political difficulties, we say that we must have nothing to do with them. We ought occasionally to remember the facts of political life and stop being somewhat hypocritical about these things. We are very lucky in this country to have had parliamentary democracy for a long time. We have been through a great many pains ourselves in developing it. Let us remember that others who have had it for only a short time are having similar pains in coming to the same stage. It takes time.
    That is all I am asking, that we should give some consideration to these matters. Labour Members would not dream of applying a similar rule to the African countries, and, if they ask me to believe that most of the newly independent African countries are good parliamentary democracies, they will ask me to believe anything.
    I turn now to our relations with America, which I believe to be of vital importance in this year to both the West and the world. With the expansion of the Common Market, we have reached a significant and difficult milestone in our relations with our North American allies. Here again, we come across inconsistencies and contradictions. The Americans have been foremost in wanting Europe to unite. They have strongly supported our long struggle to create the Community. We are now well on the way to seeing the expanded Community moving forward on

    1779
    the economic plane, but now the American's say "You can talk about the economic side, but you cannot talk to us on the political front, and the political front is of vital importance." Indeed it is, but all I ask our American friends to remember on this issue is that political unity takes time. After all, their own political unity was created in bitter bloodshed, and no one today would advocate that political unity in Europe should be created in a similar way. It can be done only by agreement and in peace.
    We hear a great deal about detente. I am glad that there are good signs on the political front of developments towards detente with the Communist countries. We have seen a good deal of this in the North Atlantic Assembly and in Western European Union. But I urge that we not only listen to the words of the Communist spider but watch what he is doing. What he is doing is creating a military weapon out of all proportion to what is needed for defence. The Soviet Union is creating a force far more powerful than is required merely to defend her territories. She has created a naval power which is now world-wide, many of her other arms are more modern than ours, and she greatly outnumbers us in vital areas.
    It cannot for a moment be argued, therefore, that it is safe to negotiate for détente unless we can reasonably match the Soviet power. At present, we are very near to being at a dangerous disadvantage. One cannot stress too strongly to the peoples of the parliamentary democracies the need to keep up our guard while we negotiate. We have not got détente yet, and we certainly shall not get it unless we are strong. The Communists believe in strength and in the big battalions when they are negotiating.
    At this stage of European-American relations, we must remember on our side that we cannot expect indefinitely to have defence in Europe from the Americans on the cheap. Yesterday my right hon. Friend pointed out how much the Europeans were doing, and I realise that very well, but there is one aspect of it which rightly worries the Americans, namely, the effect on their balance of payments. Those countries which are defending the grand alliance with troops outside their borders have a problem in coping with foreign currency difficulties. I should
    1780
    have thought that it was not beyond the wit of man to solve that problem.
    On the other hand, I feel that we must ask the Americans to realise that the European Economic Community, which they were so anxious to see created, is an evolving entity in its own right. It has a character of its own which is different from that of its component parts, and, no doubt, in the long term something will be created on lines similar to the United States of America itself. In these circumstances, they must understand that we have the right to do among ourselves things which are not necessarily applicable to the outside world.
    We are at a stage when there is a great deal of misunderstanding and a lack of knowledge between Europe and the Americans. This we must overcome. How do we do it? It will require contacts, constant contacts, on many fronts. In this connection I mention the North Atlantic Assembly, the only assembly in which parliamentarians from Europe and America come together and exchange views. It is time that we looked upon that assembly as a specially valuable contact with the Americans. We should regard it as an official body. It has been unofficial ever since it was created by the voluntary efforts of some of our own people on both sides of the House, and in the circumstances of today it takes on a new life and a new importance.
    One fact which annoys our American congressional friends is that the North Atlantic Assembly is official from their point of view, the Congress having made it official. It is high time that we in Europe looked upon it as of equal importance. I ask the Government to consider the possibility of a protocol which would give this assembly an international official status, giving it a greater chance to play an important part in our relations with our great allies.
    I hope that the Government will pay attention in this important year to the need to create machinery of some kind which will overcome the misunderstanding and ignorance which, to our disadvantage, prevails between the Americans and the Europeans.
    5.49 p.m.
    Mr. Russell Johnston: I associate myself with what the right hon.

    1781
    Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said about the Foreign Secretary. From this bench, and, I am sure, from all parts of the House, we are happy to wish him well on his birthday, when it comes.
    Being mindful of Mr. Speaker's call for brevity, I shall confine myself to about six points, while in no way implying that they form an all-inclusive list. Four of them relate to the expression of British opinion, if there be such a thing. This is a question which came up the other day in the Select Committee which considers how we deal with EEC regulations. We had a visit from Mr. Nord, a Dutchman, who is the permanent secretary of the European Parliament. He asked what was the national interest and how it was defined. Of course there is no clear definition and normally the national interest projected outwards is in essence the interest of the ruling group or ruling body or Government of a country. We could go to different parts of the House and ask different hon. Members what the national interest was and get a different answer from each.
    The first area in which I think we should be expressing our views much more firmly is on the question of the French nuclear tests. It is not merely the pragmatic matter that clearly, by the time the French thermonuclear warheads are operational, they will be obsolete anyway with which I am concerned. It is not only the fact that the French have flouted the decision of the International Court. Certainly the French seem to have taken a stand which would have been very different had there been any threat of fall-out in their own territory. They seem to have suggested that whether the tests take place in the Pacific is a matter more of concern to French security than it is the business of the Pacific nations. That is quite wrong.
    The Minister of State made the point towards the end of his speech that this year was an extremely important one for Britain because of our relations with the Commonwealth and the events which will take place in association with it. As head of the Commonwealth and the only European member of it, we have a duty to support New Zealand, Australia and our Pacific dependencies and openly to
    1782
    denounce the tests. It is not good enough for the Minister to say that the Government do not approve of them and to adopt a mild and not very positive attitude. Britain has a very definite responsibility to express its opinion in a positive way. We have not done so, yet the French are to some degree sensitive to that kind of criticism. They reduced last year's tests from seven to five partially in response to world criticism.
    The position of New Zealand is particularly important and because of it we should take some responsibility. French good will is immensely important to New Zealand and will be a central factor in regard to its future relations with the enlarged Community. New Zealand is, as a result, in a very difficult position and must inevitably depend upon its own supposed mother country, an influential Community partner, to advance its case. Here we have negated our responsibility and I regret it. My criticism of France in no way means that we should, in spite of our new relations with China, hesitate to express our disapproval of the recent Chinese test. The two things are complementary.
    I wish to turn now to the question of Greece and Portugal which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Leicester, South-East (Sir J. Peel). It is to some extent true, as the hon. Member said, that these two countries have had probably a shorter experience of democracy in the recognisable sense than most other countries of Western Europe. To that extent they are both the under-developed countries of Europe in democratic and economic terms. The question which arises, however, is what this country and other countries do in relation to them.
    In the case of Greece I am not in favour of ostracism, but Britain cannot for very much longer—and I do not think we should any longer—openly associate in direct alliance with a country which is a dictatorship and which shows no sign of reverting to democracy. I remember clearly being criticised after visiting Greece with two Conservative Members and two Labour Members shortly after the colonels took over. I do not regret anything I said when we came back. I said that it was a dictatorship but it was not as repressive a dictatorship as it had been portrayed. We did not express approval of it. Where we were

    1783
    wrong in our political judgment was in hoping, and the hope then existed, that Mr. Papadopoulos was willing to revert to a situation of democracy, for it now appears that this is not so. The time has elapsed and there are no preparations for a return to democracy. There cannot be a return to democracy in a vacuum. That would be similar to the situation in which the Belgians left the Congo. There was no preparation and the whole thing was thrown into turmoil. I do not believe we can associate ourselves with this situation of alliance for much longer.
    Mr. A. E. Cooper: What, then, is the hon. Member's policy for the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia and the Baltic States?
    Mr. Johnston: I wish to make this clear. I favour contact with nations or regimes of which I do not necessarily approve. I am in favour of contact with the Soviet Union and the GDR, but that does not mean that I wish to be in alliance with them or anything of the sort. If NATO is an alliance for the defence of freedom, its membership should reflect what it seeks to do.
    The same applies in the case of Portugal. It is one thing to maintain trade and diplomatic contact with Portugal, and I favour both of those things. But it is a different matter to celebrate an alliance with great pomp and circumstance when the situation is far from democratic.
    I agree with the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East that the cod war places Britain in a very difficult position. Legally Britain is right, and there is no argument about that. Yet all the indications are that there will be a world agreement next year when the international conference takes place in Chile which will mean an extension of territorial limits all over the world. It is this fact as much as anything which is sustaining the Icelanders in the attitude they have adopted. We shall have to deal with Iceland in a rational way whether we want to or not. We cannot perpetuate the situation in which our gunboats have to defend our trawlers indefinitely. Therefore, the Government would do well to work out realistic proposals based on some limited extension of territorial water, as I think there will have to be, and which take account of traditional
    1784
    fishing rights and which are based primarily on conservation.
    It would be a good thing if the Government went to the Icelanders and stated that they were prepared to withdraw the Navy if Iceland was prepared to re-enter full negotiations. We should be well advised to take that step.
    My fourth point concerns the Community institutions. I apologise for not having been here yesterday. I was involved in one of those institutions. That is one of the problems we face when there is a dual mandate. What are the Government's precise intentions with regard to the European Parliament? It seems to me that there is a contradiction, which is only thinly veiled, between what the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk) and his fellow members of the British Conservative delegation to the European Parliament say and the attitude of the Government.
    It is all very well in theory and in principle to say that our broad idea is that the European Parliament must be strengthened, that it must be given real powers, and that there must be direct elections, but, unless there is a commitment to doing it at a certain stage, the words are fairly empty. Are the Government positively thinking of a timetable whereby direct elections will become a reality, rather than simply saying that they agree with the principle and that it should happen at an indefinite time in the future?
    As the Community develops a revenue of its own, as it is doing and will continue to do, the maxim which the critics of the Community deploy—that that means taxation without representation—will become increasingly relevant and justified. That situation would run completely against the democratic tradition not only of this country but of the other two States which have now joined.
    A gap is developing between what the House controls and what is controlled in the European Parliament. That gap is increasingly dealt with by the Council of Ministers, which is not directly responsible in a coherent sense to any body of critical electorate. To reach decisions in the Community, reconciliation of interests will be required, and those interests will be not only national but sectoral. The European Parliament is the one institution

    1785
    which can effectively give expression to that reconciliation. Therefore, if the Community is to be a democratic organisation the European Parliament's powers must be increased and direct elections must be introduced.
    I know that there is a risk attached to direct elections. One of the major risks in the short term is that they will encourage a nationalistic setting-out of views, but—and this is more important—they will force countries to take a stand on European affairs, not just national affairs, and involve the electorate in European affairs in a much more direct way than at present.
    Although there was a fair amount of excitement when Britain entered the Community, there is now a pretty heavy pall of apathy hanging over the whole question. I find extraordinarily little reaction from the electorate to the sort of issues in which I find myself involved in the Community, important though they may be. We must by all means possible combat that attitude.
    Fifthly, reference has inevitably been made to the Nixon-Brezhnev talks. It seems true that since they took place the world is a little safer than it was before, but to what extent the real cause of peace has been furthered remains to be seen. However, what is extremely important is that there is now undoubtedly on both the Russian and the United States sides a desire, a common requirement, to reach agreement. The United States may or may not be able—it depends on Congress —to release the sort of money which would make possible the commercial deal which Mr. Brezhnev worked out. But it is the fact that the Russians are anxious to reach agreement, partially for economic reasons, and that much encourage everybody.
    Where exactly does that leave the European Security Conference? I suspect that with regard to security, which is what it is supposed to be about, the conference is now almost relatively unimportant. First we had the Ostpolitik, the agreement between the Germans and the Russians, followed by the agreement with Poland and Czechoslovakia, so that there is already the resolution of the principal issue of European security, the German question. Therefore, the real substance of European security will be
    1786
    dealt with not in Helsinki but in the mutual and balanced force reduction talks in Vienna and the strategic arms limitation talks in Geneva, which are about the real stuff of disarmament.
    I suspect that the Helsinki conference will be primarily an exercise in cosmetics rather than definite, hard negotiation, but it could still be a significant milestone in détente. It should be welcomed, and we should do everything we can to further the whole feeling of détente, although I suspect that the negotiations in Helsinki will produce fewer practical results than those which take place in Vienna and Geneva.
    I said that I would try not to speak for very long, though in a foreign affairs debate one could go on almost for ever. I have not referred to the Middle East, although there were some slightly tendentious references not only to the Liberal bench but to other parts of the House on that subject. One of the things that depress me very much about the Middle East is that when we listen to the two sides and their protagonists in the House they seem incapable even of approaching an understanding of the other side.
    Be that as it may, we are having a foreign affairs debate at a time which is more hopeful than for a long time. I believe that to translate the hopes into reality we need the coolness and firmness which have been associated with the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, but also a more definite moral purposefulness than the Government have been displaying.
    6.8p.m.
    Mr. Dennis Walters: It is always said of foreign affairs debates that they range too widely. It is perhaps inevitable that they should. The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston), speaking from the Liberal bench, has understandably presented a tour d'horizon of foreign affairs, and he has done so very well. Perhaps I, speaking from the Government back benches, should confine myself to one, more limited area.
    It has been generally agreed by speakers from both Front Benches and from the back benches that an effective reactivation of the Jarring mission would be extremely desirable. I agree. I

    1787
    agree that Resolution 242 is correct and ultimately might provide the best hope for a solution, but, depressingly, I cannot see that taking place in the near future.
    My right hon. Friend the Minister of State rightly took credit for a number of important initiatives which have taken place in the Middle East in the past two years and the greatly improved relations between Britain and a number of Arab countries. The Government should be congratulated on what they have done. However, I should like to see an even more robust approach to a policy which has been firmly set in the right direction. First, I should like to see a more robust approach to the sale of British military equipment to those Arab countries which have expressed an interest in making such purchases from Britain. The argument that selling strike equipment to the Arab countries would seriously affect the balance of military power in the area, and thereby make a peaceful settlement more difficult, is frequently made but it is specious and the facts do not substantiate it.
    There is no military balance but an imbalance which is decisively and sharply tilted in favour of Israel. The United States has continuously supplied, and in vast quantities, all the military equipment, both defensive and offensive, which Israel has at any time demanded. On the very day that the Nixon-Brezhnev talks opened in Washington, the open secret of the United States decision to supply Israel with a further 48 Phantoms and 36 Sky-hawk bombers to add to the 120 Phantoms which have been already supplied was announced. The timing of the announcement was the only surprise about the transaction. It is one of an endless catalogue.
    It should be remembered in this context that even at the highest point of Russian-Egyptian co-operation—that is, for the period leading up to July 1972 —when in wishful anticipation of a positive Western response President Sadat terminated the Soviet military presence in Egypt, the Soviet Union had consistently refused to supply Egypt with effective strike weapons. In this respect, the Soviet Union showed greater prudence than the United States.
    The military balance argument is fundamentally bogus and generally recognized
    1788
    as such by any person wishing to acquaint himself with the real facts. Of course I accept that there are many who would like to perpetuate the present imbalance, but that is rather a different argument and not the one which is usually produced. Moreover, I do not believe that the perpetuation of the military imbalance in Israel's favour is necessarily conducive to achieving peace on mutually acceptable terms. The past six years have demonstrated fairly conclusively that it is not.
    There is a strong case to be made for exactly the opposite proposition—namely, that if the Arab countries possessed comparable military equipment to that of Israel and a strike capacity of their own, peace negotiations would be more likely to start and to be successful because Israel would be presented with a new and powerful incentive to negotiate.
    Mr. Clinton Davis: Is not the hon. Gentleman turning the truth on its head? Has not every possibility of negotiation been offered by Israel? Was not the immediate response to President Bourghiba's offer to negotiate one of "Yes, any place, anywhere and with anybody"? How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile those facts with what he has just been saying?
    Mr. Walters: I do not believe that what the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) has just said is correct. If he goes back to the Egyptian acceptance of Resolution 242 and the Egyptians' positive response to the Jarring questionnaire of February 1971, he will see that all the concessions which Israel used to demand from Arab countries have been made.
    There would be a new incentive for Israel to negotiate, an incentive which would be recognised not only by Mr. Sapir and by the moderates, but also by General Dayan and the Hawks. The more attractive incentives have failed, as I have just mentioned in my reply to the hon. Member for Hackney, Central. There was the incentive provided by Resolution 242, the response to the questionnaire, in which Egypt declared publicly its readiness to enter into a peace agreement with Israel and to give commitments concerning the termination of all claims of belligerency and acknowledgment of the right of each of the two parties to live in peace within secure and

    1789
    recognised boundaries, and the incentive of King Hussain's repeated public and private declarations of his desire to reach a peaceful settlement. Anybody who has spoken to him would not doubt that he meant it. All these incentives have proved inadequate.
    At the same time, in the international arena there has been failure. The United States pressure on Israel did not materialise. When powerful action was called for, the United States administration meekly succumbed to internal political pressure.
    Britain and France have so far been unable to stimulate a sufficiently strong and united European policy to take the place and to fill the vacuum left by the United States. It is in this context of the urgent need for British and European influence to be felt that British timidity about arms and even more about participation—conceivably in order to keep in step with the Americans—is unfortunate.
    Only a few weeks ago the United States made it clear that it was prepared to reverse its policies and to take an initiative which it would have earlier criticised if taken by others. It announced that it would be willing to supply Phantom aircraft to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. It would indeed be mortifying after all the anxiety and hesitancy about what we should do with the Jaguar if the United States sold Phantoms to those countries. Kuwait, which has been particularly wise and statesmanlike, in all its dealings will, I feel sure, ponder carefully before entrusting its long-term defence to the United States.
    When I spoke in the foreign affairs debate in December I talked at length about the energy crisis and referred to the prediction made by the Director of the State Department's Energy Division that by 1980 at least one-third of the United States fuel needs would have to be met by Arab countries. I shall not repeat myself on this except to say that I remain convinced that eventually a change in the direction of United States policy might come about quite suddenly when self-interest became so glaringly apparent that internal political pressures would have to be squashed.
    In the meantime Britain and France must not be left behind. They should
    1790
    pursue their policies based upon European interests and provide the guidance and leadership in the Middle East which the United States has so signally failed to produce.
    I turn to two other aspects of the Middle East situation where some action is called for. It has become a clichè to say that there cannot be a solution of the Middle East conflict without finding a solution to the problem of the Palestinians, a solution which, if it is not perfectly fair and satisfactory to all the Palestinians, is at least not intolerably unfair and would be acceptable to moderate Palestinian opinion. If there is no solution to the Arab-Israel conflict there will be a constant threat of war with a serious danger of escalation, the economic development of the area will be distorted by expensive and excessive preoccupation with arms and defence build-up, and the economic interests of Britain and Europe will be constantly threatened by oil disruption.
    It follows logically therefore that, pending a settlement, the Palestinian problem should not be allowed to deteriorate to a point where compromise is permanently excluded. There is disturbing information from the occupied territories that the Israelis are developing a policy of economic pressure, designed to reduce the inhabitants to a state of absolute economic dependence on Israel, at which stage a new mass exodus of Palestinians from their own land could be stimulated by economic pressure.
    In order to prevent this happening I believe that an international presence should be established, if at all possible, in the occupied areas and that a programme of economic development should be undertaken for the benefit of the people living under occupation, under the aegis of the United Nations and with financial support from a consortium of European and Arab Governments—possibly the EEC and the Arab members of OPEC. Thirdly, I believe that there should be renewed international pressure for the return of the 1967 displaced persons. Our representative at the United Nations has already made powerful appeals on this matter in very effective speeches.
    Actions of this kind would also be helpful to Israeli moderates, because anyone interested in the problem knows that

    1791
    there is a considerable division of opinion within Israel and that the moderates do not wish to see the final destruction of the Palestinian people, because they also share the belief that a settlement would in that event never be attained.
    Finally, there is the problem of Jerusalem. After their victory over the Arabs in 1967, the Israelis proclaimed the annexation of Arab Jerusalem. The General Assembly of the United Nations declared this to be illegal but over the last five years Israel has remained in control and enormous new building programmes have gone ahead.
    In 1970, delegates at a building programme conference described the threat to Jerusalem as enormous and said that the city might be turned into a second Los Angeles if the process went on. The Archibishop of Canterbury made a statement in 1971 in which he urged that something should be done about Jerusalem. He said:
    "The old city of Jerusalem is sacred to Jews, to Christians and to Moslems…It is a city which belongs to all three…The building programme of the present authorities is disfiguring the city and its surroundings in ways which wound the feelings of those who care for its historic beauty and suggest an insensitive attempt to proclaim as an Israeli city one which can never be other than the city of three great religions and their peoples."
    Calling a halt to the building programme is an urgent step, but recent reports in The Times and the Sunday Times indicate that this is not being done and the vandalism goes on. I implore my right hon. Friend when he visits Israel to press very strongly the question of Jerusalem on the Israeli Government, and I hope that Her Majesty's Government will give the other points I have raised careful consideration.
    6.25 p.m.
    Mr. Michael Stewart: My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) argued that there was a danger that Israel would overplay her hand, would rely too much on her present military advantage and would not look far enough ahead to what the future may bring. I think that there is great weight in that argument, but if ever the Israelis are to be persuaded to believe in it, it will be essential for the leaders of the Arab countries to make it clear by deed and word that if ever agreement can be reached they will thereafter
    1792
    abandon any idea of destroying the State of Israel and will treat Israel, if not as a friend, then at any rate as a neighbour and as one member of the United Nations should treat another. Until that happens, it is useless to counsel prudence to the Israelis.
    There is one thing above all that the leaders of the Arab countries could do to make this more credible—that is, to say, "We are ready here and now to meet the Israelis at the conference table in order to put the necessary flesh and blood on the essential but still rather bare and bony structure of United Nations Resolution No. 242." It would be enormously difficult for the Arab leaders to say that, but what alternative faces them? If they did it, I believe that they would be surprised at how far the Israeli Government would go to meet them on all the other points in dispute.
    Secondly, I turn to the problem of Rhodesia. I think that we were reassured to hear yesterday what the Foreign Secretary had to say about his adherence to the Six Principles. I think we understood the explanation that was given about the sending of the diplomats and officials, but I want to put a point to the right hon. Gentleman. There may be some danger in doing this kind of thing too often because it may encourage Mr. Smith to believe that he has only to hang on long enough and sooner or later someone will come out who will give him what he wants.
    With that in mind, my one disappointment about what the right hon. Gentleman said about Rhodesia was that there was no mention of the Government's attitude towards sanctions. I reject altogether the idea that sanctions are now an empty form. It would be a matter of great importance to Mr. Smith if he could ever reach the point where he could say, "The rest of the world has given it up. We are going to get away with it."
    As I understand it, Her Majesty's Government hope, by patience, flexibility and encouraging black and white in Rhodesia to talk together, that in the end agreement can be reached. That may be so, but it will not be so if Mr. Smith can still cherish the idea that he has only to hang on long enough and he will get his own way. The way to convince him

    1793
    that that is not so is to put great weight on the enforcement of sanctions. If in this problem there is need for patience and flexibility, there is also need for determination.
    What are Her Majesty's Government doing to see that sanctions are properly observed by our own subjects in this country? What are they doing about those countries which confess to observe sanctions but are careless in doing so? Our new membership of the EEC gives us an added right to raise this question with our fellow members.
    Further, I cannot help making what is perhaps not so serious a point. In the recent celebrations of the Anglo-Portuguese alliance, did any member of Her Majesty's Government remind Portugal that one of the clauses of that 600-year-old treaty is that Portugal shall not aid and abet rebels against the British Crown? I would like an answer to that question.
    My third point concerns the forthcoming conference at Helsinki. The Foreign Secretary said that he had an open mind on the important question of whether the conference should be followed up by the creation of a permanent consultative body between East and West.
    As G. K. Chesterton once remarked, one should open one's mind as one opens one's mouth—for the purpose of closing it again on something solid. This, I hope, is what the Government will do, and I hope that their solid conclusion will be favourable to the concept of a permanent body. I have always envisaged this as a group of high-ranking officials dealing with day-to-day, week-to-week problems which may arise between East and West and calling in Ministers only at comparatively rare intervals when it was essential. This concept ought to appeal to the Foreign Secretary. It has those virtues of calmness, quietness and doing good so that hardly anyone notices which so appeal to him.
    My reasons for believing that such a body would be useful are these. If we get agreements out of the Helsinki conference—for example, on the exchange of ideas, books, persons, and so on—it will inevitably be necessary to watch them and see how they progress
    1794
    and to consider complaints that may arise on either side that the other has not properly observed them. We do not want points like that to be the subject in each case of
    highly publicised quarrels. We want them to go to an expert body which will examine them calmly, defuse them and try to reach agreement.
    Apart from any problems that may arise out of agreements concluded at Helsinki, there is always the possibility of particular difficulties and irritations arising between East and West. The subject of an eastern country may come to the West and break the law of a country. The same can happen in reverse. Once again we do not want this kind of think to be the cause of recurrent crises with no accepted procedure for dealing with such matters. Here again there is a case for a permanent body.
    Another reason is this. One of the arguments used some time ago against having a conference of the kind that is to be held at Helsinki is that it would lead mankind to build up exalted hopes that we were coming together and afterwards everything would be all right. It would be disastrous if we encouraged the world to think that that was the situation. If we make it clear from the start that the Helsinki conference is only the beginning of a long process, we avoid the danger of this illusion. We set up a machinery which is appropriate to the age in which we are living.
    I suppose that what is popularly called the atomic or nuclear age began with the first use of nuclear weapons at the end of the last war. From that moment any subsequent major war in the world would not merely cause appalling damage to mankind; it would be disastrous for mankind. The special feature about the point of history we have now reached is that not only is this fact true but the really powerful people in the world today have at last grasped that it is true and are beginning to act upon it.
    We shall, therefore, if things go tolerably well, live in an age when we think, not in terms of crises, ultimate and the rest, but of long, laborious compromises, adjustments, arguments. People may say that this is a bit dull. I would say that that would be a jolly good thing. The Chinese, I am told, have a curse for an enemy which goes "May you live in

    1795
    interesting times". That is an experience most people in this century have gone through quite enough, thank you. It always seems to me that if we can make international affairs a little duller the human spirit may apply itself to subjects more suitable for enjoyment and interest.
    I believe that we are approaching a period in human history of the kind I have been describing, with slow and elaborate adjustments. My hope—and this is admittedly optimistic and personal, or at least partisan—is that in time out of this will emerge a new kind of civilisation that can unite the passion for social justice which was the best in the inspiring causes of the Russian Revolution, and the passion for liberty that has been the best in so much of Western European history. The idea that these can be blended will be regarded by many as a vain dream. I believe that we have to try.
    The nature of modern diplomacy, makes it more likely than ever before that we can try successfully. This is why I am a democratic Socialist. I believe this is ultimately what mankind must produce—that combination of liberty and social justice.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) spoke for a short time about the significance of democratic Socialism as a force in Western Europe. I agree with him and perhaps I may be allowed to conclude by expressing the hope that next time there is a conference of Western European Democratic Socialists our own party will be represented at it.
    6.37 p.m.
    Mr. A. E. Cooper: We have heard from the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart) and his right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) protestations of their belief in democratic Socialism. The hon. and learned Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne) must be taking converts by the dozen. I want to refer first to the speech of the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew). Since 1955 I have made six visits to Israel, four of them on parliamentary delegations. That does not give me any special expertise, but at least it
    1796
    gives me first-hand knowledge of what is going on there.
    The hon. Member dismissed the claims and protestations of the Israelis with a wave of his hand and said they would not give up Sharm el Sheikh and the other half of Jurusalem. We have to understand why they will not do this and why Sharm el Sheikh is so important. It is the entrance to the Red Sea, which controls the Gulf of Aqaba and which lies in the heart of the State of Israel. It is there that the new refineries are being built and the pipelines are going to the seaport of Ashdod, into the Mediterranean and into Western Europe.
    At the end of the six-day war the United Nations—what I regard as a moribund organisation—had its people at Sharm el Sheikh. All that Nasser had to say was "Get out" and away they went. The Israelis, however, were able to control the situation fairly well. The hon. Member spoke of the Israeli policy of reprisal and assassination. Has he no memory of Munich or Lod or the other things which the Arab guerillas have done to Israelis over the years? Do not the Israelis have a right to defend themselves against this sort of atrocity perpetrated against them year after year? Of course they have, in just the same way as the British people would defend themselves, given the same problems.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Walters) made a remarkable speech. As I listened to him, I had to say to myself, "You have to be joking", because I could not imagine anyone quoting such unrealistic and so-called facts about a situation as those which he put forward. He solemnly tells the House that the Russians have not put any missiles or offensive arms on the west bank of the Suez Canal. He must be joking. The SAM missiles have been there for a long time.
    Lord Balniel: They are defensive.
    Mr. Cooper: So is a revolver. But it a bullet fired from a revolver kills by shooting someone through the heart it is an offensive weapon. The truth is that during this period both the Americans and the Russians have been delivering arms to both sides. This has brought about a serious situation.
    I do not know whether I am rather exceptional in this connection, but I spent

    1797
    some time going through the Gaza Strip and along the West Bank, now occupied by the Israelis, once Jordan territory. I wonder whether anybody in this House, when he talks about the Palestinian problem, really knows what the Israeli Government are doing for the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. For example, the Arabs, under Israeli supervision, are building three-bedroomed houses or cottages—I suppose we would call them chalets—with running water, something which the Palestinian Arabs have never known in their history; and this is going on year after year.
    Does anybody know or realise that about 100,000 Arabs move out of the Gaza Strip into Israel every day to earn their living, and at the same rates as are paid to Israeli people within the State of Israel itself? Does anybody realise that within the Gaza Strip the Israeli Government are building up cottage industries to enable Arab women to earn their living, again at high rates of pay, something which they have never known before in their lives? If we are to take sides in this, for goodness sake let us give both sides of the story.
    My hon. Friend talks of what is going on in Jerusalem and the high buildings that are going up there. Does he know what the old City of Jerusalem was like before Israel took over after the Six-Day War? The old Arab City of Jerusalem was full of filthy, rat-ridden slums. The Israelis have now converted it into what one can only describe as a decent city. The Arab people are not too displeased with the new standard of life they find there.
    As for repression, one can go the whole length of the West Bank, which is a long journey and takes nearly a day, as I did, without seeing a soldier or a policeman, not even in the big city of Nablus. We saw the bridges going over the Jordan, lorries and trucks going backwards and forwards and people trading peacefully one with another. The Palestinians are being made a political pawn by people who want to cause disruption in the Middle East. Let us face it.
    The several delegations upon which I have served have had interviews and discussions with members of the present Israeli Government and others. It seems
    1798
    to me that the obvious solution to this problem is that the world has to recognise and accept that the State of Israel will exist permanently. That fact having been established, the four great Powers —the USSR, the USA, France and ourselves—together with the Israelis and the Arabs, must get together and determine the frontiers to be established, and those frontiers having been determined the Big Four must guarantee them.
    Mr. David Crouch: I have been listening to my hon. Friend with great interest, but I feel he is misleading the House about where the Israeli Government stand in this matter. It is not so much a question of how the Israelis are treating these pepole whom they took over by the capture of their territory. It is a question of whether we in this country, and the United Nations, accept United Nations Resolution No. 242, to the effect that we do not accept that one nation should capture another nation's territory. The Prime Minister of Israel has herself put a barrier to negotiations by saying—and I hope that the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart) will not forget it, for he also misled the House in this sense—that she would not give up one inch of captured soil.
    Mr. Cooper: I never see any force in that argument for the simple reason that half of Western Europe today has been captured by the Soviet Union as a result of conquest and nobody suggests that anything should be done to push the Soviet Union out of any of these territories. Nobody suggests that the Soviet Union should be pushed out of the Baltic States. We are very hypocritical about this. Let us take our own empire, which we built up over many hundreds of years, most of it by conquest. Suddenly somebody has decided in the United Nations that whatever one gets by conquest is illegal and immoral and one cannot have it any more.
    Mr. Clinton Davis: In order to put the record right following the intervention of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), is not it right that what was being said by the Israeli Government was that they would not cede territory that had been occupied before meaningful negotiations had taken place?
    Mr. Cooper: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. In discussions we had with high-ranking members of the Israeli Government, they put two very pertinent points to us. For example, they asked, "Why on earth should we want Sinai? Nobody lives there. It is all sand and we have all the sand we need. We do not need any more. The only reason we need Sinai is that it is a defensive barrier against Egypt on the other side of the canal." Then they asked, "Why should we want another quarter of a million Arabs? Again, we have all the Arabs we need. We would like to get rid of them." Of course, they want to get rid of them.
    In my judgment, the Israeli case is very powerful. What we must have—and I am sure the Foreign Secretary is aware of this—is something of which we have heard a lot this afternoon, a détente between the four great Powers to establish the boundaries of the State of Israel; and those boundaries having been established, the Big Four must guarantee that that shall be so. In that way, and in that way alone, can we hope to get a peaceful settlement in that part of the world.
    6.49 p.m.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Several hon. Members have referred today to the seventieth birthday of the Foreign Secretary. I, too, wish to send many happy returns to the Foreign Secretary, but not as Foreign Secretary. He is a nice man —a nice man with nasty ideas. I hope he will not take that as a personal insult. On the contrary, it is his ideas I am getting at.
    I shall say a word about the Middle East to which the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper) and a previous Conservative speaker, the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Walters) referred. The latter made an astonishing proposal. He said that we are sending Phantoms and other arms to Israel and therefore we should supply arms to the Arab countries. I believe it would be far more sensible, instead of arming both sides as we are doing to our shame, that we should be arming neither. If the Big Four—the United States, Russia, France and Great Britain—were to say, "Not another weapon to either Israel or Egypt" the war would shortly end. Basically, that is what I should like to see and perhaps this kind of idea could be applied in other parts of the world, too.
    1800
    I want to deal briefly with the key issue in the world today. This week Mr. Brezhnev said, "The cold war is over". Mr. Brezhnev has visited Mr. Nixon, Mr. Pompidou and Mr. Brandt. Significantly, he has not visited the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Why? Because he has not been invited. Why has he not been invited? The Prime Minister, who spoke earlier today, did not give the reason, but when my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said that our relations with Russia were frostier, I saw the Prime Minister nod his head. Why are our relations with Russia frostier than are the relations of America, Germany and France with Russia? It is because the British Government have less enthusiasm for rapprochement than have the Governments of the other three countries.
    The cold war lingers on here, not only in the Foreign Office, but also among the Government back benchers and people in influential positions in the Conservative Party. For them, the cold war is not over. In every foreign affairs and defence debate the hawks are vocally at work. With one or two notable exceptions the contributions from the Government benches, Front and back, are concerned mainly with the growth of the Soviet Navy. The hon. Member for Leicester, South-East (Sir J. Peel)—
    Mr. Cooper: He made a very good speech.
    Mr. Allaun: Let me deal with some of his ideas. The hawks say that the Russians are likely to build three aircraft carriers. But the Americans have 17. I am against aircraft carriers, but surely if we refer to one side we must also refer to the other. The hawks cry that the Russians have increased the number of their nuclear missiles. But NATO has more warheads. I am not an enthusiast for nuclear weapons. I do not know how they are counted, but we are told that the Russians have 2,200 nuclear warheads. That is less than half the American total, which, we are told, is 5,900. I am sure that neither side has any serious intention of attacking the other, but this is the old mistaken idea—"If you want peace, prepare for war". Each side is so frightened of the other that it is producing this enormous burden of arms

    1801
    that can lead to disaster. Despite the détente, both sides are increasing their armaments because of mutual and mistaken fear. The arms race is militating against an extension of the détente and it is impoverishing all the countries involved.
    The colossal expenditure incurred has pressed the "Big Two" into the SALT talks and America into considering troop reductions in Europe. Do not think it would not benefit the Russians, too, if they could switch their Service men to increasing production in agriculture and industry, as I hope they will.
    Willy Brandt took great political risks in pursuing his Ostpolitik and no doubt there are opponents inside Russia for Mr. Brezhnev's "Westpolitik". He, too, is taking risks. If he fails to get results in the form of trade and a reduction in military spending, he may be forced into a more recalcitrant policy or even be replaced by a less co-operative leader. Willy Brandt had to encounter and withstand bitter opposition to his Ostpolitik. In the end, he won the General Election on it —it was a vote winner.
    Why not a British "Eastpolitik", and why not drastic arms reductions? The new programme of the British Labour Party talks of a £600 million-a-year reduction in arms expenditure so that resources can be devoted to what the people want. I believe this to be right and immensely popular. Any party that goes to the polls on that sort of programme is likely to derive great advantage from it. I regret that because the Government have moved in the opposite direction and increased military spending by no less than £809 million a year in the last two years, they are unlikely to take this advice.
    Mr. Cormack: Thank God!
    Mr. Allaun: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to win the next election he should take my advice. Manchester, Exchange is not a bad example of response to Labour policy.
    Within the NATO councils our Defence Minister and Foreign Secretary are not regarded as the keenest advocates of progress in the MBFR talks. Leaders of other Governments are taking a much more positive line in this direction. It is said that Mr. Brezhnev is agreeable to
    1802
    mutual force reductions, but not to balanced ones. If that is so, I hope that he will reconsider his attitude—[Laughter.] On this issue I should have thought that even hon. Gentleman on the Government benches might take a more serious attitude. If that is the Soviet attitude I hope that it will be reconsidered.
    If the Warsaw Pact countries have more troops in Europe, instead of each side making a cut of, say, 200,000 men and demobilising them, the Russian alliance should demobilise 400,000. I do not regard that as impossible, because the Russians need their men for peaceful production. It is said that if the West and the East brought home a proportion of their servicemen, Eastern Europe could more quickly return them to Central Europe. I feel strongly that troops on both sides should not merely be brought home but should be demobilised.
    It would be a mistake to confine these discussions to troop levels in Central Europe. In June 1971 Mr. Brezhnev made some ambiguous comments about East-West naval limitation. The opportunity should be seized to raise the possibility of making the Mediterranean a sea of peace rather than a scene of competition and confrontation.
    The British Government have not invited Mr. Brezhnev to this country, but they have invited Mr. Caetano. Throughout Africa, this will be taken to mean that Britain is backing the war being waged by 200,000 Portuguese troops against the three most glaring examples of colonialism on that continent.
    Mr. Cormack: The British Government have also invited General Mobuto.
    Mr. Allaun: We have not supplied General Mobuto with the arms to which I am about to refer. Where does Portugal get most of its arms for that war? It gets them mainly from NATO. From Britain it has obtained 170 Auster aircraft, jet engines for the German Fiat planes and naval vessels. I believe that must stop. If NATO claims to stand for the defence of freedom and democracy, it should expel Portugal forthwith. The Foreign Secretary's argument against this yesterday was that if

    1803
    we refused to ally ourselves with governments that we did not like, we should have fewer allies.
    Lord Balniel: On the subject of the supply of arms to Portugal, the hon. Gentleman will know that the Government have answered a number of questions tabled by the hon. Gentleman laying down the rules under which we supply arms. He should refresh his memory about the conditions.
    Mr. Allaun: All the NATO Governments with their hands on their hearts say, "We have not supplied arms to Portugal." The question arises, then where the hell did they get them? I refer to the three examples I have mentioned and on which I think there is evidence, namely the Auster aeroplanes, the British jet engines for the German Fiat aeroplane and the naval vessels. I have seen canisters containing napalm which have been dropped in the three colonies which have had NATO or United States' markings.
    When we have some degree of influence, as we should have over Portuguese policy, we are entitled to use it. Instead, the Government bend over backwards to invite the Head of State to be given a royal reception here, thereby encouraging him in his war. Three years ago almost to the day I was at a conference in Rome and I met Mr. Cabral, the outstanding leader of the Movement for the Liberation of the Portuguese Colonies of Africa. There was then a suggestion that he should visit England, but his friends demanded a guarantee of security if he visited Britain. At the time I thought that demand a little melodramatic, and Mr. Cabral visited England and returned without incident. But this year they got him—they murdered him, as they murdered Delgado, Mondlane and Sigao. Therefore, if we shake hands with members of the Portuguese ruling class, we are shaking hands with murderers. They themselves do not kill. They hire assassins instead.
    We do not want an alliance with murderers. I am glad that on Wednesday the Labour Party Executive called on Labour Party members to boycott all functions and meetings to be held in connection with the forthcoming visit of Caetano. I hope that will apply to the top ranks on the Opposition side of the House.
    Mr. Cormack: What the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) says is riddled with inconsistencies. On the one hand he wants us to meet Mr. Brezhnev and to shake hands with him. Are Mr. Brezhnev's hands always clean? I should like to meet Mr. Brezhnev. Indeed I write to him regularly about the plight of the Soviet Jews and he never replies. If Mr. Brezhnev could be persuaded to come here, I should like to shake his hand. But the hon. Gentleman must not apply double standards, because it makes total nonsense of his argument.
    Mr. Allaun: My first point in reply to the hon. Member for Cannock is that we are not in a military alliance with Russia, whereas we are in a military alliance with Portugal. Secondly, if I thought there was a danger of war between Britain and Portugal, I would welcome a visit so that we could avert a war. But we are arming against Russia, not against Portugal. I think it would be an anti-war move to have Mr. Brezhnev here.
    Sir Frederic Bennett: So far as I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument, it is that we should not seek contact with our friends to influence them, but that we should with our enemies. I should like to know if that is what he is saying.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): I would remind the House that there are a number of hon. Members who have sat through this two-day debate and who still wish to be called.
    Mr. Allaun: I understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I must reply to the question put to me by the hon. Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett). If the hon. Gentleman thinks that we have invited Mr. Caetano here to influence him in stopping the war in Africa, he should think again. The best thing is for the Government to call off the visit. It would cause indignation in the ranks of the Portuguese Government but elation almost everywhere else.
    7.7 p.m.
    Sir Frederic Bennett: In view of the fact, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you have graciously called me to speak immediately after the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun), perhaps I should have delayed my intervention for a few moments. The hon.

    1805
    Gentleman began his remarks with a rather backhanded compliment to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary by saying that he was a nice man with nasty ideas. I wish I could say the same about the hon. Member for Salford, East.
    To return to the hon. Gentleman's concluding remarks, he appeared to be advancing the argument that it was useful to invite people here and talk to them when they threatened us, but not when we might be in a position to influence them. That must be on the record as a summary of the hon. Gentleman's arguments.
    When I came here to speak, I thought I would concentrate my remarks entirely on the question of Rhodesia, which is at the moment a very pertinent subject, but I was tempted by the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) to talk about other matters. Some of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks were a classic reminder of the fact that the Foreign Secretary some time ago talked about double standards at the United Nations. Having heard the right hon. Gentleman's speech, there are undoubtedly also double standards in the Parliamentary Labour Party.
    At one point in his speech the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East spoke of recognition of North Vietnam and said that recognition is not the prize for good behaviour; it is a matter of fact and of convenience. But what happened a little while ago when the Government announced their recognition of Greece? The argument then put forward by the Opposition was precisely the opposite to the argument adduced by the right hon. Gentleman today. I should like to quote from an article in The Guardian headed "Recognition of 'illegal' Greece angers Labour". The article said:
    "In Whitehall officials were on the defensive and at pains to say that the act of recognition should not be taken to have 'moral significance'. This appeared to be an oblique admission that the military dictatorship in Greece is not the sort of regime that Britain would ordinarily wish to do business with."
    I should have thought that that was self-explanatory, but the article continued:
    "However, officials stuck to their brief, which is that in terms of the normal criteria, recognition has to be granted. Two criteria were listed: one, that the regime appears to
    1806
    control the greater part of the territory; and, two, it enjoys a reasonable prospect of permanency."
    I do not think anybody would quarrel with that. The article continued:
    "But the Foreign Office could not dispute that one criterion normally applied by Britain was missing—the one which demands some evidence that the regime enjoys the broad support of most of the people of its territories."
    Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could make clear whether he wishes to add a third criterion because the Labour Government, of which he was a leading member, did not. Nor when the Leader of the Opposition paid his visit to Czechoslovakia did he pay much attention to that criterion. He did not visit an illegal Government, but a Government of which he favoured recognition. Yet I do not imagine that the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East or the Leader of the Opposition will claim for a moment that the present régime in Czechoslovakia commands the majority support of the inhabitants of that country. The right hon. Gentleman must be a little more careful when he taunts my right hon. and hon. Friends for what he calls their illogicality. He will find that he has dug himself much deeper into the ditch by his comments about Greece.
    Does the right hon. Gentleman claim that we were right to recognise the régime in Greece according to the criteria?
    Mr. Callaghan: My main desire is to see the restoration of a democratic régime in Greece and of a democratic Socialist régime in Hanoi. My approach to recognition and the withdrawal or otherwise of ambassadors depends upon where it is thought we get any leverage. It is my estimate that we should get more leverage if we recognised Hanoi. On the other hand, though this is a matter of opinion and not a matter of fact, if the combined NATO Powers were to say that they believed that the nature of the régime in Greece was so Draconian that they intended to withdraw their recognition of the régime, in my view this would have a profound impact on Greek opinion and might result in the restoration of democratic practices. It is the end that matters. The means are less important.
    Sir F. Bennett: That does not answer the question. The right hon. Gentleman said that what might happen as a result of some action or other was a matter of

    1807
    opinion. I asked a fair question. If one is to recognise a régime according to the two criteria which obtained during the period in office of the Labour Government, were we right to recognise the Greek Government—
    Mr. Callaghan: That is not the point.
    Sir F. Bennett: If the right hon. Gentleman had been Foreign Secretary, of necessity it would have been the point. Either he would have had to refuse recognition or he would have had to grant it. He would not have been able to trot round the NATO ambassadors trying to get them to follow his opinion, and only when he got a majority behind him—
    Mr. Callaghan: If we cannot wait, why so far have we not recognised Hanoi? We have waited long enough there.
    Sir F. Bennett: The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. I leave it to him to say whether the time is appropriate for the recognition of Hanoi. But he cannot argue for the recognition of Hanoi and at the same time argue against the recognition of Greece.
    Mr. Callaghan: Of course it is possible to have it both ways—
    Sir F. Bennett: If that is the philosophy of the Labour Party, I am not surprised that we got into the mess on foreign policy that we did when right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite were in office. However, the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors never undertook such a ridiculous appraisal of how to conduct foreign policy as he expounds.
    The right hon. Gentleman then went on to discuss invitations to this country, and he taunted the Government for not inviting Mr. Brezhnev here. I should be only too happy if he came because it would give us an opportunity to talk to him about various matters. However, I am sure that if my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary said "We thought that it would be a good idea to invite Mr. Brezhnev—and he has just accepted our invitation—since it would give us an opportunity to tell him what he is doing wrong", my right hon. Friend would be cheered from the Opposition benches. But if my right hon. Friend said "We think that there are bad things happening in South Africa,
    1808
    and we have taken an opportunity to invite Mr. Vorster here to tell him about the bad things we think he is doing", there would be anything but cheers from the Opposition: there would be raspberries. That shows the totally double standards which Labour Members adopt.
    I turn now to another matter which has been raised in a number of speeches. When hon. Members go abroad to various countries, it is noticeable that if they go to countries which have Right-wing régimes that are basically friendly, they are dismissed as "junketings". On the other hand, if the Leader of the Opposition or a Parliamentary Labour Party delegation goes to Moscow or Prague, it is called a "good will mission" for the purchase of exchanges between men of good will. I do not know whether the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East can tell us what is the difference between junketings and good will visits. Does it depend on the colour of the flag flown by the country concerned, or are other criteria applied?
    There have been a number of references to Turkey and Portugal. Although I join everyone in deploring the activities and behaviour of the present Government in Greece, surely our primary aim should be to alter the situation. All history shows that external pressure on a country always has the opposite effect to that which it is sought to achieve. This has happened again and again. However, it is grossly unfair to Turkey and Portugal to compare them in any way with Greece.
    Turkey has a very short history of democratic government, and it has been a history of trouble. It is a country which came almost straight from the Middle Ages to modern times. It has a Parliament. It is doing its best. However, it is faced with a firm attempt by minority elements to bring down its Government by subversive means. It is true that the Turkish Government have a number of detainees, and we are right to be concerned about detainees held without trial anywhere. But it is not easy for Britain with her present troubles in Ulster to appear too much in a white sheet when talking about the necessity to have political detainees in order to prevent subversion. We should remember that before we lecture other countries. We must remember, too, that there

    1809
    are two other Commonwealth countries, Sri Lanka and Singapore, which are never criticised although they have political detainees whom they believe to be guilty of trying to bring down the State by force. If we are to start criticising the theory of political detention, let us do it right across the board and not be selective. I have not noticed many attacks on Left-wing countries which have detention such as those that we have from the Opposition upon Right-wing countries.
    There is more unfairness talked about Portugal and her policies than about almost any other country. The Portuguese believe passionately in a non-racial approach to any problem. Not many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have been on "junkets" to Portugal, although one or two have. Anyone going there rapidly becomes aware that there is far less feeling in both metropolitan and African Portugal about race than there is in this country. One hears a great deal about the armies which are supposed to be fighting in Portuguese Africa, but very few people realise that the great bulk of the troops are locally raised. In Mozambique, for example, the great majority of the troops fighting there are Mozambique Africans.
    In Portuguese schools in those countries there is no element of racialism at any level. There never has been. For scores of years when Britain preserved a distinctive racialist society in its control of its colonies, Portugal was broadminded to an extent that we should praise. It is an authoritarian country. But if we are to start restricting our friends only to those with parliamentary democracies we shall find ourselves members of a very small club.
    I urge right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to study the remarkable advances which Portugal has made towards establishing democracy in her African colonies. In Angola and Mozambique there are Parliaments with considerable power. The majority of their members are African, as are their electorates. We have not yet managed to do that in Rhodesia. Labour Members in this House have not taken the trouble to read about recent changes in Portugal which have lead to this state of affairs.
    1810
    I come now to Rhodesia. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart) has left the Chamber, because I know that he is as keen as I am to try to bring about some kind of settlement before it is too late. Another unfair attack which is sometimes made from the Opposition benches is that those of us who feel that sanctions have failed are pro-Smith. Nothing could be further from the truth. One is entitled to the view, which I have always held, that sanctions are counter-productive to the achievement of a settlement. Sanctions have failed. They were bound to fail unless we could ensure that they were applied universally. When that failed, sanctions were bound to fail. Until recently Rhodesia had enormous stocks of tobacco which were unsold and which were having a serious effect on her economy. Those stocks have been sold. That is because sanctions are not being applied universally, and I see no prospect of any such application in future.
    That does not mean that I favour the Smith régime, as will be apparent from my further remarks. The sands are running out for Mr. Smith, not because of sanctions but because he cannot ignore indefintely the majority opinion among the people he rules. The growth of African nationalism in Rhodesia will bring about the change. I suggest that Mr. Smith had better move very quickly and make a deal with African opinion while he still has the chance. The situation gets more difficult and the forces of extremism among the Africans in Rhodesia get more intense as each day and month goes by. In practice, the Africans who still hold control of public opinion in Rhodesia are moderate men. How long that situation will continue I do not know.
    Sanctions will not bring down the Smith régime. They would never have succeeded. He will be brought down in due course because of the sheer impossibility of 220,000 whites controlling between 5 million and 7 million Africans. He ought to make a deal whilst he still has the chance to influence the course of opinion in Rhodesia. The wisest thing would be for leaders of African political opinion of all shades and the Europeans there to get together quickly before the situation gets completely out of hand, as I fear will be the case. A settlement could

    1811
    be reached now. This would be the moment for those with enough imagination to achieve it. Otherwise the sabotage and subversion will grow, as has happened elsewhere, and no deal will be possible. Therefore, while on the balance sheet Mr. Smith has got away with sanctions, as I thought he would, he will not succeed if he continues to outrage moderate African opinion in Rhodesia.
    7.23 p.m.
    Mr. Gwynoro Jones: I was glad to note that the hon. Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett) came nearer to the straight and narrow path in his last few sentences as compared with the general tenor of his speech.
    I shall confine myself to one matter—the failure of the British Government publicly and persistently to condemn the decision by the French Government to carry out nuclear test explosions in the Pacific Ocean.
    This afternoon the Minister of State spoke about a new Europe in 1973 and of the new opportunities open to the Commonwealth and the Common Market. Yet on this question of French nuclear testing we have first of all failed to support our Commonwealth friends, and have blatantly failed even to attempt to influence the people who, we have been told over the last year or two, are now closer allied to us—France. Indeed, that was represented as one of the main reasons for our entering the Community. We are supposed to have a special relationship with the French President and people. It is lamentable that the Prime Minister is over-zealous in his care to keep the French President happy at all costs.
    The Foreign Secretary spoke glowingly of co-operation within Western Europe and the Community. He spoke of the strengthening of our influence within the Nine. Yet he made no reference to any attempt being made by the British Government to persuade the French to call off their nuclear test programme.
    The French have pursued or are interlocked with their present policy due, no doubt, to the relic of de Gaulle's ancient quarrel with America and his exaggerated nationalism. They have pursued a determined and independent defence policy outside NATO.
    France is spending 17 per cent. of its resources on armaments, and 30 per cent.
    1812
    of that on the nuclear programme. However there is opinion within France that points clearly at the extravagant expenditure that is being incurred as being wasteful.
    Jules Moch, a former Defence Minister, a former High Commissioner of the Atomic Energy Authority and the Director of Research at the French National Defence Centre, in May this year said that if France used its so-called nuclear strength, a quarter of an hour later France would no longer exist. It would take about 20 nuclear weapons to destroy all the major French cities, and the super Powers already possess 4,000 to 5,000 such weapons.
    One supposes that the French take the view that Russia, America and Britain in the 1950s and early 1960s made sure that they had the necessary equipment to defend themselves before signing the Test Ban Treaty in 1963 and that we are now asking them to pursue a policy which we were not prepared to carry out in the 1950s.
    I submit that the situation is vastly different. The French, if they are adamant in pursuing this policy, could clearly conduct underground nuclear tests. After all, they carried out underground tests in the Sahara. Clearly they have the technical expertise to carry out such testing underground. But the factor preventing underground testing has been the question of higher costs. The nuclear programme has already cost France between £4,000 million and £5,000 million, and it is a continuing cost.
    Is it the prerogative of a country such as France to argue that the higher cost of testing underground compels it to go to a part of the world furthest away from its own shores? The French argument is that the nuclear test is safe and there is not a great deal to worry about. If so, they could just as easily carry out this test off the coast of France. The British Government have been extremely quiet about the dangers of fall out. I wonder what the opinion and view of the Foreign Secretary would be if these tests were to be carried out in the English Channel rather than the Pacific Ocean. Would the Government then have been so quiet about this whole matter?
    I turn now to the attitude of the French to the International Court at The Hague. France says, "We are not guilty. But,

    1813
    even if we were, the court would have no jurisdiction."
    That is the precise point being made by Iceland, but the British Government are taking a vastly different stand against the view expressed by Iceland.
    What is the Government's attitude towards the decision by the International Court at The Hague? The argument apears to be, "What is the purpose of protesting? The nuclear test experimentation will carry on anyway." Yet there is evidence that continuing protests over the last two or three years have caused France to change her mind, albeit at a slow rate. For instance, there were supposed to be seven in the last series of tests, but, due to the tremendous opposition, only five were carried out. They have postponed the present series at least twice in the last two months. They are unlikely to explode a megaton nuclear device as they first intended. It is now expected to be a device of less than 200 kilotons.
    We should be more concerned about the effect of the test.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: Before the hon. Gentleman gets on to the technicalities, would he utter one word of criticism about the programme of the People's Republic of China for exploding nuclear devices in the atmosphere?
    Mr. Jones: The hon. Member can be sure that I would include China in my condemnation of France. Eager as he was to condemn China, I am sure that, when he makes his speech, he will condemn France in the same terms, and the fact that the Government have failed publicly to express concern at the French action.
    For those who say that there is little to worry about, that the side effects are not great, that it is difficult to measure the consequences of radioactive contamination, that it is not enough of a health hazard to cause concern, I would only quote from an article in The Guardian:
    " There are people who try to minimise the dangers of nuclear fallout for various reasons. However, most scientists well-versed in the subject feel otherwise. Two Melbourne University experts, Dr. R. Melick, who has spent the past 15 years studying radioactive fallout over Australia, and Dr. M. Denborough, a researcher
    1814
    into genetic diseases, have stated that there will be an increase in cancer, leukamia and genetic defects due to radiation fallout from the French tests."
    The article goes on to say that there is evidence now of fallout from the American and Russian tests of 20 years ago.
    In this debate, I have taken a similar point of view to that of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) who asked pertinent questions yesterday to which we shall expect replies.
    If foreign policy means that we are to exercise influence where it matters, in this respect we have singularly failed, despite the Government's claim over the last two or three years that by joining Europe we would become more influential within the Community. In that situation, why have the Government failed to make the necessary strong representations? The Secretary of State said yesterday that the French are well aware of our view. I am sure that if they are, our view should have been made doubly strong in public. We should join our partners in Australia and New Zealand in opposing France's intentions.
    7.34 p.m.
    Mr. William Shelton: I want to follow an important point that was made by several hon. Members opposite, including the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston), the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) and the right hon. Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart). This is that, because we do not like the internal affairs of countries such as Greece or the behaviour in Africa of countries such as Portugal, we should not be in a military alliance with them. We were in military alliance with Russia for some years during the war immediately after they had ended their military alliance with Germany, but my main point was brought out clearly in an interesting exchange yesterday between the right hon. Member for Lanark and the Foreign Secretary.
    The right hon. Lady asked my right hon. Friend whether morality had no part in foreign policy and whether all foreign policy was directed these days, as perhaps it was 100 years ago, to a moral self-interest. She must forgive me if I do not quote from HANSARD because, like my hon. Friends, I have had some difficulty with HANSARD.

    1815
    The right hon. Lady drew a picture of my right hon. Friend walking down the street and seeing one man being attacked by a gang. She asked whether this would not arouse a sense of moral outrage in him. In an excellent intervention, my right hon. Friend said that, while he disliked, for instance, the Greek régime, security had to come first.
    This is a fairly profound point of difference between people in this country—not only between hon. Members opposite and my colleagues but between people we meet—and it could become important. If the right hon. Lady had been here, I should have suggested to her that a better analogy than a man walking down a street would be if she had an unpleasant neighbour who beat his wife and drank too much. If he wanted to borrow the lawn-mower, because the right hon. Lady did not like him, she would refuse to lend it. But if her house caught fire and he climbed a ladder to her window, I cannot believe that she would refuse to climb down.
    I cannot believe that she and all other hon. Members do not feel the same as I about the importance of the security of this country. We must all believe that it has to come first. So the difference between us must lie in our judgment. There must be one of two reasons for it. The first is the contribution that the countries we are discussing make to NATO—whether they make a contribution or not. Alternatively, it must be a judgment whether we face a threat to our security.
    In the case of Greece, we all agree about the way in which the Greeks run their internal affairs, but Greece contributes half a billion dollars to NATO, there is a US naval and air facility base there, housing 3,000 American Service men, and another base is under construction at Pireaus for six destroyers and an aircraft carrier, to cater for 7,000 US personnel.
    Greece and Turkey are our NATO allies in the Mediterranean and they are essential, as my right hon. Friend has said, to the physical security of Western Europe. They make a great contribution to NATO. If one believes that, one must ask whether there, is in fact a threat to NATO or whether the détente is a reality. The hon. Member for Salford, East said
    1816
    that Mr. Brezhnev said that the détente is a reality, that the cold war is finished. Is this so? We would like nothing more, but one must look at the facts. We are told that the USSR has about 100 combat divisions in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.
    The Warsaw Pact forces together outnumber the NATO forces on the ground by some two to one. Recently the Warsaw Pact has added some 1,500 tanks to its forces and now outnumbers NATO forces by four tanks to one. The Warsaw Pact countries have increased their aircraft strength by 50 per cent. They have six new nuclear submarines and 90 new silos for inter-continental ballistic missiles. Their artillery strength is about 2½ to one against NATO. Their fleet is one of the biggest in the world—perhaps the biggest or the second biggest. Their long-range aircraft can reach the Indian Ocean and the Carribean.
    This may be, as the hon. Member for Salford, East said, because they are frightened of the United States. I do not know. But I do know that while there is such a preponderance, and an increasing preponderance of Warsaw Pact forces in Eastern Europe compared with those of NATO, I cannot decline to believe that there continues to be a threat to our security.
    Therefore, if we believe that Greece, Turkey and Portugal contribute to NATO, and if we believe that there continues to be a threat to our security, the right hon. Member for Lanark and some of her hon. Friends are permitting themselves a moral luxury in their attitude to those countries, which one day may well become a very dangerout attitude for this country.
    7.41 p.m.
    Mr. Clinton Davis: I shall not follow the speech of the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. William Shelton), save to say that the message that he seemed to be conveying was that if one detests a régime one must not declare that detestation if it happens to be one with which one is aligned. That is not a doctrine to which many hon. Members, on the Opposition side of the House at least, would be prepared to subscribe.
    I want to address my remarks to the situation in the Middle East. During the last few weeks, I have had the advantage

    1817
    of visiting both the Lebanon—albeit, too briefly—and Israel. I do not claim to be a great expert on either of those countries, but in those visits I was able to obtain a flavour of both of them and to sense the atmosphere which is prevailing in both.
    Against that background I shall make certain observations about the rôle of the United Kingdom and about the speech of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs yesterday and of the Minister of State today.
    Concerning the Lebanon, until the events of the last few weeks, at least—I went there before the incidents arose in Beirut—it was quite clear to any visitor that the Lebanese themselves view the presence of the Palestinians, many of whom had descended upon them after the conflict in Jordan, with a mixture of fear, suspicion and anxiety.
    It was with great reluctance that we were accompanied on visits to two villages, Shatyla and Sabra, which lie within about five minutes' drive from the centre of Beirut. It was quite clear that even the police force there was not prepared to enter these territories because they appeared to be under the sovereignty of the terrorists. It was no small wonder that eventually a development had to arise where the Lebanese authorities found themselves on a collision course with the Palestinians living in those and other villages.
    There is no doubt that the conditions in which those people live are squalid, miserable and unacceptable. As I have said, they are within five minutes by car of lush Beirut. Very little, indeed, nothing, is done, apart from the help that is given by the United Nations, to assist those people in their misery. They have been used for 25 years or more as miserable pawns in a game of power politics.
    It is noteworthy that the only sensible plan that has been forthcoming has come from the Israelis themselves, with the Peres plan to rehabilitate these people, first in the Gaza Strip. But the Arab world looked upon that as totally unacceptable because it was interfering with the status quo. Israel, Egypt and the rest of the Arab world find themselves spending thousands of millions of dollars in order to build up their arsenal of weapons.
    1818
    If only a tenth or a twentieth of that money could have been utilised over the past years in bringing some help to these miserable people, those conditions could have been resolved. There is no doubt about that. The Lebanese could have resolved the position themselves as far as their own refugee problem is concerned. The Egyptians could have done it. But they have lifted not a finger.
    Instead, they have preferred to allow these miserable people to fester. They have taught them to detest Israel. They have nurtured that hatred. Now they say, "Let all the Arab refugees return to Israel." In those conditions it is totally impossible for Israel to accept in entirety the people who are bent on Israel's eradication and destruction.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Dr. Miller) and I were together in the Lebanon and we met Palestinians. The one theme common to everything that they said was that they could not accept Israel and that it had to be eradicated. They said, "we shall live together in a multi-confessional State with the Jews." But what faith can the Israelis have in a multi-confessional State after the disasters of Lod, Munich, Khartoum, Bangkok and Nicosia, when they have seen how Arab behaves towards Arab in Jordan, when Arab terrorists fled to Israel in order to obtain sanctuary? What faith can the Israelis have when they see how the Egyptians behaved towards the Yemenis, with the use of poison gas? It does not offer a very satisfactory token of good faith.
    There are many Lebanese whom we met who desperately yearn for peace. They are Phoenicians. Peace would give the opportunity for trade. They want to trade with Israel. At present they are living in an impossible situation. Whether the effects of thraldom by the terrorists which existed at the time of our visit, will persist, we know not. I hope that that will not be the situation.
    The situation we found in Israel was not one of overwhelming confidence or complacency. Everywhere we went, as a principle of discussion at political meetings, there was raised the question of peace. Israel does not have to be told by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) that

    1819
    peace is essential. The Israelis recognise that. Israel is a tiny nation surrounded by hostile forces. But despite everything that they have had to expend, they have achieved an enormous rate of economic expansion and have achieved full employment. They have built up the welfare State and, at the same time, they have brought very large-scale aid to the depressed areas of the world, including Latin America and many parts of Africa, and that is a remarkable contribution from a small nation. It is a living testimony of their democratic Socialist idealism.
    At the same time, Israel has absorbed 800,000 refugees from Arab persecution. It is a quiet, undemonstrative settlement of people. These people were left quite destitute. They were never offered any compensation.
    Anxieties were expressed to us, however, by the Foreign Minister of Israel, above all about Resolution No. 242. I was glad to hear from the Foreign Secretary yesterday that he accepts the previous Government's interpretation of Resolution No. 242, that it did not refer to the relinquishment by Israel of all the territories. That seems to be common ground betwen the two sides. But I cannot help feeling that the right hon. Gentleman's speech at Harrogate was to a large extent inconsistent with that, since he then spoke about Israel returning to the 1967 frontiers "with minor revisions". I do not know what he meant by minor revisions, and he has never explained it.
    I hope that the instructions which the Foreign Secretary gives to our representative at the Security Council is not to engage in map drawing. I rather think that that is what he had in mind when he referred recently to the "secure and recognised boundary" between Israel and Egypt as coinciding with the old Palestine border. That is not particularly helpful. Resolution No. 242 does not need primary interpretation of that kind. What it needs, and what the parties at the United Nations ought to be encouraging, is that the parties to the dispute should be drawn together in direct negotiation on the basis of Resolution No. 242—that is what was contemplated—and for the United Nations to provide such help as may be appropriate in implementing the resolution.
    1820
    I was astonished to hear from the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Walters) the suggestion that the British Government should now provide arms for the Arabs to force Israel to the negotiating table. Israel does not need much forcing. Israel has its hawks, of which I disapprove, and it happens to have its doves, but what it does not have are clay pigeons, and it is certainly not prepared to accept a situation in which withdrawal must come before any settlement.
    The Israelis have made their position clear over the years. In 1968, there was the Jarring offer for the delegations to meet in Cyprus. Israel accepted. Egypt did not. Every suggestion for a meeting has been refused. In August 1970, Israel expressed her support for permanent peace with Egypt and Jordan, accepting the consideration of withdrawing her armed forces from territories occupied since 1967 and, as a result of that, secure and agreed borders to be laid down in peace agreements. Egypt was not interested. Israel has always agreed to talks without preconditions, but Egypt has not been interested.
    When my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East refers to the Jarring questionnaire, one fact which he does not mention is that Egypt has insisted throughout that Israel's armed forces be withdrawn to the pre-June frontiers, and that has been a condition precedent to any discussion. The Israelis, of course, will not accept it, because they are not mad.
    When President Bourguiba suggested that there should be direct negotiations, that was immediately accepted by Mr. Eban. Otherwise, there has been a total chronicle of rejection.
    As regards the occupied territories, there has been massive distortion from one or two hon. Members on both sides. It is nonsense to suggest, for example, that economic pressure is being applied by the Israelis on the occupied territories to reduce their economic strength. We have just been there. We have seen them. The Israelis are trying to build up the trade union movement. They have made great efforts and they have succeeded in eliminating unemployment. Conditions which have never before existed in these territories now exist. Arab students go to Amman and to Cairo, they are educated there, and they

    1821
    come back to the occupied territories. There is the open bridges policy; 200,000 people pass to and fro between Israel and Jordan each year.
    Mr. Molloy: The probability is that, if the Nazis had overrun this country and ruled us for about 20 years, some British students would have gone to Brunswick or some other German university, and some of us would still have been operating in the underground.
    Mr. Davis: The mind begins to boggle if my hon. Friend suggests that there is any likeness or the slightest comparison between what is happening in the occupied territories today and what happened in Nazi Europe. We have just been there. He has not. I have seen it. He has not.
    Mr. Molloy: I have been there.
    Mr. Davis: If the situation is so ghastly, why do so many Arabs decide to take their holidays in Israel, not only from Jordan but from Samaria and Judea, taking what was once described by an Arab writer as a vacation in the Zionist hell?
    I believe that the difficulties, which undoubtedly exist, can be resolved only by the parties coming together. That is the way in which peaceful settlements have been achieved everywhere. In India and Pakistan, and in Germany at the end of the war, the parties had to get together. Only by direct negotiation, and only by the Government encouraging direct negotiation, will the situation ultimately be resolved and the great technological progress which Israel and the Arab States can offer to the deprived peoples of the Middle East be allowed to develop.
    7.56 p.m.
    Mr. Peter Tapsell: In common with the majority of hon. Members who have spoken today, I shall direct my remarks to the Middle East, but, lest I get caught in the deadly crossfire between the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) and his hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy), I shall confine myself to the economic aspects of the problem there, and keep well clear of the political.
    1822
    I see that some Arab leaders have recently been complaining that in the joint communiqué issued by Mr. Brezhnev and Mr. Nixon only 86 words were devoted to the Middle East. Communiqués are often designed to conceal rather than to expose the essential nature of talks, and, in so far as that communiqué is frank, the shortness of its Middle East section is, I suspect, more likely to be a reflection of the intractable nature of the area's problems than of its unimportance to the super-Powers. Indeed, Mr. Brezhnev has recently told us that the Middle East is now the world's most dangerous area. I believe that to be true.
    In this context, I shall say a few words about the economic problems of the Middle East, which are based upon oil. In thinking about oil and the attitude of the great Middle Eastern oil producing countries, it is of the first importance to try to understand how the people of those countries see the problem themselves. I have known the area fairly well all my life, and I recently returned from a visit to seven of the major oil-producing countries of the Middle East. They feel that only recently have they begun to receive anything approaching a fair commercial price for their oil. They point out that the vastly higher living standards of the West and of Japan have, in their view, been made possible by the cheap oil which the Middle East has been providing over the past 20 years or more.
    They say also that oil is still a cheap raw material. The fact, as I pointed out to the Prime Minister at Question Time today, that the Reuters commodity index shows that the price of the 17 leading international commodities has risen by 80 per cent. in the last 12 months seems to indicate that the price rises in oil, which have received so much publicity, have by no means kept pace with the general increase in raw material prices. The oil-producing countries also point out that it is the heavy taxes which most countries impose on oil products at retail level which makes petrol appear so expensive. They feel bitter that the Governments of many of the consuming countries obtain as much, if not more, revenue from the oil in the form of taxes as do the producing countries, many of which have standards of living much lower than we have.

    1823
    The oil-exporting countries also claim that the cost of their imports from the industrial world have gone up by probably more than the rise in the price they are paid for the oil they sell. They also say that they are paid for their oil in paper currencies which are constantly depreciating in value, while their oil reserves are by no means inexhaustible.
    The point about depreciation is a valid one because they are paid mostly in US dollars and since August 1971 the value of the US dollar has depreciated against both the German deutschemark and the Swiss franc by about 40 per cent. When the oil-producing countries take normally prudent investment measures to seek to protect themselves from this enormous depreciation they are immediately accused of unsettling the international monetary system, although they have been the chief financial losers in each financial international crisis since 1967, and they have the strongest vested interest of all in monetary stability. They are now being frequently warned that, as their financial reserves build up to massive proportions, the countries of Western Europe and North America, not to mention Japan, will almost certainly introduce limitations on the proportion of equity they can hold in public companies for investment purposes.
    While they well understand the political reasons which prompt each country to wish to exercise effective ownership of its own major industries, this poses a serious question for them. What, they ask, are they supposed to do with this decpreciating paper that they receive for their oil, bearing in mind that they have only limited supplies of this extractive raw material and that in most cases it is their only national asset? Most of them have already established advanced welfare States at home, and development funds have also been established, with huge resources from the oil-producing States, to help the poorer Arab States. They will be dispensing large sums for development projects in the next decade. What, the oil countries ask, are they supposed to do now? They cannot put all the money that they will get into gold and property, and they must do something with it. One alternative course of action is for them drastically to curtail oil production, to keep the oil in the ground, thus preserving their capital in
    1824
    an inflationary era, extending the life of their one precious resource and pushing up the world price of oil.
    From their point of view, as their reserves build up, this makes absolute sense, and I am sure it is a policy which many of them will tend increasingly to pursue. The effect of this for us in the West, and for Japan, will be to precipitate the energy crisis even more quickly than has been suggested. The whole situation poses a major problem for the Western world, Japan and the Soviet Union. Although it is impossible to get figures from the Soviet Union, leaders in the Western oil industry think that by 1980 the Soviet Union may be needing to import about 10 per cent. of its total energy requirements.
    The important point to grasp is that the energy crisis is far more acute and more immediately present than is even now generally realised. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), in his amusing knockabout opening speech, talked rather jocularly of the possibility of our cities being jammed with cars without petrol. But that is a real prospect. The dangers of economic, financial and political confrontations developing between the oil-producing countries and the oil-consuming countries, whose very existence, way of life and standard of living depend on this source of energy, are all too real. I would suggest to my right hon. Friends that it should be an urgent task of statesmanship to avert these potential dangers. It might be possible to do so before they reach flash-point, although I do not believe that we have a great deal of time ahead of us.
    The more thoughtful Arab leaders are conscious of the dangers of overplaying their economic hand in this international situation. They recognise that the superpowers, Russia and America, will not permit their domestic economies to be brought to a standstill, in any circumstances, by the oil-producing countries of the Middle East. The Arab leaders have no desire to see the Seyss-Picquot Agreement of yesteryear updated in a modern form by a secret Brezhnev-Nixon agreement which in effect divides the oil fields between the super-powers of today. The Arabs need to sell their oil, even if increasingly their need to sell is not quite as urgent as the consumers' need to buy.

    1825
    Above all, the Arabs treasure their independence. They therefore have as much interest in solving these problems as anyone else.
    We need to establish a permanent international machinery, separate from anything that exists now, to seek to work out agreed plans for regulating the flow of oil from the exporters to the importers in the best interests of both and to agree on an international plan, or series of bilateral agreements, by which the vast surplus revenues to be derived from oil can be constructively employed for the benefit of the investing countries, and the countries where the investment is to be made. The economic problems involved in this are too vast, too political and too closely related to the national survival of so many great nations for them to be left in the hands of the oil companies. Only Governments and a permanent international body staffed by respected nationals of both the main producing and the main consuming countries can hope to measure up to the scale of the problems involved.
    I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will take an early initiative in establishing machinery of this kind divorced from the negotiations about the price of oil which recur at regular intervals. Of course, Britain is exceptionally well placed in the current critical energy situation compared with the United States, Germany or Japan. As a result of the North Sea discoveries we shall soon be nearer to being self-sufficient in energy terms than we have been for half a century. Nevertheless, it is urgently necessary for Britain to embark upon a major programme to reduce its dependence upon oil in every possible way. Such a programme would be as much in the interests of the oil-exporting countries as it would be in the interests of the major oil-importing countries because, ultimately, it is in everyone's interest that as much of the oil as possible should be kept in the ground for as long as possible.
    There are many directions in which oil-saving programmes could be launched in Britain and a senior Minister should be put in charge of this policy at once. I want to mention just a few steps which should be taken. I list them in rising order of importance and I make no apology for
    1826
    doing this in a foreign affairs debate, because all of these suggestions are relevant to future good relations with the Middle East.
    It should be made compulsory for all public and commercial buildings to have double-glazed windows and for building insulation standards to be made much more stringent. Local authorities should be required to revert to the use of trolley buses. Public transport should be encouraged instead of private transport in all cities and emergency plans should be drawn up for the limited curtailment of private motoring in case this should suddenly be necessary because of acute petrol shortage. The rundown of the coal industry should be halted and reversed. A date should be set by which electricity generation by nuclear power should be in sufficient supply to make it compulsory for all central heating to be powered by electricity rather than oil. A far more intensive study should be carried out into the harnessing of solar and tidal energy. For instance, the Severn Barrage scheme, which has been under study since 1849, which in politics even the Leader of the Opposition will agree is a long time, should be implemented. Hon. Members more knowledgeable than I about power matters will, I am sure, be able to think of many other actions which could be taken in these important spheres.
    When Mr. Brezhnev recently reminded us that the Middle East is the world's most dangerous area, I am sure that he had oil as well as Israel in mind, because the indications are that Russia is facing the prospect of an energy crisis herself.
    There are some problems in the Middle East which can perhaps best be solved only by the passage of time. However, oil is a problem which will grow steadily more serious with the passage of time. It is not a situation which particularly calls for quiet diplomacy. What is needed is fairly dramatic and public action now to grapple with the problems before they become even more difficult than they already appear to be.
    8.10 p.m.
    Mr. William Molloy: My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) began his speech by congratulating the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary on his forthcoming birthday, and I

    1827
    associate myself with what my right hon. Friend said.
    I am rather sad, however, that I cannot express pleasure at being able to say that the right hon. Gentleman announced that the terrible drought situation in India will be somewhat assuaged by immediate action by the British Government. When I was in India during the Pakistan-Bangladesh trouble I was very proud of my nation and of the right hon. Gentleman, because he took immediate action, giving top priority to British aid reaching a part of the world where people were slaughtering and maiming each other and where people were starving. The first politician to act was the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of this country, and that will remain to his everlasting credit.
    It is a great shame that, possibly because of a technical or constitutional concept, the right hon. Gentleman could not act in the same way on the terrible drought. But I hope that he will consider what I and other hon. Members have said and will find a speedy method whereby we can help a great, friendly nation in serious trouble. It is difficult to imagine that since our debate began yesterday probably 10,000 people have died for the lack of a drink of water, and we might have been able to help if we could have acted in the same remarkably swift and efficient way in which the right hon. Gentleman acted on the Bangladesh problem. That would have been a truly great contribution from our country.
    I want to speak briefly about Rhodesia. I was a strong supporter of the principle of imposing sanctions, but I do not think that they have worked. What pains me is that some right hon. and hon. Conservative Members seem to derive some cheer from the fact that sanctions have failed. The normal way in which the world decided such issues was to send in troops, set the tanks rolling and drop the bombs. I had thought that in 1965–66 we were adopting a saner, more sensible method to which the rest of the civilised world was prepared to make its contribution. The real failure of sanctions has been that they were not wholeheartedly supported by the rest of the world, in the way in which successive British Governments tried to impose them. It is a tragedy that a civilised way involving no bloodshed should be
    1828
    brushed to one side and jeered as a failure.
    I should like to comment on the remarks of the hon. Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett) about Portugal. It is true that over the past 18 months the situation in Portugal and her colonies has changed considerably for the better. But the House should note that they have changed because of moral pressure exerted by debates in this House, in the Council of Europe and in Western European Union, and by articles in newspapers in the Federal Republic of Germany, the United States, Italy, France, Britain and other countries. If the argument had not been sustained by hon. Members and people in other parts of Europe, the probability is that the small alleviation in Portugal would not have happened.
    I am saddened when I realise that some Conservative Members have not yet grasped what the struggle is about when we debate foreign affairs, that it is about influencing men's minds. The hon. Member for Torquay made the stupid, banal remark that the Opposition would not welcome Mr. Vorster here but would not mind if Mr. Brezhnev came. Do not the Conservatives understand that over half the world is not white, that there are people all over the world who, because they are not white, are not concerned that Mr. Brezhnev is a Communist, if he does not discriminate against them because of the colour of their skin as Mr. Vorster does? I hope that Ministers will get the idea. For hon. Members like the hon. Member for Torquay, a surgical operation is needed to get it through.
    Mr. John Biffen: Before the hon. Gentleman gets totally carried away with his enthusiasm—
    Mr. Molloy: I am not giving way, so the hon. Gentleman had better sit down. I am usually willing to give way to anyone, but when an hon. Member begins in that way he has had it. Let that be a lesson to the hon. Gentleman.
    The issues of Portugal, Turkey and Greece have not only been discussed in this country. Greece was expelled from the Council of Europe. The 17 other member nations argued that no country could join in that free association of democratic nations without sticking to the rules.

    1829
    It has been argued—and there is some substance in the argument—that countries like Turkey have only recently in historical perspective, moved towards the principle of a democratic form of government. Neverthless, disturbing and upsetting things are going on there. When the matter was discussed in the Council of Europe many of us who took part in the debate quoted from articles of the world's free Press that we love—from The Times, the Herald-Tribune, and Italian and French newspapers—pointing out many of the terrible things that go on in Turkey.
    We must concede that there are extremists in Turkey who have a different outlook from that of the people who rule there at present. Those extremists are equally vulgar and are behaving in an absolutely deplorable manner. But it is regrettable that, in crushing them, those in authority are treating in the same manner, with arbitrary arrest, torture and so on, many people whose expressions of opposition to the régime would be regarded as quite legitimate. We must say that we do not hold with such things. It is said that our defence position is such that we must accept some of the things which are going on in Turkey, Greece and Portugal. How can we justify what we spend on the defence of the great alliance when we claim that we defend the great free societies of the West?
    It seems that we do not mind being helped out by those who have the sort of régimes to which we are opposed, such as the régime which exists in the Soviet Union. I am, of course, opposed to the régime in the Soviet Union. I do not believe that we can have such a system in this country. We have rejected that system. It is true that at one time nothing was given and everything had to be fought for, but the opportunity was available. No such opportunity exists in Eastern Europe.
    The real will of Eastern Europe is imposed by the Red Army. That we must acknowledge. However, we cannot say that we deplore that sort of thing but that we do not mind if somebody else, who has a similar outlook, contributes to making us safe. There must be hypocrisy in that argument. If we
    1830
    are to continue with this myopic policy we may not pay for it in the next five years but the next generation will pay for it.
    I shall now direct my remarks to the British Commonwealth of nations, which is relevant as we are due to have a British Comonwealth conference and because we have now joined the Common Market. I was one of the many who warned that we should not enter the Common Market and that entry would not be a happy event. Nevertheless, we have joined. I warned that if we were to become members of the EEC we should in no way run down the relationships which exist between our country and various countries of the British Commonwealth. I regret to say that that is beginning to happen.
    I must say firmly and strongly that the arguments which were at one time submitted in this House—namely, that by joining the Common Market we should have a stronger voice, that we would be able to get Europe to see our point of view and that our position would not be sycophantic—have not been made out. It seems that President Pompidou has only to snap his fingers and his policies are carried out almost unchallenged. There may be a casual remark from the Prime Minister in this House that he is not in favour of what the French President is doing. We should go further than that.
    I am hoping that a Minister will say from the Government Dispatch Box that we applaud the courage of the New Zealanders and the Australians. I hope that we shall not forget that they are no longer windy of the French or anyone else as the French were when they were in danger and when they joined and were in a difficult situation.
    If people say that that is being romantic and that I am harping back to the past, that is not the view taken by many citizens of New Zealand and Australia. Because of the sycophantic attitude which the Government are adopting towards the French President, New Zealanders and Australians are saying that they are sick of the way in which we are crawling to the French. However, Australia and New Zealand must realise that it is not the British people who are adopting that kneepad attitude. I regret

    1831
    to say that it is the attitude of the Prime Minister and the Government and, as we all know, there is a world of difference between them and the British people.
    Another matter which we must consider is the dangerous trend, to which Aneurin Bevan referred, of the castle wall mentality—namely, that the world will be drawn either to the Soviet castle wall or the American castle wall. He said that if we thought that we should join the American castle wall it would be not merely dangerous for our country and a myopic policy to pursue but would deprive us of making our contribution to the great argument. I think that there is some truth in that.
    What is the alternative? My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East mentioned it this afternoon. It is true that we can find all sorts of people who are willing to poke fun and to laugh at the United Nations. It must be difficult to bring people from every country in the world under one roof for debate. It is asking too much to believe that in a few years such an assembly will work perfectly and function in an excellent manner. Individual nations have not been able to do so, let alone representatives of all the nations of the world.
    We must not forget the great agencies of the United Nations such as the Save-the-Children Fund and UNICEF. These agencies function day in and day out in trying to raise the standards of ordinary men and women. I believe that we must devote more money to abolishing ignorance, disease and suffering. By so doing we shall make a contribution to the pacification of the world.
    I should like to see Great Britain give a lead in the new philosophy. We cannot just join the United States, China or Russia. The real test of mankind's affairs is not who is able to produce the best hydrogen bomb with which to threaten the rest of the world. If that is the philosophy and the policy of this nation, then we have not much to offer. The ordinary people of this country do not accept that. They believe that with this country's traditions and history it can function in a way which will make a contribution to sanity. They believe that a lead should be given by the Government. I hope that they will be given a lead by the next Government. We
    1832
    know which party will form that Government. Let us hope that it will not be long before that is put into practice and we can all swap seats.
    As I have said, the ordinary people of this country are looking for a lead. They want a sane, sensible and good ideal to follow. Hon. Members and diplomats have the chance to do something in that direction, but it seems that they are willing to push such ideals into the background and to suggest that we should be realistic. The realistic choice before the world is that we either wipe out mankind or adopt a new philosophy and encourage other nations to follow us in the pacification of the world and in spending more money on preventing hunger and disease and all the horrible associated matters which afflict two-thirds of mankind. That is the choice.
    For far too long we have said that we must be realistic. For far too long we have denied the adoption of a sensible and sane philosophy. It is about time that we tried to implement the ideals of which we probably all approve in our hearts. What we need is the political courage to do it.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): There are about five hon. Members who have earned the right to be heard this evening. If speeches are confined to six minutes each, they will all get in.
    8.29 p.m.
    Mr. Julian Critchley: I trust, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall follow your instructions to the letter and keep one eye on the clock. I shall not take up the interesting speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Horncastle (Mr. Tapsell), who spoke about oil. I have only one word to say about energy crises: I have suffered from them for years. The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) is well known to us all and especially to those who serve with him in the Western European Union. The hon. Gentleman is a good example of what is meant by universalism in the context of the Labour Party. In opposition members of the Labour Party give the impression of being universalists when in fact clearly they are not. By "universalists" I mean that they inject into foreign affairs a degree of morality. One has to ask oneself

    1833
    from time to time, "Is there a place for morality in the conduct of foreign affairs?" If I were obliged to give an answer to so difficult a question, it would be "The smallest place that is physically possible", for a country's self-interest should be the guide to its foreign policy, with the important proviso that it should have adequate respect for the self-interest of others.
    The argument about Portugal and Greece is to some extent irrelevant in the context of our own interests. It is sad to have a talk on the second day of a foreign affairs debate at 8.30 in the evening because it seems that no one is interested in foreign affairs. When I entered the House in 1959, an elderly and distinguished Conservative said, "If you are a gentleman you will take an interest in agriculture and in foreign affairs." He never spoke to me after that and I am convinced that he mistook me for the then hon. Member for Nottingham, West, now my hon. Friend the Member for Horncastle (Mr. Tapsell).
    We have one journalist present, if I may spy strangers for a moment, and that is possibly one too many. We have a very small number of strangers in the gallery. I expect they are here because it is raining heavily outside. As for the Diplomatic Corps, they are all parked illegally at Wimbledon. We have to watch the clock and my speech will have to be short and straight to the point.
    In May, I went with the General Affairs Committee of Western European Union to Washington to talk about European economic, monetary and security matters with the State Department and on the Hill with Congress. I came back thoroughly depressed because, if Watergate has any significance—and I am not interested in who is guilty or not because it does not affect me directly —it is its effect on United States foreign policy.
    One can begin to understand Watergate only in the context of the war that is being waged in the United States between the legislature and the executive. Watergate is a powerful reinforcement for the legislature in its battle against the executive, and to a very large extent
    1834
    that battle is being waged over what sort of foreign policy the United States should pursue with regard to this country and Europe as a whole.
    When we went to the State Department, we found people bewildered but expert. Clearly they had never seen Mr. Kissinger's speech but they spent half a day explaining what Mr. Kissinger was supposed to have meant. When we went to the Hill, we found Congressmen as bewildered but thoroughly inexpert. They said, "You Europeans are too lazy, too mean to defend yourselves." The feeling we got there was that senior members of congress and the senate felt that United States forces should be withdrawn from Europe because they were there to defend not America but Europe.
    I fear very much indeed for Europe's interests in this context simply because the United States has found, because of Vietnam in particular, that it is suffering from a lack of self-confidence. It is looking for scapegoats; it has monetary and economic problems, and it wants to solve them to a large degree through matters of security. The revival of Japan has not helped. We in Europe will eventually have to pay the price.
    It must be for the genius of European statesmen to remind the United States of its self-interest—that is, that the defence of America and Europe is indivisible.
    8.34 p.m.
    Mr. David Walder: It is quite extraordinary in foreign affairs debates to say, "I will follow my hon. Friend who has just spoken" because, as everyone knows, hon. Members usually pursue and ride their own hobby horses, but I shall do just that in the short time at my disposal tonight. I have one advantage over my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Chitchley) in that I know I have one of my constituents in the Gallery.
    At this late stage in the debate, I intend to go right back to the beginning —the Brezhnev-Nixon Agreement. It seems that now we have two colossi bestriding this narrow world. The question for us is, what attitude do we take in future? I know that there have been diplomatic revolutions in the past, those of Alberoni, Frederick the Great and the rest. But these have been revolutions

    1835
    when there has been a balance of a number of equal Powers. Now we have parity accepted between the USSR and the United States of America, two Powers which previously thought in terms not of parity but of superiority over one another. The question for us is, what does this mean for the British within the European Community?
    This year was designated as European Year by the President of the United States, which I must say was very decent of him. It meant that we in Europe were expected to put more reliance on our own defence establishments and resources. It also meant, from the point of view of the United States of America, that there was a certain amount of apprehension about trade relations and trade rivalries between Europe and the United States of America. Now we have this agreement between the two super-Powers. There is a possibility—and I stress that I am talking about the deterrence world, not about warfare in the real sense—that Western Europe will become in the eyes of the two super-Powers a military backwater. There is a danger that the super-Powers will so regard Western Europe.
    We in Britain are a powerful member of the NATO alliance. There might also be a tendency in consequence of this for us to become hawks in the place of the United States, who are now doves in a limited sense in our own self-interest. We will certainly have the difficulty of persuading our European allies to play their proper part in the defence of Western Europe. Relevant to this is what I might call the Chinese temptation. Several distinguished correspondents in The Times, some of whom sit in this House, have told us that for 20 years we can rely upon the fact that the Chinese will take care of the Russians, which is again very good of them.
    I was in China with the parliamentary delegation last year. The Chinese were fascinated by the fact that we have become members of the European Community. They were intrigued by the fact that we have thus entered the band of what they call medium-size Powers. There is no doubt that the Chinese fear Russia. They also fear a carve-up between the two super-Powers.
    It is possible that the United States State Department may think that by its
    1836
    own improved relations with China it has solved the problem, that by a little judicious pressure in the East it has worked the miracle in the West. This is far too simple a picture. The USSR and the Chinese would both deny overt ambitions at the moment. Their conflict is a doctrinal one and a bitter one. I cannot see peaceful coexistence between those two countries. Their situation is rather that of the countries in Europe divided against each other during the 30 Years War.
    The points of conflict that we in NATO have to consider will be outside Western Europe. We shall also have to consider the danger of a United States conventional withdrawal from Europe. We are now in Europe. The United States certainly encouraged us to become members of the Community. It was in favour of that move. It should not be too surprised now if we adopt towards it—although it is still our principal military ally—an increasingly European attitude.
    8.40 p.m.
    Mr. Alan Haselhurst: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) that it is sad that there should be so little interest being displayed in a foreign affairs debate in this House. It is particularly sad because it seems to me that at this time in our history we are perhaps nearer to influencing world affairs than we have been for some time.
    I connect this with our membership of the European Economic Community and our ability to fashion the policies of the countries of the European Community towards a like-minded approach to many of the world problems. So I believe that at this time we in this country should be more attentive than ever to foreign policy. If we were to order our priorities, my own choice would be that we should be thinking, of course, of an East-West détente, that we should be thinking of the Middle East and its implications, not only for the peace of the world but for energy supplies, and that we should be thinking also of the future of the developing nations.
    If something like that was our order of priorities, it was odd indeed to find the right hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Goronwy Roberts) saying yesterday that in his list of immediately urgent

    1837
    problems was that of countries such as Greece and Portugal. These countries are in our own backyard, so to speak, and perhaps it is for that reason that we exercise ourselves the more greatly as to what is going on within them. But surely it is also fair to say that, because they are in that backyard, we are concerned about the defence of that backyard as well and that we cannot ignore it, despite our concern for the internal policies of those countries.
    We have a long-term interest in our association with such countries as Greece and Portugal and their peoples because we must surely hope that one day there will be circumstances in which they will be embraced more fully within the European family of nations. Honestly, I doubt whether a policy of isolation practised towards them at this time would have the effect that I gauge many hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House feel might flow. I believe that diplomacy cannot be conducted in accordance with some kind of instant popularity poll—that these nations are nasty and, therefore, we must be unpleasant to them.
    I listened carefully to the speech of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). He is a doughty debater, but I did not detect a great deal of substance about what we might expect the foreign policy of a future Labour Government to be. It seemed to me that his speech could be summed up by saying that a future Labour Government would talk to those countries to which the present Government were not currently talking and would not talk to those with which this Government at present has relations.
    There is an excess of piety in the Opposition which tends to disappear considerably when the Labour Party is ever in government. It is also surprising to me that, against the priority issues that this country might be facing at the present time, we spend so much time discussing the question of Rhodesia. I suppose the reason why we do so is that we have a legal tie with that country and we have a responsibility, which I certainly acknowledge, and also that we recognise that what we do in relation to Rhodesia affects our policy in the whole of the rest
    1838
    of Africa at least, if not throughout the wider world.
    I would ask whether it ought not to be a conclusion to be drawn from this two-day debate in the House that we should be discussing Rhodesia far less in future than we have been inclined to do in the past. The present situation with regard to that country is profoundly unsatisfactory. Enough has been seen of sanctions for us to be sceptical of their success in future. Even if we escalate the policy of sanctions, I doubt very much whether we shall achieve anything as a result of them now, apart from the implication of escalation on our policy towards South Africa. We certainly have not had it spelled out to us whether under a Labour Government we shall be escalating sanctions, no doubt taking a policy hostile towards South Africa.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spoke yesterday of talk, not war, and of reconciliation. He has mentioned these terms many times, principally in connection with Europe. But surely that ought also to apply to all parts of the world. I would certainly wish those words to be used in connection with our affairs with South Africa because I retain the hope, which I trust is not too wildly idealistic, that we might be able to influence what goes on in Southern Africa, and in South Africa in particular.
    I wish it could be in Rhodesia as well that our influence were felt. I have supported my right hon. Friend in his attempts to bring about a settlement. A settlement would undoubtedly be beneficial for all of the people in that country. If I have any criticism of the Government it is that perhaps the message has never been made clear enough to the Government of Rhodesia what it is that this country could accept as a genuine settlement.
    I believe that the people who support the Rhodesia Government, and the members of that Government, live in a world of their own in that they do not appreciate what is the feeling in this country. Those of us who would like to see a settlement could draw little comfort from the speech of my right hon. Friend yesterday. However, I support its tone.
    What should we do now? What advice can we give to the Government? I would ask the Government to say when

    1839
    the order for the renewal of sanctions comes up in November this year that it should be renewed permanently and not renewed on a once-a-year basis. This would make it clearer than anything else to the régime of Salisbury that there is no reprieve at hand, and that we would not be prepared easily to approve a régime of that twpe. I feel that very strongly. I do not want to approve that régime till it comes to what I would believe to be a genuine settlement, although I know that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends would not go quite so far, but I say to them that it is not economically worth our while to take any other policy towards that country.
    The second thing I would say to the Government in this context is that it should be made crystal clear to Mr. Ian Smith that there can be no more talks or negotiations without a multiracial approach by Rhodesia. That would mean real pressure on the Government in Salisbury and on the ANC to talk together. If any supposed that such pressure was there last year they must now realise that they were deluded. There has not been sufficient pressure. I suspect that it is not only the Smith régime which has lived in a dream world but that also the ANC has lived in a dream world in supposing that it need not do anything and that the British Government would alter the terms for a settlement.
    Whatever our hopes for Southern Africa we need frankly to assess the size of our interest north of the Zambesi. In a changing world Britain should be a country which the newer nations will learn to trust. Let us, therefore, play a major rôle in improving the lot of the peoples of the developing world by aid and trade, but let us also tackle these difficult issues in the region of Europe to make it and the world as a whole a safer and securer place.
    8.44 p.m.
    Mr. Caerwyn E. Roderick: I apologise for having been absent for most of the day for various reasons, but I must, ask for forgiveness because I was here most of yesterday when others were absent. I should like briefly to make one or two points that need emphasising.
    Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary spoke of several aspects of our foreign policy
    1840
    and mentioned the Helsinki conference beginning next week. What worries me and what worries other people is the suspicion which he seems to have of such a gathering. He does not inspire confidence by the way he approaches the whole of European security. He says he is most anxious for the talks to succeed, and I hope that he is, even though he approaches them with such suspicion. I agree with him that round one would be quite meaningless by itself, and we expect permanent machinery eventually to be set up, as it must be if we are to get results in the long term. We cannot hope to see results overnight, but there will be results in the long term. We wish the Foreign Secretary well in Helsinki, and we desperately want the talks to succeed.
    It has been suggested in the debate that, because agreement is difficult to obtain, we should forget about a Rhodesian settlement and accept the status quo. I cannot accept such a premise. If it is difficult to reach agreement, that is all the more reason why we must persist in attempting to do so. We must not abandon the Rhodesian people. I agree with the Foreign Secretary that we rely on black and white in Rhodesia for a solution, but we must not abandon our stand and we must continue to press for the rights of the African.
    I am concerned that we are not doing all we should in providing aid for the drought-stricken countries. We have an opportunity to do a great deal more and to show what can be done in influencing countries throughout the world. We have aircraft there. I know that talks are going on, and I hope we shall treat this question with the greatest urgency. If the weather remains dry there will be trouble, and if it becomes wet there will be even more trouble because the transport will not be able to get through.
    People in India are suffering starvation. I hope that we shall not wait for the Indian Government to ask for help. Indians have a certain pride and they will not ask for tied help. I hope that we shall freely offer assistance and not wait to be asked.
    Many of us are worried about the French nuclear tests in the Pacific. I was glad to hear the Foreign Secretary say, even at this late hour, that we have protested to the French Government at long last. We have been told again and

    1841
    again that by entering the EEC we should have more influence with the French. Where is this influence? We seem unable to influence their policy on the tests. If Ministers are to be believed, we should now have much more influence with the French. They should be reminded that, if the bomb is as safe as they say it is, there is no reason why it should not be exploded a little nearer France.
    I have always believed that aid, not arms, should be the basis of foreign policy. The only way to rid the world of tensions and fears is to ensure greater economic and social security for the people. Instead of spending money on arms, we should spend it on aid. Ministers and hon. Members on the Government benches are afraid of Communism. Unless they do something to secure the economic future of the developing countries, they will advance the cause of Communism. One way of defeating Communism is to make sure that those countries get aid when they need it.
    In the percentage of gross national product that goes on arms, we are grouped in the league table of Western Europe with Portugal and Turkey. It is deplorable to think that in arms expenditure we are on a par with those Fascist countries. We should be seeking a great reduction in our arms bill and ploughing more money into efforts to secure a lasting peace. I hope that the Government will seek to concentrate foreign policy more on aid than on arms. The speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) was a constructive and useful contribution in this respect and I hope that the Minister will take note of it.
    8.55 p.m.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: To be called so late in the evening, particularly following speeches by such virtuosi of the parliamentary epigram as my hon. Friends the Members for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) and Clitheroe (Mr. David Walker), concentrates the mind wonderfully. They talked of the era of negotiation on which we are alleged to be embarked, and in this year of Europe I shall concentrate on the discussions on mutual balanced force reductions.
    The negotiations on MBFR are likely to be embarked upon without any fixed
    1842
    agenda having been decided. The NATO alliance always insisted that there should be a fixed agenda and a set of principles for discussion. It is dangerous to embark on open-ended talks without concrete areas of negotiation. It is dangerous because the Soviet Union will continue to build up its military strength on the Western Front. It is particularly active on the Western Front in terms of armour. About 1,500 of the latest Soviet tanks have been moved into Eastern Europe. Therefore, when the mutual force reductions begin, the Soviet Union can withdraw obsolescent equipment and keep the latest marks in situ.
    The policy of Mr. Brezhnev is clear. He is guided by the reasonable motto that it is ridiculous to shake the tree if the apples when ripe are going to fall into his lap. The objectives of the Soviet Union have not changed. They are global and they are increasingly being backed up by the growing military capability of the Soviet Union expressed by sea power. We are already seeing how this inhibits our own policy. We have only to look at the North Atlantic situation and our actions in regard to Iceland to realise how we are circumscribed in that region by the military potential of the Soviet Union.
    It is all the more important, therefore, to secure the assistance of allies around the periphery of the Euro-Asian land mass. We must develop our relationship with the People's Republic of China, for it is only with the counterweight of China that we can assure the defence of Western Europe. At a time when the new world is less prepared to redress the imbalance of the old, collective security is vital.
    I also believe that in NATO we must augment the European identity of the alliance. But there are equally important collective security arrangements outside the NATO theatre. In that regard CENTO is crucial since it underpins our whole Middle Eastern position and without the support of Iran, Turkey and Pakistan the already precarious position of the West in the Gulf will be imperilled.
    I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the recent CENTO ministerial conference. The trouble with CENTO is that it has always been unable to cope with an attack by

    1843
    a third party. This was proved in 1965 and in 1971, and it is all the more serious when the CENTO Powers find themselves adjacent to countries which are overtly in alliance with the Soviet Union, like Irak and India. Subversion is already a crucial danger, and I am glad that some steps are being taken in that direction.
    Our strategy, in short, must be one of collective security, but it must also be maritime. One has only to look at how the ANZUK arrangements are under strain following the latest decision of the Australian Government. I would suggest that it might make good sense to withdraw some of the Gurkha units, particularly logistic units, from Hong Kong, to augment the land forces available to ANZUK. With this, we could make good any deficiency following an Australian withdrawal.
    As moral issues have been raised in the debate and as many hon. Members have referred to the drought in India, it seems exceedingly strange and almost incomprehensible to many of us at a time when thousands are supposed to be starving in India that the Indian Government think it right to detain some 93,000 Pakistani prisoners-of-war and civilians 17 months after the cease-fire on 17th December 1971. It is well known to this House that the matter is before the International Court at The Hague at the moment. But we cannot ignore the situation totally. According to the Geneva Conventions, prisoners-of-war are to be released and repatriated
    "…without delay after the cessation of hostilities."
    They are not to be used for political bargaining or as pawns in any political exchange or deal which may be sought.
    On 17th April this year, the Governments of India and Bangladesh made a so-called initiative. I was interested in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon), who has been a lifelong friend of India and has great experience of the area. Quite rightly in the circumstances he called upon the Government of India to make the first move by releasing the prisoners-of-war. It is quite wrong to link the issue of prisoners-of-war and civilian detainees with trials on supposed genocide charges in a portion of what was a unitary State and with the issue of Biharis
    1844
    who happen to be stranded in Bangladesh and who may wish to go elsewhere.
    I suggest strongly that if we are looking at all these moral issues we should not forget that one. In this era of negotiation and détente, I hope that the Government did not miss the opportunity of expressing our concern about it to the Prime Minister of India when she passed through London on Monday.
    9.2 p.m.
    Mr. Ivor Richard: At the end of a two-day debate an hon. Member winding up is tempted to go through the list of right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken, trying to repeat the salient points in their speeches, commending them for what they have said or not said, and to sit down without trying to pull the whole together—in other words, simply to compose what might be described as a parliamentary Bradshaw of constituencies. I want to avoid that temptation, with all respect to those right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken, and instead to concentrate on some of the themes.
    I am glad that the Foreign and Commonwealth Secreetary is present, because I join those right hon. and hon. Members who have welcomed the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is about to attain his seventieth birthday. As I once heard an American General say of de Gaulle at the height of the French crisis, we wish him no ill; we wish him a long, happy and contented retirement. We hope that his retirement comes about as a result of a decision of the electorate and perhaps not of his own.
    The Minister of State today was a living proof of the advantages to a Government of what the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary described yesterday as "…quiet, still, almost secret diplomacy." We had a long list from the Minister of various parts of the Middle East and the rest of the world where he felt that the situation had improved. The advantage of quiet diplomacy is that anyone who has attempted something and succeeded can point to it, and if a situation improves about which he has done nothing he can claim that it is due to his "quiet, still, almost secret diplomacy."
    The Minister began with Iran and the Gulf. We had a pat on the head for the Union of Arab Emirates. Like my hon.

    1845
    Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), I recall the lack of enthusiasm with which that organisation was greeted when it was proposed by us when we were in office.
    The right hon. Gentleman had a quick look at Saudi Arabia, where we were told that our trade was improving, that relations with Jordan had improved, that Syria, had improved, the Lebanon had improved, and relations with the Sudan had improved, though again I think this was due to the President of the Sudan's change of political direction rather than to any great initiative taken by Her Majesty's Government. Finally, we were told that Egypt had improved, but Libya was still very bad. It struck me that post hoc, propter hoc is not only a logical fallacy, which we all know it is, but that it is not a good basis upon which to attempt to justify foreign policy.
    I think it was the late Sir Winston Churchill who asked the late Iain Macleod to get him some figures on infant mortality. When Mr. Macleod produced a rather large set of figures to him, he read them all through and said, "Young man, what I want is a political statistic. In this context that means that I want to show that fewer babies died when I was Prime Minister than ever died before." The Minister of State understood fully and well what a political statistic was. His speech was studded with political statistics, if not with any justifications for his policy.
    I turn to what I see as the three main themes that have run through the debate and which perhaps should run through any consideration of Britain's foreign policy at the moment. I say to some of my hon. Friends who talked about the Middle East that I do not propose to say anything on that subject in the course of the 22 minutes remaining to me. That is not because of any lack of interest on my part or, indeed, on the part of the Opposition Front Bench. Frankly, it is that we had a good example this afternoon of the great difficulty of attempting to reconcile views within the House of Commons, let alone in the Middle East itself. Therefore, if my hon. Friends will forgive me, I will study their speeches with great care—with almost as great a care as they take to study the speeches by ambassadors at the United Nations—and, hav-
    1846
    ing done that, I suspect that I shall end up in just as unhappy a state of confusion as when I started.
    The three themes at which I want to look are, first, Britain's relations with and outlook towards southern Africa, particularly Rhodesia; secondly, our relations with European countries within the alliance, particularly Greece and Portugal; and, thirdly, relationships between the European nations, on the one hand, and the United States, on the other, and what would seem likely to occur there in future.
    I think that those three themes must be set against what right and hon. Members who have spoken in the debate would agree to be the background of at least possible change in the quality of relationships between various nations. It may be that there is now a real and qualitative change in the attitude of the Soviet Union. It may be that, for the first time, we are on the threshold of an era of détente. Various views have been expressed—some sceptical, some cautious, and some more optimistic. I will return to that matter later.
    I turn to our relationships with Southern Africa and Rhodesia. Having heard the Foreign Secretary's explanation yesterday, there can be no major ground of complaint about the mission that was sent to Salisbury in the last seven days. It went, it saw, and it returned. I am grateful for the Foreign Secretary's assurance that it took no new proposals out and, indeed, that no new proposals were received. Although it was perhaps a high-powered observation team, nevertheless, it is possibly even more impressive when a team of that quality and at that level comes back and reports as it apparently has. If it is right that Mr. Smith will report to his Parliament tomorrow that he sees no immediate or real possibility of any settlement with Britain, what will come next for this country? This subject has been referred to by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart).
    The hon. Member for Buckingham—I am sorry he is not here—said:
    "There is only one possible course of action, and that is now to make legal a de facto situation."

    1847
    I do not think that I can say strongly enough from this side of the House that, if that is the attitude which the Government will accept and carry into practice, they must expect deep and bitter opposition from this side.
    The Government will clearly have to tread warily now on Rhodesia, not only because of the situation that country, but because of the situation on their own back benches. There is clearly a major group of Conservative Members who now, as for many years past, regard sanctions as an unnecessary imposition and a wasteful exercise in futile diplomacy. As for the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), thinking back, as we do to 1965 when he was an Opposition back-bencher at the time of UDI, we suspect that, if he were on the back benches now, he would be leaving that group.
    On the other hand, we believe that the continuation and intensification of sanctions and the re-emphasis by the Government of the importance that we attach to the Six Principles is crucial to the next stage of our Rhodesia policy. For us to do otherwise, for us now to abandon sanctions—what would that mean, in view of all that has been said about sanctions from both sides in the last few years?
    Not only should we be betraying our responsibilties for Rhodesia; we should be breaking our oft-reiterated word to members of the Commonwealth, breaking a mandatory United Nations resolution, putting ourselves consciously, deliberately and obviously on the wrong side of the southern Africa confrontation. I cannot believe that anyone in the House would advocate that policy if he considered the matter coldly and dispassionately.
    The hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall)—I am sorry that he is not here—and the hon. Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett) displayed an attitude of benevolent disapproval of the Smith régime. It was an attitude that has been expressed often in the last eight or nine years, an attitude which says, "I do not approve of what Mr. Smith does, of the policies of the Rhodesian Government, and I do not support his internal domestic policies, but after all, what can we in Britain do about it? Let us therefore express our disapproval and go
    1848
    back to trading with them as much and as often as we can."
    Sir F. Bennett: The hon. and learned Gentleman can make what remarks he likes about my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) in his absence. On my attitude, I would prefer to stand by the speeches that I have made tonight and on previous occasions, all of which have been perfectly consistent and have not accorded with his summary.
    Mr. Richard: If I am wrong, of course I withdraw. I am reminded of the barrister who, when rebuked by a judge in the Court of Appeal, said, "Your Lordship is right and I am wrong, as your Lordship usually is." In that way, perhaps I can say that I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I get him wrong.
    Mr. Callaghan: You did not get him wrong.
    Mr. Richard: I will read the hon. Gentleman's speech with the greatest pleasure, as I always read his speeches.
    May I put our Rhodesia policy into the context of our relationships with and attitudes towards the rest of black Africa? If we were to abandon our sanctions policy, how would it be received in Kenya and Nigeria? There have been successful visits here from both these countries in the last few weeks at one level or another. They must be among the most hopeful of the African countries. Nigeria is now recovering from the tragic experience of a civil war, and Kenya is deliberately attempting to create a multiracial society in that part of East Africa. At a stroke, if we now abandon our Rhodesia sanctions policy and go back on our word to African nations, and if we breach a mandatory resolution of the United Nations, it will totally destroy our credibility in that vast continent.
    I am grateful for the Foreign Secretary's assurance that he will make a statement on his views on Rhodesia before the House rises. I must give him notice, however, that if there is to be any drastic change in the present policy, he can expect our total opposition. Meanwhile, we must wait and see, and we must hope.
    I turn now to the second part of my speech, which deals with the affairs of

    1849
    the alliance. It has been perhaps extraordinary, but not unsignificant, that in the two days during which we have been discussing foreign affairs there has been no mention, as far as I recall, from either side of the House of Dr. Kissinger's letter, his initiative and the attempt by the United States to create a new Atlantic relationship, to forge a new Atlantic charter of some kind. It may be that this is because the initiative—if that be the right word—from Dr. Kissinger, and from President Nixon, was in itself basically an incredible initiative. It is perhaps unfortunate that in the whole debate there has been no detailed examination of what response either we or Europe as a whole should make to that intiative.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: That is not quite accurate. I spent quite a time during my speech on the trade side of this matter and expressed how we thought that the various questions had to be dealt with, and the various existing formulae and the different time scale. I said that, therefore, while there may not be one ball of wax, all the subjects had to be discussed in the context of a possible visit by President Nixon to Europe.
    Mr. Richard: The right hon. Gentleman certainly did that. But when I was in America recently the Kissinger initiative was continually pushed at one and the continual question was about what Britain is doing and what initiative Britain is trying to get the European nations to take. In a moment I shall examine, I hope in not too great detail, the effect of that initiative. I do not find it very credible. It does not deserve the sort of mammoth response which some Americans have been demanding from it. But surely the central fact of European politics and alliance politics at present is that we are having to operate in an extraordinarily accelerating pace of change.
    It is not only that changes are taking place in the alliance and in European politics. The pace of those changes is accelerating. The most significant of all must surely be the political adjustment of relations between the Federal Republic of Germany and the DDR. I should have thought that this adjustment was the most significant event in European politics, probably of the last decade. The recent treaty between the two countries, their
    1850
    joint admission to the United Nations, and the agreement over Berlin remove not only the major political problem in Europe, but a political problem which has existed since Potsdam.
    If one goes back over the last 25 years one finds that in any discussion of European politics, confrontation, East-West relations, or security in Europe, one has always returned to the German question and how one resolves the political differences between the West Germans and the East Germans. I do not understand those who, in the debate and elsewhere, say that we in Britain and the rest of the alliance should somehow be tougher, more intransigent and less able to change than the Government of the Federal Republic have been when it is the Government of the Federal Republic who have such a large number of refugees living in their territory who used to live in what is now the DDR, and who are, after all, the most intimately concerned. We cannot be called upon to out-Germany Willy Brandt when it comes to a discussion of relationships within Germany and between the two halves of Germany.
    Parallel with this political settlement, there is the whole series of negotiations which have been mentioned at various points in the debate—SALT, MBFR, the European security conference, and even the Nixon-Brezhnev meeting and the communiqué which followed it. Perhaps Mr. Brezhnev was unduly optimistic when he said that the cold war is over, but I ask hon. Members to reflect about that for a moment. A few years ago, it would have been inconceivable to expect that a Russian premier would go to Washington, that he would have arrived at the sort of agreement that he did arrive at with the President, or, indeed, that he could have discussed it in the terms that he did.
    While on the subject of the Nixon-Brezhnev meeting and the communiqué, I suggest that we ought to pay a tribute to President Nixon, in the midst of all his present troubles, for the success of that meeting with Mr. Brezhnev. It must be a rare moment in history when a President of the United States can look back with affectionate nostalgia, as I am sure he does this week, on a week which he had spent negotiating with Mr. Brezhnev. I imagine that of the two occasions Mr. Nixon will probably

    1851
    find last week more acceptable and more congenial than this.
    What do all these trends add up to? I believe that they add up to the foundation for a genuine accommodation, and in this context the conference on security and co-operation in Europe becomes of special importance. I am glad that the Government seem at last to have appreciated the opportunities for contact and for normalisation which this conference opens up.
    In addition, however, it means that the existing alliance systems in Europe on both sides will have to be looked at deeply, if not critically. Many hon. Members will know that I am what could loosely be called a NATO man. I believe strongly in the alliance and in its continuation. I believe, indeed, that we have survived 25 years of sharp military and political confrontation by and large because of the alliance, and we have, moreover, emerged intact from the last quarter of a century.
    Western Europe has prospered, and there have been no military outbreaks in Europe in the last 20 years, but it must not be thought to follow from that that the alliance which has served us well in the past 25 years in the political context during that period is necessarily the correct instrument in the correct form and in the correct place to serve us for the next 25 years.
    Where does the alliance now go from this point? On the other side of the Atlantic today, we see an America which is unhappy, introverted, and uncertain. I have never known the United States more uncertain that it is today about its rôle in the world, more unclear about what it is trying to achieve, or more doubtful of its ability or its willingness to perform that rôle. A large measure of this may be due to the fact that the Americans are suffering from a military and political hangover from the Vietnam intervention. That may well be true. Also, they have serious balance of payments problems, believed to be due to the stationing of troops in Europe.
    What do the Americans see from the other side of the Atlantic?—a Europe grown rich, as they believe, under the protection of the United States, and still not prepared to pay what they believe to be a fair share for that protection. I do
    1852
    not know whether hon. Members have been to Montana, Senator Mansfield's home State. It is, I believe, 2,000 miles from the eastern seaboard and 1,000 miles for the western seaboard. It is at least 1,000 miles, therefore, from any piece of sea. One might say that it is a very long way from anywhere, and certainly 5,500 miles from the centre of confrontation in Europe.
    If I were a grain farmer in northern Montana—which, thank heaven, I am not —I think that I should take a great deal of convincing, in the present political, economic and military climate confronting me, that it was necessary for the security of my grain farm and my family that American troops should be stationed On the Elbe.
    If I lived in Washington and I considered these matters in greater detail with greater clarity, perhaps I would see the justification for it, but I can understand the political pressures in the United States for troop withdrawals or, alternatively, for a considerably greater contribution by the European members of the alliance towards the cost of those troops in Europe. Those pressures are growing and are continuing to grow. We should say to the United States that it should perhaps make up its mind and tell us whether it still believes that the security of Europe is essential to the security of the United States. If it believes that—and my opinion is that it basically does—then we in Europe should be able to meet them with their difficulties. If it does not believe it, the propects for the alliance are grim.
    Lieut.-Colonel Colin Mitchell: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman saying that he should go to Montana himself to improve the situation? The Americans are withdrawing from Europe, which we were all saying yesterday in the debate.
    Mr. Richard: The hon. and gallant Gentleman might have been saying it yesterday but not many others were. I am asking the Government now to consider with the European members of NATO what response they should make to the political pressures which I believe are building up in the United States. The question is whether that is the sensible thing to do. I believe that clearly it is.

    1853
    The other matter that has loomed fairly large in the debate is the situation of Greece and Portugal. The hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Lt.-Col. Colin Mitchell) in his speech yesterday made probably the one great comment of the debate. He was considering the speech by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse), who made an extremely cogent and impressive contribution on the situation in Greece, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman said that he agreed with it and then he said "But I am certainly no Byron". I fancy that we may all echo that sentiment.
    Let me turn in the few minutes that remain to consider the twin problems of Greece and Portugal. The Foreign Secretary yesterday said that he was not prepared to expose the security of Western Europe and the south-east corner of the Mediterranean or the NATO seaboard of Portugal because they were essential. While I accept that as a statement of principle, where does it take us? It cannot be suggested that we shall have as an ally within NATO any nation, whatever its political complexion, if it is prepared to come in because on that basis I would have expected Spain to be a member of the alliance, just as Portugal and Greece are.
    Where the Government have gone wrong on Greece and Portugal is that, while they have over-estimated the importance of Greece and Portugal to the alliance, they have under-estimated the importance of the alliance to Greece and Portugal. I do not believe that we have so little leverage over Greece and Portugal as the Government seem to suggest. There are international organisations of which they are both members. NATO is one and the EEC and its associate relationship with Greece is another. In the case of Greece it is almost inconceivable that it would lightly see itself excluded from NATO away at the eastern end of the Mediterranean. Surely it would much prefer to remain as it is under the NATO protective umbrella and it is, frankly, that which gives us the leverage.
    NATO gives Portugal military protection, it makes its arms supply easier and it gives it a degree of diplomatic protection which would not otherwise be
    1854
    available to it at the United Nations, for example, which clearly does not apply to Spain. Clearly we should have this leverage, and I must ask the Minister who is to reply why we do not use it. Even if he tells me that we do not have that leverage, is it necessary for the Government to go out of their way almost gratuitously to praise both Greece and Portugal in the way that they have? The presence of those two nations in NATO taints the alliance. In those circumstances, gratuitously to invite Mr. Caetano to this country at present is neither timely nor appropriate. The Anglo-Portuguese alliance may be old, but that does not necessarily make it praiseworthy or worth celebrating in the fashion proposed.
    The Opposition's conclusion is simply that the Government's foreign policy is bland in the extreme, almost to the point of stagnation. Studied inaction may be terribly English and very aristocratic, but when it is elevated to a principle of government it is pretty well bound to fail. The Government are now almost the prisoner of their own inertia, and captive to their own apathy. Our main criticism is of drift.
    For those reasons, particularly in relation to Greece and Portugal and the absence of any protest on the French nuclear test, the absence of any clear view by the Government on the future of the alliance, the absence of any initiative by the Government in the alliance to attempt to forge a new relationship between Europe and the United States, we shall vote against the Government tonight.
    9.31 p.m.
    The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Julian Amery): I shall not seek to deal in any detail with the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) about Rhodesia. I have often thought that some of the best speeches on the subject were made in 1965 and 1966 by my right hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North, as he was, now more happily ensconced in Brighton. [An HON. MEMBER: "Big head."] I have reread some of them recently. What I have said, I have said. I withdraw nothing; I qualify nothing. But neither shall I repeat any of it tonight. A great deal of water has flowed under the bridge since then, and I very much agree with my right

    1855
    hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary that the ultimate responsibility for settlement rests today in Salisbury more than in London.
    My right hon. Friend the Minister of State dealt with the problems of the Middle East very fully in his opening speech this afternoon, and I shall not try to deal with them in detail again. They remain very intractable. But I think that we can record one major advance, the withdrawal of the bulk of the Soviet forces from Egypt. That has reduced, though not eliminated, the danger that a local conflict could escalate to global proportions. The significance of that development should not be underestimated in any quarter, though we should remain vigilant to see that the tension that has existed in the Eastern Mediterranean is not transferred to the Persian Gulf or the Indian Ocean.
    Dr. Miller rose—
    Mr. Amery: I shall not give way. I have a great deal to say, and I do not think that what I have just said is controversial.
    There has been general regret in the House at the state our relations with Iceland have come to, and general agreement that the Government have handled the problem with restraint and in a spirit of conciliation. The position is clear. Our ships are fishing in international waters, as the Law of the Sea stands, and they are confining their catch well within the limits of the injunction of the International Court.
    I think we can say that we have bent over backwards to negotiate a settlement. I am sorry that we have not found a similar readiness on the other side, and that instead our civilian trawlers have been harassed by gunboats, with warp-cutting, rifle shots and shellfire. In the circumstances, there was no option but to send in the Royal Navy, though we delayed as long as possible. The Navy is not there, as some have suggested, to enforce the ruling of the International Court. It is there to protect our trawlers against unprovoked aggression, and it will continue to fulfil that task.
    It is arguable that the Law of the Sea should be changed, and it is the purpose of the Santiago conference to see whether changes should be made. But, if they are
    1856
    to be made, they should be made by agreement. I am sure that all those who care about constitutional and democratic procedure will agree that changes should not be made unilaterally or by arbitrary action. Equally, it would be foolish for us to make unilateral concessions. It would be irresponsible to our fishermen. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) asked me why we had not yet laid down publicly the Government's approach to the Law of the Sea. Our view on the principal matters has been explained by British delegates at the United Nations Seabed Committee, which is preparing for the conference. Summary records of the committee's proceedings are available in the Library. Of course, there will be negotiations which will involve give and take. The right hon. Gentleman would not expect us any more than other countries have done to display all our hand at this stage.
    I turn now to the subject of the French nuclear tests, which have figured largely in our debate. I understand that we shall have a half-day debate on the subject on Monday. There will then be a full opportunity to examine every aspect of the problems involved. As the subject has been raised so often during the debate, it would be discourteous to the House if I did not summarise the Government's position.
    The Government are opposed to tests in the atmosphere. Indeed, it was the last Conservative Government that pioneered the Test Ban Treaty. We have, however, to accept, though with regret, that neither France nor China has yet felt able to adhere to the Test Ban Treaty. We hope that they will. Our views on this are well known to both Governments. They were reflected in our vote for the resolution at the General Assembly last November.
    The recent orders of the International Court of Justice are the concern of the Governments to whom they are addressed—that is to say, the Governments of France, Australia and New Zealand. International law in its present form does not call on other Powers to enforce the judgment of the court. Having restated our general objection to atmospheric tests, we should be justified in intervening further only if there were evidence of danger to health resulting from the tests.

    1857
    The evidence available to the Foreign Office is that there is no danger whatever to health as a result of the French or the Chinese tests in the atmosphere. That assessment has been shared by the Australian Government's National Radiation Advisory Committee, which has reported after each previous series of tests, which said that
    …the fall out over Australia from the series of French tests did not constitute a hazard to the health of the Australian population."
    Mr. Gwynoro Jones: In that case, will the right hon. Gentleman accept that tests should take place in the English Channel?
    Mr. Amery: That is not the problem. What I have said about France applies equally to the Chinese People's Republic.
    Mr. Goronwy Roberts rose—
    Mr. Molloy: Tell Pompidou to try it off the French coast.
    Mr. Amery: What I have said about the French tests applies equally to the Chinese People's Republic, which yesterday announced that it is carrying out tests in the megaton range.
    What I have said follows closely the line taken by the previous Labour Government on the occasion of earlier French and Chinese tests. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State reminded the House, the Leader of the Opposition, when he was Prime Minister, was asked in 1966 what approaches had been made to President de Gaulle about nuclear tests in the Pacific. The right hon. Gentleman replied:
    "None, sir. The French are fully aware of our concern about their current programme of nuclear tests in the Pacific."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th July 1966; Vol. 732, c. 1436.]
    His comments on the French tests of 1967 and 1968 were even more significant. He said nothing at all.
    Mr. Goronwy Roberts: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to Australia and New Zealand. The Governments of those two countries, despite the technical point which the right hon. Gentleman has put to us, are at the moment desperately attempting to dissuade the French from proceeding with these tests. No doubt
    1858
    they have repeatedly made their views known to the British Foreign Office. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House clearly what the views of the Australian and New Zealand Governments are on these tests and what the replies of the British Government have been to their representations?
    Mr. Amery: The views of the Australian and New Zealand Governments are on record publicly. Any discussions we may have had in private with them are confidential.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) raised the question of clemency for Rudolf Hess. I thought that his plea was the more impressive because of his own experience of war-time imprisonment. The Government feel great sympathy with this appeal. My right hon. Friend has already discussed the matter with Mr. Gromyko on a previous occasion and he has asked me to say that he will do so again at a suitable moment during the forthcoming meetings at Helsinki. He will also discuss the matter with representatives of France and the United States, which share with us and the Soviet Union the responsibility for Spandau prison. We consider that an act of clemency towards Hess would be particularly appropriate in a year which has been marked by significant gestures of reconciliation between the Soviet Union and Germany.
    Apart from the discussion on the French nuclear tests, the gravamen of the Opposition's case against the Government appears to have been concentrated on the amicable relations we maintain with Portugal and Greece. Against the background of the tremendous changes which are taking place in international affairs. I ant rather relieved that the Opposition's fire should be concentrated on such a relatively narrow front—not that it is unimportant.
    Our alliance with the Portuguese has lasted 600 years—that is to say, it goes back almost to the time of Simon de Montfort and the beginning of our parliamentary institutions. It has endured to the advantage of both parties, despite tremendously conflicting views held at different times in Lisbon and London. Any ideological conflict which may exist today is nothing compared to that which

    1859
    existed between the Catholics and Protestants in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.
    Of course there are differences between us, but I think I can say, as many of my hon. Friends have testified, that there has been a more liberal trend in the Portuguese African terrorities, although not as fast as many would wish and not based on the assumptions on which we ourselves normally proceed. But it is a trend in the right direction, and this at a time when a good many other countries have been moving in the wrong direction.
    Mr. Richard: A sub-committee set up by the United Nations recently examined the claims of the liberation movement in Portuguese Guinea—or Bissau, or whatever name one likes to call it—to be the de facto or sole representative of the aspirations of the people of the territory. The United Nations mission reported that it also took this view. The question of the representation of the liberation movement in Guinea is to be raised at the next United Nations General Assembly. What is the attitude of Her Majesty's Government towards recognition of that movement?
    Mr. Amery: We shall study in detail the hon. and learned Gentleman's question, but our attitude has always been that we do not think that changes in territories can be or should be brought about by force, but only by agreement.
    I turn now to the question of the recognition of the Greek Government. I cannot do better than repeat what the Leader of the Opposition said about Greece in December 1967:
    …"it is the traditional practice of Her Majesty's Government, and always has been, to base recognition not on approval of a Government but on whether they have control of the country concerned, by whatever means."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December, 1967; Vol. 756, c. 634.]
    I say without offence that I listened with more respect to some of the opinions which have come from this side of the House on this matter, particularly those of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse).
    My hon. Friend prefaced his very strong criticisms of the Greek Government with one word of extenuation. However, the picture in certain respects is not all black. I have had some experience of
    1860
    the Cyprus problem and I think it is widely agreed by all who have studied it, including the Turkish Government, that the restraint shown by the Greek Government may well have avoided war with Turkey in 1967—a war which would have rent the alliance asunder. I think that the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart) would perhaps endorse that view.
    That said, I do not share many of the anxieties expressed by my hon. Friend. He and I were colleagues in clandestine operations in the Balkans during the war. Many of his Greek friends now excluded from political life are friends of mine. So is Mr. Pesmazoglu, with whom I have worked on European matters in the past. It is right that someone with my hon. Friend's knowledge of Greece should speak up as he has done. It is a tradition in our public life that individuals should express their views frankly and openly when they think that injustice has been done at home or abroad.
    But where Governments are concerned, as distinct from individuals, it is often wiser and more effective to make representations privately. We have done so on several occasions about particular individuals in Greece, but I am advised, and I accept the advice, that it will not be helpful to them for us to intervene publicly or to be specific publicly. In all of this we must remember that the cradle of democracy has not always been its home. The history of Greece in this century has alternated between dictatorship and constitutional government.
    The pre-war Government of General Metaxas was not exactly liberal, but it certainly gave a good account of itself in the war against Italy and fully justified our military alliance with it. In all of this it is important to distinguish between the rights of individuals in Parliament and outside to criticise and the duty of Governments not to intervene in matters where they have no direct responsibility.
    I know that at the height of the cold war Ministers often denounced the practices of other Governments. But we are moving to a period rather less dominated by ideology. The accent is increasingly on the right of each country to find its own way forward.
    In this House we all agree in condemning the so-called Brezhnev doctrine of

    1861
    limited sovereignty, under which members of an alliance seek to impose certain standards on one of their number. Nothing would do more harm to the unity and purpose of NATO than an attempt to apply even a modified Brezhnev doctrine to any of its members.
    There seems to be a certain contradiction in some of the views expressed by Labour Members. We have been urged to speed up the recognition of North Vietnam. Contacts at official level have already taken place. We expect to pursue these in Peking shortly. We did not do so before because it has not been the practice to recognise divided countries. The Labour Party did not think of sending an ambassador there. It did send Lord Davies of Leek, with results which we all remember.
    At the same time we are urged to press on with the recognition of North Vietnam and to withdraw our ambassador from Athens. The Labour Party has sent an official delegation to the Soviet Union and now has sent one to Eastern Europe. I am glad. It seems a bit illogical to stop a delegation going to Portugal.
    The Leader of the Opposition is happy to go to Prague and to shake hands with those who stepped into the shoes of Mr. Dubcek, yet he and his right hon. Friends have, as I understand it, refused to meet Prime Minister Caetano or to try to exercise their possibly beneficent influence upon him. The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) suggested a possible explanation for this. He said that when we go to meet potential adversaries the object is to promote peace, whereas when we go to meet our allies it is not. I disagree. The coherence of NATO makes a much greater contribution to peace than any amount of negotiation. The real difference is between currying favour with one's adversaries and kicking the ball through one's own goal.
    This debate is timely because it comes at the end of a year or more of bilateral talks and in a period when we are moving into a multilateral phase with important conferences beginning at Helsinki, Tokyo, Nairobi and Vienna. The hon. and learned Member for Barons Court referred to Dr. Kissinger's speech and to what the Germans have christened the
    1862
    "West-West problem", the problem of relations between Europe and the United States. The revival of the European economy coupled with the deficits which the Americans have incurred has changed the relationship between the United States and the European countries considerably.
    However, I very much agree with what my right hon. Friend said yesterday in opening the debate that it would be wildly exaggerating to attribute any large part of the American deficit to Europe. Their currency has now been devalued formally on two occasions, and rather more with the float, and I have very little doubt that the operation of what the economists call the "J curve" will lead their economy to come back to balance in the not-too-distant future.
    The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the agricultural policy is to be negotiable. We have accepted the agricultural policy as the price of entry into the Common Market and certainly it is not for us to take initiatives in the matter, but the grain sales which are developing towards the Soviet Union will undoubtedly help the United States a great deal in this particular matter. We shall approach the Tokyo talks in a very constructive spirit. My right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) asked how this would be done. Negotiations will be conducted through the European Commission but it will, of course, be supported by Government delegations.
    Mr. George Cunningham rose—
    Mr. Amery: I will not give way if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, as I have a lot to say and time is running short.
    Mr. Cunningham: The right hon. Gentleman has made a most important statement. He has said this Government would not attempt to change the common agricultural policy. This is entirely contrary to everything they have said on this subject before British entry. Will he now say whether that is the case and whether we are to put up with the agricultural policy for ever because we are new boys?
    Mr. Amery: In my experience nothing in economics is ever permanent and fundamental and no doubt this policy,

    1863
    like many others, will be subject to change, discussion and debate.
    As I was saying, considerations of trade and monetary reform arise in different organisations.
    Mrs. Judith Hart rose—
    Mr. Amery: No, I will not give way. There is a close connection between reductions in barriers to trade which can very easily be offset by changes in curcency patterns. Good progress is being made towards a European trade mandate. My right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be discussing in Luxembourg today, with other Finance Ministers, certain steps towards European monetary union. My hon. Friend, on the front bench below the gangway, yesterday raised the question of relations with Japan. Our wish, of course, is to pursue a liberal policy towards Japan and we are well aware of the danger of driving Japan into economic isolation. But I must say very clearly that it is for the Japanese to reciprocate in the matter and I do not think they have yet made it quite clear that they will do so.
    The revival of Western Europe and Japan has intensified competition between them and with the United States but I would dismiss altogether the idea of a crisis of capitalism. Our experience since the war, shows that, however much competition grows between advanced countries, trade between them grows faster than any other trade. I would reject the idea that in the field of trade one man's gain must be another man's loss. It is very often, indeed usually should be, the other way.—[Laughter.] I stand amazed by the Labour Party. Does it seriously believe that it is not possible to have mutually beneficial trade? Surely this is one of the assumptions an which we are all agreed? I say that I reject entirely the idea that one man's gain must be another man's loss. There is every reason why there should be effective co-operation and why both sides should be gainers—that all concerned should be gainers.
    In his speech this afternoon the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East somewhat took us to task because, he said, Mr. Brezhnev had visited Bonn, Washington and Paris and had not come here. He suggested, and others have suggested, that our relations with the Soviet
    1864
    Union have been frosty. I think that was the word used by the hon. Member for Salford, East. It may be that there has been in Moscow for a time a certain resentment over our handling of their secret agents here, over our joining the European Community and seeking to give it a more political content. It may be, too, that there has been resentment of our occasionally reminding our allies of the realities of the military situation. That may have inhibited warmth but it has certainly not cost us any respect in the Soviet Union, in Eastern Europe, or in China.
    We play a leading rôle in the relations between Europe and the United States, a leading rôle in East-West relations, within the European Community, within NATO and with China. We seek good relations with the Soviets but détente must be based on actions as well as words, and in diplomacy it is very important to remember that the Socialist world does not consist only of the Soviet Union. The Socialist countries of Europe are not monolithic in the way that is often thought. China plays a very independent part and the future of China is vital to Japan and to South-East Asia, which is, after all, Australia's near north.
    Dr. Miller: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Would he answer the question which I asked yesterday about the Caribbean, and British Honduras?
    Mr. Amery: In the brief moments left to me, I propose to deal with a more fundamental problem.
    The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East said he would seek leverage for British policy in the United Nations. We are all at one in our support of the United Nations, but I must remind him that the big changes which have taken place in world diplomacy over the past year or two have not taken place within the United Nations but outside it. It has been through bilateral contacts and now regional conferences and separate conferences that these matters look like making positive and constructive progress.
    Our theme on the Government side is Europe. We believe that it is in the building of Europe that we shall be able

    1865
    to influence the constructive development of the West. Already Europe is a trading area. It will also soon be an effective payments area, and since one cannot divide and separate trade and payments from foreign policy and defence I have little doubt that before the end of the decade Europe will be not a dream—as the right hon. Gentle-
    man accused it of becoming—but an effective reality enabling us to play a beneficial and constructive part in the West.
    Question put, That the Vote be reduced by £5:—
    The House divided: Ayes 246, Noes 275.

    Division No. 178.]

    AYES

    [10.0 p.m.

    Abse, Leo

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Lawson, George

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Edwards, William (Merioneth)

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Allen, Scholefield

    Ellis, Tom

    Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

    English, Michael

    Leonard, Dick

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Evans, Fred

    Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

    Ashley, Jack

    Ewing, Harry

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Ashton, Joe

    Fishsr, Mrs.Doris (B'ham,Ladywood)

    Lipton, Marcus

    Atkinson, Norman

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Lomas, Kenneth

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

    Loughlin, Charles

    Barnes, Michael

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

    Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

    Foot, Michael

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

    Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

    Ford, Ben

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Baxter, William

    Forrester, John

    McBride, Neil

    Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

    Fraser, John (Norwood)

    McCartney, Hugh

    Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Freeson, Reginald

    McElhone Frank

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    McGuire, Michael

    Bishop, E. S.

    Garrett, W. E.

    Machin, George

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Gilbert, Dr. John

    Mackenzie, Gregor

    Boardman, H. (Leigh)

    Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

    Mackie, John

    Booth, Albert

    Golding, John

    Mackintosh, John P.

    Boothroyd, Miss B. (West Brom.)

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

    Maclennan, Robert

    Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

    Gourlay, Harry

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

    Boyden, James(Bishop Auckland)

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

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

    Bradley, Tom

    Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

    Marks, Kenneth

    Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne,W.)

    Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

    Marquand, David

    Brown, Ronald(Shoreditch & F'bury)

    Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

    Marsden, F.

    Buchan, Norman

    Hamling, William

    Mayhew, Christopher

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

    Hardy, Peter

    Meacher, Michael

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Harrison, Waller (Wakefield)

    Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

    Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

    Mikardo, Ian

    Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

    Hattersley, Roy

    Millan, Bruce

    Cant, R. B.

    Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

    Miller, Dr. M. S

    Carmichael, Neil

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Milne, Edward

    Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

    Hilton, W. S.

    Mitchell, R. C. (S'hamplon, Itchen)

    Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

    Horam, John

    Molloy, William

    Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

    Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

    Clark, David (Colne Valley)

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

    Huckfield, Leslie

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Coleman, Donald

    Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Morris, Rt Hn. John (Aberavon)

    Conlan, Bernard

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    Moyle, Roland

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

    Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Murray, Ronald King

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Hunter, Adam

    Oakes, Gordon

    Cronin, John

    Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

    Ogden, Eric

    Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Janner, Greville

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    O'Malley, Brian

    Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)

    Jeger, Mrs. Lena

    Oram, Bert

    Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Oswald, Thomas

    Dalyell, Tam

    Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

    Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Darling, Rt. Hn. George

    John, Brynmor

    Padley, Walter

    Davidson, Arthur

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Paget, R. T.

    Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

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

    Palmer, Arthur

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

    Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

    Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

    Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Deakins, Eric

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

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

    Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

    Perry, Ernest G.

    Delargy, Hugh

    Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

    Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

    Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

    Judd, Frank

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Dempsey, James

    Kaufman, Gerald

    Radice, Giles

    Dormand, J. D.

    Kelley, Richard

    Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Kerr, Russell

    Rhodes, Geoffrey

    Driberg, Tom

    Kinnock, Neil

    Richard, Ivor

    Dunn, James A.

    Lambie, David

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Eadie, Alex

    Lamborn, Harry

    Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Edelman, Maurice

    Lamond, James

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Latham, Arthur

    Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Brc'n&R'dnor)

    Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

    Wallace, George

    Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Stoddart, David (Swindon)

    Watkins, David

    Rose, Paul B.

    Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

    Weitzman, David

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

    Stott, Roger (Westhoughton)

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

    White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

    Sandelson, Neville

    Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

    Whitehead, Philip

    Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

    Swain, Thomas

    Whitlock, William

    Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

    Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff.W.)

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

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

    Thomas, Jeffrey (Aberlillery)

    Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

    Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

    Tinn, James

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    Sillars, James

    Torney, Tom

    Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

    Silverman, Julius

    Tuck, Raphael

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Urwin, T. W.

    Woof, Robert

    Small, William

    Varley, Eric G.

    Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

    Wainwright, Edwin

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES

    Spearing, Nigel

    Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)

    Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. Joseph Harper.

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    NOES

    Adley, Robert

    du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Dykes, Hugh

    Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John

    Jessel, Toby

    Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

    Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

    Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

    Astor, John

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

    Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Emery, Peter

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Awdry, Daniel

    Eyre, Reginald

    Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

    Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

    Farr, John

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

    Fell, Anthony

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord

    Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

    King, Tom (Bridgwater)

    Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

    Kitson, Timothy

    Batsford, Brian

    Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

    Knight, Mrs. Jill

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Knox, David

    Bell, Ronald

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Lamont, Norman

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

    Fortescue, Tim

    Lane, David

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

    Foster, Sir John

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Benyon, W.

    Fowler, Norman

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Berry, Hn. Anthony

    Fox, Marcus

    Lloyd, Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'field)

    Biffen, John

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

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

    Blaker, Peter

    Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.

    Longden, Sir Gilbert

    Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

    Gardner, Edward

    Loveridge, John

    Body, Richard

    Gibson-Watt, David

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Boscawen, Hn. Robert

    Gilmour, Rt. Hn. Ian (Norfolk, C.)

    MacArthur, Ian

    Bossom, Sir Clive

    Glyn, Dr. Alan

    McCrindle, R A.

    Bowden, Andrew

    Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

    McLaren, Martin

    Braine, Sir Bernard

    Gorst, John

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

    Bray, Ronald

    Gower, Raymond

    Macmillan, Rt.Hn. Maurice (Farnham)

    Brinton, Sir Tatton

    Gray, Hamish

    McNair-Wilson, Michael

    Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

    Green, Alan

    McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Grieve, Percy

    Maddan, Martin

    Bruce-Gardyne, J.

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    Madel, David

    Bryan, Sir Paul

    Grylls, Michael

    Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

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

    Gummer, J. Selwyn

    Marten, Neil

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Gurden, Harold

    Maude, Angus

    Burden, F. A.

    Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

    Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

    Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

    Hall, Sir John (Wycombe)

    Mawby, Ray

    Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray & Nairn)

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Carlisle, Mark

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Hannam, John (Exeter)

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Channon, Paul

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Chapman, Sydney

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)

    Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Hastings, Stephen

    Moate, Roger

    Churchill, W. S.

    Havers, Michael

    Money, Ernie

    Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

    Hawkins, Paul

    Monks, Mrs. Connie

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Hay, John

    Monro, Hector

    Cockeram, Eric

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Coombs, Derek

    Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

    More, Jasper

    Cooper, A. E.

    Heseltine, Michael

    Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

    Cordle, John

    Hicks, Robert

    Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

    Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Morrison, Charles

    Cormack, Patrick

    Hiley, Joseph

    Mudd, David

    Costain, A. P.

    Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)

    Murton, Oscar

    Critchley, Julian

    Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

    Nabarro, Sir Gerald

    Crouch, David

    Holland, Philip

    Neave, Airey

    Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

    Holt, Miss Mary

    Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Hornby, Richard

    Normanton, Tom

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid.Maj.-Gen.Jack

    Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

    Nott, John

    Dean, Paul

    Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

    Onslow, Cranley

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

    Dixon, Piers

    Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

    Osborn, John

    Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

    Hunt, John

    Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

    Drayson, G. B.

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

    Iremonger, T. L.

    1868

    1869

    Parkinson, Cecil

    Royle, Anthony

    Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)

    Peel, Sir John

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Percival, Ian

    Sandys, Rt. Hn D.

    Tilney, Sir John

    Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

    Scott, Nicholas

    Trew, Peter

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Tugendhat, Christopher

    Pink, R. Bonner

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

    Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

    Pounder, Rafton

    Shelton, William (Clapham)

    Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Shersby, Michael

    Waddington, David

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Simeons, Charles

    Walder, David (Clitheroe)

    Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Walker, Rt Hn. Peter (Worcester)

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Wall, Patrick

    Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

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

    Walters, Dennis

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Soref, Harold

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

    Speed, Keith

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    Spence, John

    White, Roger (Gravesend)

    Redmond, Robert

    Stainton, Keith

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Wilkinson, John

    Rees, Peter (Dover)

    Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

    Stokes, John

    Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Sutcliffe, John

    Worsley, Marcus

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Tapsell, Peter

    Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R

    Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Younger, Hn. George

    Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

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

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES

    Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

    Tebbit, Norman

    Mr. Walter Clegg and Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

    Rost, Peter

    Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

    Question accordingly negatived.
    It being after Ten O'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That the International Cocoa Agreement Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Murton.]

    INTERNATIONAL COCOA AGREEMENT BILL
    Considered in Committee.
    [Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

  Clause 1

    REGULATION OF IMPORTATION OF COCOA AND COCOA PRODUCTS
    Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
    10.11 p.m.
    Mr. Eric Deakins: I do not wish to delay the proceedings of the Committee, but I should like to ask the Minister two questions.
    Does Clause 1 cover fine or flavoured cocoa as it is referred to in article 33 of the agreement? I think it does. But it is not clear. I should like the Minister to confirm that it does.
    Secondly, can the hon. Lady say whether in addition to a licence under subsection (3) an authorised council control document, mentioned in article 33(5), will be required? I am not clear whether the licensing procedure replaces what is required under article 33 or is additional to it.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): The hon. Gentleman's first question relates to fine and flavoured cocoa. Signatories to the Agreement are exempt from contributions, but non-signatories are not. However, both are subject to licence under Clause 1.
    The answer to the hon. Gentleman's second question is "Yes".
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 2

    SHORT TITLE AND COMMENCEMENT
    Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Deakins: I have one simple question relating to Clause 2. Since we have already indicated our provisional acceptance of the agreement through the Bill, when are we likely to have an order made by the Secretary of State? Even if our provisional acceptance remains provisional, shall we nevertheless have an order from the Secretary of State or will the making of an order depend upon our provisional acceptance becoming a final acceptance?
    Mrs. Fenner: We shall have an order.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported, without amendment.
    Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading) and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

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

    A2, BRENLEY CORNER- DOVER
    10.15 p.m.
    Mr. David Crouch: The matter that I want to bring before the House of Commons tonight has been brought before it on many occasions—unfortunately tragic occasions. I am talking about the situation on the A2 for the 27 miles before it reaches Dover, commonly known in Kent as the A2 from Brenley Corner to Dover.
    The House knows that for the last seven years I have been fighting a campaign to have this road properly improved to the equivalent of motorway standards, to be dual carriageway, and to bypass the city of Canterbury and the

    1873
    villages all the way to Dover. I have seen Ministers, I have taken delegations to Ministers, I have asked Questions in the House, I have written letters to Ministers, I have appeared on radio and television on many occasions, and taken part in a protest march, but I have got practically nowhere. However, my hon. Friend's predecessor did me a great favour and a great service to my constituents by listening to me one day, overruling his officials, and granting the people of Kent a bypass for the city of Canterbury. For that I am grateful to him and his Department. It may be that because of his enthusiasm, energy and courage on that occasion he was translated to be Minister for Aerospace and Shipping.
    Now I reach another milestone in my campaign and have this Adjournment debate. Adjournment debates, by tradition, get publicity, but I want more than publicity. Tonight I ask the Minister for some action. My constituents and drivers on the A2, whether they be freight lorry drivers, domestic, tourist, or other drivers using private cars, want the A2 brought up not only to motorway standards or the equivalent but to the standards obtaining in Europe today.
    I am no longer content to take my place in the queue and be patient. I confess that I am impatient and that my constituents are very angry. In past years when I have protested I have accepted the argument often advanced by Ministers in what was the Ministry of Transport, now the office of the Minister for Transport Industries, that I must take my place in the queue as the A2 did not merit any high priority for development to dual carriageway or motorway standards. I cannot accept that any longer as an excuse. In my opinion, the A2 today must command top priority, above all other roads in Britain.
    I am not making a plea just for my constituents. I am making this plea because this stretch of road is on one of the most important highways leading, as it does, to Britain's busiest port.
    I shall be curtailing my remarks a little to allow my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Peter
    1874
    Rees) to make a contribution to this debate. It is only right that he should.
    Last year, the number of heavy vehicles passing through Dover increased by no less than 43 per cent. This is a staggering increase. Our entry to the EEC has caused an even greater increase in this lorry traffic. A technical journal, the International Freighting Weekly, of 28th March said:
    "Already, more than 100 extra lorries are passing through the harbour, which had an increase of 30 per cent. within less than a month of January 1st."
    Within less than a month of our entering Europe there was a dramatic change in the volume of freight traffic attracted to the A2, both into Europe and into Britain.
    Last August a 24-hour census carried out in my constituency along this road in the village of Bridge, where there have been a number of serious and tragic accidents, counted 1,699 heavy goods vehicles —one every 50 seconds. In this village a year ago a TIR vehicle smashed into a house in the middle of the night killing the driver instantly and nearly killing a child sleeping in an upper room. It is a mercy that no one else was killed.
    This week a lorry demolished a bus shelter in that village, according to a telegram I had yesterday. Another lorry crashed into a shop. Two weeks ago a lorry left the road at another village, Harbledown, and ended up in a cottage garden, narrowly missing the children who had been playing there shortly before. Three weeks ago three soldiers died in a frightful collision with a Belgian TIR lorry in Watersend in the constituency of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover.
    The Press described this road as the "road of fear" or the "killer road". One local paper reported:
    "Fear of the A2 has forced a couple with four children to abandon their cottage."
    It is an outrage to have monster vehicles pounding through these villages night and day. People are already paying with their lives for our failure to build a better road into Europe.
    This road in the part of my constituency that I am talking about stretches 27 miles, from Brenley Corner to Dover, and only five miles have so far been made dual carriageway. The rest is almost

    1875
    unchanged from what it was at the end of the first world war, except for slight modifications—an English country lane wandering through the Garden of England.
    In parts the road is only 17½ feet wide. I do not exaggerate; I quote from the Press release of the Department of the Environment. The width of a juggernaut is 8 feet 2 inches, not including an allowance for the wing mirrors, which could be another foot. There is no room in parts of this road for two juggernauts going in opposite directions to pass. I was speaking to some of the drivers on Sunday. One of them said "You just pray you will not meet anything". Another said "This is the worst stretch of any major road in Britain. There is nothing like it on the other side of the Channel."
    We made a great mistake in 1963 in not continuing the M2 into Dover. If only we had done that we should not be debating this problem now and trying to produce a piecemeal solution. Dover needs two motorways in the near future —the M2 or the enlarged A2 continuing from the M2, and the proposed M20—to serve this great volume of traffic.
    The A2 development programme is a second-rate programme and is proceeding at an even slower and lower rate than that. There seems no urgency about it, which reflects the lack of understanding of our anxiety and anger.
    I know that the majority of the proposed developments are due to be completed in three or four years, although I understand that the Canterbury bypass cannot be completed in less than seven or eight years. But why cannot we have these improvements sooner, perhaps in half the time? Why cannot we have a crash programme to show the people of Kent and all those who use this road that we mean business now that we are in Europe? Why, for example, has the Minister sat on the consultant's report on the line of route for the Canterbury bypass for six months? Why are there great stretches of road where work has begun three or four years ago since when we have never seen a man at work? I am referring there to the situation at Barham Down.
    There is a lack of urgency about the whole thing on the part of the Government and by the Kent County Council.
    1876
    It is there for all of us to see and suffer. I know the Department's programme. It is not good enough. It must be speeded up. I want to sec more drive, too, from the Kent County Council to speak for Kent rather than to act as a mouthpiece for the Minister.
    I must warn the Minister that if he will not recognise the danger on this road and its inadequacy to cope with modern freight traffic and if he will not institute an urgent new programme, some preventive measures must be taken. We must consider limiting the flow of heavy vehicles on this road until it is fit to carry them. The powers to do so already exist within the county council.
    The people of East Kent would be within their rights to demand such protection. They would be right to show that much more is expected of the Minister for the protection of our environment in the future.
    10.26 p.m.
    Mr. Peter Rees: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), who has already done so much for conditions on the A2, on securing the opportunity for raising this crucial subject for us in Kent. I am very grateful for the opportunity of intervening, and I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) for allowing me to intervene ahead of him.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury has outlined the general situation, and it needs no further gilding or emphasis from me, but I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary four specific questions. I hope I shall get straight and clear answers from him.
    I refer first to the Watersend Bridge in my constituency where the tragic accident occurred only a fortnight ago, when a Belgian TIR lorry overturned and killed three soldiers. This is not by any means the first accident at that point on the A2. My first question to the Minister is: will he arrange as a matter of urgency for the road at that point to be straightened out?
    Secondly, will the Minister arrange for bigger and more effective signposts to be placed on either side of the bridge so that drivers, particularly continental

    1877
    drivers with, perhaps, a limited command of English, will appreciate just what a death trap it is unless they slow right down?
    The long-term solution is the building of the eastern bypass to Dover Harbour, so my third question is: can the Minister, as a matter of urgency, accelerate the building of the eastern bypass? I have been told only today that Kent County Council has withdrawn its formal objection to the line proposed, so that there are no constitutional or legal reasons why work should not start at once. It is not sufficient to say that work will start in 1974 and be finished in 1976. The people in and around Dover need, as a matter of urgency, the decision that this road should be given the highest possible priority.
    Finally, once, twice and, perhaps, even three times in high summer and the holiday season the whole of the traffic in Dover seizes up and the line of waiting cars stretches back from the dock to Lydden and even beyond. The high point was reached last summer when cars were waiting throughout the night in Dover, preventing people even from crossing the road. Will the Minister coordinate measures with his Department and the police and Kent County Council to ensure that this kind of thing will not happen this summer?
    Here are four simple, straightforward questions to which the people in my constituency demand straightforward answers. The A2 is the jugular vein of the South-East. The pressures on that vein have really reached intolerable proportions. We look to the Minister to give us some relief.
    10.29 p.m.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) on the diligence and persistence with which he has pursued a problem in which he has been concerned to represent his constituents' interests. There are many letters on the file from my hon. Friend, he has asked many Questions in the House, and he has met both myself and my predecessor on more than one occasion, leaving us in no doubt about the serious view which he takes of the urgent need to improve the
    1878
    A2 from Brenley Corner right down to Dover.
    I say at once that I do not accept all the strictures which my hon. Friend laid about a lack of diligence in my Department in dealing with the problem. For some years work has been proceeding on a plan for the comprehensive improvement to dual carriageway standard of the whole of this length of the A2, and, except for the Canterbury bypass, it has been the firm intention for some time that all these improvements should be completed by 1976.
    I think that people sometimes overlook the progress we have already made on the A2, although I appreciate that it is certainly not as fast as my hon. Friends would like. Perhaps it would be helpful if I were to run through some of the schemes which have been completed in the last few years.
    Just to the east of Dunkirk a dual carriageway was provided between Gate Inn and Denstead Lane in November 1970. From Denstead Lane to Staines Farm the dual carriageway was completed in May this year. The second stage of the Canterbury ring road was completed in June 1970, and further down to the south-east a second carriageway has been provided between Black Robin Lane and Barham crossroads.
    The stretches of the A2 between Ropersole Farm and Shelvin Lane and on to Oak Pollard were dualled in April 1971 and August 1972. On from there to Lydden Hill dual carriageways were provided early last year. The dual carriageway from Lydden Hill to Swanton Lane had already been completed in July 1970. From Stonehall Road to Skew Bridge, Lydden, and from Skew Bridge to Templar Road, Temple Ewell, the road was improved to a 24 ft. carriageway in October 1970 and March 1971, and, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Peter Rees) will know, in Dover itself the new dual carriageway road between Folkestone Road and Snargate Street was completed in January this year.
    I think this demonstrates that we are concerned to press ahead with what still needs to be done for the improvement of the A2 between Brenley Corner and Dover. There are, of course, a number of remaining problem areas. No one can

    1879
    pretend otherwise. I assure the House that I am as concerned as anyone to see the momentum kept up. I know that many people are as anxious as I am to read in our newspapers of yet another accident or near-accident on a stretch of the A2. My hon. Friend has referred to some recent accidents tonight.
    It is invidious to suggest that any one area is substantially worse than another, because any accident anywhere is to be regretted, and those involving injury or loss of life are particularly to be deplored. But, if I may single out one place for extra special treatment, I mention the village of Bridge, which, I believe, is well known to the entire House.
    I know, hon. Members know, they are always telling me, and the newspapers are always telling me, that something must be done about Bridge. Those of my hon. Friends with constituency interests along the A2 will know that a scheme for a bypass at Bridge is included in the firm roads programme and that a public inquiry was held in May this year. I should have liked the programme for the Bridge bypass to be accelerated even more than we have managed to do. But, in spite of the fact that people have been clamouring for a bypass, we had to have a public inquiry because some of those with interests in the land that we should need for a bypass objected to it. We have not reached the stage—and I hope that we never do—when we can ride roughshod over legitimate land interests, even if it means a delay of precious months in getting on with a road which we all know we desperately need.
    I can now tell the House, however, that the inspector's report has just been received. If the Secretary of State decides, in the light of that report, that the bypass can go ahead, then, provided that there are no hitches in land acquisition, the bypass could be started by the middle of next year and be completed by the middle of 1976. This is the price we have to pay for democracy, and I could not advise the House, or my right hon. and learned Friend, that we ought to ride rough-shod over people who have legitimate interests and who object, and whose objections result in a public inquiry, although, as my hon. Friend knows, it may have delayed this scheme
    1880
    by nine months. This is, as I say, part of our democratic process.
    Hon. Members will, naturally, not expect me to be satisfied solely with the alleviation of problems for those living in Bridge. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) may well take me to task for not having mentioned the Boughton and Dunkirk bypass, for which he has been campaigning so vigorously. We are already further forward on this scheme than we are at Bridge, and we hope to start work this autumn, with a completion date some two years later.
    As to Harbledown and Upper Harbledown, my officials are working very hard on the inspector's report into the inquiries which were held in April. Again, I hope that, if all goes well, work can start on these two scheme by the middle of next year, and that the bypasses can be opened to traffic by the spring of 1976.
    Once we have got the go-ahead for the Bridge bypass, the adjacent scheme from Bishopbourne Road to Black Robin Lane can be started, probably in the summer of next year, with the road opening to traffic a year later.
    For the scheme from Barham crossroads to Ropersole Farm the Department will be inviting tenders within the next few days. This means that the scheme will start this autumn and be completed by autumn next year. Subject to the satisfactory completion of the statutory processes and to adequate funds being available—I must enter that caveat—all these schemes, including the LyddenDover diversion, will be completed by the end of 1976 at a cost of about £9 million.
    As my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development made an extensive tour of the A2 between Brenley Corner and Dover as recently as last September to see for himself the work in progress and the conditions on the existing road through the villages which it is proposed to bypass. He found this most worth while and acquired a very clear picture of the conditions along the road. He concluded that as many as possible additional resources should be devoted to the bypass schemes so that what could be done to speed up the programme should be done.

    1881
    As a result of a review following that visit it was found possible to forecast somewhat earlier start-of-work dates for the Harbledowns and Bridge bypasses provided that no unforeseen difficulties arose. I am pleased to be able to assure the House that so far it has been possible to keep up to the accelerated programmes for these schemes. As I have said, all the improvement schemes should be completed by 1976. A further speeding up of the processes is not possible consistent with democracy.
    It has been suggested, particularly by my hon. Friends in correspondence with me, that nothing less than extending the M2 to Dover will deal with the expected growth in traffic travelling to and from the port. I must tell my hon. Friend—I gave him all the figures when I wrote to him last year—that both present and predicted flows of traffic are well below the levels necessary to justify motorway standards. It is most unlikely that future flows will justify another motorway parallel to the M20 after this is opened to traffic later in the 1970s. I have said that it is our intention to complete the improvement of the A2 from Brenley Corner to Dover, except for the Canterbury bypass, by 1976.
    As hon. Members know, expenditure on roads is to be reduced by £100 million a year as part of the saving in public expenditure of £600 million a year which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced recently. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is now carrying out as urgently as possible a review of schemes in the road programme to decide which can proceed without interruption and which will have to suffer some deferment to enable us to achieve the planned reductions in expenditure. He hopes to make an announcement about this fairly soon. I know that my hon. Friends will not expect me to anticipate this announcement this evening, but until that announcement is made I cannot say that the A2 schemes will not be affected. I hope very much that they will be allowed to proceed without delay but until the review has been concluded I must ask my hon. Friends to be patient.
    As to the provision of a bypass for Canterbury, I confirm that there has never been any dispute over the eventual
    1882
    need for such a road. The difficulty here arises over the timing and standard of construction. Canterbury is served by a ring road and will benefit from the development of the M20. Between one-third and one-half of the traffic on the A2 north and south of Canterbury has its destination in the city area and would not wish to use a bypass. Independent consultants were commissioned in 1971 to conduct a feasibility study to assess the priority and possible alignments for a bypass. We have now had that report for six months and it has been subject to considerable study.
    Last year my hon. Friend was prominent in pressing the urgency of the bypass scheme for Canterbury and was supported by local interests. Not surprisingly, Kent County Council is most anxious that the uncertainties should be resolved. To this end, as recently as May my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries met representatives from the county council and agreed that joint discussions should be held between the county and the Department to try to resolve the present uncertainties relating to future road provisions in the area. The object of these discussions will be to ensure that an announcement may be made later this year of future road plans in and around Canterbury.
    My right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries announced on 5th June that an order had been made fixing the route of a bypass of the A2 trunk road between Lydden and Dover Docks. The bypass, which will be about 7½ miles long, will generally have a single two-lane carriageway, but some short lengths of dual two-lane carriageways will be provided for safety reasons, and from the A258 to the A20 at the docks entrance a crawler lane will be provided because of the relatively steep 1-in-20 gradient.
    My information is that the objection from Kent County Council to the order has not yet been withdrawn. Either I am right or my hon. Friend is right. All I can say is that if it has not been withdrawn the order will be subject to special parliamentary procedure, which means that it must be before Parliament for six weeks. That period began on 12th June. Subject to completion of the remaining statutory processes, availability of funds and the completion of the compulsory purchase order, it is hoped to

    1883
    start work on the scheme early in 1974 for completion by the spring of 1976. If the order is challenged, that could delay the scheme, but both my hon. Friend and I must hope not.
    The House heard with regret of the fatal accident earlier this month at Watersend. I join my hon. Friends in their expression of sympathy to the relatives of those who lost their lives in that unfortunate and tragic accident.
    The road in the area runs nearly parallel with the railway and passes under it by means of an "S" bend. The approaches to the bridge were both widened and realigned in 1970–71 to provide better visibility for drivers of vehicles, and footways have been provided on both approaches to the bridge. The road under the bridge is 24 feet wide, and there are no footways. A scheme to provide a pedestrian subway is on the regional programme, and should be carried out early next year.
    The accident record at the bridge, which lies on the section of the A2 to be superseded by the Lydden-Dover scheme, is not particularly bad. Over the past three years there have been four accidents, including the recent fatal accident. In two of them only one vehicle was involved. I understand from the evidence available that the drivers failed either to observe the warning signs or to recognise the effect of prevailing weather conditions.
    The existing signs and road markings are of standard size, in good condition, and very obvious to drivers. There is no indication that larger signs would have any greater effect. But after the inquest, which has been adjourned until 4th July, if there is any evidence to suggest that other measures could contribute to greater safety there we shall certainly give them the most urgent consideration.
    Mr. Crouch: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. I have had it represented to me by lorry drivers that as it is a route used at night they would appreciate it if there could be many more illuminated signs of dangerous areas, speed restrictions, and so on.
    Mr. Speed: I note that point, and shall bring it to the attention of my regional controller.
    1884
    The construction of the mid-Kent motorway, M20, which is to be the subject of an inquiry later this year, will further relieve the A2 of heavy through traffic. In these circumstances, the reprovision of the railway bridge at Watersend, which would be expensive and would take a considerable time to plan, acquire land and construct, could not be justified, certainly not at present.
    My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover has raised a number of particular points which it would be difficult for me to deal with adequately in the time available. I can tell him that I am asking my regional controller, in conjunction with the local police authority, to look into the points he has raised. They are very valuable points which are important for his constituents, and I shall be in touch with him on them as soon as I have a report from my regional controller, as a matter of urgency. I hope my hon. and learned Friend will understand that time constraints, combined with the perhaps rather strategic nature of the debate, make it difficult to deal with them in more detail now.
    Mr. Peter Rees: As the holiday season is about to begin, and nearly always the last two or three weekends in July provide a sort of crisis, has my hon. Friend's Department made any plans to meet the kind of situations we encountered in Dover last year?
    Mr. Speed: I understand that there are plans. In addition, I wish my regional controller to go down in the next few days to discuss the matter with the police and make the plans more public.
    The A2 has been neglected in the past by various Governments because of all sorts of constraints on funds. I believe that by 1976 the present Government will have improved the A2 the whole way from the M2 to Dover. That will be for the relief of residents, who have had much to put up with during the past few years, and for the relief of traffic. It should reduce fatal accidents. I am taking a close personal interest in the scheme, and I am well aware of the factors which I have described.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at a quarter to Eleven o'clock.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
  Chemicals (Dumping)
  Chemicals (Dumping)
  Tomatoes (Import Duty)
  Tomatoes (Import Duty)
  Family Expenditure
  Family Expenditure
  Agricultural Production
  Agricultural Production
  Meal Prices (Penns Hall Hotel, Sutton Coldfield)
  Meal Prices (Penns Hall Hotel, Sutton Coldfield)
  Meat (Import Levy)
  Meat (Import Levy)
  Hill Farms (EEC Directive)
  Hill Farms (EEC Directive)
  Agricultural Land
  Agricultural Land
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Butter and Cheese (Import Duty)
  Butter and Cheese (Import Duty)
  Oranges
  Oranges
  Intervention Board (Stocks)
  Intervention Board (Stocks)
  Fruit and Vegetable Markets, London
  Fruit and Vegetable Markets, London
  Slimming Foods (Advertisements)
  Slimming Foods (Advertisements)
  Farm Machinery
  Farm Machinery
  Water (Use Restrictions)
  Water (Use Restrictions)
  International Sugar Agreement
  International Sugar Agreement
  Perishable Foods (Date Marking)
  Perishable Foods (Date Marking)
  Wheat (Denaturing)
  Wheat (Denaturing)
  World Food Stocks
  World Food Stocks
  Fish Landings (Icelandic Boats)
  Fish Landings (Icelandic Boats)
  Cereal Imports
  Cereal Imports
  Sugar Refining
  Sugar Refining
  Harvest Lung
  Harvest Lung
  Icelandic Fisheries
  Icelandic Fisheries
  Milk (Butterfat Content)
  Milk (Butterfat Content)
  Fishing Industry (Subsidies)
  Fishing Industry (Subsidies)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Corporation Tax (Unquoted Companies)
  Corporation Tax (Unquoted Companies)
  Coinage
  Coinage
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Road Fund Licences
  Road Fund Licences
  National Savings Certificates (Advertisements)
  National Savings Certificates (Advertisements)
  National Savings
  National Savings
  Regional Employment Premium
  Regional Employment Premium
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Member's Correspondence
  Member's Correspondence
  Romanian Cyclists
  Romanian Cyclists
  Life Sentences
  Life Sentences
  Prisons (Leeds)
  Prisons (Leeds)
ENVIRONMENT
  Alkali and Factories Inspectorates
  Alkali and Factories Inspectorates
  Lewes Bypass
  Lewes Bypass
  Roads (Speed Control)
  Roads (Speed Control)
  Road Works (Warning Signs)
  Road Works (Warning Signs)
  Thermal Insulation
  Thermal Insulation
  M25 (Thorpe-Egham)
  M25 (Thorpe-Egham)
  Windsor (Road Traffic)
  Windsor (Road Traffic)
  Road Accident Deaths
  Road Accident Deaths
  Listed Buildings Inspection (Islington)
  Listed Buildings Inspection (Islington)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Aflatoxin
  Aflatoxin
  Health Centre and Community Hospital (Corby)
  Health Centre and Community Hospital (Corby)
  Psittacosis
  Psittacosis
  Elderly Persons (Cardiganshire)
  Elderly Persons (Cardiganshire)
  Unemployment Review Cases
  Unemployment Review Cases
  Unemployment Review Officers
  Unemployment Review Officers
  Chief Nursing Posts (Pay)
  Chief Nursing Posts (Pay)
  COMPETITION
  COMPETITION
  GENERAL GOWON (TALKS)
  GENERAL GOWON (TALKS)
  GOVERNMENT POLICY (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECHES)
  GOVERNMENT POLICY (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECHES)
  CBI AND TUC (TALKS)
  CBI AND TUC (TALKS)
  RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
  RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
DEFENCE
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Primary Schools (East Suffolk)
  Primary Schools (East Suffolk)
  Provincial Museums and Galleries (Report)
  Provincial Museums and Galleries (Report)
EMPLOYMENT
  Hotel and Catering Industry
  Hotel and Catering Industry
  Foundries (Notifiable Accidents)
  Foundries (Notifiable Accidents)
  Fire Resisting Structures (Certification)
  Fire Resisting Structures (Certification)
  Factory Inspections
  Factory Inspections
  Cardiganshire
  Cardiganshire
  Vacancies
  Vacancies
  Factories Act Prosecutions
  Factories Act Prosecutions
  Family Expenditure (Wales)
  Family Expenditure (Wales)
  Special Development Areas
  Special Development Areas
  Girvan
  Girvan
  Prices and Earnings
  Prices and Earnings
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Procedure
  Procedure
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Remand Home and Training School
  Remand Home and Training School
  Home-help Services
  Home-help Services
  Urban Centres (Protection)
  Urban Centres (Protection)
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  Television Transmitters
  Television Transmitters
SCOTLAND
  Geriatric Beds (Dunbartonshire)
  Geriatric Beds (Dunbartonshire)
  Cockenzie and Hunterston Power Stations
  Cockenzie and Hunterston Power Stations
  Barlinnie Prison
  Barlinnie Prison
  Life Sentences
  Life Sentences
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Industrial Development Certificates
  Industrial Development Certificates
  Nuclear Power
  Nuclear Power
  Nationalised Boards (Dispersal)
  Nationalised Boards (Dispersal)
  Steel (Casting Plants)
  Steel (Casting Plants)
  Sinter Plants
  Sinter Plants
  Blast Furnaces
  Blast Furnaces
  British Airways Board (Helicopters)
  British Airways Board (Helicopters)
  Girvan
  Girvan
  Wales (Incoming Firms)
  Wales (Incoming Firms)
  Advance Factories (Wales)
  Advance Factories (Wales)
  Footwear (Imports)
  Footwear (Imports)
  Steel Policy
  Steel Policy
  Oil Imports
  Oil Imports
  "Royston Grange"
  "Royston Grange"
  Tanker Crews (Deck and Engine-Room)
  Tanker Crews (Deck and Engine-Room)
  "Burtonia"
  "Burtonia"
  British Ships (Taiwan Certificates)
  British Ships (Taiwan Certificates)
  Punta Indio Channel
  Punta Indio Channel
  Celtic Sea Oil
  Celtic Sea Oil
WALES
  Primary Schools (Llangollen)
  Primary Schools (Llangollen)
  Derelict Land (Carmarthenshire)
  Derelict Land (Carmarthenshire)
  Government Offices (Dispersal)
  Government Offices (Dispersal)
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Roads (Expenditure)
  House Building
  House Building
  Milk (PCB Content)
  Milk (PCB Content)

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

HILL SAMUEL/SLATER WALKER MERGER PROPOSAL
LORD HALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what was the number of limited liability companies involved both at home and abroad in the proposed merger of Hill Samuel and Slater Walker Securities; and whether, in view of the magnitude of the merger, this was not an appropriate case for reference to the Monopolies Commission.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY (THE EARL OF LIMERICK): My Lords, the Annual Report of the Hill Samuel Group Ltd. for the year ended March 31, 1973, lists 22 principal subsidiary companies (13 in the United Kingdom and 9 overseas, including 2 in the Channel Islands) and 5 principal affiliated companies overseas. The Annual Report of Slater Walker Securities Limited for the year ended December 31, 1972, lists 29 principal subsidiaries in all: 12 in the United Kingdom, including 2 operating overseas, plus 17 overseas companies, including 1 in the Isle of Man and 3 in the Channel Islands. In addition, the Annual Report shows 8 associated companies—4 in the United Kingdom and 4 overseas. In deciding whether or not to refer the proposed merger to the Monopolies Commission for detailed investigation, my right honourable and learned friend Sir Geoffrey Howe took all relevant factors into account, including the size of the companies involved.
LORD HALE: My Lords, while sincerely thanking the noble Earl for a full
2060
and courteous Answer to a somewhat controversial Question, may I ask him to bear in mind that the Prime Minister has recently declared his courageous intention to look the Medusa head of capitalism in the face? In view of the operations of a company which had acquired an interest in or control of or association with over 100 companies last year and which had registered 60 different companies under the name of Legibus, and while wholly dissociating myself from any attack on the personal integrity of the gifted Mr. Slater, about whom I read to-day and who appears to be a man of great ability and charm, would not the Minister agree that some of Mr. Slater's recent feats of legerdemain would have puzzled Mr. Bobby Fischer? Is it not the fact, as shown in four successive issues of the Sunday Times, that even the most gifted employees of the somewhat complex Thomson Organisation have been left completely puzzled by some of these events?
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, there are safeguards contained in the Companies Act, especially the requirement for audit, and we are considering in the context of the new Companies Bill whether any further changes are necessary. But I think it should be clearly understood that the Government were not called upon to approve the merger or to express any opinion on its merits. The sole question for determination was whether the proposed merger raised matters of general public interest such as to justify a reference to the Monopolies Commission, and my right honourable friend judged that it did not.
LORD HALE: My Lords, while again thanking the noble Earl for his courtesy, may I ask whether it is not obvious to all of us that where a pharmaceutical company can be transferred by special resolution to a bank and where the names of companies can be altered, so that one takes the name of another and the other takes a new name, there is real need for a serious reconsideration of some of the provisions of the Companies Act 1967 if we are to attain the expressed intention of both Parties of letting shareholders have the fullest information and a substantial measure of control?
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, I think those matters go very wide of the

2061
Question on the Order Paper. I have already said that we are looking at any implications for a review of company law.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, does that mean that all are equal, but some are more equal than others?
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: No, my Lords.

PERSONAL INFORMATION AND COMPUTERS
3.13 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, and if so when, they propose to publish the Report they have received of the categories of personal information held in Government computers and the rules governing its storage and use.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS): My Lords, it is not the intention to publish the Report itself, but the substance of it will be contained in the White Paper which the Government intend to publish later this year.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Since, according to what he said in the House on June 6, at col. 172, this is the Report which shows what are
"the categories of personal information held in Government computers and the rules governing its storage and use,"
which we may or may not want to vary, what possible justification can there be for keeping this Report secret from Parliament and the people? Is this an example of open government, openly arrived at?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I think it is fairly common practice that the contents of an interdepartmental Report are published as a White Paper, which is what we have promised. I think the noble and learned Lord, and others who are interested in this subject, will find that the content of
2062
the White Paper is extremely full. I very much doubt whether he will find himself discontented with the range of information that is covered in the White Paper. It is a technicality whether the Report itself or its substance is published. I would hopefully suggest that the noble and learned Lord should wait until he sees the White Paper, and he will then have an opportunity to comment, or, indeed, if he wants, to criticise.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that, while it has always been the practice, as he says, to publish an edited version of departmental Reports, such as this is, it always excites in the public mind the suspicion that something material has been left out, and although the noble Viscount has assured the House that the substance of the Working Party's Report will be in the White Paper, this suspicion will remain and people will be anxious, as they have been all the way through the discussions on privacy ever since the Younger Committee was set up, that something is happening in the public domain which the Government would not tolerate in the private sector?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I think, my Lords, that here there is a genuine difficulty. One has to tell the House, if one is opting for open government, that there is an inter-departmental committee working on a matter and that its Report will be produced for Ministers to see. If one does not say that then the House thinks that nothing is happening: if one does say that, there are demands for full publication. What I am suggesting is that the House should wait for the White Paper, which I think will be found to be quite full and comprehensive. Although I appreciate that this is a dilemma, I hope the House will judge the Government on the contents of the White Paper when it appears.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, might I ask the noble Lord whether he is serious in stating that the Government do believe in open government?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS:Yes, my Lords; and I think we practise it very frequently.

PERSONAL INFORMATION: DISLOSURE TO HOME OFFICE
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, apart from personal information obtained in confidence from immigrants, which is given by the Department of Health and Social Security to the Home Office, other Government Departments give to the Home Office or the police personal information obtained in confidence; and, if so, to which Departments and what is the nature of the personal information.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am afraid that this Question deserves rather a long Answer, and I hope I may be forgiven for that. If the first statement in the noble Lord's Question is intended to refer to information which may be obtained from scrutiny of a passport by an official of the Department of Health and Social Security and subsequently passed to the Home Office, the Government do not accept that this is information obtained in confidence. It is not usual for the Home Office to receive any personal information from other Departments which has been obtained in confidence.
The following are the main situations in which the Home Office receives personal information from other Government Departments. First, the Home Office receives information about prisoners transferred to its care from the Scottish Home and Health Department, from the Ministry of Defence (following court-martial) or from the Department of Health and Social Security (when patients are returned to prison from special hospitals). Secondly, it receives information from the Department of Health and Social Security about offenders who are detained in institutions for which that Department is responsible (for example, to enable consideration to be given to their release). Thirdly, it receives information of the type usually required by an employer whenever a member or ex-member of the staff of another Department is being considered for employment in the Home Office.
2064
There is no regular passing on of information obtained in confidence from individuals by Government Departments to the police.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords. I am grateful to the noble Lord for that very full Answer.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, would the noble Viscount be kind enough to tell me whether the Government have got anything on me?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, the trouble is that we have not got any sort of central records, and therefore the noble Lord does not appear in them.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, may I ask for how long it has been the procedure in offices of the Department of Health and Social Security to ask black people for their passports? Further, is the noble Viscount aware that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Security wrote to me before the Statement was made in another place, stating that this procedure was already in operation? Under what authority or Act of Parliament have officials of the Department of Health and Social Security power to demand of any person that he should produce his passport in applying for a social security card? How are the Government going to prevent local officers of the Department of Health and Social Security demanding a passport from any person whose face is not pink and whom they have no reason to suspect of not having come here perfectly legally?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is on a false premise. This does not apply only to people whose faces are black: it applies on all occasions when information is required from anybody who goes for the first time to ask for an insurance card. The practice is to ask for different sorts of documents according to the kind of person with whom you are dealing, but the authority is not statutory. It is done in order primarily to complete the records which the Department of Health and Social Security need. There is a form that has to be filled in by applicants, including details of identity and other personal details. Among the documents which may have to be produced as proof of identity is a person's passport.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS
3.18 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will give an assurance that when individuals are known to have entered the United Kingdom illegally and thereby committed an offence, they will now on proof be expelled.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, when someone is found to be in this country illegally, it is normal practice to send him away, but each case is considered according to the particular circumstances.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that my Question was put down before the Statement on Tuesday by the Secretary of State, but that nevertheless I welcome the confirmation he has given of the very full Statement that was made on that occasion? Is the noble Viscount further aware that at the same time I am rather startled that the Statement should have disclosed that there were 250 Members apparently prepared to express sympathy with the law being broken? Arising from the reply and in view of the great difficulty that existed during the taking of the census in getting full reports in cities such as Bradford—where there is a large non-white population and where there was a refusal to comply with the requirements of the census officers—could the noble Viscount now report whether there is any progress in getting the information which is so important and which was denied to them at that time?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I do not think I ought to comment on what happened in another place on Tuesday, though noble Lords, if they can get hold of a copy of the transcript, will be enlightened by the Report of the debate. What I can say to my noble friend is that, first, we can discuss this fully to-morrow on the Bill which is being introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury; secondly, the question of the census is different and
2066
totally divorced from the general purport of this Question on the Order Paper; and thirdly, I must remind the House that my right honourable friend has said that there is not going to be a witch hunt to look for these people. If they come to light they will be dealt with accordingly, but we are not taking special measures to seek them out.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, appreciating the complexities of this problem, and reserving comment until tomorrow's Bill is introduced, may I ask whether it is not the case that the great majority of these immigrants carry British passports giving them freedom of movement and protection; and that it has in the past been accepted that if they are in this country for six months without offence proceedings will not be taken against them for deportation?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, as to whom they are, I cannot tell the noble Viscount for the simple reason that we do not know. We do not know under what passport they may have travelled because we do not know their details from the very hypothesis that they are illegal entrants who have not come to the notice of the authorities. As to the situation before January 1 of this year, it was true that under the 1968 Act somebody who entered illegally could be prosecuted under the ordinary rule within six months—that is the Magistrates' Courts Act—and after that it was impossible to prosecute and therefore there could not be deportation. That was reversed by the 1971 Act by this House sitting in a judicial capacity.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, could the Minister assure the House that an illegal action will in no way become a legal right?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am sorry, I did not hear the noble Lord's question.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, could the Minister assure the House that an illegal action will in no way become a legal right?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, this is an extremely sound point and is one of the basic principles—there were four of them—that my right honourable friend was talking about in the other place on Tuesday.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, bearing in mind what my noble friend said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, may I ask whether Her Majesty's Government have any information as to whether these illegal immigrants, such as they may be, are mainly of Asian descent, or whether there are some which may be of African or West African descent?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, so far as I know, we have identified 36 people. I think the preponderance are Pakistanis and the rest are Indians, or are from that part of the world. I cannot tell the House exactly what their passport situation is.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, since the Home Office already has a well-established tradition of compassion and clemency where cases of individual cruelty may be involved, could the noble Viscount give an assurance that this tradition will be maintained, even when large numbers have to be dealt with?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, there are two halves to this matter. People who have entered illegally since the 1971 Act came into force last January will be dealt with in the ordinary way. There has been a special undertaking given by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary that those who were here illegally before then and who escaped detection will have their cases dealt with individually by a Minister before any decision is taken upon them. This is compassionate and I explained the grounds in a supplementary answer on the Statement I made last week.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, could the noble Viscount, through his noble friend the Leader of the House, see whether the important Statement made by the Home Secretary could be made available this afternoon and prior to the debate to-morrow?
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, I had already noted that point. It would be useful for the debate on Lord Avebury's Bill tomorrow. I have had a copy of the transcript and I see no reason why we should not try to arrange for additional copies to be available in the Printed Paper Office.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, could my noble friends give any indication, as he referred to illegal entrants before January 1, of the number of cases that are likely to be dealt with? There have been some very large numbers quoted in the Press.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Napier and Ettrick asked me exactly this question last week, and I am afraid that my answer now is as it was then: I do not know; from the nature of the case they have not been detected.

HULL TIDAL SURGE BARRIER BILL
Read 3ª, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
SEA FISHERIES (SHELLFISH) BILL
Read 3ª, and passed.
DENTISTS (AMENDMENT) BILL
Read 3ª, and passed.

STATUTE LAW REPEALS BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE): My Lords, before the House decides to discharge the Order of Recommitment, if it so pleases, I should inform the House that this is a Bill prepared by the Law Commissions to promote the reform of the Statute Law by the repeal, in accordance with Law Commission recommendations, of certain enactments which, except so far as their effect is preserved, are no longer of practical utility. In this case the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, who sat on five occasions to consider the Bill, made five Amendments to the Schedule to the Bill and were of the opinion that the remaining enactments proposed for repeal were obsolete, spent, unnecessary, superseded, or no longer of practical utility, and in consequence they approved the repeal of those enactments.
My Lords, this Bill was amended by the Joint Committee on Consolidation

2069
Bills. I understand that no further Amendments have been set down to the Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Order of Recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING BILL
3.28 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Establishment of the Commission and Agencies]:
LORD JACQUES LORD JACQUES moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 3, leave out ("organisations representing employers") and insert ("the Confederation of British Industries and the Retail Consortium").
The noble Lord said: In the White Paper which preceded this Bill the Government said that in appointing the employers' representatives to the Commission they would consult with the C.B.I. The C.B.I. represents the employers in basic and manufacturing industry and it was therefore fit and proper that it should be consulted. But the C.B.I. does not represent employers in distribution. There are over 2 million workers in distribution. It is a substantial sector of the economy, and the employers in that sector of the economy are represented in the Retail Consortium. The purpose of this Amendment is to seek an assurance from the Government that, in addition to consulting the C.B.I., they will also consult with the Retail Consortium.
In Government statistics and other Government records it is well recognised that there are four kinds of retailer. First, there are the individual retailers, who are organised in the National Chamber of Trade. Secondly, there are the multiples, which are organised in the Multiple Shops Federation. Thirdly, there are the department stores, which are organised in the Retail Distributors' Association, and fourthly there are the Co-operative societies, which are organised in the Co-operative Union. Some years ago these four organisations, which cover almost the whole of retailing, formed the Retail Consortium so that there could be one voice for retail distribution. But the Consortium has never been a "closed shop". Shortly after its formation the wholesalers sought to join the Consortium. That was agreed, and they are now represented on the Consortium. A little later some of the specialist trade associations who are brought together in the Retail Alliance sought representation on the Consortium, and that also was agreed. More recently, the Scottish Retail Federation, which represents retailing in Scotland, has sought and secured representation on the Consortium. It can therefore be fairly said that the Consortium represents the vast majority of those engaged in distribution. It is certainly as representative of distribution as the C.B.I. is of basic and manufacturing industry.
Furthermore, the distributive trades have a worthy record in staff education and staff training. Long before the Government introduced the training boards the distributive trades had their own overall organisation for education and training. The Distributive Trades Education and Training Council was formed many years ago and was maintained by voluntary subscriptions from the trade. Its purpose was to initiate and to encourage in-store training and also, in collaboration with the local authorities, to organise technical education for distributive workers. Following the appointment of the distributive training board there was an examination of the position. The distributive training board was so pleased with the work of the voluntary organisation that it was decided that the voluntary organisation would be maintained and that it would be financed by the training board. So there is every

2071
indication that the voluntary organisation which has lasted so long in the distributive trades has done good work.
One of the elements in the Retail Consortium is the Co-operative Movement. The Co-operative Movement has a record in the education and training of employees which is not surpassed by any other organisation. It has been carrying on the education and training of its employees for almost 100 years, and for a long period of time it did the work which is now done by local authorities. It has had a residential college for employees for 49 years—in this I can be precise because I was a student at that college in the first year. I had in fact left school at the age of 13, a little earlier. It was the education department of the Co-operative Society that gave me a technical education—no such resources were made available by local authorities. The Co-operative Society went further than that: they gave me a general education up to university standard, and following that they gave me facilities to enter a university and take a degree. That is an example of the kind of work that has been done by the Co-operative Movement as one of the elements in the Retail Consortium. If the consultation is to be only with the C.B.I., then this is one of the funds of knowledge and experience that will be ignored.
Only recently the Prime Minister had to have consultations with industry and commerce on phases 1 and 2 of the incomes policy. He did not consult only with the C.B.I.; he consulted also with the Retail Consortium, and I find it inconceivable that the Retail Consortium should be consulted when its help is required in an emergency but should be completely ignored in circumstances which we are considering in regard to this Bill. At this stage I should say that I happen to be the President of the Distributive Trades Education and Training Council. As the President of that Council I press upon the Government that the Secretary of State should at least consult with the Retail Consortium and find out what talent is available in the distributive trades before making the appointments in question. I believe that it would be in the interests of everybody if the three representatives on the Commission from employers came from
2072
three quite different sources: one from the basic industries, one from manufacturing industries, and one from distribution in general. I believe that that would be a good thing. But I am not asking for that; all I am asking is that the Secretary of State should give an undertaking that, in addition to consulting the C.B.I., he will consult the Retail Consortium to find out what talents are available in distribution before making up his mind about the appointments. I beg to move.
3.36 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I welcome what the noble Lord has said, and I should be the first to join with him in the tribute he has paid in the distribution industry. But one has to look at that in the perspective of the Bill. The Bill provides for the Secretary of State for Employment to appoint three members of the Commission after consultation with such organisations representing employers as he considers appropriate. The Bill does not lay down which organisations he must consult, and I suggest that it is right not to be specific. If we mention particular organisations in the Bill, the references may become out of date as time goes on; and we must remember that organisations, and especially their names, sometimes change. The Government have made it clear in the White Paper issued with the Bill, as the noble Lord has said, that it is their intention to appoint these three members after consultation with the Confederation of British Industry. Again I think that is right, and I shall say why.
The Commission has a very large and important executive job to carry out—the successful operation of the manpower services. We must enable it to carry out that job effectively. That means that the number of members must be restricted—we think to ten. Therefore, we must limit the employers' places to three, and I suggest that before appointing these three it is right that the Secretary of State should consult the Confederation of British Industry as the body which represents employers in industry and commerce generally; but we have deliberately not put that into the Bill. That does not mean in any way that we are ignoring the importance of particular sectors, such as the retail sector, and bodies such

2073
as the Retail Consortium which speak particularly on their behalf.
The noble Lord quite reasonably cited the fact that there have been consultations with the Retail Consortium over the Government's counter-inflation policy where the question of retail prices is clearly of the greatest importance and retailers have a very major part to play. But I think the situation is rather different as regards the Commission, which must deal with the whole field of employment and training. Retail distribution is of course an important sector of employment, but it is only one sector, and if we gave specific representation to the retailers on the Commission I think there are many other sectors which would have an equally good claim to their own representative.
Perhaps, to put the matter in a statistical perspective, it is worth while saying that in June, 1971, the number of employees in employment in retail distribution was 1,809,000. The figure for other major service industries amounted to nearly 8,650,000. The figure for total employment in manufacturing industries was 8,341,600 In those circumstances it hardly seems right to reserve one place on the Commission exclusively for retail distribution. I know that the noble Lord is asking particularly for consultation with the Retail Consortium, but if we put in the Retail Consortium we should immediately be asked to add a great many other bodies, and we do not particularly want even to put the C.B.I. in. Such an assurance would not be acceptable to the C.B.I. and it would be at variance with the Government's stated policy.
The furthest we can go is to say that we will take fully into account any views that they may submit, and of course if they do submit views those views will be considered, although I cannot say, of course, that their advice will necessarily be accepted. Because of the number of bodies that may also wish to submit suggestions it would not be right for me to say that. When a similar Amendment was discussed in another place the Minisster made it quite clear that if the Retail Consortium or other bodies want to put their views to the Secretary of State about the membership of the Commission he will, of course, take full account of them,
2074
but I simply cannot go further than that and it would not be right to give the Secretary of State a specific obligation in the Bill to consult any particular employers' organisation.
The real point here is that we must aim to have on the Commission people who are able to tackle the manpower problem of the country as a whole. We cannot hope to have members of the Commission who represent every sector of industry and commerce or every group of employees. A body which was fully representative would be too large and cumbersome to do the job of directing the country's manpower services; and what we need, I suggest, is a small but effective group of people who have wide knowledge and experience of manpower matters and who have the breadth of mind to survey the manpower needs of the whole community, future as well as present, and to ensure that manpower services operate in the right way to meet those needs.
It has been made abundantly clear that those who are appointed to the Commission will be answerable to the bodies on whose nomination they are appointed. This is the position, and I think it would be quite impossible to start adding representatives of particular bodies of the employers or of the other sections that are mentioned in the Bill, namely the trade unions and the local authorities. I am sorry, therefore, that I feel unable to accept the noble Lord's Amendment.
LORD JACQUES: I am even more sorry about the reply. A good deal of what has been said is not in dispute, and some of it implies that the Amendment is seeking to do things which it is not seeking to do. I am not suggesting that distribution or any other part of industry and commerce should be specifically represented. I am not suggesting that the number representing employers should be more than three. The Amendment does not do those things. The Amendment tries to be specific but only for the purpose of getting an undertaking from the Government, and it was the only way of getting that undertaking.
The Minister has said that there are 1,809,000 in retail distribution, but the Retail Consortium covers distribution generally and in total there are over 2 million. He also said that the other

2075
services accounted for something like 8 million, most of whose employers in the other services are, in general, part of the C.B.I. and will therefore be consulted. I am asking the Government to give an undertaking to consult with that element in industry and commerce which is not part of the C.B.I.
Would it be possible for the Minister to ascertain whether or not his right honourable friend would give an undertaking to consult with the Retail Consortium? To take into account their views is not the same thing. The C.B.I. will be in a greatly superior position if it is going to be consulted while everybody else can only submit their views. If I can have a verbal undertaking that the Retail Consortium will be consulted I shall be quite happy with that and will gladly withdraw this Amendment. I shall be glad to know if there is any possibility of the Minister consulting his right honourable friend on this question. If so, I will withdraw this Amendment and, without speaking at length, will raise the issue at the Report stage, to ascertain what the outcome may be.
LORD DRUMALBYN: It would be churlish to say that I would not speak to my right honourable friend about a subject such as this, and I will do so; but I am bound to say to the noble Lord that I cannot hold out very much hope that he will change his mind, simply because it would mean that if this were done he would have to consult so many employers' organisations of one kind and another. There are many others involved. After all with less than 2 million out of over 17 million concerned it is a little difficult to give a priority to one particular organisation.
I feel certain, in view of what the noble Lord has said, that he will be making representations, and if he does so then of course those representations will be considered, as representations always are; but for me to undertake that my right honourable friend would consult with others would be out of line with this policy. All I can do is to say to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, that I shall report to my right honourable friend what the noble Lord has said and shall talk to him about it. I am afraid I cannot do more than that.
LORD JACQUES: May I just say that I shall not be making any representation. I am not a member of the Retail Consortium; I am merely the president of the educational part, which is quite divorced from the Consortium itself. There is a second misunderstanding which I should like to clear up. I am not asking that trade associations should be consulted; I am saying that industry and commerce are mainly covered by two organisations, the C.B.I. and the Consortium. The Retail Consortium, like the C.B.I., does not consist of individual members. Its members are the trade organisations, and the Retail Consortium covers almost 100 different trade organisations which have all come together into the Retail Consortium. The number of employers that are covered exceeds 2 million because it includes the wholesalers. I would suggest that if the Minister were to consult with both these bodies he would cover the wide spectrum of British industry and commerce without going any further. In view of the fact that the Minister will raise the question with his right honourable friend I will ask him to withdraw the Amendment; but I shall raise the matter again at Report stage, hoping that I may then get a more favourable reply.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.49 p.m.
BARONESS SEEAR BARONESS SEEAR moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 11 at end insert—
(Provided that of these members no less than three shall be persons with considerable practical experience of employment and training in industry or commerce who shall be appointed for their specialised knowledge.")
The noble Baroness said: Up and down the country many people are looking to the establishment of the Manpower Services Commission for a long overdue and extremely important change in the handling of manpower forecasting, manpower planning and training on both a national and a local level. As the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has said, the Commission has—and I quote his words—"a very large and important executive job to carry out". It is not only a very large and important executive job; it is also a job requiring a considerable amount of specialised knowledge, skill and experience.
It would in my view be disastrous if there were not on the Manpower Commission people who have themselves had considerable professional experience—I use the word "professional" deliberately to-day because that is what it amounts to—in this difficult field of manpower forecasting, planning and in the whole world of training. I am sure that the noble Lord will say to me in reply, "Surely we can rely on the employers' organisation to appoint people with just such expertise." I am afraid that I do not accept that and I reject it in advance, although perhaps he is not intending to say that, because all too often when employers' organisations are asked to nominate people they nominate what might be called the political figures in employers' organisations rather than the professional managers. Yet in this field it is essential that the professional managers should be represented. We arc not asking for a separate place for them, but are asking that this kind of expertise should be represented on the Commission and not only lower down in the Agencies. There are many reasons for that, not least that the Commission is going to make decisions about how money should be allocated and it is to have the ultimate power to approve or disapprove proposals put forward by people doing the training work up and down the country in this field, either in the training boards or elsewhere. It seems totally unsuitable that this kind of power should be in the hands of a body which does not include a high level of expertise based on personal experience and proved achievement in the field of manpower planning and of training, and therefore I beg to move that these lines should be added to the clause.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I do not think that I am going to say exactly what the noble Baroness predicted, but my answer is bound to be much along the lines of what I have already said to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, because this Amendment seeks to ensure that at least three of the members of the Commission
"shall be persons with considerable practical experience of employment and training in industry or commerce"
and that they should be
"appointed for their specialised knowledge".
2078
It would be very surprising if the members of the Commission did not have very extensive practical experience of employment and training, in the sense of having had long experience of dealing with employment and training matters. One would expect this to be true of all six members appointed after consultation with the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry. Those appointed after consultation with the local authority associations are also likely to be knowledgeable in this field—after all, local authorities are very big employers, and they have a major interest in the provision of education and training; and the member appointed after consultation with professional education interests is clearly likely to have some experience, particularly of education and training. So I think it is unnecessary to provide, as the Amendment proposes, that at least three members must have considerable practical experience in these fields. I have little doubt that in practice most if not all members will have such experience.
But the noble Baroness has gone rather further than that. She would like to see people appointed to the Commission who have specialised and professional experience in the forecasting of manpower and training, as I understood her to say, and expert knowledge of employment and, perhaps more particularly, of training—for example people drawn from the professional training world and also from the manpower forecasting world. No doubt there are people who have had experience of this and there are many bodies in that field.
I think there is a difference of view here about the function of the members of the Commission. Their job is surely to be responsible to the Secretary of State for Employment for developing the manpower services and for seeing that they meet the real needs of those who use them. The Commission will be concentrating on major issues, particularly on the two Agencies' forward programmes of work and budgets.
As members of the Commission, therefore, the people we shall need will, I think, be those who take a broad view of the major issues arising over the planning and development of the manpower services—the way in which those services

2079
must move in order to meet the changing social and economic needs of the communuity. Clearly they will need wide practical experience in employment and training matters. Clearly, too, they may include specialists in those subjects. It may well be that the members appointed after consultation with the C.B.I., for example, will include a training specialist, or if the member appointed after consultation with professional education interests was an expert in vocational education and training. But I do not think that any members should be appointed for their specialised knowledge. It is more important that they should have a wide understanding of the manpower problems of our society and of the way in which the employment and training services need to be developed to deal with them. If they need expert or specialist advice, they will be able to obtain that from the Agencies.
It is for those reasons and because of the concept we have of what the Commission will have to do and ought to do that I hope the noble Baroness will not press her Amendment.
BARONESS SEEAR: I very much regret that I am unable to accept what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has said. In my view, we have suffered for far too long in this country from extreme amateurism in this field. There are now large groups of people who are developing the kind of specialised knowledge which needs to be fed into the discussions of the Commission. I submit that it is not good enough that after these discussions have been made by the Commission other persons are able to comment on them lower down the line. This professional component needs to be injected into the discussions at the time that plans are being laid and decisions are being taken. We all know the difference between coming in after a decision has been made and commenting on it, and being in a position to take part in the actual decision. I agree that you need to have people with a broad view about the total situation, the total movement of the industry in the country, and so on, but it is highly probable that people who are professional in the manpower forecasting and training field will also be able to take a broad view. These two things are not mutually exclusive and
2080
there will be seven people who will concentrate on having a broad view, if my Amendment is adopted, as well as three people who are able to contribute this professional expert knowledge.
I regret to say that I am quite unconvinced by the argument that they will be able to get the professional component from the Agencies, because we have been told that the majority of the staff of the Agencies is coming from the Department of Employment, which does not pretend to be a professionally qualified organisation. So where is the professional component to come from? I regret that I cannot accept what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has said.
LORD SLATER: I was very interested in the reply that the noble Lord gave to my noble friend on the first Amendment, and also in the reply he has now given to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. It would appear that the C.B.I. is of such paramount importance, so far as the industrial life of this country is concerned, that if anyone has to be consulted at all in regard to industry it is the C.B.I. All other forms and sections of industry have to be placed on one side and practical experience has to be thrown out of the window as being of no value. When this Commission is set up I wonder whether the three individuals who will form the Commission have ever had what we would term inside industry practical experience on the floor? I have questioned this point. When I was in a particular Department I wondered how many of the hierarchy, of the people holding higher positions within the Department, had had service on the floor before they climbed the ladder and were put into the upper regions of the operation so far as the service was concerned. It can happen that the nominations submitted to the Minister through the C.B.I. are of people who have never had practical experience and who would not know the answers to the problems even in regard to the manpower that the Minister has already referred to, and which would be required inside an industry for that industry to be carried on.
I put a further point to the Minister. It is well-known to some of us who have travelled the country, who have had a look at big industries and who have seen

2081
certain individuals in managerial positions—yes, they have palatial offices to operate from—that even the manager in control of that particular sector does not know Dick from Tom working on the floor and producing the particular article that that company is interested in. These people are too far apart. This was one of the issues that arose when we were debating that most important Bill, the Industrial Relations Bill. The Government ought to give further consideration to the aspects that have been raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and also by my noble friend Lord Jacques on the Amendment and on the approach that the Government ought to take, instead of taking the static role of defence of the C.B.I., as if the C.B.I. were of such paramount importance that even the T.U.C., which is an organised association of employees, need never be taken into consultation. Where in heaven we are travelling, God only knows! If that is the attitude of mind of the Government and the line they are going to follow, then if they want progress and better relations inside industry they will have to change their mind and their approach, because progress will not come their way. I warn the Government on that particular issue.
LORD AUCKLAND: I hope my noble friend will give some reconsideration to what he has said about this Amendment. This is a complicated subject. I should like to say one word about commerce. I have had nearly 20 years' experience in the field of insurance. There are many large insurance companies in which there is a definite lack of communication, not only between junior management and board level but between the same board levels. I think this has been due to the fact that there has not been a proper set-up in the training field. In fact, in the insurance industry, if I may call it that, training of any kind is something relatively new. Although this Amendment as drafted may be difficult to put into operation practically, because specialised knowledge can cover a very wide field, I hope the Government will take some of the points which the noble Baroness has made—she has very wide experience in this field—and will bear them in mind, and at least make sure that on this Commission there are people who have had experience of board level
2082
and of junior management level and if necessary shop-floor level. I think results will be much better, and industrial unrest and industrial problems could probably be solved much better in this way.
LORD DIAMOND: The last time I had the privilege of moving an Amendment in your Lordships' House the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said that there was nothing further for her to say. I reciprocate the compliment. The only reason I am not putting further arguments in favour of the Amendment is to save your Lordships' time and because the noble Baroness has said so well everything there is to say.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I wonder whether I may bring the Committee back to what we are really talking about here, because there has been a certain amount of misunderstanding. What the subsection says is that the Commission
"… shall consist of ten persons appointed by the Secretary of State to be members of the Commission, of whom the members specified in each of the following paragraphs shall be appointed by him after consultation with such of the organisations mentioned in that paragraph as he considers appropriate, that is to say—
(a) as to three members, organisations representing employers; …
—and this is what we were talking about in the first Amendment—

(b) as to three other members, organisations representing employees;

(c) as to two other members, organisations representing local authorities; and

(d) as to one other member, organisations concerned with education (excluding organisations mentioned in the preceding paragraph)."

That is the sort of pattern of consultation. I think I used the word "nomination" inadvertently earlier on; but in the course of consultation obviously suggestions will be made. This is the pattern, and it is difficult to fit into a pattern of that kind a requirement that three should have specialised knowledge of some kind. Is it to be one from each, plus the organisations concerned with education? It is not easy to do that. I am bound to say to the noble Baroness that what she is suggesting does not fit in easily with the pattern we have here.
I find it difficult to believe that in setting up a Commission of this kind and with these objects the sort of people that she has in mind will not be included—I do not say necessarily three; it might be

2083
two or four; who knows? What I am saying is that it is extremely difficult to write that into the Bill. I take her point that it may be that in the past we have confined bodies of this kind too much to the heads of industries and the general secretaries of unions. I can assure her that that is not the intention here. This is a Commission which is being set up for a particular purpose, and we want to
get the best people for that purpose. I fully take the point, but I am sorry that I cannot accept her Amendment.
BARONESS SEEAR: I am afraid we must divide.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 62; Not-Contents, 84.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Fulton, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Amherst, E.

Gardiner, L.

Royle, L.

Amulree, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Archibald, L.

Gladwyn, L. [Teller.]

St. Davids, V.

Arwyn, L.

Hale, L.

Seear, B. [Teller.]

Avebury, L.

Hall, V.

Segal, L.

Beswick, L.

Henderson, L.

Serota, B.

Birk, B.

Hereford, L.Bp.

Shackleton, L.

Blyton, L.

Jacques, L.

Shepherd, L.

Brockway, L.

Kennet, L.

Slater, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Leatherland, L.

Stocks, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Burntwood, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Summerskill, B.

Champion, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Chorley, L.

McLeavy, L.

Wade, L.

Clancarty, E.

Maelor, L.

White, B.

Crook, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Wigg, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Morris of Grasmere, L.

Williamson, L.

Diamond, L.

Peddie, L.

Willis, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Phillips, B.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Faringdon, L

Platt, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Fortescue, E.

Porritt, L.

Albemarle, E.

Garner, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Gisborough, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Gowrie, E.

Rhyl, L.

Balfour, E.

Grenfell, L.

Royle, L.

Berkeley, B.

Gridley, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Bourne, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

St. Helens, L.

Bradford, E.

Hailes, L.

St. Just, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Saint Oswald, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Sandford, L.

Coleraine, L.

Hanworth, V.

Selborne, E.

Colville of Culross, V.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Cottesloe, L.

Hawke, L.

Sharples, B.

Courtown, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Strange, L.

Cowley, E.

Inglewood, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Craigavon, V.

Ironside, L.

Daventry, V.

Killearn, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Denham, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Swansea L.

Derwent, L.

Lothian, M.

Swinton, E.

Digby, L.

Loudoun, C.

Tenby, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mar, E.

Vernon, L.

Dulverton, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Vivian, L.

Dundee, E.

Merrivale, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Dundonald, E.

Milverton, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Effingham, E.

Molson, L.

Windlesham, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Monck, V.

Wise, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Wolverton, L.

Falkland, V.

Wrottesley, L.

Ferrers, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Functions of the Commission and Agencies]:
4.15 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 20, at end insert ("and for the purpose of securing the implementation of sections 6 to 12 of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944").
The noble Lord said: In supporting what I regard as an important human issue I want to make it clear that I am not suggesting, nor would it occur to me to claim, that there is any lack of compassion on either side of the House; but it is an issue which excites compassion. Perhaps it would be better if I first of all described the problem which is referred to and what the policy of the Government is for dealing with the problem, and so reach a conclusion as to the necessity for the Amendment. The problem is the familiar one of dealing with the unemployment of the registered disabled, and the figure, as I understand it, is about 13 per cent. of the registered unemployed; that is to say, some 80,000 individuals. I understand also that there is a similar proportion and number of unemployed disabled who are not registered, so that all told there would be something of the order of 150,000 disabled unemployed persons.
The point which we must bear in mind is that the proportion of disabled unemployed is much higher—very much higher—than the national average of unemployment among able persons. Therefore we are accepting in the present state of affairs that those with disability should not only suffer the misery of their disability but should suffer the further misery of unemployment to a far larger extent than the average individual in the country. The Government policy for dealing with this is to rely on the quota provisions, with which your Lordships are very familiar—shortly, that firms with more than 20 employees are required to employ 3 per cent. of registered disabled. The Government implementation of that policy takes the form of persuasion rather than prosecution. The scheme is, in fact, quite a modest one if one compares it with schemes in Western European countries: yet even on that modest scheme of ours we are
2086
progressively falling behind, and have been doing so since 1961.
I underline the date to make it perfectly clear that, as I said at the start, this is not a Party issue; it is a difficult human issue. The position has deteriorated to the extent, so I understand, that last year no less than 60 per cent. of firms were not fulfilling their requirements. That did not involve a breach of the law which would have resulted in prosecution and penalties because, in order to be in breach of the law, so I understand, you have to be failing in your quota without the permission of the Secretary of State. Those who failed to do that as well, and were therefore in breach of the law, were some 15 per cent. of all firms, 9,000 firms all told, but, so far as I know, either no prosecutions, or virtually no prosecutions, were brought or are in hand.
That situation is bad enough, but it is likely to get worse as a result of the fragmentation of responsibilities brought about by the very Bill that we are to-day discussing. The fragmentation that I refer to is that the Secretary of State is going to retain responsibility for sheltered employment, for maintenance of the Disabled Persons' Register, and for application of the quota scheme, while T.S.A. (the Training Service Agency) is going to be responsible for training the disabled and the E.S.A. (the Employment Service Agency), is going to be responsible for employing the disabled. So the Manpower Commission is going to have, through those two agencies, those major responsibilities, and the Department is going to retain the three responsibilities I have referred to. With that kind of fragmentation it is inevitable that such priority—and my case is that it is wholly inadequate—as has hitherto been given to this problem will be reduced, and we are at present in a most unsatisfactory situation which is deteriorating.
In this Amendment I am not suggesting that the position is due to the scheme; on the contrary, I am saying that it is due to lack of implementation of the scheme. I would draw your Lordships' attention to some wise words of Robert Owen, which have been quoted in another context. He said:
"Beneficial changes can alone take place by well digested and well arranged plans temperately introduced and perseveringly pursued."

2087
It is this lack of perseverance, this lack of adequate priority which, in my view, accounts for the deteriorating situation and the present unsatisfactory position, and which we must do something to restore. This Amendment seeks to restore the position somewhat by making it clear that the employment of the registered disabled shall be picked out and regarded as a responsibility of sufficient importance as to be mentioned in the Statute, so that there shall be no doubt in anybody's mind as to how Parliament regards this matter.
I do not want to mention a single case. Everyone of your Lordships must know of many heartrending cases. I have had the kind of experience as an employer that I shall never forget. Nevertheless, I hope that I am dealing with this matter with a cool head as well as a warm heart. I think that the answer must be to accept that history shows that inadequate priority has been given to this problem, and we must upgrade the position by picking it out as a specific issue, placing responsibility on the shoulders of the new Manpower Services Commission, and saying, "You must see to it that the numbers of registered disabled unemployed are reduced." That is the purpose of the Amendment, and I hope that it meets your Lordships' hearts and minds. I beg to move.
4.25 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: I must begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, for saying that in this case compassion is not a Party issue—as of course it is not. As he said so eloquently, it is a human issue, and we take it to be so. The position under the Bill is that Sections 6 to 12 of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944, are unamended. Thus the powers and duties of the Secretary of State for Employment relating to the Register of Disabled People, and to the quota scheme, and to the designated employment scheme for disabled people, remain unchanged. I accept entirely that it will obviously be sensible for the Commission, through the Employment Service Agency, to carry out many of the executive functions necessary for administering the quota scheme. For example, the Commission will clearly need to maintain the Register of Disabled People; to provide services for the district disablement
2088
advisory committee, which of course are closely concerned with the administration of the quota scheme, and indeed to take all practicable steps, through the disablement resettlement officer service which the Commission will be operating, to ensure that employers are reminded of their obligations under the quota scheme and are helped to fulfil them.
But, as the White Paper made clear, it is right the Commission should perform these functions as the agent of the Secretary of State; and that the necessary statutory powers and duties should remain with him. I should emphasise that this relationship should not cause difficulties, and that it is the intention of the Secretary of State to make sure that there will be effective liaison and co-operation between his Department and the Commission, and its agencies, in this field; and that the interest of disabled people will be fully safeguarded. I have every reason to believe that the Commission will be more than ready to carry out these agency functions. But in the unlikely event of its being necessary, the Bill provides the Secretary of State with powers of direction.
My reasons for believing that my right honourable friend's present duties and powers in this field should remain with him can be briefly outlined. First, it is surely right that the power to make statutory instruments, such as those determining the quota percentage, should remain with, and be exercisable only by, the Secretary of State as the man responsible to Parliament. If this is accepted, it follows that the powers contained in Section 10(3) of the 1944 Act should not be handed over to the Commission. I must remind myself at this point of caveats issued on Second Reading by the noble Lord about delegated legislation and the dangers of its getting out of hand.
Secondly, bearing in mind that the Commission will be primarily concerned with the provision of employment and training services, which will involve developing close and cordial working relationships with employers, it would seem undesirable to place on the Commission the duty of enforcing the quota provisions. Where the noble Lord and I perhaps part company—because I sympathise with so much of what he said—is whether this is a duty for the Commission, and should it be an enforcing agency. As I

2089
have said, the Commission will use the disablement resettlement officer service to remind employers of their obligations in this field, and to help them to fulfil them. But there are two other important aspects to the enforcement procedure. The first in the inspection of employers' records and the ascertainment of any facts which may be considered relevant to a possible infringement of the quota scheme. The second is that of considering the institution of criminal proceedings in respect of offences. The first of these functions is now the responsibility of the Wages Inspectorate, which will remain with the Department of my right honourable friend. It is clearly sensible that the wages inspectors should continue to be responsible for inspecting the records that employers are obliged to keep under the quota scheme. I also think it would be undesirable to place on the Commission the onus of deciding whether or not to prosecute employers who infringe the requirements of the quota scheme. It is surely better that this responsibility—the teeth, as it were—should remain with the Secretary of State. The fact that they are with the Secretary of State does not mean of course that, as teeth, they are not sharp.
LORD DIAMOND: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl, but this is exactly the right point. He is talking about sharp teeth. Will he kindly tell us how many times the sharp teeth have bitten in the last 12 months, for example? How many prosecutions have there been?
BARONESS SEEAR: How many, indeed, since 1944?
LORD DIAMOND: Any figures would be helpful.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: As your Lordships can see, my cuffs are blue rather than white and I do not have the figures written on them, though I shall try to find out. But if one is critical about the operation of the quota scheme—and I understand from the brief intervention of both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness that there is criticism—I think that my next point may answer the question: what are we doing about potentially contentious areas in the operation of the quota scheme? My point is not that all is well in the garden of this scheme, necessarily, but that this Amendment—and, indeed, this Bill generally—is not perhaps
2090
the best place to tackle the problem; and I shall be coming on to that in a very short time.
The last point I made was that we wish the responsibility and the teeth to remain with the Secretary of State. There is a third reason—I have given two—why it seems undesirable to disturb the present legislative arrangements at this stage. On May 22, a consultative document on the future of the quota scheme was published by the Department. This document is intended to form the basis of wide-ranging consultations about the future of the scheme with the Secretary of State's National Advisory Council on the Employment of the Disabled, and with all oher interested organisations and individuals. It seems only sensible not to make any changes in the present legislative provisions governing the quota until these consultations have been completed.
I think the fact that these consultations are going on will be sufficient indication to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, that there is no sign of the priority in this essential and human field being reduced. Our contention is that one does not put this kind of priority into the Bill as it presently is. As I see it, noble Lords opposite want the Commission to be the executive, the operator of the quota scheme; and on this we certainly agree. But we feel that the Secretary of State should continue to be the statutory authority, using the Manpower Services Commission and its agencies as his executive arm. But I would say that the aims and objects—that is to say, better training and better employment opportunities for the disabled—remain the same. What I would ask noble Lords opposite to ask themselves is: is the Amendment itself necessary for these aims? I would say, No, and it is for that reason that I ask the noble Lord to withdraw it.
LORD SOMERS: I must confess that I find the noble Earl's reply very far from satisfactory. He said that the responsibility must remain with the Secretary of State. But Secretaries of State come and go, and although the present one may be very responsible in this direction, one does not know who will be Secretary of State in 10 years' time, and he may be far less sympathetic. The noble Earl also said that the Commission should remind employers of their

2091
duty to employ a certain number of disabled people. From my experience, they can be reminded a thousand times but they will not do so unless there is some legislation to force them. It seems to me that we should have this legislation to protect those who are unable to find work, not because of their own inability but because of a quite unnatural prejudice on the part of employers. So I hope that the noble Earl will think again.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: I was thinking very carefully while the noble Lord, Lord Somers, made his two points very cogently, and I think they can be answered. On the point about the Secretary of State having responsibility, regardless of whether it is my present right honourable friend or some future Secretary of State who may be less well-intentioned, the noble Lord, Lord Somers, can throw bricks at the Secretary of State, can ask him for information and can exercise his Parliamentary rights against him, which would be harder to do with the Commission direct. Secondly, the noble Lord said that there must be legislation. In my initial answer I hope I made it clear that of course there is legislation. All we are saying is that we are desirous that the Committee should not amend this legislation because the powers and duties of the Secretary of State for Employment, relating to the register of disabled people, to the quota scheme and to the designated employment scheme for disabled people, remain unchanged. They are there.
BARONESS MASHAM OF ILTON: May I ask the noble Earl whether he thinks that the disablement resettlement officers have adequate training and are all equal to the skilled job of finding suitable jobs for the disabled? Their job as a D.R.O. is just a passing step up the ladder.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: I recognise the feeling of the Committee about this issue, but I do not myself think that it is particularly well directed towards this Amendment. But because one recognises the feeling, and because of the remarks I made earlier about the consultative document on the quota scheme and its operation, I would certainly agree to consult with my noble friend the Leader of the House as to whether we could debate
2092
the consultative document and talk over this point of the training and employment of the disabled at a later stage. I am quite happy to give that undertaking. The only point I am making at present is that I do not feel that the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, is entirely necessary, because the Bill already contains most of the provisions that he requires.
LORD GARDINER: Can the noble Earl give us the prosecution figures? I apprehend that there has been time to obtain them from the usual place.
BARONESS SEEAR: I do not want to complicate the matter still further, but if my arithmetic is right we have had the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act on the Statute Book for 29 years, and some of us are not at all impressed with the results of this piece of legislation. We are hoping that if responsibility moves to the Commission, to a more expert body of people than have been handling it up till now, the results may be better. They could scarcely be worse.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: May I say to the noble and learned Lord that my information is that there has been one prosecution this year and seven, all told, since 1944. I would reiterate that if there is feeling—and I hope that this will answer the noble Baroness as well—about anything being unsatisfactory in the quota arrangements, I give my assurance that perhaps we may debate this separately.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: I cannot see why both the Secretary of State and the Commission should not be able to prosecute. Why are they mutually exclusive?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: The Secretary of State is statutorily responsible for the work of the Commission. It is therefore surely right that he should pass on the information to the Director of Public Prosecutions, if need be.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: I should have thought he could delegate it.
LORD DIAMOND: I do not know what your Lordships feel. I can only say what I feel, which is that the answer is unsatisfactory to a considerable degree. May I preface my reply by saying that the Government have replied to this complaint in a number of ways. The noble

2093
Earl's reply is not original, but it is different from the reply which the Government first gave. I just want to make the simple point that the Government feel they have to defend their position, and they have finally decided that the best method of defending their position is on the ground of the administrative convenience of the lay-out of the Bill.
I regret to say that the noble Earl has not fully taken our point. We recognise that the provisions of the 1944 Act remain and are unamended; and there is no Amendment down on the Marshalled List. The whole point of the argument is that we all have sufficient evidence before our noses to know that that Act as implemented by successive Governments—I repeat, successive Governments—does not work. I cannot put it plainer than that. I asked for the number of prosecutions because, of course, I knew the answer. Nobody asks questions in this House unless he has a very good idea what the answer is. I know it to be one prosecution for last year. I thought when there was a slight delay that I might have exaggerated and there was none, but in fact there was one. I am not sure whether the prosecution was carried out; I think it failed for lack of evidence, but perhaps I am going into too much detail there. The simple point has been made as a result of a question by my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner that in nearly thirty years seven prosecutions have taken place—an average of something like one per Government, I suppose it would work out.
Surely we have enough freedom of speech in your Lordships' Committee to let it be known that we are not satisfied with a deteriorating situation—a situation deteriorating every year since 1961, broadly—no matter which Government have to carry the blame. We are not seeking to place blame: we are seeking to find jobs for people who have enough problems to cope with without the further problem of excessive unemployment; that is all. No prosecutions are being undertaken because the policy carried out is such that the one consistent factor since 1944 is the Department's advice to the Minister concerned—and the Minister, and only the Minister, is responsible for accepting that advice—and has resulted in the position deteriorating.
2094
Here we have a Bill which provides an opportunity for a new influence to be felt and practised, and it is no use the noble Earl saying to me that I have the Amendment in the wrong place, which is all he is really saying. He is saying that I ought not to put it in a place where it is purely the responsibility of the Commission but I ought to put it in a place where it might be the responsibility of the Commission or it might be the responsibility of the Secretary of State, because, as your Lordships know from further provisions in the Bill, the Secretary of State has full powers to work with the Manpower Commission and to ask the Manpower Commission to act as his agent, and so on. But the noble Earl did not say that. The noble Earl said, in a mood as generous as his first response, that he is prepared to allow us to debate this Consultative Document which we are going to be allowed to debate anyway. The noble Earl would not, on behalf of the Government, say that there is going to be this important Consultative Document and that he is authorised to say that in no circumstances will Parliament be allowed to discuss it. So forgive my saying to the noble Earl that I am not accusing him or anybody in this Committee, no matter which way anybody votes, of lack of compassion. This is a matter of judgment. I am saying that my judgment is that at this stage, when we have the opportunity of a new organisation and a new start, we must not be bogged down by the old argument of administrative convenience. We must not continue to do what has been shown to be inadequate for thirty long years. We must help those people whom noble Lords on all sides want to help.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I wonder whether I could add a word to what my noble friend has said on this subject, because I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, that this is not in any way a Party matter. What we really need to do is to try to arrive at the best arrangement. What he is saying, if I can understand him, is that successive Secretaries of State, successive Departments of Employment, or whatever they were called before that—Ministers of Labour—have not done this job too well. Here was something on the Statute Book, and it was not being implemented. Might

2095
it not be that what is on the Statute Book is not quite right; and, if that were so, would it be sensible to put on to the Commission the job of trying to make a better job of something which might be out-of-date, because it went back quite a long time?
I do not know whether the noble Lord has had an opportunity to read this very interesting document, The Quota Scheme for Disabled People, but I very much commend it to your Lordships because it makes an extremely clean breast of things. It sets out the case absolutely; and I would say to noble Lords in all sincerity that what my noble friend said is right: before we start saddling a new body with this legislation it is much better for everybody to study exactly the proposals which are being made. Of course this is by no means the only step which is being taken at the present time. There are a number of papers. There was the first paper on the Resettlement Service Scheme out in July last year, and it led to two important developments. First, the Department has put in train four trials designed to find out whether it would be practicable to provide improved vocational assessment facilities for disabled people, and whether it would be desirable to broaden the scope of the resettlement service to cover socially disadvantaged people. Secondly, the Department is examining with the National Advisory Council practical ways of improving the disablement resettlement service within the framework of the wider proposals for modernising and improving the ordinary employment service, and a plan to improve the disablement resettlement officer service will be prepared as soon as possible. The Consultative Document about the quota scheme has only recently been issued, on May 22. A consultative document on the future of sheltered employment is in course of preparation, and it is hoped that it will be published later this year. The final stage of consultation will cover industrial rehabilitation and the vocational training of disabled people.
It really is essential that careful consideration be given to the problem before proposals are put forward, and that the review should be linked with the wider proposals for modernising the ordinary employment service and expanding training facilities. I would be ready to take
2096
a bet that not many of your Lordships here have read this document. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has; but before committing ourselves to a change in the law and giving the duties of administration entirely to the Commission (which would mean, I have no doubt, that they would delegate it in terms to the Employment Service Agency), surely it would be right for this to be studied and, I should have thought, also to be debated. It seems to me that that is the right way to go about things.
In conclusion, I would simply ask once again that due weight should be given to the argument that my noble friend put forward, that it is not always a very good thing that the body which is trying to work with industry, in order to place disabled people there, should also be the prosecuting body. My noble friend has said that much of this work will be delegated to the Commission. They will be charged with maintaining the register of disabled people and with providing the services for the district disablement advisory committee; but the wages inspectorate, which now comes under the Department of Employment and which is the body which actually looks at the books to see whether the quota is being fulfilled, is under the Secretary of State and will remain under the Secretary of State. My noble friend's point is that it is not a very good thing to have the same people who are given this enforcement job not only doing that but at the same time trying to get the maximum co-operation with industry in order to get the best possible service for disabled persons.
It is only right to say that it is not only the registered disabled we are talking about, it is also the many disabled who are not registered. These are matters which must be looked at carefully. It is not enough simply to take the argument: here we have legislation which has not been enforced by prosecutions, so let us give it to another body and see whether they will enforce it—which is what the noble Lord is saying. Even if the noble Lord were not saying that, one must remember always that the Commission operates under the direction of the Secretary of State.
LORD DIAMOND: I do not think that we want to continue this argument overlong. The noble Lord thinks it most

2097
important that the Government Department which has issued seven prosecutions in the last 70 years should continue to have this jealously guarded right. I do not think that there is a great deal of persuasion in that argument. Meantime the position has been deteriorating and a larger percentage of registered disabled become unemployed year after year. It is an unsatisfactory situation. The noble Lord has been courteous and has tried to be helpful; but he has given
Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
no indication that the opportunity of new legislation, of a new approach to employment and training, will put the registered disabled in that position of priorty that they deserve I therefore wish to test the feelings of the Committee.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No.3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided; Contents, 66; Not-Contents, 65.

CONTENTS

Annan, L.

Henley,L.

Sainsbury, L.

Archibald, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

St. Davids, V.

Arwyn, L.

Jacques, L.

Seear, B.

Beswick, L.

Kennet, L.

Segal, L.

Blyton, L.

Killearn, L.

Serota, B.

Brockway, L.

Leatherland, L.

Shackleton, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Liewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.]

Shepherd, L.

Byers, L.

Slater, L.

Champion, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Snow, I.

Chorley, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Somers, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

McLeavy, L.

Stocks, B.

Diamond, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Maelor, L.

Summerskill, B.

Falkland, V.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Swinton E.

Faringdon, L.

Meston, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Foot, L.

Morris of Grasmere, L.

Wade, L.

Fulton, L.

Ogmore, L.

White, B.

Gardiner, L.

Peddie, L.

Williamson, L.

Gisborough, L.

Phillips, B.

Willis, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Platt, L.

Wise, L.

Hale, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Hanworth, V.

Rowallan, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Henderson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Albemarle, E.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Reigat, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Ferrers, E. [Teller.]

Rhyl, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Fortescue, E.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Auckland, L.

Fraser of Lansdale, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Balfour, E.

Gowrie, E.

St. Just, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Grenfell, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Berkeley, B.

Gridley, L.

Sandford, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Selborne, E.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Selkirk, E.

Coleraine, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Cottesloe, L.

Hawke, L.

Shannon, E.

Courtown, E.

Inglewood, L.

Sharples, B.

Craigavon, V.

Ironside, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Crathorne, L.

Lothian, M.

Tenby, V.

Daventry, V.

Luke, L.

Teviot, L.

Denham, L.

Merrivale, L.

Vernon, L.

Derwent, L.

Milverton, L.

Vivian, L.

Digby, L.

Monck, V.

Ward of Willey, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Windlesham, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Dundee, E.

Wolverton, L.

Dundonald, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Wrottesley, L.

Eccles, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Young, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

5.0 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 44, at end insert—
("( ) include provisions for enabling women and girls to participate more fully in the skilled trades and professions").
The noble Lord said: I do not know whether I can start my comments on this Amendment by expressing my very great gratitude to the "sixty-fifth"—whoever he or she was. I do not need to detain the Committee long, I am sure, by demonstrating the unsatisfactory present situation. It is indeed lamentable. I understand that two-thirds of all the girls leaving school at 16 have no training in their new occupation. I understand that so far as apprenticeships are concerned 5½ per cent. of the girls leaving school are apprenticed to hairdressing and 2 per cent. to forms of employment other than hairdressing. Only 2 per cent. of the girls leaving school are apprenticed in order to learn some long-term skill. That is the present lamentable situation. However, the position is likely to worsen as the result of the provisions of this Bill. That is not merely my view it is the view of the all-Party Committee in the other place, the Expenditure Committee on the Employment of Women, which recently reported and expressed their concern that the proposed reduction in the levy grant system to 1 per cent. would:
"adversely affect training opportunities of women."
So we have a quite lamentable situation and one that is likely to get worse as the result of this Bill.
I know that the Government are to some extent concerned about this situation. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, said on May 14 that the Government accepted that there was need for legislation to deal with unfair discrimination in employment, including training. He said that the Department of Employment had conducted an intensive inquiry to determine what action was required to improve the range and level of employment activities of women. Here is a Bill which gives an opportunity for this important issue, this grave lack of carrying out Governmental responsibility, to be remedied. I do not think that anyone in the Committee would disagree when I say that we shall always suffer
2100
from a shortage of skilled manpower and, as I said during the Second Reading debate, the greatest untapped source of skilled manpower is without question women. That is the situation. It is on skill and the development of skill that the growth of our economy depends, and it is necessary therefore to change the situation in a fundamental manner.
A figure of 2 per cent. going into training other than hairdressing on an apprenticeship basis is such a ridiculous state of affairs that nothing other than a fundamental change will affect it. I think it so fundamental that although I am well aware of the argument that the responsibility of the Manpower Commission should be expressed in general terms, it is not sufficient to exclude specific mention of the need for the training of women. That is why my Amendment provides for enabling women and girls to participate more fully in the skilled trades and professions. I do not think that I need to say more at this stage. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: Perhaps I should congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, on his victory in respect of the last Amendment. In this case, unlike with the last Amendment, the noble Lord does not seek to confer a new duty on the Commission but only to state that its powers include the power to encourage women and girls to
"participate more fully in the skilled trades and professions".
No one on this side of the Committee, certainly no one in the Government, would quarrel with anything that the noble Lord has said, except for one thing. Is a Bill the place for this kind of encouragement? In the first place, surely the Amendment is unnecessary in the sense that the Commission already has in Clause 2(1) the duty (and I stress the word "duty") subject only to the approval of the Secretary of State,
"to make such arrangements as it considers appropriate"
to assist persons
"to select, train for, obtain and retain employment …".
In my opinion that duty, rightly, does not differentiate between men and women, or older and younger people, or disabled and able-bodied people. We are dealing with the training and employment opportunities of all the people in the country.

2101
But it does mean that if they consider particular arrangements appropriate in connection with the training of women or girls, or with the training of any particular group, it is their duty, subject to the approval of my right honourable friend, to make those arrangements.
It seems to me that there are potential dangers in listing in legislation things which the Commission may do, as this could lead to the presumption that anything not listed is thereby excluded. It is surely far better to have a comprehensive approach and to rely on the broad and general duty imposed by Clause 2(1). In his speech on Second Reading, and again in moving the Amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, referred to equal opportunity for women in respect of training. In the debate in this House on May 14 on the recommittal of the Sex Discrimination Bill my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross announced that the Government are working on legislation of their own designed to assist in the removal of unfair discrimination on the grounds of sex and to promote opportunities open to women. That is part of the Government's platform. My noble friend gave an undertaking that the Government would carry out the necessary consultations and publish a consultative document, if possible this summer, which will serve as the basis for discussion with the intention of seeking an early opportunity to introduce legislation. As my noble friend pointed out then, it is at this stage not possible to say what form the legislation will take. It is anticipated that it will be concerned primarily with unfair discrimination in employment, including training, and cover measures to outlaw discriminatory acts and affirmative action to achieve equal opportunities for women by changing existing attitudes.
I think that the subject of discrimination on the grounds of sex in employment and training should be dealt with in the forthcoming legislation, and that it is right in this Bill to impose only a general duty on the Commission covering everyone, rather than to mention especially all the types of people which the Commission will need to have in mind. I do not think, therefore, that the noble Lord could charge me with not having the interests of women, and better training and employment opportunities for women, in
2102
mind; and with that I express the hope that he will not press his Amendment.
LORD GARDINER: May I ask the noble Earl whether I should be right in concluding from what he said that the legislation which the Government are considering instead of the Sex Discrimination Bill will not relate to education at all? Secondly, can he tell us what possible harm the acceptance of this Amendment could do?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: I think I outlined the only harm that this Amendment could do when I said that mentioning one special category, albeit a vital category, of people could possibly lead to the presumption that categories not so listed might thereby be excluded. As to the point about the form in which the legislation will or might take, I said that it is anticipated that it will be concerned primarily with unfair discrimination in employment, including training. I would say that the phrase "including training" would cover education, but I will try to find out if the noble and learned Lord wishes to know more.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: May I ask the Minister whether the Government are happy with the figures of girls entering training, bearing in mind the fact that they are very small? If they are dissatisfied, would they not agree that an Amendment of this kind would strengthen the position?—because we all know that if the people at the top show that they believe in an idea, this gradually penetrates through both to the employer, on the one hand, and to the educator, on the other.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: I think that if the Government were happy about the position, either one of my noble friends or myself would not be standing up here to say that we planned to introduce a consultative document with a view to legislation. We should say: "Things are all right. We will leave well alone." What we are unhappy about it what seems to me to be a possible dangerous principle, which is to mention categories of people in a Bill, particularly when one is not by so mentioning conferring any extra powers or any extra duties on the executive body—in this case the Commission.
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: How can the Minister justify putting through a Bill to give equal pay for women if he does not put through a collateral Bill to give equal training for women? The obvious conclusion is that if the women do not get the equal training they will never earn the equal pay. Having done one thing, I do not see how the Government can possibly reject the other.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: I do not think I am rejecting it. I could not agree more with the noble Lord, first, on the count, as I have already said, that legislation will be introduced; and (secondly, and more importantly, that in this Bill, which deals with employment and training, we are covering all the categories and classes of people in this country. There can be no doubt about that.
LORD DOUGLAS OF CLEVELAND: In answer to that, I would say that if we talk about women as a category in the same sense that we talk of a category of skilled labour—fitters, turners and people like that—then the Government are heading for trouble.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: I really must come back on that. It is the noble Lord and the supporters of the Amendment who are suggesting that women be categorised in this way. The Bill does not categorise them, mainly for the reasons the noble Lord dealt with.
BARONESS SEEAR: Under the Industrial Training Act 1964 many people hoped that there would be an expansion of training opportunities for women, because we believed that a Bill covering training was meant to apply equally to men and to women. When we tried to follow up the idea to find out what the effect of the 1964 Act was on the training of women, we found that the answer was nil, and we were fobbed off by being told that it was not the business of the Board to take any action to see that women should get these opportunities. Having been once bitten in regard to that legislation, we are now asking that it should be made clear in the legislation now proposed that it does take action. If the same requirement is reproduced in the next Bill, then it does not seem to be dangerous if, not for the first time, you repeat yourself.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: I am the last one to complain of repeating myself. as I have already repeated my arguments several times this afternoon. The noble Baroness acknowledges our concern by inference, because she repeated my assurance about legislation. I think the onus is upon her to say what the effect would be if mention were made of the special case in a Bill of this kind.
LORD GLADWYN: Does the noble Earl seriously think that the acceptance of this Amendment would in any way prejudice the prospects of training of other categories of people, as they are called?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: What I think acceptance of this Amendment would imply is that when there is some obvious shortcoming in society, by, as it were, mentioning it in a piece of legislation designed to improve shortcomings generally, or to reform and improve methods of training and employment opportunity, you can obviate the initial shortcomings. I do not think that is the case. I think it may have to be done by, if you like, legislation with more teeth in it.
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: I do not think the noble Earl can get away with the argument that we are categorising women. The fact is that practice has put them into a different category, and the purpose of the Amendment is to eliminate women being in a different category from men.
5.16 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND: That indeed is what we are trying to persuade the noble Earl about, not very satisfactorily. There is not an issue of merits between us. The noble Earl recognises—and he has not contradicted any of my damning figures—that this is a serious situation, and that the percentage of women being trained for the higher skills, the professions and so on, is lamentable and totally against the interests of the women, in the sense that they are not enabled to pursue satisfying occupations and derive happiness from them, and lamentable in terms of the economy of our country. There is no doubt that these immensely important issues are at present under discussion, because here is the responsibility of a Commission to see to employment and training. The issue between us is as to how we alter

2105
an attitude of mind in Government, employers, employees, in girls leaving school and in the nation at large. This we have to do, because only 2 per cent. are getting the kind of training that 52 per cent. should be getting. How do we alter that? This is a matter of politics, not of neat draftsmanship.
It is very neat draftsmanship, if I may say so, to include the generality of cases in the way that this clause is drafted. I accept that completely. We are proposing to add nothing to the powers and responsibilities. We are proposing to let the world know that Parliament thinks it is not adequate that these responsibilities should be hidden and tucked away in general, albeit neat, draftsmanship, but that they should he picked out and explicitly stated for the benefit of public opinion generally. We shall not get this scheme moving unless we put all the steam behind it that we can. It is a political issue. There is no other issue between us.
I am saying, therefore, that here is an opportunity of getting the thing off the ground. We are all agreed in your Lordships' House that discrimination in employment should end, and we do not need to make points of that kind; and we are all agreed that the present position is totally lamentable. Here is an opportunity which can do no harm whatsoever, which cannot damage any future legislation, but can only demonstrate that Parliament and the Government, after consideration, believe it is necessary to say things twice over, if you like, but explicitly spelling out that it is the responsibility of this Board to see that more women are trained—and we are going to follow the Board's reports year after year. I am sorry, but I must insist that that is a reasonable point of view to put to the Government, and if they are not prepared to accept it, we must challenge them.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, is an extraordinarily persuasive speaker, and it is difficult for me not to put myself in the light of being in some way anti-women or anti the idea that women should have opportunities in this way, despite the fact that, as he said, there is really no issue of this kind between us. I would say this. The noble Lord said that there was no danger in making an Amendment like
2106
this. This is a difference of opinion between the noble Lord and the Government, in that we feel, as I said earlier, that there are potential dangers in listing in legislation things which the Commission may do, as it could lead to presumptions that anything not listed might be thereby excluded. I do not think this would particularly obtain in this case but it is a potential danger, and certainly one to be thought about very seriously.
The last point I would make it this. The noble Lord said—and how much I agree with him!—that this was a political issue, though perhaps I might extend the definition of "political" to mean what some people would define as "Party political". I would rather say that it is a social issue: perhaps one might describe it as, in the jargon of our time, a major social dynamic. I must ask him whether he really thinks that the language of Bills, designed to provide just administration, is the right vehicle or the right place to make social and political provisions, however admirable they may be and however much agreed upon.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: May I make just a brief intervention? I have listened to the whole of this argument and it seems to me that here we have the Government proposing to deal with persons—and "persons" is the word used—on a level keel without any distinction being made between one person and another; and here we have the Labour Party, for political reasons (that was the word used by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond), suggesting that women should be included—as if women were not already persons. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, to think over that point, because it is not really worth making a political point which means absolutely nothing at all.
LORD BYERS: I think it is right that I, from the Liberal Benches, should say that we do not see this as a Party political matter at all. This is a matter of deep principle, so far as we are concerned, and, I believe, so far as the Labour Opposition are concerned, too.
LORD DIAMOND: I am grateful to the noble Earl for having made it perfectly clear that "political" means political and not "Party political". The point I was making is that this is a question for political judgment and action. The

2107
art of politics is the art of changing opinions at the right time, and I feel that the introduction of a Bill of this kind is the right moment at which to start. The noble Earl asked me whether I thought that the language of the Bill would affect this issue. Indeed I do. It is the experience of everybody set up in this way to refer almost daily to the Bill to see what are their responsibilities and the powers of their remit. There is no doubt that these words will mean to the body concerned that Parliament did not think it sufficient to use the word "persons" (though undoubtedly "persons" include women) but thought it
necessary, because the situation had reached such a pitch, to point out that half the population—and I understand it is the better half—are not having their talents fully used and are unable fully to exercise their opportunities. This will help it forward. I should have thought that any practised politician in your Lordships' House, or in either House for that matter, would recognise the force of what I am saying.
5.24 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 64; Not-Contents, 70.

CONTENTS

Annan, L.

Henley, L.

Seear, B.

Archibald, L.

Jacques, L. [Teller.]

Scrota, B.

Arwyn, L.

Kennet, L.

Shackleton, L.

Beswick, L.

Leatherland, L.

Shepherd, L.

Bly ton, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Slater, L.

Brockway, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Snow, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Somers, L.

Byers, L.

McLeavy, L.

Stocks, B.

Champion, L.

Maelor, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Chorley, L.

Masham of Ilion, B.

Strang, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Maybray-King, L.

Strange, L.

Diamond, L.

Meston, L.

Summerskill, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Morris of Grasmere, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Ogmore, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Peddie, L.

Wade, L.

Faringdon, L.

Phillips, B. [Teller.]

White, B.

Foot, L.

Platt, L.

Williamson, L.

Fulton, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Willis, L.

Gardiner, L.

Rowallan, L.

Wise, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Hale, L.

St. Davids, V.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Henderson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Fortescue, E.

Rhyl, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale,

Rochdale, V.

Auckland, L.

Gisborough, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Balfour, E.

Glendevon, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Berkeley, B.

Gowrie, E.

St. Just, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Grenfell,L

Saint Oswald, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Gridley,L.

Sandford, L.

Coleraine, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Selborne, E.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hailsham ofSaintMarylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Selkirk, E.

Conesford, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hawke, L.

Sharples, B.

Cottesloe, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Courtown, E.

Killearn,L

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Craigavon, V.

Lothian,M

Daventry, V.

Luke, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Macleod of Borve, B.

Swinton, E.

Derwent, L.

Mancroft,L.

Tenby, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Merrivale,L.

Vernon, L.

Dulverton, L.

Milverton,L.

Vivian, L.

Dundee, E.

Monck, V.

Ward of Witley, V.

Dundonald, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Windlesham, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Eccles, V.

Wolverton, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Nugent of Guildford,

Wrottesley, L.

Falkland, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Young, B.

Ferrers, E.

Resolves in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.32 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 4, line 5, at end insert ("except in so far as they relate to the selection and placement in employment of persons under the age of 18 who have been in full-time employment for less han 12 months or of persons of any age who are attending, either full-time or part-time, educational institutions in Great Britain other than Universities, arrangements for which functions shall be the responsibility of local education authorities in accordance with the provisions of section 8 of this Act').
The noble Lord said: in moving this Amendment, I hope it will also be convenient to take Amendment No. 8. In fact this Amendment is really a paving Amendment for Amendment No. 8. May I reciprocate the compliment which the noble Earl passed to me earlier on?—May I congratulate the Government on winning the Amendment. The part of the Bill we are now dealing with in this Amendment relates to what is broadly known as the youth employment service and deals with the responsibility of education authorities, as opposed to the Manpower Commission which is being set up under the Bill, who have the task of looking after the long-term employment and training interests of young people who are in full-time education other than at universities.
I do not think I need waste your Lordships' time in developing the argument that it is essential that those who are young and therefore uninformed as to the labour market and every possible opportunity for employment, should have guidance as well as assistance in finding a job. Guidance of the right kind can make a vast difference to an individual's whole life in terms of getting the kind of employment which will exercise his or her abilities and talents to the full, and it is not necessarily the case that immediate employment opportunities are the best method of satisfying long-term vocational and character needs so far as the individual is concerned. It is of vital importance, therefore, that this advice and this method of giving advice should continue. The Government accept this in a measure, because Clause 8 provides that the duty of each education authority shall be, in short, to look after or assist those in full-time or part-time educational institutions other than universities. My complaint is not that that is not good, but that that is not the best arrangement.
2110
The best arrangement is that they should have this duty exclusively, because the bill provides that alternatively the Manpower Commission, which is not a body equipped or suitable for concerning itself with the long-term vocational needs of individuals but is a body concerned with job placement and training in a broad sense, equally with the youth employment service, can provide this service so far as young persons are concerned.
I know that there are many who would like to restrict youth employment opportunities to the local education authority service and thereby secure that the young person gets the right advice, the right guidance and the right priorities. That is what matters most. This matter was raised on the Second Reading. The noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, put forward the Government's answer. Should the power and the machinery for giving this advice be exclusive or not? Should it be shared by two bodies, one of which is concerned exclusively with the long-term educational and vocational interests of the person in question, and the other in finding jobs? I have no doubt that until young persons are knowledgeable enough to make a considered decision, they should have guidance from the expert. The expert is the local education authority and its careers officers. They are experts in this field. Therefore, it is not sufficient that the responsibility should be shared. On Second Reading I accused myself of being perhaps a little heavy fathered, and the noble Earl replied that people marry younger and that the way to get them to act responsibly was to give them responsibility. I ought to say that we are talking about knowledge of jobs, knowledge of employment opportunities, and not knowledge of other more personal and intimate matters.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: I have not the OFFCIAL REPORT of the Second Reading with me, but I was speaking then in a slightly different context. The reason I cited young people marrying early was not to make a direct point, but to say that it was not altogether true that the majority of young people were in a poor position to make choices. It was an illustrative point.
LORD DIAMOND: I am grateful to the noble Earl; that was exactly his point. His point was that because people knew

2111
enough about marital maters to marry at 18 instead of 19 or 20, they knew enough about job opportunities in the world. I simply do not want to be too personal, but these are rather different matters. In fact, it is not until a person is of the age to have had experience of employment opportunities generally that he is able to make an objective judgment instead of a subjective one; it is not until he has had sufficient experience in the employment world that he is able to do this. Therefore, these two Amendments are put forward in order to achieve these purposes; namely, to see that until a person has, through years of living or through years of working, amassed sufficient personal knowledge and experience to make a sensible judgment he should have the best guidance on finding a job. Therefore, the second Amendment—No. 8 in Clause 8—provides that the Commission shall have the responsibility of making
"arrangements for the purpose of assisting persons under the age of 18 ߪ"
That is the first point. One expects that at the age of 18 young people are grown up and able to make their own judgment. The Amendment continues:
"… who have been in full-time employment for less than 12 months."
In other words, if a person aged 16 leaves school, goes to the local education authority careers officer, is recommended a particular job after careful advice, takes the job and leaves after six months, aged 16½, in my view it is not true to say that by virtue of that six months' employment that person is able to make, unaided, an objective judgment about what is best for his or her long-term employment interest. If a line must be drawn somewhere, I think it is right to draw it at 18. It is also right to have regard to the core of this matter which is knowledge of the world of employment and jobs and job opportunities, which one learns by being among them, perhaps for 12 months, but certainly not for three months.
The mere fact of having got a first job and then lost it in no time, or deliberately resigned it in no time—that is to say, in a very short time—is not sufficient, in my view, either to exclude the individual
2112
from the benefit of this wise guidance, or to make it possible for him to avoid continuing having the benefit of help from the same person, who knows his background, knew it some time ago, knows the reasons why this particular job was chosen, knows the reasons why it has not been a successful experiment. He should not be denied the opportunity of contiuing to be advised by that same person and that same service. That is why the second Amendment puts the responsibility on to the local education authority of looking after people in that way through their careers officers; and the first Amendment takes that duty out of the powers of the Manpower Commission, which it would otherwise be able to exercise. What we are saying in these two Amendments together is that this choice which at present is available should not be available for people who are unable, by virtue of their youth or their inexperience in employment matters, to make on objective judgment for themselves. They still need the fullest help in their own interests. I beg to move.
BARONESS MACLEOD OF BORVE: Before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he could tell us what part he envisages the parents should play in the employment of their children.
LORD DIAMOND: I was not assuming that we needed legislation to provide for that. I should have thought that any sensible parent and sensible child would discuss these matters together at length, and that if there is any doubt about this somebody such as a careers officer would want to inquire into the family background to see that the benefit of that advice had been taken. But if the noble Baroness thinks there is any doubt as to whether this would happen without legislation, then all I can say is that a careers officer, who is concerned with the family background and all the circumstances of the individual, is the one who is able to take the necessary time and trouble, rather than a member of the staff of the Manpower Commission whose task is merely to find a job.
LORD MAYBRAY-KING: I intervene for half a minute because this discussion gives me an opportunity of paying a tribute to the magnificent work of the youth employment services provided by

2113
education committees up and down the country ever since the war. It is because of the splendid work they do that I would not have any change made in the present arrangements, and I welcome this Amendment which will give a little more power to the local education authority to carry out and carry on what it has been doing.
BARONESS MASHAM OF ILTON: Because I am on the National Youth Employment Council I have had many letters from people in different part of the country expressing great concern at the confusion which may arise if young people, after changing their first job, can have the choice of two Agencies. With no doubt, this will affect the less able and immature young people who have difficulties of making relationships. They are far better off with people they know and trust. So much confusion has already arisen by the many Government agencies continually changing their name. I honestly think that many young people become confused with the many forms and official contact that they have to make. This may be one of the reasons why so many young people now prefer to get back closer to nature and away from the stress and pressure of officialdom. If one looks at who has supported this proposal in the Bill, one find that it seems to be "jobs for the boys", and this means civil servants. Will it not mean keeping duplicate files and duplicating everything? Will the young people not fall between the two—who may push the more difficult clients from one to the other? Everyone will be more confused, and therefore I support this Amendment.
LORD ROWALLAN: It seems to me that even before this stage it is very important for the disabled young people to be in close touch with the youth movements so that they may be prepared by the people with whom they are familiar and have been working with. That certainly makes a very great difference to their opportunities of finding a good job and being properly looked after and encouraged in it.
5.48 p.m.
LORD COLERAINE: I should like to add my plea to those that have already been made and would hope that, even if the Government cannot accept the noble
2114
Lord's Amendment, they will at least give an assurance to the Committee that it will be considered. I think we are entitled to ask that, because I believe I am right in saying that this point was not considered at all in another place. An Amendment was put down to deal with it but it was not selected by the Speaker. The result is that this is the first time that Parliament has had time to consider it. For that reason alone there is something to be said for the Government's holding their hand, if they can do no better than that. I think I should declare my own interest, which is similar to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, who spoke a few minutes ago. For some years, between six and seven years I think it was, I was Chairman of the National Youth Employment Council. It was a long time ago, between 1955 and 1962, but I have the most vivid memories of it and regard that experience as being one of the most rewarding experiences of my life. As noble Lords are aware, the National Youth Employment Council is a body which consists of employers' representatives, trade union representatives, educationists and social workers who confer from time to time with the Youth Employment Service and who keep a general surveillance, under the Minister of Labour (as he then was) of the work of the National Youth Executive.
A number of things remain in my mind from those days, but perhaps the most vivid is this. It struck me then, and it has always been in my mind, that the important division in life is not that division between the sexes which we were discussing in a previous Amendment; it is not the division between employer and employed; it is not even the division between rich and poor. The really important division, in my view, is that between those whose work is a part of their life and those whose work is a hostile and evil intrusion into their lives. Under any form of society that one can foresee, even the kind of society which we would live under if noble Lords were to cross the Floor of the House, that privileged minority must be a minority—those who get real enjoyment from their work. But the really striking thing about the Youth Employment Service, whether they came from the L.E.A. side or the Ministry of Labour side, was that they realised that and that they had an understanding and a contact

2115
with young people which the Ministry of Labour or the Manpower Commission or the Employment Service Agency I do not think could conceivably have.
My noble friend Lord Gowrie, in his Second Reading speech, to which the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has already referred, said that these young people had a choice between going to the new service or going to the local education authority, and he said (as the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, pointed out) that they had a right to that choice. Do boys and girls between the ages of 16 and 18 have a right to their choice? We do not give that freedom of choice between 13 and 14 or between 14 and 15; we do not say, "Would you like to go to school?" or, "Would you like to go to work?". We say, "You jolly well go to school", and I can see no conceivable argument arising from any philosophical consideration that if a young person of 16 whose first job has been a failure is compelled to go to the L.E.A. rather than to the Manpower Commission we are depriving him or her of one of their essential liberties.
I may have got the position wrong, but, as I understand it, under the Bill a young person of that age who is out of work has to go to the new service to get his benefit. He has not the choice of going to either the L.E.A. or the new service for it. When he is going to what we used to call the employment exchange, can you really expect him to make another journey to the local education authority careers officer? It seems to me to be asking far too much, and I believe the danger is that a number—it may be a very small number of young people—who, if this Amendment or some similar Amendment were accepted might have a chance of being helped by the careers officer of the local education authority, who knows their background and who knows their families and indeed everything about them, may just become fodder for social security and spend their lives drifting between one job, social security, the next job and so on. From my experience, such as it is, of the National Youth Employment Council and what I know of the service, I believe that the Government are making a very serious and possibly very tragic mistake if they insist on this proposal. As I said at the beginning, I hope that if they are not able
2116
to accept the noble Lord's Amendment they will at least give a clear undertaking that they will consider this matter again between now and the next stage of the Bill.
5.57 p.m.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: I rise to support my noble kinswoman, Lady Masham of Ilton. In case noble Lords think this is a family set-up, may I say it is not; we have voted differently on two occasions this afternoon and together only on one. However, I feel I must rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, in all that he has said. Also I think this may help the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, when she asked whether parents are concerned in this matter. I should have thought that this was much more so with a local education authority service because, after all, careers advice at school usually starts at the end of the third year of secondary education and is carried out largely by L.E.A. careers advisory staff in close co-operation with heads and with teachers. This surely is where the parent should come in. This service continues not only until the young person leaves school at 16 but also during the ensuing two years if needed.
Of course the youth employment service is also available to assist school leavers to find employment, and it continues to be available for this purpose again for two years following school leaving. Thus, those who choose to leave school at 16 have the advantage of being served by a service which has known them for two years and has full information about them, their educational record and the employment which they have held. I am quite certain that the Employment Service Agency—the Manpower Commission—would at best have only a summary of the educational information, and I can only feel that dual provision by the local education authority and the Employment Service Agency will be uneconomic in terms of manpower, finance and other resources. Both services will have to keep a register of employers and vacancies; both services will require to have officers familiar with the needs of the young people aged 16 to 18, both services will have to familiarise themselves with the local employment situation for young workers, and of course

2117
both services will have to approach employers.
In the same way, employers will have to give time to answer queries from both services about the same groups of young people, or even about one particular young person, and they will have to inform both services about the vacancies which they have for young people. Furthermore, if an employer interviews young people passed to him by one of the services he can never be sure that he is looking at the whole field. Thus it is seen that the attraction of the flexibility and freedom of choice—and I think much emphasis may be laid on this by my noble friend Lord Gowrie—is far outweighed by the disadvantages to the people whom this is intended to benefit most. I could not agree more with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine. I am sure in the majority of cases it is absolutely unrealistic to expect a young worker of 16 or 17 to make a reasoned decision as to whether he prefers to refer his problem to the Employment Service Agency or to the local education authority service. At that age I think he has enough problems, especially if he is unfortunate enough to be handicapped either physically or mentally, without having to work out which agency he goes to.
I am sorry that I was not here for the Second Reading debate but that happened to be the day of the elections for district councils in non-metropolitan counties, and I am afraid I, was not able to get here on that day. But I should like to quote what my noble friend Lord Gowrie said on the occasion of the Second Reading. He was again talking about the choice that should be given to young people, and these were his words as reported in Hansard:
"But we have to face the fact that some young are unwilling to go back to a service which, because it is education-based, they associate with their schooldays."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7/6/73, col. 275.]
I take it that that surely is the very reason why we should not give them that choice. I think that they should have to go to the service which can benefit them most, the highly specialised one of the local education authority, the Youth Employment Service. In everybody's interests, and especially the interests of
2118
these very young people whom we are most concerned about, we should do that.
This is not in any way a Party political point of view. I was present at the Association of Education Committees' Conference at Blackpool last week where a resolution was passed unanimously by the members—and goodness knows! there is every conceivable shade of political opinion represented from the counties and boroughs that run the education committee. The Resolution that was passed without anyone speaking against it was:
"This Association generally welcomes the Government's proposals as expressed in their White Paper and in the legislation now before Parliament, save only as to the issues involving a dual responsibility for advising and placing young persons up to the age of eighteen. On this important matter the Association again declares its conviction that this should be the sole responsibility of the local education authorities."
With that, I heartily agree, and I hope that the Government will see their way to accepting the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond.
LORD LEATHERLAND: I am not always guilty in your Lordships' House of brevity, but I think I can distil the essence of what I have to say into two or three sentences. We are discussing the case of young people who, after leaving school, have had a job which they have kept for a few months. During those few months they have been associated with the local education authority's careers officer. They have learned to look upon him almost as a supplementary parent in the matter of finding a job and deciding upon a future career. They have looked upon him as a friend and wise counsellor, as somebody who is widely experienced in the employment affairs of the district in which they live. I believe that they are able to discuss their future with such a person in a very friendly, co-operative manner. But if you say to them that they have to go to a Whitehall official then the whole temper of the situation will be altered. Therefore I have great pleasure in supporting my noble friend's amendment.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: I too shall be very brief. I just want to emphasise what the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, said; namely, "do not let us confuse the young people any more". Even now they do not know on which doors to knock, and if you give them any more you will increase their disenchantment with what they now

2119
regard as a rather hostile, over-organised world. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, will see his way to accept this Amendment.
LORD GISBOROUGH: I should like briefly to support the Amendment. I agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, said, that it would be administrative nonsense for two public services to compete for the same clients and a wasteful duplication of scarce resources and skilled advisers.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I do not exactly follow the splendid example of the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, and if I speak for a little longer than he did because I acknowledge, not only the feeling of the Committee, but also the fact that these Amendments deal with a very important point indeed, and I want to answer as clearly and comprehensively as I know how the points that have been made in what I should like to describe as a very good debate indeed.
These Amendments seek to give the local education authorities a specific duty to provide a careers service to all those under 18 who have been in full-time employment for less than 12 months, and to exclude the Manpower Services Commission from providing a service to these young people. First let me describe the present position and how the Bill changes it. At present the Youth Employment Service deals with those under 18 or still at school. The service is provided by those local education authorities which have chosen to do so, which include the local education authorities covering the great majority of 15-year-olds in England and Wales and a smaller majority in Scotland: in other areas the Department of Employment provides that service already.
The Bill gets rid of the age limit of 18, and I think it is generally agreed that that age limit is an arbitrary and artificial one. It gives all L.E.A.s a duty to provide a careers guidance and employment placing service to all those attending educational institutions not just schools—irrespective of their age. The only exception to this duty is universities, which have separate arrangements but here the L.E.A.s are given a duty to
2120
make their services available to individual students from universities who wish to use them.
The Bill also gives all L.E.A.s a power, and a duty so far as the Secretary of State directs, to provide a careers service for other—persons that is to those who have left education and entered employment. Here again, there is no age limit, so young people who have entered employment but who wish to come back to the local education authority careers officer who advised them earlier, for further advice and help—or because they did not like the new service, as my noble friend Lord Coleraine described it—will have full freedom to return. That applies whatever their age, and the young person can continue to come back to the careers officer for as long as he wishes to do so.
So there is no question of the Bill restricting in any way the activities which the local education authority careers service carries out at present. I want to reassure noble Lords on all sides of the Committee on that point. On the contrary, the Bill makes the service mandatory on all L.E.A.s and also extends the scope of their service so that in future it will cover young people of 18 or over who are in further education or who have entered employment, who are excluded at present. There is no question of imposing a "cut-off" on the local education authority careers service after young people have entered their first job. They will be able to go back to the local education authority service for as long as they like.
LORD COLERAINE: I am most grateful to my noble friend, but surely we are talking of boys and girls of 16-plus who have made a mess of their first job. Can we really say that we are giving them a free choice between agencies when we compel them to go to one agency to get their employment benefit and then invite them to go to another? That seems to me to be a choice which in practice must be completely illusory.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: I am not at the present moment making an argument—and I note that my noble friend used my Second Reading speech in this context—about free choice as such, or the philosophy of free choice, although I shall be talking about choice in a moment. I have taken note of the point

2121
he made about obtaining benefit and will deal with it later in my speech. If my noble friend will forgive me, may I go on with the choice question and deal with the benefit point later?
The Bill does not prevent young people who have entered employment from using the employment services provided by the Manpower Services Commission, if they prefer to do so. The intention is and I acknowledge this—that young people who have left education and entered employment should have a choice between the local education authority's service and the general employment service, and should be free to use whichever one they feel is better suited to their needs. I believe that the Committee generally would agree with that point, where it deals with the generality of young people rather than with young people in particularly difficult cases; and I shall come to the argument on difficult cases a little later.
The Amendments before us would make little or no change in the effects of the Bill as regards the scope of the local education authority service. Noble Lords have taken time and trouble to praise the service, and I acknowledge and agree with their praise. The second Amendment gives local education authorities a specific duty to provide a service to young people under 18 who have been in employment for less than 12 months. The Bill, as I have mentioned, gives local education authorities a power, and a duty so far as the Secretary of State directs, to provide a service to these young people, and indeed to all those who have left education and entered employment. This, I suggest, is a distinction without a difference. I do not think anyone believes that the L.E.A.s will in fact fail to provide a service to young people under 18 who have been less than a year in employment. The local authority associations have been among the main supporters of young people's being able to go on using the L.E.A. service if they wish. And that is in fact the Government's intention, as we made very clear in paragraph 53 of the White Paper published with the Bill. If, therefore, any L.E.A. did choose—unlikely as it may seem—not to provide a service for these young people, the Secretary of State would undoubtedly use his power of direction to require it Ito do so.
2122
The change the Amendments would make in the effect of the Bill would be to prevent the Manpower Services Commission from giving help and advice about employment matters to young people under 18 who had been in employment for less than 12 months. I think we should take a minute or two to consider the consequences of such prevention. I can, of course, well understand the reasons which prompt the noble Lord to suggest this restriction, and the reasons which prompt many of my noble friends to support him. It is felt that settling into employment is a very crucial time for young people, and that the best person to help them through it is the careers officer who advised them when they were at school. It may even be felt, as the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, suggested on Second Reading, that at this stage the young person, because of lack of maturity, is not fitted to make a choice between the L.E.A. careers service and the general employment service, and the theme of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has been echoed in the Committee this afternoon. But we have to face the fact—and I would address these remarks perhaps particularly to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton—that these young people, even now, under the existing system do have to make a choice of a sort, that is to say, the choice between using the L.E.A. service or not using any advisory service at all. The logical consequence of the Amendment is that a young person who, for good or bad reasons, refused to use his L.E.A. service would then be precluded from using the grown-ups service, so to speak.
The noble Lord opposite and my noble friends who have supported him wish to preclude the young person from using any public advisory service at all, and I cannot believe that that is really what they want.
There is another fact we must face, that there are some young people who are not willing to go back to the L.E.A. service. Do we abandon them, so to speak, because they are not willing? It is an education-based service, and young people associate it with school, which is where they first came into contact with it. However much we may regret the fact (and I might address this to my noble friend Lord Swinton, particularly), the plain truth is that there are many

2123
young people to-day who are desperately keen to be regarded as adults and who reject anything which they associate with their schooldays. I am glad that this is not the case with the majority of young people, but I said that I would move on to the difficult cases. As a result, once these young people have entered employment, they may fail to obtain any vocational advice at all and simply take jobs which they hear of through friends or through private agencies, or which they see advertised. Surely it is better, in these circumstances, that the young person should have the alternative of obtaining help and guidance through the general employment service provided by the Commission, through the Employment Service Agency. In other words, I will play down my stress at Second Reading on free choice and talk about a viable alternative. Perhaps I made too much of it.
If a young person who has already entered employment prefers to continue using the L.E.A. service, he will of course be fully able to do so. But if he is unwilling, for perhaps bad reasons, to go to the L.E.A., I think the Employment Service Agency does have a great deal to offer him. In some areas the Agency provides the youth employment service under the present system, and its occupational guidance service, which specialises in helping people who need to think again about their choice of career and provides guidance of a quality which has been widely recognised, does in fact now have a high proportion of its clients in the younger age group.
I therefore cannot accept that it is true that the Employment Service Agency places importance principally on immediate placing or on the needs of employers rather than on the needs of job-seekers. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, who said that the Employment Service Agency's job is merely to find jobs. I am sure that it is more considerable than that. In its advisory work the Agency always puts the interests of the client first, whether a young person or anyone else. No effective advisory work can be done on any other basis. In fact it is the function of any employment service to give people guidance as to the sort of job they should enter and to try to make the best possible
2124
match between their job aspirations and the jobs which are going. If the match is unsatisfactory on either side, whether to the worker or the employer, the result will surely not be satisfactory to either party.
My noble friend Lord Coleraine, in a very dignified and moving speech, echoed—or perhaps I should say extended—a point that I made on Second Reading. He said—and he certainly put it better than I had done that those of us who enjoy our jobs have a very considerable responsibility to those who do not, and a responsibility to see that they have the maximum chance to find fulfilling work. I completely agree with him there; but I want to niggle with him on his first point. It is not the case that this subject was not considered in the Commons. A similar Opposition Amendment was debated exhaustively in the Commons in Committee. It is true, however, that a similar Amendment was not selected in the Commons on Report.
I promised my noble friend that I would deal with the particular point about benefit. When and if the Bill becomes law, benefit will be paid at the specialist benefit offices. As a condition of receiving benefit, applicants must register for employment, but this registration can be done either at the careers office at the education authority or at the employment office of the E.S.A. So a choice, or, if you prefer, an alternative, is still open. This is, I think, a real choice, because the benefit office will be separate from the employment service office.
In sum, I suggest that it is entirely right that the Bill should allow young people who have entered employment to use either the local education service or the general employment service. By giving them this option we are not in any way discouraging young people who wish to go on using the L.E.A. service from doing so. All we are doing is giving those who are not willing another opportunity to obtain guidance and help; indeed, should that second opportunity to obtain guidance and help fail, the young person can again return, indefinitely, to the local education service. Surely this must be in the interests of the young people concerned. I cannot impress on the Committee sufficiently that there is no intention to inhibit local authorities in any

2125
way whatsoever from continuing to provide the careers advice service which has worked well over the years, and the continued success and effectiveness of which is crucial to that vastly important question raised in our minds by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, the launching of young people into employment. Nothing in the Amendment would, I contend, effectively add to our ability to answer that question, and nothing in the Bill precludes a continuing contribution by the local education authorities. In the light of that, I do urge the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment.
BARONESS MASHAM OF ILTON: Before the noble Earl concludes, may I ask him a question? Does he know many young adolescent people who do not have problems, and is not their biggest problem that of indecision?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: As an ex-teacher, I certainly know many adolescent people, and I know what the noble Baroness is talking about when she speaks of indecision; but I do not see that to have sensible alternatives and flexible arrangements adds to indecision at all.
BARONESS SEEAR: The noble Earl has not answered the very cogent point raised by his noble friend Lord Swinton when he said that there is now a duplication of services. Of course, we have had a duplication of services for a very long time. In the very depressing replies given by the noble Earl he totally overlooked—perhaps he is not fully aware—what lies behind all this, which is that there has been a 60-years-on inter-departmental battle between the Department of Employment and the Department of Education, fighting for the bodies of school-leavers as to who is going to advise them. There have been, to my certain knowledge, four committees of inquiry as to which Department ought to have this responsibility, and the reason why we are stuck with two Departments has, I submit, nothing whatever to do with the well being of the young; it is because neither party will get their teeth out of the body.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: I stand Corrected. I should have dealt with that point and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for drawing it to my attention.
2126
We dealt with the argument of confusion and duplication at Second Reading. I would at this point simply draw the attention of the noble Baroness to Clause 9 of the Bill, under which local education authorities must give young people either written statements of the vocational advice that they are given at the time when the advice is given or else a written summary of vocational advice which they have been given at the time when they leave school. If a young person, through indecision or carelessness or whatever, loses his summary or statement he can obtain a copy on request from the local education authority. That is the fact of the particular or basic point. But it is intended, naturally, that there should be the fullest co-operation between the L.E.A. service and the Employment Service Agency.
LORD COLERAINE: May I ask one further question, and in doing so may I apologise to my noble friend and the Committee for my being misleading about what happened in another place?—it was careless of me. Can my noble friend tell me what is the position to-day with a 16-year old unemployed boy or girl: do they go to the Labour Exchange or do they go to a careers department of the L.E.A. or a special careers department of the Ministry of Labour? Surely they are specially treated to-day, but under this measure they are going to be thrown in (unless they exercise an option, which I very much doubt if they will) with the general run of unemployed people.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: I think I said at the beginning of my remarks that the present position was that the youth employment service dealt with those under 18 or who are still at school. All we are suggesting is that this should continue to exist. It indeed should not continue in its present form, but this situation should be extended, so that there is no age limit as to the time at which they can consult their local education authority. We are simply providing them also with the alternative of being treated as grown-ups.
LORD COLERAINE: The situation continues to exist only if the young person exercises his choice. My argument, and I think the argument of a number of your Lordships, has been that in fact he will not exercise his choice.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: This perhaps would raise a very wide Second Reading point and I am a little nervous of doing so, but I would say that it would be very difficult for us, in legislating on something which is going to affect the adult life of young persons, to say that they are precluded from using adult services.
LORD COLERAINE: They are at present.
LORD DIAMOND: That is not what the Amendment provides. The Amendment stops at the age of 18. It is only for a minor and for a person who, being a minor, has been less than 12 months in employment and is therefore not aware of all the alternatives of employment. It is only such a person for whom we are suggesting that there should be the best guidance exclusively. The simple fact is—and the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, has made this as plain as a pikestaff out of his great authoritative knowledge—that people will not choose the best advice because of the reasons and the inducements for not doing so. There is the obvious one of the place to go and get the benefit, but the equally obvious one, which the noble Earl himself has mentioned, is that they may associate this with schooling, with teaching. The noble Earl is, as he says, an ex-teacher at a very high level, as he was at a very well-known university. He is not going to say, surely, that everything a teacher advises, merely because it is given in a classroom or lecture room, is ex hypothesi wrong. Young people may associate teaching with it, but it may be for their best interests and best for their future, and it should not be ignored. It is impossible for young people of 16 or 17, who have been in the outside world of employment at the most for less than 12 months, to have sufficient knowledge (I am not talking about individual brains or talent) of the outside world to be able to determine what is right for their future—and it may be a very long future indeed, if they get into the wrong job and get stuck with it for the rest of their lives.
The noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, has said, "Please do not make this a Party issue". I am doing everything I can not
2128
to. I repeat, we welcome this Bill; I said so on Second Reading. I want to give it every encouragement forward that I can. But all the noble Earl has done is to read out a speech, very well prepared in advance of the debate, dealing with the arguments made on Second Reading and dealing with the Amendment on the Order Paper. But since that speech was written, a number of authoritative speeches have been made, with knowledge and ex-experience, from various quarters of your Lordships' House. The noble Earl has not given the slightest indication that it would have made a whit of difference if those speeches had been made or not been made. That is the sorry position we are in. I am therefore in great difficulty. I do not want to win arguments in the Division Lobby. I want this Bill, which we on our side think is a good Bill, to be the best possible Bill. It is as simple as that. The noble Earl has not given any indication that the speeches made and the knowledge that has gone into them are going to make any difference to the Bill. If he maintains that attitude, all I can say is that one must give noble Lords who have made those speeches the opportunity of saying whether they want to follow up their voices with their votes. If the noble Earl could say that he has been impressed by the speeches, that he will seriously reconsider the matter and come back on Report stage with the best thing he can do, I should not wish to pursue it. I have been interested in the argument. I think the case has been made a hundred-fold, but the Government need time to think of the best way of handling it.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: I must confess that my feelings are a little hurt. I thought I had covered the points which had been raised by the debate. I think the noble Lord may have missed one or two of my points, but I do not intend at this stage to drone through them again. Perhaps the particular one—since he is making the point about inconsistency—that I think he has missed is when I said that the logical consequence of the Amendment would be that a young person who refused to use the local education authority service would then be precluded from using the other service. I cannot really see that that would be equitable or practical. But so be it. I did make the argument. Perhaps the noble Lord simply

2129
does not agree with me. I would draw his attention to a point of fact, that there are 31 areas, 31 places in which the Department does provide the youth employment service already, and no one I know of in the debate has raised any criticism of this or thought that the service was badly handled. I do not think the noble Lord at any point implied that he was dissatisfied with the kind of provision the employment services provide and arc likely to continue to provide.
Finally, I do not think that he really acknowledged that we are considerably extending the powers of local education authorities in this matter. Of course I gladly accept his welcome of the Bill.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD DERWENT): There being an equality of votes, in accordance with Standing Order No. 54,
I do not want to seem intractable but I simply do not want to be misleading. I think that there is a genuine difference between us on this question of exclusivity. The noble Lord has made a powerful argument for the local education authority service, but I do not think that he has made a powerful argument for exclusiveness, and it would he misleading of me to say, on that crucial point, that I could think again.
6.31 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 58 Not-Contents, 58.

CONTENTS

Arwyn, L.

Henderson, L.

St. Davids, V.

Auckland, L.

Henley, L.

St. Just, L.

Beswick, L.

Jacques, L. [Teller.]

Seear, B.

Blyton, L.

Kennet, L.

Serota, B.

Boothby, L.

Leatherland, L.

Shackelton, L.

Boyle of Handsworth, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Shepherd, L.

Brockway, L.

Lucas of Chilworth. L.

Simon, V.

Byers, L.

Lytton, E.

Slater, L

Champion, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Snow, L.

Chorley, L.

Maelor, L.

Stocks, B.

Coleraine, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Maybray-King, L.

Swinton, E.

Diamond, L.

Morris of Grasmere, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Digby, L.

Mountevans, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Phillips, B. [Teller.]

Wade, L

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Rankeillour. L.

White, B.

Foot, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Wise, L.

Fulton, L.

Rowallen, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Gardiner, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Wynne-Jones. L.

Gladwyn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Dundee, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Balfour, E.

Dundonald, E.

Onslow, E.

Beaumont, L.

Eccles, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Berkeley, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Bessborough, E.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Saint Oswald, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Ferrers, E.

Sandford, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Glendevon, L.

Selkirk, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Gowrie, E.

Sempill, Ly.

Colville of Culross, V.

Gridley, L.

Sharpies, B.

Conesford, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebonc, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Tenby, V.

Courtown, E.

Hawke, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, B.

Cowley, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Vernon, L.

Craigavon, V.

Lothian, M.

Vivian, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Windlesham, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Daventry, V.

Merrivale, L.

Wolverton, L.

Denham, L. [Tellers.]

Milverton, L.

Young, B.

Derwent, L.

Monck, V.

Which provides that no proposal to amend a Bill in the form in which it is before the House shall be agreed to unless there is a majority in favour of such

2131
Amendment, I declare the Amendment disagreed to.
Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.39 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 4, line 14, at end insert ("and
(d) to report annually to the Secretary of State on the changing labour requirements of industries and services and the changes in training which are needed to meet future patterns of employment").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 6. Page 4, line 14, is that part of the Bill which sets out the functions of the Commission, and subsection (3) particularises what shall be the duties of the Commission. This Amendment reverts to one of the major points made at Second Reading; namely, the lack of responsibility put upon the Commission for carrying out fully the function of forecasting the labour requirements, so as to achieve the end we all desire: that of ensuring that we have the right skills in the right places at the right times. That is the wording which was used in another place—I think by the Minister for Employment himself—and I adopt it as showing that we are all agreed about what is desired. It is desired in the interests of our economic growth; it is desired in the interests of the human happiness that will accrue to those who have been able to choose the right job and have been able to carry on with it, because they knew at the time they made the decision that the opportunities would be there when their skills were fully trained, and because they have chosen an avenue in life in which there is continuing and possibly increasing, employment.
I do not see how the function of looking after employment and training can be carried out unless somebody investigates and researches and reaches a conclusion as to what are the likely requirements for a certain kind of labour in different parts of the country. I freely admit that this is a very difficult task, but it has to be attempted; otherwise, people will make the wrong choices. They may accept training for an industry and, after perhaps five years or even less, when they are fully trained and fully committed through having a job in that field, they may find that the opportunities have
2132
terminated, although it may have been possible to forecast that situation, in round figures, five years earlier and to avoided that disaster. They may refrain from choosing something which they would very much enjoy doing, because stories are going around that a certain industry is running down and that by the time they are fully trained there will be no opportunities for employment whereas, in fact, the Government might know, because they have plans for revitalising a certain industry or a certain area, which they have not yet fully disclosed, that they will want labour in X years' time and they will want people to be trained for those skills now. So we cannot possibly avoid people making choices.
The only question is: will those choices be made on the basis of the best information available, or not? Clearly, they should be made on the best information available and therefore the Commission, which has the duty of find employment and seeing that people are trained in the right way with the right skills, should carry out this function, the responsibility for which the Amendment puts upon them. I do not think I need say any more. I believe that the argument as to the need for information and research is one which nobody would dispute. The form of the Amendment, namely, reporting annually, makes it clear that the Commission would have the responsibility not only for finding out, but for making a report; and the publication of that report would mean that everybody interested—the whole variety of employment agencies involved and those concerned with giving advice—would know the likely facts about the future, instead of proceeding on pure guesswork. It is for those reasons that the Manpower Services Commission, which we welcome, should have this duty expressed in this way put upon them. I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I do not think that we are in any real disagreement as to the objective to be attained here. We all want to ensure that the Commission obtains the manpower intelligence it needs in order to discharge its responsibilities effectively. We also want the Commission to make the fullest contribution it can to making manpower intelligence available to all those other persons or bodies who have interests in it. As the

2133
Bill now stands, there is nothing to prevent the Commission from doing that in fact, it will have to do it if it is to fulfil its functions of making and submitting plans to the Secretary of State. It will be part of the working of its functions.
But there are two qualifications which I think I ought to make. The first is that neither this country nor other countries have, as yet, had very great success in the field of manpower planning and forecasting. Experience shows that it is very difficult, particularly in this age of rapid change, to achieve results which are both reliable and detailed enough to be useful for employment or training purposes. I say that only to stress that it would be unwise to expect too much from manpower intelligence. I certainly do not think we should be too pessimistic about what may be achieved, and I believe that we must make the attempt.
As to the second qualification, I think I am right in saying that the noble Lord believes that the Manpower Services Commission should have a virtual monopoly of manpower planning and forecasting. As the noble Lord knows very well, there are all sorts of bodies with legitimate interests and activities in this field—the regional economic planning councils, independent organisations such as the Manpower Society and the Institute for Manpower Studies, and bodies such as the National Economic Development Council, the industrial training boards and, of course, the Government. The Government certainly have to evaluate all their policies critically from the point of view of their manpower implications. This need is met by the Unit for Manpower Studies which will remain in the Department of Employment. The Unit is involved with questions such as the manpower implications of current and future Government policies; for example, on higher education.
The Government's needs for policy analysis in this field are bound to be different from the needs of the Commission in the manpower intelligence field. There are two different jobs to be done. However, the Commission could of course ask the Government to allow the Unit for Manpower Studies to carry out studies on its behalf, and it could ask anybody else to do that, too. I cannot agree that it would be right to take away the man-
2134
power intelligence field. There are two different jobs to be done. However, the Commission could of course ask the Government to allow the Unit for Manpower Studies to carry out studies on its behalf, and it could ask anybody else to do that, too. I cannot agree that it would be right to take away the manpower intelligence functions from all these bodies and give them to the Commission, if that is what the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, intends. What we want to ensure is that there is proper liaison and communication between them all. As the White Paper said, the Secretary of State for Employment will continue to be responsible for general manpower.
We also want the Commission to pay the closest attention to the changing labour requirements of industries and services, and we want it to give the fullest consideration to the changes in training which will be necessary to meet future patterns of employment. This it will undoubtedly need to do, in order to fulfil its main duty—the duty to make such arrangements as it considers appropriate for the purpose of assisting persons to select, train for, obtain and retain suitable employment. The Commission will have full powers to obtain the manpower intelligence it needs. It will be up to the Commission, in the first place, to decide on the best machinery for organising and co-ordinating its studies in the manpower field, but the Secretary of State will undoubtedly expect to see the Corn-mission's views on this question reflected in the proposals they submit under Clause 2(3)(a), for carrying out their functions.
I can therefore assure the noble Lord that the Commission will have fully adequate arrangements for obtaining manpower intelligence and for manpower planning and forecasting. These arrangements will undoubtedly play a major part in the plans and programmes that the Commission will have to submit annually to the Secretary of State—and the Secretary of State will expect them to do so. In any case, I am sure the noble Lord will have noticed that the Commission are obliged, under Schedule 1, paragraph 15, to submit an annual report on the performance of its functions, which of course include planning as well as past achievement. The Secretary of State could direct them to cover certain aspects of the performance of their functions in this report, which again could include planning if they were not disposed to do so; and this report, unlike the report which the noble Lord has in his Amendment, possibly inadvertently, would have to be laid before Parliament.

2135
I was not quite certain from the noble Lord's Amendment whether he simply wanted this as an advisory report to be submitted confidentially to the Secretary of State for his action or whether it was to be a public document. I rather gathered from his speech that he wanted it to be a public document available to everybody.
Once again, I think one would have to say here, also, that it is not good, on the whole, to pick out particular items and specify them in legislation. I recognise that this is extremely important, but I suggest we ought not to imply that the Commission ought to be under a greater duty to concern itself with these matters than with other important subjects in its submissions to the Secretary of State, or to submit a special report over and above its annual report on them, when it could quite easily include these matters in its annual report. In the light of the assurance I have given, that in our general approach to this matter these matters will unquestionably be covered in the Commission's submissions of plans and programmes to the Secretary of State, and hardly less certainly in their annual report on the performance of their functions, I hope the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD DIAMOND: I can say with all sincerity that I am very grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. Certainly we on this side took the view that there was a lacuna in the expression of responsibility put on the shoulders of the Manpower Commission. The noble Lord has made it clear that in the view of the Government they have broadly this kind of responsibility, and further and in particular that they have responsibility to report. I had not specified laying the report before Parliament because it occurred to me that certain of the information which was made available to them might be of a confidential nature, and having received the report it was for the Secretary of State to consider whether he will then want to publish it. He would probably want to publish it in most cases, but there might be occasions when he would want to publish it in part, or something like that; and therefore one respects the dis-
2136
cretion that the Secretary of State naturally wants to yield in the interests of the community at large.
The noble Lord has made it clear that there is not a great deal between us. The Bill has been rather too silent, but the noble Lord has made up a little for the silence of the Bill. In those circumstances, I think that what I had better do is, in the forthcoming years, to read what Hansard has to say about it and seek your Lordships' leave to withdrawn the Amendment at present.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause, 2 as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Control of the commission by Secretary of State]:
6.55 p.m.
BARONESS SEEAR BARONESS SEEAR moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 5, line 23, leave out from beginning to ("make") in line 24 and insert ("he may, after such action as has been proposed to the Commission and the Commission has declared themselves unable or unwilling to authorise such action.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this Amendment I recognise, of course, that the Secretary of State has the ultimate responsibility for what goes on inside the Manpower Commission. There can be no question of that because the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State only, is answerable to Parliament. Having said that, I would also argue that this Amendment really goes to the heart of what we are trying to do, and in my submission of our likelihood of succeeding in what we are trying to do. As I understand it, what we need urgently in this country is a highly-expert, unbureaucratic Manpower Commission, free to the maximum degree possible of red tape, capable of speed of action and untrammelled by Departmental interference except when it is absolutely necessary. It is, as I have bored your Lordships, I am sure, by saying on a number of occasions, this kind of semi-autonomous body which has been found so valuable in Sweden and which many of us were hoping would be imitated, with appropriate modifications, in this country.
We can only have an organisation to achieve the sort of results we want if it is fairly and squarely charged with the

2137
responsibility for the job which has to be done, and is held ultimately accountable for doing it. I am sure all your Lordships will agree that that must be so. The split responsibility, the division of responsibility between the Commission and the Department, can only enfeeble the action which we all agree needs to be taken. Yet when we look at the clause which this Amendment seeks to amend, what do we find? It says:
"If the Secretary of State considers that any action for the purpose so mentioned should be taken in pursuance of this Act otherwise than by or only by the Commission he may, after consulting the Commission"—
merely consulting them, I would point out to your Lordships—
"about the matter, make arrangements for the action to be taken or taken also by himself or some other person",
et cetera. In other words, the Commission is responsible for the manpower services and the training services in the country, but the Minister when he sees fit, the Secretary of State when he sees fit, after merely consulting the Commission, can go ahead and take what action he likes; or, indeed, he can ask somebody else to do so. In any business with which your Lordships are associated, can you imagine organising a job in such a way that you give responsibility for it to a particular section or department, whatever it may be, and at the same time you say that somebody else can, when they see fit, take it upon themselves to go and do the very things with which that section is charged? There is a confusion of responsibility here, a split in responsibility, which can only enfeeble the Commission in a way in which we ail of us must hope, surely, it should not be enfeebled. It is for this reason—to make it absolutely certain that the Commission is fully charged with the responsibility, and that this responsibility cannot be watered down by intervention by the Secretary of State—that I beg to move this Amendment. I was told in the Second Reading debate that there was no desire in those responsible for the Bill to retain the maximum amount of responsibility within the Department of Employment. I am sure I was told this in good faith, but I am totally unconvinced. Instead of the streamlined organisation that we need, what we are in fact getting is a pantomine horse, with the forelegs
2138
in the Commission and the back legs in the Department. I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I would never accuse the noble Baroness, as she did herself, of boring your Lordships, and she certainly has not done so—she has been very brisk in what she has had to say—but I hope that when I have explained the need for the power here the noble Baroness will agree with me that it is desirable. There are two reasons for having the power in Clause 3(4), and for not amending it in the way the noble Baroness suggests. The first is that under the Employment and Training Act 1948 the Secretary of State for Employment carries out a number of functions, and not just the operation of the employment and training services. The Act is to be repealed by the Bill, but it is Government policy, as stated in the White Paper, that the Secretary of State will continue to exercise functions in the manpower field. For example, he will remain responsible for the manpower aspects of regional policy and of regional economic planning.
That does not mean, of course, that the Commission will necessarily be excluded from playing a part in the consideration of these matters. But the Secretary of State for Employment has a part to play also. He will no longer have authority to carry out these functions under the 1948 Act, when it is repealed, and instead he will have to derive his authority from the Bill. So this provision in Clause 3(4) will be used as soon as the Commission is set up, simply to empower the Secretary of State to continue to carry out these functions which he must continue to carry out. The legislation is drafted on the basis that Clause 3(4) is the best way to put this division of functions into legislative terms, rather than giving the Secretary of State separate powers, which might limit flexibility. I hope the noble Baroness will agree that it would be unacceptable for the Secretary of State not to have powers of this kind, and that they should not be subject to the veto of the Commission. It would be a very unusual position if the powers of a Minister of the Crown were subject to the veto of a body such as the Commission.
Secondly, this power is needed as a last resort power—and last resort powers

2139
are not uncommon—although I hasten to add that I think it is highly improbable that it will be used as such. All the same, the Secretary of State will remain ultimately responsible to Parliament for the provision of the manpower services. It is therefore necessary to consider what would happen in the unlikely situation of the Commission's failure to provide an adequate service, let us say for disabled people, and failure to obey directions to improve it. In that improbable situation, it would clearly be most undesirable for the Secretary of State to have to take the Commission to the courts to get them to improve the service. It might be equally undesirable for him to have to dismiss the Commission en masse. The proper course might well be for him, under the powers in Clause 3(4), to take over himself the service for the disabled, or to provide additional services for them.
But if the Amendment were accepted it would not be possible for him to do this in the last resort, unless the Commission were prepared to state that they could not provide the service. They would be unlikely to do so in the improbable situation which I have envisaged. I hope that has made it clear that this power is necessary, first in order to empower the Secretary of State to continue to take the action in the manpower field which it has been made clear in the White Paper that he will continue to carry out, power he will lose with the repeal of the 1948 Employment Act, and, secondly, as a last resort power which will enable him to fulfil his responsibility to Parliament.
I can assure the noble Baroness that it is in no way intended that there should be any duplication, for this would be bad administration. The purpose is to get flexibility as the thing grows up. There is no intention that these powers should be used to undermine the authority and responsibility of the Commission. Having given people a job, they should be allowed to get on with it. It is for these purposes and the purposes that I have indicated; namely, to enable the Secretary of State to carry on with his present duties and those that he is expected to continue, and, secondly, the default powers. The Government consultations with the T.U.C. and the C.B.I.
2140
about the Bill have not given rise to any adverse comment on this provision. In the light of the explanation that I have given, I hope the noble Baroness will appreciate that her fears are ill-founded and will feel able to withdraw the Amendment.
BARONESS SEEAR: I should be sorry to do that. I do not find myself satisfied by the explanation of the noble Lord. After all, in my Amendment it is still within the power of the Secretary of State to act. The Amendment makes it clear that he can act. It merely says he cannot act unless the Commission has first been given the opportunity to do the job which is clearly within the general scope of what they are required to do; and it is only when it is made plain by the Commission that they are unwilling or unable to do it—it is only when that happens—that the Secretary of State goes ahead. At the present time, as it reads at the moment, it will be possible for the Secretary of State himself to do things which should be the full responsibility of the Commission. It is this split responsibility which I find so alarming.
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I put this question to the noble Baroness? If in the circumstances that the Secretary of State, who is responsible to Parliament, or that Parliament itself were to consider that the Commission were not doing their job satisfactorily, and the Commission were not prepared to declare themselves unable or unwilling for the Secretary of State to take over the job, what would she do?
BARONESS SEEAR: Sack the lot!
LORD DRUMALBYN: This is the extreme case which I said that I though would be unwise.
BARONESS SEEAR: In any business, if you are delegating responsibility to a group of people they either carry out the job completely or, if they do not, you get rid of them. You do not jump in and do the job yourself.
LORD BYERS: The noble Lord is talking about duplication and my noble friend is taking about split responsibility. These are quite different matters. Will he tell us whether or not split responsibility could arise under the Government proposals in

2141
the Bill? As I read it, and as my noble friend reads it, there could be split responsibility which could lead to chaos in administration.
LORD DRUMALBYN: This is precisely the duty of the Secretary of State. He can delegate anything he chooses to the Commission and then the Commission will be left to carry it out. To that extent there will be no duplication. But the Secretary of State will be responsible to Parliament to see that the Commission carry out their duties—both those laid down in the Bill and any further duties that the Secretary of State may delegate to them. The Secretary of State's job will be to undertake to be able to assure Parliament that the machine is working properly. This will be his main job. I think that is the right way of looking at it.
LORD BYERS: Does not that mean, in business terms, that the Department will be continually breathing down the neck of the Commission? Is it not the old question of "Why keep a dog and bark yourself?".
BARONESS SEEAR: If you are the managing director of a concern and the board of directors allocate responsibilities to a department with a manager in charge of it, then, if the manager in charge is not fulfilling his responsibilities the board of directors do not dive in and do the work themselves; they change the manager. It would be extraordinary to observe any other principle of organisation.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The noble Baroness is right in the circumstances obtaining within one organisation. Here we have three or more organisations: the Government, the Commission, and the Agencies—and, below the training agencies, the industrialised training boards. It is quite a complicated organisation. The Secretary of State's responsibility is to see that the thing works. The noble Baroness may be right. As I said, it is one of the options that the Commission should be dismissed entirely; but, alternatively, it might be better for the Secretary of State to take over their function and it might well be that the Commission would agree that this would be the best solution. But it would not be right to place in legislation the need to get the Commission's permission to make a
2142
change which the Secretary of State and Parliament thought it right to make.
BARONESS SEEAR: The noble Lord is confirming my worst fears. He says that it is a complicated organisation; and that is plain. But the more complicated an organisation, the more important it is to be sure who does what, and to be sure that people do not take on other people's roles. This would lead to the wildest confusion. This is why I opened up the whole matter. If you go on in that way, nobody will know who is ultimately responsible for what and who "carries the can" unless you are going to have a Commission which is seen to be "carrying the can" and unless you have somebody who is answerable. That is the great weakness in all Government Departments: you can never pin down the person answerable for the failures in the Department. It is that that we want to alter in this situation by having people in the Commission who are responsible and to whom, if they do not stand up to their responsibilities, you may say, "Go!" It is because we have not had that that we have had all the matters we arc complaining about to-day in this House as regards the working of the 1944 Act. It is to avoid this that this Amendment is moved.
LORD BYERS: May I plead with the Minister? Here we are trying to help him. He has heard the voice of experience in these matters. This is a practical issue and not a Party political one. Would it not be much better to take it back and have another look at it with the Department; consult the people who have had that experience, and come back with some proposal on Report stage?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I shall certainly take it back and have the discussions that the noble Lord suggests. But whether or not I shall come back with a better idea I cannot foretell. But I shall try.
BARONESS SEEAR: At this stage, and as a result of that reply, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. But may I give notice that we shall raise the matter again on Report, if there is no satisfactory response from the Government.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clauses 4 to 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Provision of services by education authorities]:
7.11 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 12, line 31, at end insert ("is vocational in character; and").
The noble Lord said: We are now at Clause 8, which deals with the provision of services by the education authorities. This clause makes it mandatory for local authorities to do a variety of things, and one of the conditions which attaches is that the help which they are to provide is for persons who are attending part-time educational institutions. That is fine. It then goes on to define "part-time" in subsection (7)(a) as being attendance
"where none of the relevant classes begins on any day before five o'clock in the evening."
So that, in short, evening classes do not count as part-time for the purpose of this clause which requires local education authorities to provide careers services.
I know that there is a further subsection which enables local education authorities to do a variety of things for people who are not covered in subsection (1), but I am concerned with subsection (1) and not subsection (2). I am concerned with the subsection which distinguishes between those who are in part-time education having their classes at half-past two in the afternoon, and those who are in part-time education having their classes at half-past five in the afternoon. This is the distinction made in this part of this clause, and I think it is unhelpful and indeed an invidious distinction. What one contemplates in terms of classes starting at half-past five is that you have a person who is in employment and anxious to take classes in something or other: but, because of his employment is unable to do so until the evening.
If those classes are classes in what is a hobby—some literary pursuit or something which is clearly a hobby, however an excellent hobby—one can perhaps understand that. But if the classes are of a vocational character and deliberately undertaken so as to enable the student to improve his capacity to undertake more responsible jobs or whatever the case may be, I fail to see why that person should not be enabled to get exactly the same treatment and be put in exactly the same category as those who do not have to earn
2144
a living and can go to a class starting at 2.30 or 3.30. It is an invidious distinction, and I think that the Government should remove it. For that reason I am moving the Amendment, which would mean that so long as you have a serious student at work, anxious to improve himself and his capacity to contribute to society by attending classes of a vocational nature when he has finished work, he should be treated in exactly the same way as his, perhaps, more fortunate brother or sister who does not have to earn a living and who can attend classes in the afternoon.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I do not think that there is anything between us here. Possibly the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, may be under a misapprehension. Paragraph (a) of subsection (1) reads:
"to make arrangements for the purpose of assisting persons who are attending, either full-time or part-time, educational institutions …"
It does not include
"part-time attendance when none of the relevant classes begins on any day before five o'clock in the evening"
as provided in subsection (7)(a). Then the noble Lord wants to put in:
"and is vocational in character."
There are two problems. The first problem is that it is not at all easy to define which evening classes are vocational in character and which are not, for exactly the reason given by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. We cannot say that some subjects are vocational and others are recreational. We have also to take into account the intention of the individual in taking the class. The noble Lord quoted a rather more esoteric thing, on the cultural side, a literary course. But what about a foreign language course? Many people take these courses for recreational reasons; others take them for vocational reasons—to get a better job which may require knowledge of a particular foreign language. Some people may take a foreign language course with a holiday abroad in mind, and with an idea that it might come in useful at some time in the future in their work. In principle, this difficulty applies over the whole range of courses. Even a course in flower arrangement could be vocational for someone who wanted to earn a living by arranging flowers, if they had a flair for it.

2145
Perhaps I should explain the situation as it stands. The noble Lord will appreciate that the local education authorities have full discretion under Section 2(1) and (2) of the Education Act 1962 to make awards to students attending classes at colleges of further education, including evening classes. Awards may cover the whole of students' fees and other items such as book grants or travelling expenses where appropriate, though the latter would be unusual. This is entirely a matter for the discretion of local education authorities. It is the normal practice of local education authorities to remit fees for such classes for students under 18, unless the course is wholly recreational in nature: for example, ballroom dancing, judo, if that can be called recreation, and so on.
The position is that local education authorities have a duty under Clause 8(1) to make arrangements for providing a careers guidance and employment placing service to all those attending educational institutions (other than universities) whether full-time or part-time. But under Clause 8(7) this duty does not require the local education authority to provide a service to part-timers who are attending only evening classes; that is, classes beginning after 5 p.m. The reason is that the great majority of "evening only" courses are recreational courses covering a great range of subjects. People attending these classes are in no particular need of help or advice on employment matters, and there would be no point in giving the local education authority a duty to provide them.
But besides its duty to arrange for the provision of services to those covered by Clause 8(1), the local education authority has power under Clause 8(2) to arrange for the provision of guidance in placing services for other persons. "Other persons" includes part-time students attending "evening only" classes. So where these students do need help and advice with employment matters—which they might, for example, in the case of an evening class in mechanical engineering—the local education authority has full power to provide it for them; and, indeed, the local education authority has a duty to do this if directed to do so by the Secretary of State. The Amend-
2146
ment would give local education authorities a duty to arrange for the provision of a service in the case of all evening only courses which are vocational in character. But for the reasons that I have given—that the local education authorities have these powers, have this discretion and will exercise it—I think this Amendment is unnecessary.
LORD DIAMOND: The noble Lord has been good enough to say that what I understood to be the case is the case; namely, that the local education authority has powers under subsection (2). But I can only repeat that I am not talking about subsection (2). I am coming back to subsection (1), and there is a distinction made there. I do not like it, and I am asking the Government to remove it. The distinction is the one that the noble Lord knows full well. Subsection (1) deals with a mandatory service provided by the local education authority.
Let us concentrate on that subsection alone and see why it is that those who are attending a class at 5.30 are not treated in the same way as those attending the same class for the same purpose at 4.30. That is the problem before the Government and, if I may say so, it is a difficult question to answer. What the noble Lord says is that it is difficult to define "vocational". Maybe it is difficult, but it is not too difficult for the noble Lord and his advisers, because "vocational advice" comes in several times and is defined on page 14:
"'vocational advice' means advice of a certain kind".
So if the noble Lord is saying to me that his draftsmen are incapable of giving a definition to "vocational classes" which will stand up for whatever policy the Government finally decide upon, I find it rather difficult to be convinced of the sudden paucity of capacity on the part of all Government draftsmen, who are of course very skilled people. Do not let us put it on the draftsmen. Let the Government carry their own responsibility and say why it is they want to distinguish between the chap who has to work and wait until half-past five to go to the class, and the one who does not have to work and can go to the class at half-past four. That is the question on this one

2147
subsection where there is a mandatory provision by the careers service of the education authority.
I do not think there is a very good reason. The distinction is a very invidious one. If the noble Lord says that there might be difficulty, he can deal with it in two ways. One way of dealing with it is to say, "Vocational classes means classes of a kind to the satisfaction of the education authority". So if they are satisfied that the chap is studying judo because he wants to be a judo teacher, then it is vocational, and they can give it; and if they are satisfied that he is studying judo because it is purely recreational, and very good in case his wife attacks him one night after dark with a rolling pin, well and good; it is recreational, and he does not get the same facility. The first answer is: leave it to the discretion of the local education authority sensibly exercised. That is one way to deal with it. The other way of dealing with it is by the noble Lord asking himself what possible harm will come to this country if a young person is learning modern Greek in order to visit Greece or in order to be able to teach modern Greek if the wrong decision is made at the time and the local education authority treats this as vocational in character, whereas it turns out to be purely recreational because it turns out that he is going to Athens to look at the Acropolis? I ask the noble Lord, who is a Classics scholar, what is wrong with that?
The noble Lord has not satisfied me at all that there is any good reason for this invidious distinction. I hope I am making the point that I think it is very unpleasant that this distinction is made. It looks like pure class distinction, and I hope I make that clear. It looks like the Government deliberately trying to deny aid to people whom we on this side are concerned to assist. This is the first part of this Bill which has a distinct class smell about it. I hope I have made my point of view and my sense of indignation very clear. I repeat my request to the Government: will they be good enough to give this further thought? It can do no harm; it need cost not one penny more. It could help a vast number of individuals. It is in
2148
the interests of the country that those who have to work should be encouraged to study at evening classes after work, and it is a wholly unsatisfactory thing to deny to them the same facility that is offered to their more fortunate brethren. I am asking the Government to take that on board and to give it further consideration.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Of course the Government are always willing to give something further consideration, but I think the noble Lord is positively wrong in this case. I am sorry that he has this subjective smell in his nostrils, but I can assure him that it is entirely subjective and does not arise from the intentions of the Government. I think he ought to take the point I have been making that it is difficult to say that a class is vocational. I realise that he probably does not attach too much importance to the actual wording of the Amendment and is trying to get over the principle, but I have to answer the Amendment.
Let us deal with the reality. In practice, people attending "evening only" classes will not be treated differently from those attending day classes. They will be able to get vocational advise if they want it, because the local education authority has a power to provide it, and a duty if so directed by the Secretary of State, just as those attending day classes will be able to get advice if they want it because the local education authority has a duty to provide it.
LORD DIAMOND: Can I say to the noble Lord that I listen to him most carefully. He understands that I am capable of taking his argument on board the first time, and he need not say it three times. The point quite simply is that under subsection (2) it is not mandatory. The local education authority may provide the service, but is not required to; and if it does not, the Secretary of State may insist on it, but is not required to. So we are back in the situation that the only case where the local education authority must—and you know this for certain—is in subsection (1), which says to the young man having his class at half-past five that he cannot have this service because it is given only to people who go to the class at half-past four.
LORD DRUMALBYN: But the noble Lord has not read the rest of subsection (7). Subsection (7) says:
"The reference to part-time attendance in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section does not include—

(a) part-time attendance where none of the relevant classes begins on any day before five o'clock in the evening; and

(b) any other part-time attendance as to which the Secretary of State directs that it shall he disregarded for the purposes of that paragraph."

What I am saying is that if this is not done the Secretary of State will direct that this shall be done; but the position I started from is that the whole point of the existence of the evening classes is that they are at the discretion of the local education authorities. They pay for the classes now under the existing legislation, and they pay for them on a discretionary basis. Awards can cover the whole of the student's fees and so on; but as this is on a discretionary basis, this is left on that basis because of the difficulty in sorting out those people who are attending classes for the purpose of training and employment and those persons who are attending them for recreational reasons. Because you cannot do that in the way that the noble Lord is trying to do it in his Amendment, I am suggesting to him that the effect in the end will be exactly the same. Somebody has to decide what the student's intention is—is he attending for vocational or recreational reasons? That is why discretion exists. If there is any doubt as to how the local education authorities are exercising their discretion then there is power of direction.
LORD DIAMOND: The noble Lord now says there is a power of direction. A little earlier, after reading subsection (7)(b), he said that the Secretary of State "will" direct. I think that was a slip on his part: I do not think he meant to say that the Secretary of State "will" direct. I doubt whether he is authorised to say that the Secretary of State, in every case where I object to the distinction, will direct that the distinction is not held to be valid.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Not in individual cases.
LORD DIAMOND: So that the noble Lord cannot say that subsection (7)(b)
2150
puts the matter right. If you did not want to distinguish between classes starting at half-past four and classes starting at half-past five, you would not have subsection (7)(a), which says "five o'clock." I did not draft this wretched subsection—the noble Lord takes responsibility for it, and he takes responsibility for putting in five o'clock as the dividing line. "Five o'clock" means only one thing—either you are at work and cannot go before five, or you are not at work and can. You get different treatment: in one case you get a mandatory service and in the other case you get the same service if the local authority gives it or, if they are unwilling to give it, the Secretary of State orders it. I do not think the noble Lord would quarrel with anything I have said, and we must get on—not only in the interests of the noble Lord, who loves sitting here listening to my arguments until a late hour, but in the interests of others of your Lordships who I am sure are wondering whether there will be another Division or whether they can leave.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I think the noble Lord is probably working up to the point where he will ask leave to withdraw his Amendment, and if he does so I will undertake to look at this again. I shall want, in any case, to satisfy myself that there is as little in his argument as I think. But the point really is that the five o'clock mark represents the distinction between those who can clearly be presumed to be attending classes for vocational reasons during working hours and therefore no discretion is necessary. In the other case, surely the noble Lord must agree that it is necessary to sort out the recreational from the vocational.
LORD DIAMOND: I think the noble Lord has understood the difficulty and that he has understood in particular that this definition has many overtones which are unsatisfactory. If he wants a definition that is more meaningful and which adds more support to his point of view, then he must get another definition that does not carry the same disrespectful overtones. As he has said that he will be good enough to consider this very carefully, I seek your Lordships' leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DIAMOND: I seek to address your Lordships for only a moment on Clause 8 because your Lordships will have observed that I did not seek to move Amendment No. 8 on page 10, which was discussed with the previous Amendment on which there was an equality of votes—and there having been an equality of votes the Amendment, which sought a change, was lost. It would have been possible to put this to the vote without further discussion and nobody can say what might have happened—it would have depended on how active the Whips had been on either side. I thought myself it would be much more responsible to assume that the noble Lord would have taken on board the fact that there was an equality of views and a marked difference of views at the earlier stage and that, rather than seeking to waste time on dividing the House and possibly giving the wrong impression that one was seeking for "lobby victories" rather than a better Bill, it would be wise not to pursue this matter at this stage, in the hope and belief—I do not ask for confirmation—that the Government would reciprocate responsibility for responsibility and that there would be a possibility of returning to this matter with perhaps a generally more acceptable series of provisions at a later stage.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I appreciate what the noble Lord has said. The rules of the game are the rules of the game. He need not take undue advantage of that, but of course we take note of the state of opinion of your Lordships as a whole and, although this has been very fully debated elsewhere and was very carefully considered—as the noble Lord may well imagine, this is not the sort of solution that is lightly arrived at—of course we shall have another look at it. I think that the noble Lord is bound to appreciate that the machinery involved here is very considerable, and I am almost tempted to say that at this late stage it might be rather difficult to shift it. But having said that, we shall be looking at the matter in that light.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clauses 9 to 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Short Title, commencement and extent]:
7.38 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE THE EARL OF GOWRIE moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 18, line 41, leave out ("and 4") and insert ("4, 8 and 12").
The noble Earl said: This is a very minor technical Amendment. It has recently been decided that where a provision in a Bill amends another provision which extends to Northern Ireland, the amending provision itself should be deemed to extend to Northern Ireland, despite the fact that the Amendment has no substantive effect in Northern Ireland. This Amendment brings the Bill into line with that decision, by providing that the technical Amendments to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act and the Superannuation Act 1972 extend to Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Additional Provisions Relating to Constitution etc. of the Commission and Agencies]:
7.39 p.m.
BARONESS SEEAR BARONESS SEEAR moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 20, line 27, leave out from beginning to end of line 36 and insert:
("(1) It shall be the duty of the Commission, before such date as the Secretary of State may determine, to select such staff as it requires who shall be chosen from a list of names notified to the Commission by the Secretary of State and also from candidates with considerable industrial and commercial experience in the held of employment and training; and the terms of the offer of employment shall be such that in the opinion of the Secretary of State they are, taken as a whole, not less favourable to the person to whom the offer is made than the terms under which he is employed by the Secretary of State on the date at which the offer is made and such terms will also have full regard to the desirability of movement of staff between the Commission and industry and commerce:
Provided that not less than one quarter of the staff (excluding non-clerical and manual employees of the Commission) shall be persons who possess the industrial and commercial experience referred to in this sub-paragraph.")
The noble Baroness said: I regret that at this late hour I have to say that this Amendment raises a number of issues which, in my view, are not of minor importance. It raises two themes which

2153
I have already raised under other Amendments earlier this evening. One is the question of responsibility of the Commission for the work it is charged with; and, secondly, the professional calibre of the staff to be employed. Both of these are of cardinal importance to the ultimate success of the whole enterprise. It is a well understood principle that if you are held responsible for a job of work you must have some say at least, and I would say the final say, in the staff whom you employ. Yet we find in Schedule 1, in the paragraph dealing with staff, this quite extraordinary statement:
"It shall be the duty of the Commission to make, before such date as the Secretary of State may determine, an offer of employment by the Commission to each person who is employed by the Secretary of State and whose name is notified to the Commission by the Secretary of State …"
In fact the Commission have to take on the people the Secretary of State tells them to take on. That is a most extraordinary way of manning an organisation for which the Commission are ultimately responsible.
The first purpose of the Amendment now before the Committee is to give a wider range of choice to the Commission in the staff they will ultimately employ and on whom they are going to depend for the success of the work that they do. It also seems essential in the running of the work of the Commission and of the Agencies that there should be a substantial number of people who have real expertise in the field of manpower planning and training. We have been told in the preamble to this Bill that the majority of the staff are to be employees, civil servants, employed by the Department of Employment, who will, we know, technically cease to be civil servants while in the employ of the Commission; but there is to be a transfer of staff from the Department into the Commission. These civil servants in the Department are worthy people but they are not experts in this field. This is not the way to get an efficient Commission to do the job which is so badly needed. You will only do this if you have a substantial number of people who have really done the job in the field, as these people in the Department of Employment have not done.
I know that there are certain—I am tempted to say "window dressing"—
2154
jobs that have been filled by people drawn from industry, and I know that I shall be told by the Minister that they are advertising a certain number of jobs. But that is not good enough. We need far more people in the Commission who have done the job and who will command the respect of people in industry who are doing the job. This is also extremely important. The Commission and the Agencies are going to have the veto in terms of the spending of money on programmes put forward by people, many of whom will be a great deal more expert and knowledgeable than the people who are going to judge the fitness of those programmes put forward for support and finance. This is no way to run a reformed Commission in this field.
If we are going to get the full benefit of it, it is essential that there should be a movement between people employed by the Agencies and people working in the industrial field. We want them to come backwards and forwards. If we do this, at the end of a decade we shall have people working in the Commission who understand the work in industry, and people working in industry who understand the work of the Commission and the Agencies. This single proposal will do more for the ultimate effectiveness of what we are trying to do than any other single provision we have in the Bill. If we are going to achieve this we must have regard to the levels of pay in order to attract people from industry to make this interchange between industry and the Agencies and the Commission a reality. The Swedes I am sorry to keep coming back to them—when I was discussing this matter a year ago, said it had been a vital part of their success that they were not staffed by career civil servants. We might as well not go on with this programme if we are going to staff the Commission and the Agencies to a large extent by civil servants. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: I have a good deal of sympathy with the view put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, but I do not think this Amendment can be satisfactory in the way it is worded. I see the point of having some of the staff who have been employed in industry. I can see the advantages of moving people between industry and commerce. But the Amendment talks

2155
about the field of employment and training and I do not believe there is any such thing. I noticed that in her speech the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, described it as manpower planning and training. That is even more restrictive, because there are so few people employed in manpower planning. Maybe there ought to be many more, but there is not a large number employed in that function in industry to-day. What I think she means is that we need people, members of the staff, who have had experience in industry or commerce. I do not think you can define it farther than that.
You may say that you want people who have an experience of training for industry; but some of the people who are employed in training for industry are almost equally specialised. You want people who have been in industry but have had some responsibility for training; and in using the word "training" account has to be taken of the fact that much of the training within industry is best done on the job. Therefore you will find that the right people for the Commission are not people who are specialised training people. They may be people who have had the job of taking under their wing young people who were required to be training for industry. I have sympathy with the general purposes that the noble Baroness put forward; but I do not think that this Amendment, as it is worded, is at all satisfactory.
7.47 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: I, too, have sympathy, because, like my noble friend Lord Courtown, I am conscious, as we must always be in this Committee, of the noble Baroness's knowledge of and experience in employment and training matters. But I hope to be able to show that much of what she wants can and will happen without her Amendment, and that also there are a number of things about it as it stands which could give rise to difficulty.
The Amendment concerns the initial appointment of staff by the Commission, and the two Agencies. I think it has two main points: first, that one quarter of the staff of each body should have industrial and commercial experience; and second, that the staff's terms of employment should have full regard to the desirability
2156
of movement of staff between the Commission and Agencies and industry and commerce. Let me first recall what was said in the White Paper published with the Bill. Paragraph 37 read as follows:
"The staff of the Commission and Agencies will be drawn largely from the staff of the Department of Employment, which is currently responsible for the employment and training services. The Commission and Agencies will, however, also be in a position, as are Government Departments, to recruit staff on a short or longer term basis from industry, from the education service, or from elsewhere."
In other words, this is dealing with the groups of men who in America are known as "in-and-outs".
Many of the staff in these services at present have in fact been recruited after experience in industry and commerce. To take the Training Services Agency, there were some 4,000 staff (other than manual staff) employed on training work in the Department of Employment at April 1, 1973. Of these, more than half (nearly 2,200) had had actual industrial or commercial experience as a prerequisite for their appointments. In other words, these are not simply faceless bureaucrats; they have the features of their earlier industrial or commercial experience. They were mainly instructors or chief instructors in the Government training service (1,930 of them), but they also included staff in managerial or controlling positions (253) and a small number (15) of professionally qualified training advisory staff. In addition, some of the other staff have also had experience in industry and commerce, though this is not a condition of their recruitment.
This leaning towards people with industrial or commercial experience is expected to continue in the Training Services Agency when it comes under the Commission. Besides the substantial need for instructors arising from the continued expansion of the Government Training Centre network, other staff will be required from outside the Civil Service to maintain close touch with industry and industrial training practices. This could mean employing consultants on special projects, or having people with particular skills seconded or recruited from industry, industrial training boards, further education or indeed elsewhere. Conversely, there may be demand from outside the Agency for staff to be loaned or transferred from it because of their

2157
special abilities in training, and the Agency would expect to encourage this cross-fertilisation.
As the noble Baroness recognised in her speech on Second Reading, posts in the Agency have recently been advertised for open competition at very senior level. She anticipated that I would say this. Examples are Deputy Chief Executive (Industry) and Director of Training. For both of these posts candidates will need very considerable experience of industry or commerce and a previous training connection. Another senior post—Deputy Director of Training—will be advertised shortly, and similar experience will be required. I might just add here that we are anxious to learn from the noble Baroness's experience, and realise that she has learnt in her turn from the Swedish experience; but I would suggest that in a small and highly organised State such as Sweden there might be a greater feeling of relief, a greater desire to get away from bureaucratic life or Civil Service life, than perhaps exists in a somewhat more plural society such as ours. I put that in as my own opinion but it seems to me to be a possibility.
In the case of the Employment Service Agency it is important that the staff should have wide knowledge and experience, and so indeed they have. For example, two very senior managers reporting direct to the chief executive of the Agency—the Director of Marketing and the Director of Professional and Executive Recruitment—have in fact been recruited from industry. In the front line of the organisation many of the employment office staff dealing directly with the public have been in a variety of industrial and commercial posts before joining the Department. Looking to the future, the Agency will be considering in consultation with the Staff Side how best to meet its needs for employment advisers; and its plans for training staff will lay stress on occupational and industrial knowledge.
As regards the Commission, it is intended that they should have only a very small staff, but while the scale of the problem is very much less here than in the case of the Agencies the same sort of considerations will apply; and I mentioned that myself on Second Reading. This shows that the Agencies can and do
2158
recruit staff with industrial or commercial experience at present, and that they and the Commission will certainly be able to do so in the future. I hope the noble Baroness will agree that the right course in this matter is to ensure that the Commission and Agencies are able to recruit the sort of staff they will need, and thereafter to leave it to them to get on with it, as she suggests. If we lay down in the legislation that a particular proportion must be drawn from a particular source, that may prove to be too rigid and may inhibit flexibility of management—this was the point put over with great experience by my noble friend Lord Courtown. That applies particularly, I suggest, at the time of the setting up of the Commission and Agencies as statutory bodies. It will be a hard enough job for the management of these bodies to get them set up and into business in their new form without having to observe statutory quotas about the proportion of staff they can recruit from different sources. A provision of this kind could also very greatly increase the uncertainty and the possible unheaval which will be involved for the staff of these bodies.
To turn to the second main point of the Amendment, I suggest it is undesirable to write into the Bill that the terms and conditions of employment should have full regard to the desirability of movement of staff between the Commission and Agencies and industry and commerce. First, it is not surely the practice in legislation, when providing that terms and conditions should be subject to ministerial control—as these will be—to include provisions about particular factors to which Ministers must have regard. Such a provision does not, and should not, prevent Ministers from having regard to other factors. That is surely what ministerial responsibility is about.
But there is a more important point. The White Paper published with the Bill made it clear, in paragraph 37, that it is the Government's intention that Civil Service terms and conditions should continue to apply to the staff of the Commission and Agencies in order to facilitate free movement of staff between these bodies and between any of them and the Department of Employment and indeed other Civil Service Departments. The Secretary of State for Employment has given an assurance to the Staff Side of

2159
the Department's Whitley Council—and the Minister of State for Employment has repeated it in another place—that it is the intention that all new conditions of service and pay for civil servants would apply automatically to staff of the Commission and Agencies. This is not, of course, because we do not want free movement of staff between the Commission and Agencies and industry and commerce. Nor do I think this will prevent any such movement. As I have made clear, at present many of the staff of the Agencies have experience in industry or commerce. But freedom of movement within the complex of organisations and institutions for which the Department of Employment will be responsible is also highly desirable, and this is the reason for the policy which the Government have adopted on this matter. I cannot, therefore, advise the Committee to accept the noble Baroness's Amendment.
BARONESS SEEAR: The noble Earl has not in fact answered my first point, which is that it is laid down that the Commission must employ the people the Secretary of State tells them to employ. This seems to me a most important restriction on the right of the Commission to recruit the people they think most competent to do the job. This is how it stands in the Schedule we have before us. I will accept that there could be improvements in the wording of the Amendment—this has been put before me. I would not entirely accept, however, the comment of the noble Lord who spoke after me, that it would not be possible to find people with real expertise in the personnel field (if you like to use that word as an overall term) for employment and training who will contribute very greatly to the work that needs to be done. But the main point is that the reply of the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, turned largely on what was in the White Paper. What is in the White Paper is one thing, but what counts is what is in the Act. If more of the content of the White Paper was reflected in the paragraph headed "Staff", which is what is going to determine what happens, I should be a great deal happier; because the desire to bring about movement between industry and the Commission, which is reflected in the White Paper, is not reflected—and this is the point of my
2160
Amendment—in what we see in the Bill. And at the end of the day it is what is in the Bill that counts and not what is in the White Paper. If the noble Earl would look again at this Schedule and at the White Paper, which he has quoted with great approval, and will see whether before Report stage some of that more favourable comment in the White Paper could he reflected in the Schedule, then I should be glad to withdraw.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: The noble Baroness said that I had not properly answered her first point. If I have been remiss, let me try again. She said, I think, that paragraph 11 of Schedule 1 is extraordinary. It is based on a very similar provision in the Civil Aviation Act 1971 which set up the Civil Aviation Authority to which Department of Trade and Industry staff were transferred. So I do not think this is without any precedents. However, I agree with her that the rhetoric, so to speak, of my argument, the reasonability of it, depended on using the White Paper; and I will certainly undertake to make a careful correlation between the White Paper and what is in the Bill. I do not accept that there is a divergence, but I bow, as I said initially, to her experience and I will certainly go through it with a toothcomb again.
LORD BYERS: I am grateful to the noble Earl for that undertaking. May I ask him when he goes through it with his toothcomb to look particularly at paragraph 11 under "Staff", because the way I read it it means that it is mandatory on the Commission to accept only those people who are employed by the Secretary of State. It in fact says:
"may determine, an offer of employment by the Commission to each person who is employed by the Secretary of State and whose name is notified to the Commission by the Secretary of State."
That does not seem to me to give much flexibility to the Commission, and I should be grateful if the noble Earl would look at that point when he makes his consideration.
BARONESS SEEAR: In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Modifications of Industrial Training Act 1964]:
8.0 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE THE EARL OF GOWRIE moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 25, line 39, leave out ("any of it") and insert ("levy").
The noble Earl said: With the leave of the Committee I should like to move Amendment No. 12, but at the same time I will speak to Amendments Nos. 14, 17 and 18. The purpose of these Amendments is to clarify the meaning of the provisions in the Bill of Section 7(1)(b) of the Industrial Training Act 1964, as amended, which enable a board to make proposals for having a levy from which there will be no exemption by certificate. The intention is, and always has been, that such a levy could provide that all the employers in the board's industry should be taken out of exemption certificate arrangements and would have to pay levy—it could also provide that only some of them should be taken out of exemption certificate arrangements. The construction industry may well want all employers in the industry to be taken out of exemption certificate arrangements. However, doubts have arisen as to whether or not this intention is secured by the wording of the Bill. These amendments seek to put the wording of the provisions beyond doubt.
It has always been the Government's intention, as was made clear in another place, that the Bill should enable a board to put forward proposals as I have itemised. Such proposals could only be made if the organisations were in favour, and these Amendments are designed to see that there is no ambiguity on the question. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: I beg to move Amendment No. 14.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 4, leave out ("all") and insert ("the employers").—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
8.3 p.m.
LORD GLADWYN LORD GLADWYN moved Amendment No. 15.
Page 34, line 5, leave out paragraph 16, and insert—
("16. Delete section 14(1) of the Act and substitute therefor—
2162
"An industrial training board may exercise such functions in connection with the training for employment in any activity of industry or commerce carried on outside Great Britain of persons temporarily in Great Britain as are exercisable by it under subsections (1) and (4) of section 2 of this Act in connection with the training of persons employed or intending to be employed in the industry for which the Board is established and in pursuance of its power under this section an industrial training board may enter into and carry out contracts—

(i) with

(a) the Minister of the Crown with functions in respect of Overseas Aid where-under the industrial training board acts at the expense of that Minister as the instrument by means whereof technical assistance is furnished by him in exercise of the power conferred on him by section 1(1) of the Overseas Aid Act 1966;

(b) other persons whereunder the industrial training board exercises its functions at the expense of those other persons in respect of any person temporarily in Great Britain and the words other persons" in this subsection shall include foreign governments and foreign and international authorities organisations and agencies.

(ii) of service or apprenticeship with any person temporarily in Great Britain in respect of whom it exercises its power under this section."").

The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will observe that this Amendment is a simplified and less complicated version of the Amendment which I originally tabled. Also it is no longer an Amendment to an Amendment but it is an Amendment to the actual Act, and I hope that as such it will prove acceptable.
In moving the Amendment may I say one word about the background against which it is advanced. As the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, remarked during our debate on Second Reading:
"Section 14 of the Industrial Training Act 1964, which enables the training boards to make arrangements for such training, has not been strengthened."
He went on to say
"As it stands, the Bill does not seem to provide either the incentive, or effective machinery, to create more training places for overseas students."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7/6/73, col. 266.]
I think it is true that the present draft Bill has not been strengthened, but apart from a consequential Amendment, presumably to bring it into line with the rest of the Bill, the effect of it remains exactly as it was in the original Act. This is a great disappointment to those unofficial agencies who for so long have maintained that it is often quite useless

2163
to give instruction to many overseas students, chiefly from the Commonwealth of course, in technical colleges and other worthy institutions of learning, without somehow arranging for them to have practical training in the techniques that they are so laboriously acquiring. Without such practical training, indeed, they frequently return to their homelands deprived of the necessary know-how and thus, as often as not, become discontented or unemployed instead of the unofficial ambassadors of this country which they otherwise might be. This point has been made several times in debates on this subject over the last few years.
As we all know, there are some young people from overseas countries who do receive practical training in this country. I think the figure was about 250 in the year 1972-73. But these are the favoured few, who are either sponsored by their own Governments or from other sources, or have large means of their own; and anyhow, nobody can maintain that 250 is a large number of people having training. There are undoubtedly far more who would like to have practical training to complete their education, and there is no doubt that the necessary facilities could be arranged if only the necessary finance were forthcoming and if the firms concerned would take them on, if they were paid to do so. It is the view of those unofficial organisations which I have mentioned, whose opinions the noble Lord. Lord Sainsbury, and I, have previously urged in this House, that the necessary money should be provided by the Government out of the Vote on overseas aid. This was seen to have great advantages, partly because, one would have thought, prima facie this was a more profitable way of dispensing aid from the point of view of all concerned, and partly because sums expended in this way would obviously put no strain on the exchanges. We therefore—and I speak for the unofficial agencies and people who have been doing this work for a long period of time, and know what they are talking about—live in hopes that the Government will see the force of such arguments and will produce the necessary cash. They have not done so yet, but the assumption is that they may well feel it is clearly desirable that this view of Section 14 in Schedule 2(2)
2164
should be so drafted as to facilitate this process. That therefore is the chief reason for moving a new Amendment to Section 14 and especially, of course, the new paragraph (i)(a).
Paragraph (i)(b) is perhaps less important than paragraph (i)(a) but I very much hope that the Government will accept it, or something like it, because it lays down that the boards are empowered to undertake training in agreement with certain outside bodies and notably, of course, with foreign Governments. Why should the boards not be so empowered, provided always, that the finance is forthcoming? The existing unofficial British agencies could perfectly well, as we think, advise boards on the suitability of candidates coming under this heading. I cannot see why the Government should be suspicious of such a proceeding.
That brings me to what I think is the most important change in the Act embodied in this Amendment. It is the proposed omission from the Act of the words "if the Minister so requests". To consult the Bill itself, paragraph 16 to Schedule 2 to the Bill, the Government amendment of the Act in this regard would substitute the words
"If the Commission on the invitation of the Minister"
so requests, or
"if the Minister so requests".
Surely that is simply a consequential Amendment to bring the paragraph into harmony with the rest of the Bill. I do not suppose that would be disputed.
The effect of the clause as amended by the Government Amendment will remain exactly the same. Our point is that given the weight of the official machine the Minister is quite unlikely to take the initiative in getting the boards to move in the recruitment and training of other than sponsored candidates. Why not therefore leave the initiative to the boards, provided always that they have the necessary cash and that there is adequate machinery for the vetting of the candidates? Some boards may be more forthcoming than others—we would not deny that—but that would not matter. An argument for retaining complete Ministerial initiative, which I trust we shall not in any case hear of again, is that which has been advanced in the past; namely, that if all the boards

2165
were not willing to undertake the extra work involved, no board should be allowed to do so. Why should the unwillingness of, say, the Knitting, Lace and Net Training Board, which presumably would have to place very few overseas students from the Commonwealth, prevent the Engineering Industry Training Board from doing so if it so desired?
I realise that there will probably be objection by the Government to the omission of only the words "if the Minister so requests", or its equivalent proposed by the Government, because it might be thought—and perhaps the Government will so think—that this would not be in accordance with the spirit of the Bill as a whole, where the ultimate authority of the Minister is laid down in practically every paragraph. I understand that objection, although personally I do not share these fears. If by any chance the Government cannot accept this particular part of the Amendment, I wonder whether they would agree to say, perhaps:
"An industrial training board may"?
and insert there—
"with the approval of the Minister"
and then go on
"exercise such functions"
and so on. The point of that would be that, although not as good as my Amendment, it would at least leave the initiative to the boards and it would no longer leave the initiative to the Minister. The Minister would have a power of veto but it would be up to the board to take the initiative, if they so desired—and I think they would—if the Government accept the general thesis that finance might be eventually available out of the General Overseas Aid Fund. It is in the hope that the Government will accept the spirit of this Amendment that I venture to put it forward and I shall be very interested to know what the Government think. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: I tried to show enthusiasm for this arena on Second Reading and, therefore, I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising the subject. While I say right away that I cannot advise the Committee to accept the Amendment absolutely as it stands, I am sympathetic to many of its ideas and certainly one could not fail to be sympathetic to the way in which the
2166
noble Lord has moved it. I should like briefly to consider some of his points and then see what we can do.
Let me take first the proposal that boards should be able to co-operate with the Minister of the Crown having functions in respect of overseas aid and the provision of technical assistance. Boards have already helped the Overseas Development Administration in this way on a small scale. For example, some boards have agreed to release staff at O.D.A. expense for advisory work in certain overseas countries. They have been able to do that as part of their power to employ staff.
LORD GLADWYN: Would the noble Lord mind speaking up and a little more slowly?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: The point I was making was that boards have already helped the Overseas Development Administration on a small scale and as an example I said that some boards had agreed to release staff at O.D.A. expense for advisory work in certain overseas countries. They have been able to do that as part of their power to employ staff. I think that it is right that boards should be able to loan, staff to the Overseas Development Administration to give advice and technical assistance overseas. But it is unnecessary, and therefore undesirable, to amend the Bill to achieve that.
The other point I would make on this matter is that I think it is right that, formally, control over board activities should rest with the Commission and the Secretary of State for Employment. This would not, of course, preclude close working relationships between the O.D.A. and the boards, and such relationships we feel are highly desirable.
Secondly, I turn to the proposal that boards may enter into contracts, in respect of the training of people temporarily in Great Britain, with "other persons", including Governments, international agencies, et cetera. The position is that boards can already do this under Section 14 of the 1964 Act, and also under that section as proposed to be amended by the Bill, but only if the Secretary of State (and now also the Commission) so request. The main effect of the Amendment in this area, therefore, is to remove

2167
the requirement for ministerial agreement to board activities on behalf of foreign Governments and so on. I cannot advise the Committee to agree to this in toto. In all other aspects of boards' work, they have to act in accordance with proposals approved by the Commission, and in some cases, such as imposing a levy, also approved by the Secretary of State. Moreover, as I have explained, under the present Section 14 they can act only at the request of the Secretary of State. Against this background, there needs to be very strong justification for exempting any particular training board activity from some form of supervision and control. It is the Government's view that training boards' relations with overseas Governments and other similar agencies as regards training people temporarily in Great Britain are a matter in which, so far from there being no need for control, or less than in other matters, in fact it is there that we find governmental control is particularly desirable.
Let me turn now to the noble Lord's proposal to omit the words, "at the request of the Minister". Under the 1964 Act as it stands, and as it would be amended by the Bill, the initiative for action by a board under Section 14 must be with the Secretary of State. I am sympathetic to the view that it would be an improvement if in the case of any action under Section 14 a board could take action, with the consent of the Commission and the Secretary of State, instead of only at their request. I do not think a board should be able to act, in this field alone, without the agreement of the Commission, and I think that this is a matter where the consent of the Secretary of State should be required also. I think, too, that a board should continue to be free to decline to take any action at all under Section 14, and that if a board does take action, the existing prohibition on the use of levy money for this purpose should remain. Subject to these points, I am prepared sympathetically to consider introducing a Government Amendment on Report to enable a board to take the initiative under Section 14 of the 1964 Act, if the Commission and the Secretary of State consent.
May I turn finally to the proposal in the Amendment that training boards may
2168
enter into contracts of service or of apprenticeship with persons temporarily in Great Britain? Under Section 14 of the 1964 Act a board has power, subject to a ministerial request, to exercise certain functions in relation to people temporarily in Great Britain and intending to be employed outside Great Britain. These functions are those in subsections (1) and (4) of Section 2 of the 1964 Act. Subsection (1) concerns providing or securing the provision of training, and subsection (4) concerns paying grants to people providing the training, or maintenance allowances to the trainees. Section 14 does not empower a training board to exercise its functions under subsection (2) of Section 2 of the 1964 Act—namely, to enter into contracts of service or apprenticeship with trainees. I am not persuaded that it would make a very significant difference to give boards this power, as they already have the power to pay maintenance allowance to trainees (including overseas trainees), in a way that is helpful to the overseas aid programme.
To summarise, therefore; in conclusion I do not think that all Ministerial control should be removed over the relations between boards and foreign Governments. But I am prepared to consider tabling an Amendment on Report to provide that the initiative may come from a board, subject to the consent of the Commission and the Minister. I also doubt whether it would be worth giving boards a specific power to take into their employment overseas persons being trained in this country, as the board already have power to pay maintenance allowances. In the light of this, I hope the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD GLADWYN: Certainly I agree to withdraw the Amendment, and I am very grateful to the advance towards our point of view which the noble Earl has made. May I draw him for a moment, on one point. I am very grateful that he has more or less accepted the major Amendment posed and will consider in the Report stage inserting the equivalent of the words, "with the approval of the Minister" after, "an industrial training board may", or words to that effect. I think he has admitted that principle and I am grateful that he did so. I am not quite certain, in regard to paragraph 1(a),

2169
which more or less provides for the eventuality of some funds being made available out of the Overseas Trade Fund, whether or not he accepts that principle. Does the noble Earl think that is a possibility? If he does, does he object to some amendment by legislation to paragraph 1(a)? I hope he does not.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: May I say what I originally said, which was that I should like to go over this carefully again. I am considering putting down a Government Amendment and if the noble Lord will leave it at that I will undertake to work as hard as I can in the meantime.
LORD GLADWYN: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.20 p.m.
BARONESS SEEAR BARONESS SEEAR moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 34, line 35, at end insert (", and in exercising this control in relation to boards the Minister will have full regard to the desirability of movement of staff between boards and their industries.")
The noble Baroness said: I shall be very brief. In a way this is much in line with the previous Amendment and I hope that the noble Earl will agree to look at it again before Report stage. It is a matter of considerable concern to training boards that they should have adequate flexibility in the rates of pay that they can offer in the recruitment of staff. And now that their rates of pay are to be, with the approval of the Minister, given with the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service, it would help them very greatly if there could be added to that clause the words standing in the Amendment. It would reassure them that there would be the necessary degree of flexibility in the recruitment of training board staff, which is regarded as essential if they are to carry on the work of the training boards effectively, which we understand is the wish of the Government in the Bill now before us. I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: It will not surprise the noble Baroness to hear that I am fully in sympathy with the intention of her Amendment. Indeed, I recognise the source of these words; as she knows, they come from paragraph 75 of the White Paper. The training boards are empowered to employ their own staff. How-
2170
ever, when the new arrangements relating to boards come into operation their administrative costs—which, of course, includes the salaries of staffs—will be met from the Exchequer. It is logical, therefore, for the Bill to provide that the terms and conditions of employment of board staff shall be subject to Ministerial control. There is nothing new in this; it is a long-standing practice to provide in the legislation establishing grant-aided bodies whose salary costs are to be met from the Exchequer that the pay scales and so on of their staff must he subject to prior Ministerial approval. Noble Lords will appreciate that control is necessary to ensure that Ministers are fully accountable to Parliament for the expenditure of public funds.
However, we recognise the special position of the boards, and that is why the Government gave the specific undertaking in the White Paper published with the Bill that Ministers, in exercising their control in relation to boards, would have full regard to the desirability of movement of staffs between boards and their industries. So the position is quite clear. The Government have given a specific undertaking in unambiguous terms, but it remains that the terms and conditions have to be approved by the Secretary of State with the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service.
The Amendment the noble Baroness proposes is that the specific undertaking given in the White Paper be now incorporated into the Bill. The Amendment goes no further than that, and in fact repeats word for word the undertaking already given. The point I wish to make is that an undertaking in the required terms has been given and it is quite inappropriate to include in legislation this kind of requirement on Ministers. I am advised that of all the Acts giving Ministers power to control pay and conditions of the staff of bodies of this kind not one includes a proviso of this type, although in many cases the same kind of consideration applies. For example, the Civil Aviation Authority, the Commission on Industrial Relations and the Tourist Boards are all in the same sort of position as the training boards, but in no case does the relevant legislation include considerations which Ministers must apply in exercising their approval of the staff's pay and conditions.

2171
Having said that, let me reiterate the Government's position in order that there may be no room for misunderstanding. Ministers will indeed have full regard to the desirability of movement of staff between boards and their industries. There is no intention at all to turn them into civil servants; the employees of the training boards are not intended to be civil servants. The Government fully appreciate the importance of boards' being able to attract good quality staff from their industries, and that is why the specific undertaking was made in the White Paper, in order to ensure the movement between the two which can be said to be beneficial. So I hope, in view of what I have said, the noble Baroness will withdraw her Amendment.
BARONESS SEEAR: I will withdraw it, but I must say that if the undertaking is unambiguous and specific I find it difficult to understand why it cannot be incorporated into the Bill. We are told that in previous Bills it was not done; but two blacks do not make a white and even ten blacks do not make a white. It would greatly reassure the training boards, which, as the noble Lords knows, have been extremely perturbed by the whole question of this reorganisation it would help them very greatly if it were written into the Bill. After all, it is what is in an Act and not what is in the White Paper that matters. It is really impossible between now and Report to see whether we cannot break with this tradition and incorporate these comforting words, apparently words by which the Government feel bound? Why not incorporate them into the Bill?
LORD DRUMALBYN: It will be unprecedented. Nevertheless, I am quite prepared to look into it and see if we can create a precedent.
BARONESS SEEAR: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: I spoke to this Amendment on Amendment No. 12. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 1, leave out ("any of it") and insert ("levy").—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: The same applies to this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 43, leave out ("all") and insert ("the employers").—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Minor and consequential amendments of enactments]:
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: With the leave of the Committee, I should like to speak to this Amendment and to No. 24 at the same time. These are technical Amendments to tidy up the Statute Book by removing a provision which is no longer neeeded. I beg to move Amendment No. 19.
Amendment moved—
Page 56, line 28, at end insert:
("The Unemployment Insurance Act 1935
1. Section 80 of the Unemployment Insurance Act 1935 (which provides for payments out of the National Insurance Fund in respect of the attendance at certain courses of persons entitled to unemployment benefit) shall cease to have effect.")—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: With the leave of the Committee, I should like to move Amendment No. 20 and speak at the same time to Nos. 21, 22 and 23. These are drafting Amendments to remove a technical defect which has been found in the Bill as it stands. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 39, leave out second ("for") and insert ("after").—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: I beg to move Amendment No. 21.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 40, leave out ("substituted") and insert ("inserted").—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: I beg to move Amendment No. 22.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 42, leave out ("for") and insert ("after").—(The Earl of Cowrie.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: I beg to move Amendment No. 23.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 43, leave out ("substituted") and insert ("inserted").—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Repeals]:
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: I spoke to this Amendment with No. 19. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 60, line 3, at end insert—

("25 & 26 Geo. 5. c. 8.

The Unemployment Insurance Act 1935

Section 80.")

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Schedule 4, as amended, shall be agreed to?
LORD DIAMOND: I intervene for one moment to say to the noble Earl that I am sorry if I hurt his feelings a little earlier. He has done an extraordinarily courteous, long and difficult task, and we appreciate everything he has done.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for those words.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

PROTECTION OF WRECKS BILL
8.30 p.m.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(The Earl of Cork and Orrery.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 1 on behalf of my noble friend Lord Kennet and the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery. I do not think one needs to deploy an argument in support of this amendment. It was done fully on Committee, and I understand that the Government undertook to look at the provisions of the
2174
Amendment and to see whether they could give certain assurances that my noble friend and the noble Earl required. I beg to move the Amendment, to give the benefit to the Government.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 46, at end insert—
("(5A) The responsibility for the enforcement of the criminal provisions of this Act shall rest with the Coastguard Service and the Customs Service, who shall pay especial attention to it during the period between its becoming known that the Secretary of State is minded to make an order, and the granting of a licence.")—(Lord Shepherd.)
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for moving this Amendment on behalf of his noble friend Lord Kennet. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, was concerned that there should be some specific obligation put upon either the customs officers, the Customs Service or the Coastguard Service to take account of the areas which will become designated areas from the moment the information is given that they will become designated areas until the time when they are in fact designated. I think I can give the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, the assurances that he requires. I hope that he will not press this Amendment, because we believe that it would be better if the assurances which he seeks are not written into the Bill. It is likely that the news of the intention to designate a site in a particular area will attract pretty constant attention to the site from coastguards as well as from others, and we also have offers of active help from voluntary sources which may prove of considerable use in the areas concerned.
I cannot agree that the Customs Service or the coastguards will be given specific and explicit responsibilities for the protection of these areas. The coastguards and Receiver of Wrecks, the Customs Service and the police will be asked to do all that they can within the normal course of their duties to ensure that no unauthorised persons interfere with these designated sites. In practice, where there is a proposal for a designated area in a coastguard's area the coastguard will be informed and will obviously take an interest in any activities which occur within that area. Furthermore, if there is a serious risk of interference with the site between the time

2175
when it is proposed to designate and the actual order of designation, the Secretary of State has powers to make immediate designation orders.
My Lords, I accept the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, that this is a weak part of the Bill. I accept his desire that specific responsibility should be given to some people but I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will recognise that we take his noble friend's point. I hope that he will realise that we believe that there will be adequate interest and adequate protection from the people to whom I have referred and also from private interests, and I hope he will also realise that if there is any real danger of this area being looted, the Secretary of State has power to make an immediate designation order. My Lords, I hope that with those assurances the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will not wish to place a specific responsibility on either the customs officers or the coastguards to undertake this protection.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY:My Lords, I for one accept the reasonableness of what my noble friend has said in reply to the Amendment. I have slight misgivings, I must confess, because it seems to me, as my noble friend himself has said, that this is a weakness in the Bill. Once a wreck has been discovered and is likely to be designated as a restricted area, the fact has to be so widely advertised that every person who might choose to descend upon it and loot it will be alerted and there is some risk that the Bill itself may be self-defeating. I will not go so far as to say that the Bill as it stands, without the Amendment, would be worse than no Bill at all; but I am not at all sure that it could not turn out to be like that. But I do take the point that the Secretary of State is enabled and empowered in an emergency—if something which could be described as an emergency should arise—immediately to clap on a restriction order. I suspect that there is also a possibility that by the time the emergency may have presented itself to him with sufficient force it may be too late. However, I appreciate that the Government are seized with the significance of this Amendment and I daresay that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will not press it; and I will not do so either.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Earl, and also the noble Earl on the Front Bench opposite, recognises the weakness in this Bill. Like the noble Earl, I do not feel that the assurances which the noble Earl has given go very far except, of course, that in the end it seems to me, from what the noble Earl has said, that it could be considered the responsibility of the Secretary of State to impose an order immediately where there is reason to believe that a wreck, before it has been designated, is liable to be looted. My Lords, I do not think that this is an occasion for pursuing this matter. I think my noble friend Lord Kennet will read with interest what the noble Earl has said and if necessary will come back at a later stage in the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

RYDE CORPORATION BILL
Reported, with Amendments.
SOUTHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
  SCHEDULED TERRITORIES' FOREIGN EXCHANGE EARNINGS
  SCHEDULED TERRITORIES' FOREIGN EXCHANGE EARNINGS
  WATER SPORTS AND DISUSED GRAVEL PITS
  WATER SPORTS AND DISUSED GRAVEL PITS
  PROVINCIAL MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES
  PROVINCIAL MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES
  RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT: POLICY CO-ORDINATION
  RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT: POLICY CO-ORDINATION