Sitting of 18 October 1973

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

  ASHDOWN FOREST BILL [Lords]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That the Promoters of the Ashdown Forest Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend further Proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further Proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid.
  That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration, signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session.
  That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office that a declaration as mentioned above has been deposited has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who shall make only such Amendments thereto as have been made by the Committee in the present Session, and shall report the Bill as amended to the House forthwith, and the Bill, so amended, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table.
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any Proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees hrave already been incurred during the present Session.
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Proceedings deferred till Tuesday next at Seven o'clock.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Prices
    Mr. Edward Taylorasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on food prices.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Joseph Godber): As a result of seasonal and other factors, food prices have been relatively stable during the summer months. Between 22nd May and 21st August, the latest date for which information is available, the food index rose by only 0·6 per cent.
    The sharp rise in world cereal prices in the last three months however, has not yet been fully reflected in the index, but it is bound to cause further significant rises in the coming months.
    Mr. Taylor: In view of the widespread anxiety in this country and other countries about the trends of food prices, can my right hon. Friend give any indication of hopeful signs that prices may stabilise or come down in the future?
    Mr. Godber: If it had not been for the sudden burst in cereal prices, I might have been able to do so. That is the really difficult factor which has emerged in the past three months, and until it has worked its way through it is difficult to see anything particularly hopeful. But forward buying prices for wheat in particular appear to be levelling off, and beef prices are more steady. The price of some protein foods, particularly soya beans, has fallen sharply, and that will help to some degree. But the other factors have to work through the economy, and it would be misleading to say that we shall not have further rises.
    Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: What calculation has the Minister made of the effect of the high cost of feeding stuffs on retail prices to the housewife in the shops?
    Mr. Godber: The right hon. Gentleman will realise that that is a very difficult estimate to make. I could not put a figure on it, but it is right to give the

    385
    broad indication that there will be a substantial further rise. I have never tried to hide that.
    Mr. Charles Morrison: Does my right hon. Friend still agree that one of the best ways of maintaining stability in food prices is the expansion of British agriculture? He will be aware of the fears being expressed about the possible adverse effect of increased feed prices on that expansion. What action does he hope to be able to take in that respect?
    Mr. Godber: There is a Question for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on that matter later this afternoon. However, British agriculture has significantly increased production over the whole range during the past year, and we should pay public tribute to both farmers and farm workers for what they have done. Milk producers will have a critical situation over the coming six months, because of the high feed costs. However, the cost of other commodities will be recouped from the market, although pig producers have been having a somewhat difficult time recently.
    Mr. Strang: Does the right hon. Gentleman's reply to the original Question mean that the Government are reconciled to a sharp increase in the price of bread, biscuits and other bakery products, or are the Government still prepared to consider subsidising such products, which many people believe would be feasible and justifiable?
    Mr. Godber: The Government have given serious consideration to all aspects of subsidies, but we have explained many times the problems that arise with general subsidies. We have a degree of subsidisation for milk and butter. We are perfectly willing to consider these matters from time to time, but against the background of the expected rises we have introduced the threshold arrangements in phase 3.
    Mr. David Clark: Does the Minister realise that his answer will be regarded as disappointing by almost everyone in the country, following yesterday's answer by the Parliamentary Secretary which showed that those two countries that did not enter the EEC with us suffered a price increase for food of between only a half and a third of ours? Can he explain why we have had the terrific increase of nearly
    386
    40 per cent. in the cost of food since the General Election?
    Mr. Godber: I have explained many times the reasons for the rises. There are other Questions on the Order Paper later on which I hope to deal with these matters. The other countries have their own characteristics, which I am sure can be easily explained. But I imagine that they will be affected equally with us by the enormous increase in cereal prices; every country in the world is being affected by that at present.
    Mr. Thomas Coxasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the percentage increase in food prices since June 1970.
    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. Godber: I would refer the hon. Members to the reply given yesterday to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
    Mr. Cox: Is the Minister aware that the figure he is ashamed to repeat in this House, namely the 37 per cent. increase in food prices, is a scandalous indictment of the Government? Is he further aware that that 37 per cent. increase plus the fall in the value of the pound by about 25p means that food bills for the average family in Britain have gone up by £4·50 since the Government came to power? When will the Government stop making excuses and start to admit their incompetence and get rid of inflation?
    Mr. Godber: I am not aware of any of the suppositions put forward by the hon. Member—
    Mr. Cox: Are they not true?
    Mr. Godber: I would remind him that the position is—[Interruption.] The figure is 37·3 per cent.—[Interruption.] The hon. Member must realise that it is the practice of this House when an answer has been given only the previous

    387
    day not to repeat the answer. That is perfectly normal. But taking the figure of 37·3 per cent. as the increase in food prices since June 1970, the comparable figures are an increase in earnings for that period of 44·8 per cent. and an increase in pensions of 55 per cent. Therefore, earners and pensioners alike have a substantially higher purchasing power for food than when we came into office.
    Mr. Carter: In view of the spiralling costs of food, does the Minister not accept that there is an urgent need for an immediate investigation into the affairs of the commodity markets in London as they concern food? Between June 1970 and June 1973 the commodity index for food rose from 132 to 250, and much of this was due to speculation of a most squalid and corrupt kind.
    Mr. Godber: If the hon. Member has evidence to support that statement I should be glad to have it. The Government certainly have no desire to hide any question of anyone speculating in that way.
    However, without evidence it is impossible for the Government to act. The significant thing is that if commodities have risen as fast as that over the period mentioned it shows how effective the Government's anti-inflation policy has been because the price of food to the consumer has not risen nearly so much.
    Mr. Farr: Will my right hon. Friend indicate, for instance, by what percentage the consumption of certain basic foods has increased over a similar period? Will he indicate how the consumption of meat has gone up in Britain?
    Mr. Godber: The consumption of meat over that period has gone up considerably. With regard to the figures given of the food moving into consumption, there were claims made in the Press a week or two ago about meat consumption being down compared with the position which was reached at the end of rationing. I must report that carcase meat consumption is 9 per cent. higher and that total meat consumption is now 36 per cent. higher.
    Mr. William Price: Why does not the right hon. Gentleman pack his bags?
    Mr. Godber: I shall be happy to pack them and to go and search for food.
    388
    Unlike some hon. Members, I was doing so during the recess.
    Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: In view of the figures which my right hon. Friend has just given to the House, will he confirm that a smaller proportion of the family budget is now spent on foodstuffs than for a long time?
    Mr. Godber: That is most certainly true, and it is borne out by the official statistics. That is not surprising when we consider comparisons with the figures which I gave. In fact, I did not give the most telling comparison of all—namely, the all-items price index. Food represents about one quarter of that index. While earnings have risen by 44·8 per cent. and pensions by 55 per cent., the all-items index has risen by only 28·8 per cent.
    Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his continuing complacency in this vital matter is frightening? How does he reconcile the Government's claim that competitive forces will bring down food prices with the increases and the enormous profit recently announced by supermarket chains? Will he refer the matter to the Price Commission?
    Mr. Godber: I really must repudiate the right hon. Gentleman's accusation of complacency. My first answer this afternoon was clear enough evidence of the concern which I have about the rising level of prices. If hon. Members seek to distort the position, it is my duty to give the correct figures to the House. That is what I must do. The Government are willing to consider any evidence of malpractice, but we must have evidence on which to act.
    Mr. Hardyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how the increase in the price of food during the previous 12 months compares with the highest previous rise for a similar period since his records were begun.
    Mr. Raphael Tuckasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the percentage increase in the price of food for the 12 months to the latest convenient date.
    Mr. Godber: Between 22nd August 1972 and 21st August 1973, the latest date

    389
    for which information is available, the food index rose by 12·8 per cent. The largest increase for a similar period since the Second World War was 15·6 per cent. in the year ending August 1951.
    Mr. Hardy: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that food prices, which have been supervised by this administration since the election, have been worse than at any time in living memory or recorded history? If he disagrees with that, will he say when, over the appropriate period, they were worse? Further, will he confirm that the Prime Minister fought the previous General Election on a platform of reducing food prices at a stroke?
    Mr. Godber: The hon. Gentleman could not have heard what I said. I shall repeat it. I dealt precisely with the point that the hon. Gentleman made. During the last 12 months there was an increase of 12·8 per cent. During the period ending August 1951—a similar period—it was 15·6 per cent., which was substantially higher. Opposition Members have always said that the Korean War caused that increase. In fact, it was because of world conditions. The present situation has also arisen because of world conditions.
    Mr. Tuck: What is the use of all the Government's faces—I mean "phases"; a Freudian slip—when prices are soaring? It is all very well to blame world prices, but why do not the Government do something to alleviate the situation—for example, by giving deficiency payments—instead of exacerbating the situation by raising import levies? Is it because President Pompidou will not let the Government take such action?
    Mr. Godber: That is not why the Government do not take such action. The price of certain foods—for example, milk—has keen kept steady for the last two years. The position is that we have considered all aspects. If we were to seek to insulate the consumer against the effect of world prices, we should have had to impose an increase of approximately £1,400 million to correct the position over the last 12 months. In phase 3 we have provided a threshold arrangement which, after the RPI has risen above 7 per cent., will take effect as required to safeguard earners' wages.
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: When Opposition Members try to excuse the great
    390
    increases in 1951 because of the Korean War, are not they admitting that world forces were bigger than they could handle? Why do they deny the same position today? Are they not putting forward just a narrow, silly party point?
    Mr. Godber: That is the point which I was seeking to make. It is interesting that the Opposition apply an entirely different criterion to rises under this Government than to rises under their Government. They should be honest and admit that world conditions are the cause.
    Mr. David Clark: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain, if the increase of 12·8 per cent. in food prices up to August is due entirely to world conditions, why the increase in Switzerland was only 4·9 per cent. and in Sweden 5·8 per cent.? Are those countries not affected by world conditions?
    Mr. Godber: I have no information about the countries which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman might consider what has happened in the United States, where the rise in food prices has been steeper than in Britain in recent months.
    Mr. R. C. Mitchellasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the percentage increase in food prices since 6th November 1972.
    Mr. Fortescueasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage increase has occurred since November 1972 in the cost of materials used by the food manufacturing industry; and by what percentage during the same period retail prices of manufactured foods have risen.
    Mr. Godber: Between November 1972 and, August 1973, the raw materials packaging and fuel costs of food manufacturers rose by 28 per cent. Over the same period, the retail prices of food items mainly manufactured in the United Kingdom rose by 3·5 per cent. while the food index as a whole rose by 11·5 per cent.
    Mr. Mitchell: Is not that figure of 11·5 per cent. disgraceful at a time when the Government are supposed to be operating a counter-inflation policy? In view of the right hon. Gentleman's

    391
    answer to Question No. 8, will he tell us the rise in national average earnings over the same period?
    Mr. Godber: The rise in earnings over the same period was 11·8 per cent., so there is very little difference between the rise in food prices and the rise in average earnings. The relative position has remained fairly stable. But what the hon. Gentleman has not noted is that raw material and packaging costs have risen by 28 per cent., while the rise in manufactured goods has been extremely small. This shows how effective the Government's action has been.
    Mr. Fortescue: Is not the figure of 3½ per cent. rise in retail prices eloquent testimony to the excellent part which the food manufacturers are playing in fighting inflation? Should not these firms be given every incentive to increase their investment in processing machinery in order to continue their efforts in this direction?
    Mr. Godber: I agree with both aspects. It is important that these industries should be given every encouragement, because they are doing an extremely good job under very difficult conditions, which, whatever the Opposition say, are dominated by enormous rises in imported food costs.
    Mr. Gwynoro Jones: What did the present Leader of the House mean when he said, three years ago, that the nation and the housewives had been mollycoddled for long enough by a cheap food policy?
    Mr. Godber: I cannot recall the precise quotation.
    Mr. Jones: He said it.
    Mr. Godber: I am not saying that he did not say it, but I cannot recall it. I cannot recall every statement made by every Member of this House. I am not disputing that my right hon. Friend may have said it, but the conditions which have developed since could not have been known by him then, or by the Opposition.
    Miss Quennell: Does not my right hon. Friend think it a little odd that when beef prices rise to the farmer we have an inquiry, that when feed prices rise to the farmer we do nothing about it, and
    392
    that when beef prices fall to the farmer the housewife enjoys no benefit?
    Mr. Godber: I note the point, but in fairness I should point out that the Government do seek to do something about it with the farmers at the Annual Price Review, which is the normal time. But I note also the attitude of the Opposition. It is not for me to comment on that, but the Government seek to encourage production here because it is a basic fact that the more food this country can produce the better for the housewife.
    Mr. James Lamond: If the right hon. Gentleman believes that everything is going so well, that the people are eating more meat although they are spending a smaller proportion of their wages on food, and that the pensioners are better off than ever before, does he expect these happy electors to flock in large numbers to support Conservative candidates at the coming by-elections?
    Mr. Godber: Yes, certainly—as much as they are likely to support the Opposition. But it is necessary for me to reiterate these facts because of the distortions made again and again by the Opposition. It is undeniable that people have a higher purchasing power for food than they did during the whole six years of Labour Government.

    Cereals (Denaturing Incentives)
    Mr. Terry Davisasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much was spent by the Intervention Board on denaturing incentives in the first six months of 1973; and how much it is intended to spend in the present financial year.
    The Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Anthony Stodart): By 30th June 1973 the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce had paid £6,298,000 on denaturing incentives mainly for the denaturing of wheat. The estimate for the 1973–74 financial year provides for a total expenditure on these incentives of £22 million at present rates. These payments are financed by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund.
    Mr. Davis: Is it true that more than 1 million tons of wheat have already been made unfit for human consumption? Is

    393
    the Minister aware that, although everyone appreciates that farmers have always used wheat to feed their animals, many people will consider it a shocking waste that food should be spoilt when so many people in the world do not have enough to eat?
    Mr. Stodart: Up to 30th September 1 believe about 1·5 million tons had been denatured. That is in almost strict ratio with what has always happened to wheat in this country. Normally, about half the total wheat crop has been fed to livestock.
    Mr. Loughlin: Is not the purpose of denaturing foodstuffs to ensure that they do not come on to the market for human consumption? Is it not criminally obscene for the Government to denature foodstuffs when the whole country is protesting strongly and continually about increases in prices?
    Mr. Stodart: I do not agree with the hon. Member. Food subsidies have been paid by all Governments in this country and when they are paid precautions are always taken to see that they cannot be paid twice on the same material.

    Dried Fruit (Liquid Paraffin Treatment)
    Mrs. Joyce Butlerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which categories of dried fruit are treated with liquid paraffin before sale to the public; what indication is given about this on the labels or containers; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): The only dried fruit which are permitted by the Mineral Hydrocarbons in Food Regulations 1966 to contain liquid paraffin are prunes, currants, sultanas and raisins. The Labelling of Food Regulations 1970 require that a list of ingredients is given on most pre-packed foods, including dried fruit. The presence of liquid paraffin should, therefore, be indicated on the label.
    Mrs. Butler: How far has the Food Standards Committee in its review of the Hydrocarbon Oils in Food Regulations gone to hear consumer concern about this practice and its unsatisfactory nutritional effects, particularly as no warning is ever
    394
    displayed that the liquid paraffin should be thoroughly washed off the food before it is eaten? Would it not be satisfactory to substitute an effective vegetable oil for the liquid paraffin in view of the difficulties?
    Mrs. Fenner: Investigations continue into other substances. The Food Standards Committee found no evidence that the practice constituted a risk to the health of the consumer. The hon. Member asked when the Food Additives and Contaminates Committee would be reporting on its current review on the use of mineral hydro-carbons. Comments have been invited from all interested organisations, including users, enforcement authorities and consumers, so we shall have ample opportunity for examining the views of those concerned when the committee reports.

    Soft Fruit
    Mr. Kinseythe Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what difficulties the agricultural industry is experiencing in harvesting soft fruit, &c., due to demands for labour.
    Mr. Anthony Stodart: The warm dry weather in June and the first half of July shortened the season for some crops and made it more difficult for growers to obtain sufficient labour for picking. The steady growth in "pick-your-own" sales compensated for this 'to some extent.
    Mr. Kinsey: My hon. Friend recognises that the agricultural industry, particularly close to large cities where it competes with high wages, is experiencing difficulty in finding labour. I am told that one-sixth—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon Member must put his point in the form of a question.
    Mr. Kinsey: I am leading to a question, Mr. Speaker. I am told that one-sixth goes in labour costs. Is my hon. Friend considering the question of mechanising harvesting and seeing what can be done to bring down this cost?
    Mr. Stodart: A mechanical harvester for blackcurrants is now available and is commercially on the market. Research is being done into the mechanical picking of raspberries and strawberries.

    Bacon Imports
    Mr. Spriggsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the present level of import duty or levy on bacon imported into the United Kingdom from outside the EEC.
    Mr. Anthony Stodart: About £31 per ton.
    Mr. Spriggs: As British bacon prices have increased by from 70 per cent. to 100 per cent. in the last two years, what is the purpose of the levy?
    Mr. Stodart: I think it is perhaps the equivalent of the duty that used to be 10 per cent. ad valorem on imports prior to the existence of the levy and there seems to me to be no difference therein.
    Mr. Fry: Is my hon. Friend the Minister aware of the deep concern of many pig farmers in Britain, especially in my constituency, over their decreased margins? Many of them are now bringing sows to market because of the possible cost of keeping them through the winter, and this creates a consequent danger to pork and bacon supplies in 1974.
    Mr. Stodart: Yes, I am aware of that concern but my hon. Friend is aware that within the last few weeks the market price for pigs has firmed considerably.
    Mr. Jay: In view of the present outrageously high price of bacon, why do the Government impose this tax?
    Mr. Stodart: Because it happens to be one of the regulations of the Community.

    Acetic Acid
    Dr. Gilbertasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what reply he has sent to the letter from the Confederation of Fried Fish Caterers' Associations complaining at the EEC proposal to ban the use of non-brewed acetic acid vinegar in foodstuffs.
    Mrs. Fenner: The National Federation of Fish Friers has been informed that there is as yet no EEC proposal which would ban the use of acetic acid in food. We would view any future proposal concerning products of this kind in the light of existing United Kingdom law and practice. These place no inhibitions on fish friers in this country providing non-brewed condiment for use by
    396
    their customers, but to describe it as vinegar would be contrary to existing United Kingdom law.
    Dr. Gilbert: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that answer. When will the Government tell the bureaucrats in Brussels that the British people are fed up with the mucking about with what goes into our food? It appears that they are not content with mucking about with our beer, the milk which goes into our tea and our sausages. They are now trying it with fish and chips. When will the Government tell the bureaucrats that the British people are getting fed up?
    Mrs. Fenner: That is absolute rubbish. I explained to the hon. Gentleman there is no EEC proposal. Therefore, I can hardly tell the bureaucrats what he suggests.

    Sugar Refining
    Dr. Dickson Mabonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the future reorganisation of the sugar refining industry in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Godber: Discussions with the companies concerned are still continuing.
    Dr. Mabon: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm the report in the Financial Times today that an agreement in principle—
    "to establish a UK refining monopoly for both cane and beet sugar was signed willingly by all the parties concerned"—
    namely, Tate and Lyle, the British Sugar Corporation and Manbre and Garton—
    "last August 8th, under the chairmanship of the Department of Trade and industry"?
    Will the Minister tell us whether that is so? Further, is he aware that Mr. John Lyle, in a letter to Members of Parliament, has said that the campaign which his company has launched since Sunday disputes that claim? He bases his concern on the fact that he has not received any concrete assurance that the Government will insist on the continuation of a fair subvention payment for the year from 30the June 1974? In view of the many men who are here today and who are worried about their jobs, will the Minister say something more about the matter?
    Mr. Godber: It is unfortunate that the debate on this subject has had to be

    397
    adjourned. I wish that we could have had it today. It would then have been possible to expound all the details of this complicated story. I can confirm that the three companies concerned signed a general undertaking to proceed with negotiations on 8th August this year. That is the position.
    In the light of communications such as the one which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, and comment in this morning's Press, I took the precaution of ascertaining from Tate and Lyle whether the firm was still willing to go ahead with such negotiations. Its managing director has confirmed that his company will entertain an offer made pursuant to the memorandum of 8th August and that it does not regard the negotiations as having broken down. He made clear that he would prefer a two-company solution.
    Sir Robin Turton: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the danger of creating a large monopoly, which would be contrary to the policy of the Monopolies Commission and also the policy against cartelisation in the EEC?
    Mr. Godber: My right hon. Friend will realise that the position in the sugar industry is such that there is already, to a degree, a monopolistic situation. The cane refining is done by two companies only, and the beet refining by one, so there is a very near monopoly position. The question is how to organise the industry to secure the future employment of those very men who are outside at present and to ensure that future sugar refining is done in the best possible way. I understand that the three companies are genuinely seeking a way forward. The Government are trying to help and I hope that we shall continue to be able to do so.
    Mr. Ogden: It is good to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that Mr. Cube was never so free and unfettered as he pretended. Have the Common Market negotiations been helped or hindered by the failure of the industry to reach agreement? If it cannot reach agreement quickly, when will the Government bring forward proposals? The Opposition have their own proposals for the situation.
    Mr. Godber: Again, there is some misunderstanding. There are no direct nego-
    398
    tiations going on about this matter. As I reported in July the question of the refining margin is covered up to the end of next June and will be considered then. The question of the future régime in the Community, dating from December 1975, has only recently been tabled. We have been discussing this matter in regard both to Commonwealth sugar and to beet sugar production in Europe. In respect of Commonwealth sugar, the Commission reiterated the figure that we have always pressed for—1·4 million tons—and I am sure we shall get that.
    Mr. Marten: Has my right hon. Friend any reason to believe that the refining margin will not be renewed after next June?
    Mr. Godber: No. Obviously, it is essential for the continued availability of Commonwealth sugar that it shall be renewed. The point is, at what level? It is a matter to be discussed. I shall put to my colleagues in the Council of Ministers the relevant factors at the time. But it must be dependent on what developments there are in the reorganisation of the industry, whether they take place or not, and on this will depend the sort of level which may be required. No one at this moment can forecast the precise position on that point.
    Mr. Shore: We shall look with interest at any proposals which emerge for the reorganisation of the industry, particularly bearing in mind the position of the many thousands of workers who may be affected, including people in the development areas and the Thames and Clyde areas.
    Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the heart of the matter is that he agreed in the first place—in January this year—to too low a sugar refining margin, and that it is only because of that that he has had to ask Parliament for a sugar subsidy, which he has had to bulldoze through the Commission and the Council of Ministers to get them to accept, and only then until next summer?
    Secondly, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the whole problem of so-called excess capacity in the British refining industry is due wholly to his own acceptance of the phasing out, or reduction, or limitation, of cheaper imported cane sugar into Britain in favour of the

    399
    protected beet sugar industries of Western Europe?
    Mr. Godber: That question illustrates the need for a full debate, and I think that we must have one. It is true that the margin fixed in January proved inadequate. At that time I argued for a higher margin, but many factors were put forward—one of them the much lower margin which it was claimed that Continental refiners had. I warned then that if the margin proved inadequate I would reserve our right to provide a subvention so that I could safeguard the position. The refining margin is one question, but reorganisation is a totally different one.
    On the question of supplies, my right hon. and learned Friend who negotiated the treaty of acceptance made clear in this House at the time that the undertaking he had secured was for a continuation of 1·4 million tons, and that I am certain we shall get. It was understood that the Australian quota would be phased out at some stage, and that has not been questioned until now. The remaining requirement of the cane refiners has been for the use of some raw beet sugar for final refining. That, as I would have made clear in the debate, will no longer be available in the previous quantity because for economic reasons it is much more efficient to refine it completely in the original factories. These are some of the complicated issues with which it is impossible to deal adequately at Question Time.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. Martenasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on further progress with the review of the common agricultural policy.
    Mr. Deakinsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about European Economic Community proposals for reform of the common agricultural policy.
    Mr. Biffenasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the outcome of the review of the principles and mechanism of the common agricultural policy.
    Mr. Jayasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made on the review by the European Economic Community of the common agricultural policy; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Godber: We are awaiting the report from the Commission on its examination of the common agricultural policy. I understand that this is now unlikely to be considered by the Council of Ministers until next month.
    Mr. Marten: Did my right hon. Friend hear the Prime Minister say at the Conservative Party Conference that there should be changes in the common agricultural policy? May the House be told what he had in mind and what changes the Government are proposing so that it can express an opinion on them at the earliest stage, before the Commission and the Community generally get involved?
    Mr. Godber: I heard what my right hon. Friend said, in an extremely good speech. On this point I would tell my hon. Friend that until we receive proposals from the Commission it is difficult for us to comment on what should be done. We have made quite clear in Brussels the way in which we want to move. We particularly want to get a proper balance in production so that we do not get unnecessary and expensive surpluses. This is the objective of the Government but there are many different ways in which it can be brought about. Until we get the proposals of the Commission I do not think it is useful to comment.
    Mr. Deakins: Does the right hon. Gentleman regard the principle of common financing as sacrosanct, or would he support, if the European Commission proposed such a measure, a move to place the burden of restructuring European agriculture on to those countries which benefited from such a process?
    Mr. Godber: The hon. Member will, I am sure, recall that Article 39 of the Treaty of Rome spells out the principles in this respect. They are stated as being free trade between members, common financing and Community preference. These are the three aspects on which the common agricultural policy is founded. The hon. Member has mentioned one of them and it is obviously one of the principles which we have to accept and work

    401
    within. But within that it should be possible to devise ways which should encourage national Governments to do something to assist with particular problems in areas of farming difficulty. At the same time, we are seeking to achieve a directive which would help the less favoured areas on a Community basis. I would not wish to say that necessarily I want to see this done wholly on a national basis. I want to get a Community basis for some of these things and then perhaps fit in, on a national basis, the additional arrangements which would be helpful.
    Mr. Biffen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he will take with him good will from all quarters of the House in his search for fundamental reforms in the common agricultural policy? Is it not already clear that in that task he will meet the implacable hostility of the farming lobbies of France and the Republic of Ireland? In these circumstances, will he say whether that review would be subject to a French national veto?
    Mr. Godber: I am always grateful for the good will of this House in all the activities that I have to carry on. While I acknowledge the point my hon. Friend has made about the CAP, I think we must see what proposals come forward. Obviously, any one of the member Governments can resist anything which they claim is against their national interest. That is open to all of us. The way in which we usually try to proceed is by consensus. I hope that we can get a reasonable consensus for amendments to this policy.
    Mr. Jay: In view of the promises we had about reforming this organisation from within, is it really true that the British Government have not made any proposals for fundamental reform? If they have, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what they are?
    Mr. Godber: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that proposals have to come from the Commission, and then the Council of Ministers deals with them. This is the practice in the Community. This does not mean that we cannot feed in ideas at different levels, which of course we do, as do all delegations. But no formal communication has been made by any Government on this point. It is
    402
    a matter dealt with in informal discussions prior to the Commission producing its proposals.
    Mr. Jay indicated dissent.
    Mr. Godber: This is the normal way of functioning in the Community, and however much the right hon. Gentleman shakes his head that is the situation. If he does not approve, I suggest that the Labour Party should send delegates to Strasbourg and help to change the situation.
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is nothing whatever in the common agricultural policy to prevent him from helping milk producers now over the price of feeding stuffs? Does he further accept that the majority of milk producers in my constituency are small hill farmers, for whom the next six months will be critical? Is he aware that there will be no surplus of milk in my part of the world if we do not get some assistance before the Price Review?
    Mr. Godber: My hon. Friend is rightly concerned about one aspect of farming at present which worries all of us concerned with the industry. We have given careful thought to ways in which we could help and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has seen the leader of the farmers' union about it. It would be wrong to say that we can introduce measures between Price Reviews. The important thing is to observe that the opportunities for milk producers will be continually improving over the next few years and that they have had two good years. Although they have a difficult six months ahead, I ask them to look at this picture as a whole.
    Mr. Shore: Surely the Minister understands, if he is to be taken seriously in the negotiations in Brussels on the CAP, that it is not good enough to start off with the proposition that we simply accept the so-called fundamentals in the CAP—which are Community preference and common finance—because these are the very pillars of the policy and they are the great disadvantages from which we suffer. Will he bring the whole issue of the reform of the CAP before the House so that we can express to him, and through him to Brussels, our views on the reform of the CAP before he enters any serious negotiations?
    Mr. Godber: The right hon. Gentleman must surely recall that on more than one occasion during the summer I have said that we accept the principles to which he was referring. We believe that there is plenty of scope within those principles to make adjustments which will help to bring about a proper balance. This is the way we seek to achieve a change and this is the sensible way to approach the matter.

  PRESIDENT NIXON
  Dr. Marshallasked the Prime Minister when next he plans to have an official meeting with the President of the United States of America.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): President Nixon is planning a visit to Europe. No firm proposals for the visit have been made but I look forward to the opportunity for a further discussion with him during the visit.
  Dr. Marshall: In whatever contacts the Prime Minister has with President Nixon, may I ask him to impress upon him the fact, as reported in today's Guardian, that whereas the United States depends on Middle Eastern sources for 10 per cent. of her oil the corresponding figure for Western Europe is 80 per cent., so that any action which may prolong hostilities is far more likely to hurt Europe than America?
  The Prime Minister: This is the position, and it is one of which President Nixon is well aware. I have personally discussed the matter with him during our previous talks. The dependence of the United States on external sources of oil is rapidly becoming greater. In a comparatively few years it will be very great indeed.
  Mr. Ridsdale: When my right hon. Friend speaks to the President will he discuss the new trilateral relationship which is growing up between Japan, the United States and Europe? What conversations did he have with the Japanese Prime Minister about this?
  The Prime Minister: It was after my meeting with President Nixon in Bermuda that I first put forward the importance of the trilateral arrangement between the Community, the United States and Japan.
  404
  This was naturally a matter which I further discussed with the Prime Minister of Japan when he visited us recently. We discussed in particular the European Declaration and whether this was something which should try to embody the transatlantic and transpacific arrangements or whether there could be separate declarations.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: Will the Prime Minister take the initiative with the President in urging a joint embargo by Britain, America, Russia and France on all arms supplies and training to both sides in the Middle East? Is that not the sensible way to lasting peace in the Middle East?
  The Prime Minister: We have been in constant touch with a fairly large number of Governments since the conflict began, obviously including the United States, the Soviet Union, the Arab countries, and so on. It has been very much in our minds that it might be possible, or at least we ought to try, to achieve an arrangement of this kind. It has not so far been possible.

  PRESIDENT POMPIDOU
  Mr. Dalyellasked the Prime Minister when he next hopes to have an official meeting with M. Pompidou.
  Mr. Thomas Coxasked the Prime Minister what further plans he has to meet the President of France.
  The Prime Minister: I am looking forward to another meeting with President Pompidou soon but am not yet in a position to name any dates.
  Mr. Dalyell: The Prime Minister says that he has been in touch with other Governments. Has there been any harmonisation with the Government of France on the supply of arms to the Middle East?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I think that the Community countries are in all circumstances following the same policy.
  Mr. Cox: Is the Prime Minister aware that when that meeting takes place he can speak with the full-hearted consent of the British people in telling the French

  405
  President that Britain is totally disillusioned with the European Common Market? Is he further aware that, whatever dream world the Prime Minister may live in, to the people of the United Kingdom Europe means increased prices? What action will he take to fight for a change in the financing of the common agricultural policy?
  The Prime Minister: Fortunately, President Pompidou is not so ill-informed as is the hon. Gentleman. The increase in prices arising from our membership of the European Community is not yet 1 per cent.
  Sir Gilbert Longden: When my right hon. Friend sees President Pompidou, will he do what he can to ensure that our defence co-operation with France is kept as close as possible? Is there any possibility of France rejoining NATO?
  The Prime Minister: France remains a member of the Alliance. Any question of her rejoining NATO is entirely a matter for the French Government. The French Government know very well that, naturally, other members of NATO would like France to rejoin.
  Mr. Steel: In his conversations with the French President, will the Prime Minister raise the question of the Common Market's sugar imports and impress upon the President that many people in this country consider that one of the most useful ways of helping the underdeveloped countries is for the Community to use its considerable economic power to assist in increasing imports?
  The Prime Minister: The French President realises full well the importance for the developing Commonwealth countries of the arrangement of 1·4 million tons which is included in the Commission's proposals.
  Mr. Shore: Is this not just a question of the 1·4 million tons but also of how much the EEC itself exports in competition with the exports of developing countries in the world market?
  The Prime Minister: That is bound to be one aspect of it. In negotiations we have been concerned with the arrangement for the developing Commonwealth countries. They have accepted the
  406
  arrangement and they affirmed this to me during the Heads of Government meeting in Ottawa. The general Community policy on sugar—both beet and cane—is a matter for the Council of Ministers.

  BLACKPOOL
  Mr. Skinnerasked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Blackpool.
  The Prime Minister: I have visited Blackpool recently—but I have no immediate plans to do so again.
  Mr. Skinner: The Prime Minister should go back—[Interruption.].
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question.
  Mr. Skinner: Does not the Prime Minister realise that he has a public duty —[Interruption.].
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Member ask a question?
  Hon Members: He has done.
  Mr. Skinner: "Does not the Prime Minister realise?" is a question.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Sometimes when there is a great deal of noise it is not easy for the Chair to hear. The hon. Member is trying to put a question—let him put the question.
  Mr. Skinner: You are very sensible, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: That may be a statement of the obvious, but it is not a question.
  Mr. Skinner: Does not the Prime Minister realise that he has a public duty to trot along to the Lord Mayor's office in Blackpool and apologise for all the blood on the Winter Gardens floor?
  The Prime Minister: I paid an official visit to the Mayor of Blackpool on Tuesday, dined with him in the evening, attended his reception on Wednesday and dined with him on Friday. I do not think that it is necessary for me to do any more in that respect, and it is certainly unnecessary to call him the Lord Mayor.

  CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
  Mr. Horamasked the Prime Minister if he will dismiss the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
  Mr. Horam: That is a disappointing reply. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer has presided over a post-war record of unemployment, a post-war record of inflation, a post-war record of depreciation in the external value of the currency, and a post-war record in investment recession, is on target for a postwar record balance of payments deficit, and is continually handing millions of pounds to the rich, is not that some evidence that the Prime Minister's confidence in the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a trifle misplaced?
  The Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend has been responsible for the expansion of the economy, with the result that unemployment is now down to 509,000—far lower than when we came into office—I would expect the Labour Party, which has always been—and rightly so—concerned about employment, to congratulate the Government.
  Mr. Adley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a great deal more support in the Conservative Party for the Chancellor of the Exchequer than there appears to be in the Labour Party for the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer?
  The Prime Minister: I do not wish to form a judgment about that at this point. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman remains shadow Chancellor because, as he showed at Blackpool, he is one of our greatest assets.
  Mr. Sheldon: As the Prime Minister is acting as the Minister directly responsible for the prices and incomes policy, what are the responsibilities of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this regard?
  The Prime Minister: The whole Government are responsible for the prices and incomes policy. At the meetings which are held with the TUC and the CBI I take the chair and the Chancellor of the Exchequer with the Secretary of State for Employment and the Minister for Trade
  408
  and Consumer Affairs are present with me.

WHITE HOUSE TAPE RECORDINGS
Mr. Kaufmanasked the Prime Minister if he will ask President Nixon to supply him with copies of all tape recordings made of conversations and decisions between himself and the President at the White House, Washington, D.C.
The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
Mr. Kaufman: Is the Prime Minister satisfied with the situation in which the President of the United States has in his possession tape recordings of conversations with himself containing trade and defence secrets of the United Kingdom which the President, on past precedent, will feel perfectly at liberty to pass on to private American citizens suspected of serious criminal offences? Is this a satisfactory situation? Should not the right hon. Gentleman, in this country's national interest, secure the return of those tape recordings?
The Prime Minister: I have no knowledge of any tape recordings of conversations in the White House. In my conversations with President Nixon either the Secretary of the Cabinet or another official was present and took records for our own purposes.
Mr. Burden: If any question of obtaining tape recordings from the White House arises, will my right hon. Friend consider obtaining the tape recordings of the conversations between the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, when he was in power, and the American Government? They would be much more enlightening.
The Prime Minister: I must give my hon. Friend the same reply. I have no knowledge of any tape recordings.
Mr. Whitehead: The Prime Minister, said, in answer to an earlier question, that he intends to see President Nixon again. When he does will he seek an undertaking from him that no tape recordings will be made of conversations between members of Her Majesty's Government and the American Government?
The Prime Minister: That matter should be left until our meeting.

POLITICAL POWER (DEVOLUTION)
Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Welsh Office, Scottish Office, and Department of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in respect of the devolution of political power.
The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Hamilton: When will the Kilbrandon Report be available to us? Does the Prime Minister understand that whatever decisions on devolution are taken most hon. Members on both sides of the House representing Scottish constituencies would deplore any action which reduced the status of Scottish Members in the United Kingdom Parliament?
The Prime Minister: I cannot yet tell the House when the Kilbrandon Report will be available. It is likely to be a substantial work and all hon. Members will wish to study it in detail before offering their views on it. I do not want to comment in advance on a report that has not yet been published.
Mr. Ross: In the meantime, is the Prime Minister satisfied with the coordination between himself and his Scottish Unionist supporters?
Mr. Douglas: Does the Prime Minister accept that in view of the Community's regional policy there is an important need to take steps to ensure that the Commissioner for Regional Policy comes into direct contact with the Scottish Grand Committee whenever possible?
The Prime Minister: That is a procedural matter which I am prepared to study, without giving an answer off the cuff. Of course, Ministers in the Scottish Office have every opportunity to discuss in Brussels matters affecting the United Kingdom, including Scotland.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Harold Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for the last week of this Session?
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 22nd October—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Local Government (Scotland) Bill.
TUESDAY 23rd October—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Maplin Development Bill, and any others which may be received.
Motions on the Northern Ireland Orders on Land Acquisition and Compensation, and Finance.
Proceedings on the Powers of Criminal Courts Bill (Lords), which is a Consolidation Measure.
Motions on the Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) Regulations.
Motion to approve the Sixth Report from the House of Commons (Services) Committee on The Landscaping of New Palace Yard.
WEDNESDAY 24th October—Debate on an Opposition motion on The United Kingdom Imports of Cane Sugar.
Motions on the Salaries of the Parliamentary Commissioner and the Comptroller and Auditor General.
Motion on the Local Government (Successor Parishes) Order.
THURSDAY 25th October—Motion to approve the White Paper on The Channel Tunnel Project (Command No. 5430).
Subject to progress of business, Prorogation will then take place.
The House may wish to be reminded, Mr. Speaker, that the new Session is due to be opened on Tuesday, 30th October.
Mr. Wilson: Dealing first with Tuesday's business, I note that the last item announced by the Leader of the House relates to the Report of the Services Committee on the landscaping of New Palace Yard. I hope that the House will take this matter a good deal more seriously on this occasion than it did when it was last slipped through.
Secondly, may I ask the Leader of the House to confirm that we look like reaching the end of the Session with a continuing debt from the Government to the Opposition in the matter of Supply Days? We have caught up a little on the numbers transferred from the previous session, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman

411
will confirm that we carry something forward into the next Session and that this time will be available to us.
My third question is still more serious. Today we are to debate the fighting in the Middle East. I ask the right hon. Gentleman no more than this: will he bear in mind that there could be developments, good or grave, in the course of the next few days which might require a further debate in this House on the Middle East? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we should not put the House in such a position that from today onwards there is no question of debating the Middle East until we are well launched into the debate in two weeks' time on the Gracious Speech and that he will be prepared to take even emergency measures in order to find time for a debate next week? The right hon. Gentleman will recall that at the time of Suez, where admittedly the British Government were in a state of armed conflict, we carried on the pre-Prorogation debates right up to the day before the opening of Parliament. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that if necessary the Government will be prepared to make the required arrangements for a debate at that time?
Mr. Prior: Dealing first with the right hon. Gentleman's final question, I am certain that it would be the wish of the Government not only to keep the House fully informed but if necessary to make any arrangements for a debate that the House might wish to have. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary will want to refer to this in his speech.
Dealing with the right hon. Gentleman's other two questions, I recognise that there is some time still owing to the Opposition. We shall make the necessary arrangements for that to be carried forward.
As for New Palace Yard, our debate on Tuesday will relate to the design of the surface now that the car park is nearing completion. Certainly I should not wish to see the House get into the position of not knowing what is happening there, as was the position when the matter was last discussed.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have a list of about 45 right hon. and hon. Members who wish to take part in the important debate which is to follow. May I ask right hon. and hon. Members to ask only brief questions relating to next week's business?
Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: May we have an indication from my right hon. Friend about when he expects to lay before us this year's public expenditure White Paper?
Mr. Prior: I cannot give any indication at the moment. I should have thought that it would be at the end of next month.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that it is proper for questions dealing with the business for next Session to be put to the right hon. Gentleman. We are dealing at the moment with next week's business only.
Mr. Ross: Reverting to Monday's business, does the Leader of the House think it fair to ask the House to consider Lords amendments to the Local Government (Scotland) Bill when the other place is still amending the Bill on Third Reading today, and bearing in mind that up to now more than 200 amendments have been made? Furthermore, will the Leader of the House bear in mind that all the amendments will not be printed in time? Some of them are very far reaching. For example, the other place defeated the Government on a very important matter relating to the main region of the Bill. We shall not have all the Lords amendments. We shall not know the Government's reaction to them. We shall not have the reprinted Bill. Is it fair to expect the House to deal with Lords amendments on Monday?
Mr. Prior: As I understand it, the Lords amendments will be printed this evening and will appear on tomorrow's Order Paper. That will give hon. Members an opportunity to study them and to table their own amendments in time for them to appear on Monday's Order Paper. I apologise for the short time available, but the Lords amendments will appear on tomorrow's Order Paper, and proposed amendments to those amendments can be tabled in time for them to be printed.
Mr. Ross: I do not believe that the Government themselves know what they intend to do. They are in such a mess. But the Leader of the House knows that if the Government wish the House to amend one of those Lords amendments, we shall not have an opportunity to see their proposed amendment until Monday. This is not a matter for the Leader of the House. It is one for you, Mr. Speaker. In view of the special circumstances, will manuscript amendments be accepted?
Mr. Prior: The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) is not correct. The Lords amendments and any amendments which the Government wish to make to them will be printed tonight and will appear on tomorrow's Order Paper. They will be subject to amendments proposed tomorrow by the Opposition, if they wish to do so, and those amendments will appear on Monday's Order Paper. They will he starred amendments.
Mr. Kimball: Arising out of the matters raised by the Leader of the Opposition, is my right hon. Friend aware not only of those remarks by the Leader of the Opposition but of the general feeling of disappointment on all sides of the House that there is not more time for general debates? Will my right hon. Friend bear that in mind in relation to any Standing Orders which he proposes to lay before the House next Session?
Mr. Prior: This is a difficult matter which I shall bear in mind. However, it refers to next Session, and I had better keep quiet about that.
Mr. Wellbeloved: In view of the fact that the Chairman of Ways and Means has set down for debate next Tuesday the suspension order on the Ashdown Forest Bill, will the Leader of the House reconsider the very heavy volume of business for Tuesday that he has just announced?
Mr. Prior: I am not certain that it is quite as heavy as it appears to be. However, I will consider what the hon. Gentleman said.
Mr. Marten: In view of the strongly held views on the Channel Tunnel, does my right hon. Friend think it convenient to debate it on the last day of the Session? Would it not be better to leave it over until next Session?
Mr. Prior: We published the White Paper during the recess. That points out that a Bill has to be enacted to enable the financial provisions for the next stage of the tunnel to go ahead. I thought that it was for the convenience of the House that we should hace a general debate on the principle of the White Paper before proceeding to consider the further Bill which will have to come next Session.
Mr. Faulds: Since it is relevant to the excavations in New Palace Yard, when may we expect a report on the findings of those excavations both for the House and for the public?
Mr. Prior: I shall have to talk to my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction about that. I note what the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) said, and I believe that it would be of interest to have that information available as soon as possible.
Mr. John Smith: May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to Early Day Motion No. 423 praying against the Museums and Galleries (Variation of Instruments) (Scotland) Order, which is the infamous attempt by the Government to disturb a number of wills governing certain pictures in the National Gallery of Scotland? Since I understand that the order is also technically defective and is about to be withdrawn by the Government, may we have an early announcement so that we know where we stand?
[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Museums and Galleries (Variation of Instruments) (Scotland) Order 1973 (S.1., 1973, No. 1274), dated 16th July 1973, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st August, be annulled.]
Mr. Prior: There will be no opportunity to debate that Prayer next week. I can only suggest that we take stock in the next Session.
Mr. Sutcliffe: In view of next Thursday's debate, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend realises that the Government have not yet given the House a full explanation as to how a through rail service to all parts of the country, transferring a significant proportion of freight from road to rail, is technically and economically possible? This is a crucial aspect of the Channel Tunnel project.

415
Why have we not yet got this information when we are being asked to pass legislation in two weeks, and four weeks from today we are due to sign an agreement with President Pompidou?
Mr. Prior: An enormous amount of information is available. I think that points such as those made by my hon. Friend are relevant to the debate. I will make certain that my right hon. Friend deals with them in full.
Mr. Michael Stewart: On Wednesday, when the Parliamentary Commissioner's salary is to be discussed, will there be time and will it be in order to discuss in general the Commissioner's work? I do not think that the House has done that since the office was created.
Mr. Prior: That may be a question more for you, Mr. Speaker, than for me. In so far as it is for me, I will check to see what is in order and let the right hon. Gentleman know. I imagine that the debate could go reasonably wide.
Mr. Elystan Morgan: Why does not next week's business include a debate on agriculture? Does the Leader of the House appreciate that two years and four months have elapsed since we had the last debate on agriculture, which is a most important industry? Does he expect another two years and four months to elapse before the next debate on that industry?
Mr. Prior: The reason that there is no debate next week is that there is not time. I am quite certain that my right hon. Friend would welcome a debate on agriculture whenever the Opposition care to use their time to arrange one.
Mr. Ashley: While the £10 Christmas bonus for old-age pensioners is welcome, although grossly inadequate, may I ask whether the Leader of the House is aware that many severely disabled people and many on supplementary benefit are equally in very grave need? Will he consider with his colleagues giving the grant to those people or arrange a debate for next week?
Mr. Prior: I cannot arrange a debate for next week, but part of what the hon. Gentleman said would be in order in the debate tomorrow. I should point out that this Government introduced the
416
allowances for disabled persons and that we have put up the pension each year by a total of 55 per cent.
Mr. Shore: Since the EEC's regional policy is not to be debated next week, may I have the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that there will be no agreement at the Council of Ministers before we have had a chance to debate this vital matter of the regulations, which are already in draft form?
Mr. Prior: I should want notice of that question.
Mr. Shore: This is an extremely important matter. I put it to the House that this month there is before the Council of Ministers, on the Government's own admission, a draft regulation on the shape of the European Community's regional policy, which is of immense significance to this country, and a financial regulation on how it is to be financed and how the money is to be spent. It is essential—[Interruption.] It will not go to the European Assembly. That is the last place to which it will go. It is essential that this vital matter should not be agreed before the House has had an opportunity of discussing it.
Mr. Prior: I understand that no dates are given for a decision on this matter on the paper referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. The whole question of regional policy in the EEC is a matter which the House will wish to debate. I know that right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House will be very glad to take part in that debate. There will be plenty of time for that matter to be debated before final decisions are taken.
Mr. Harold Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman said that he wanted notice of that question. He has now had two or three minutes to think about it. Surely even the Prime Minister with his traditional contempt for this House—[Interruption.] If he disagrees he can get up and give us the answer now. Surely he will agree that no decision must be taken which is in any way binding upon this House unless there has been a debate in this Chamber first.—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about the European Assembly?"]—The Strasbourg Assembly is irrelevant to this matter. My right hon. and hon. Friends look after

417
the interests of their constituents in this House. What matters is this House and the Council of Ministers. May we now have a clear assurance that no decision will be taken in the name of this country until the matter has first been debated in this House?
Mr. Prior: It is very hard for me at the Dispatch Box, without the details before me, to answer this question directly. However, I will certainly look at the proposals which have been put forward and if I have anything else to add, other than that no final decision will be reached until there has been a debate in this House, I will report to the House tomorrow.
Sir Gilbert Longden: Reverting to the question by the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart), is it not rather extraordinary that we should be asked to discuss the salary of the Parliamentary Commissioner before the House has had an opportunity of discussing his work? Could not this be put off to the next Session?
Mr. Prior: This is another matter that perhaps I could look at.
Mr. Alfred Morris: The Leader of the House will be aware that the Secretary of State for Social Services has now received the report of Baroness Sharp's inquiry into the vehicle service for disabled people. If this important matter is not to be debated next week, may we have a definite assurance that it will be debated at a very early opportunity?
Mr. Prior: That is obviously not for this Session.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  PENSIONERS' PAYMENTS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  In view of the debate that is to follow today, I understand that it may be the wish of the House that the Second Reading of this Bill should be taken formally.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Hawkins.]
  Committee tomorrow.

  PENSIONERS' PAYMENTS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for payments to pensioners, it is expedient to authorize—

  (1) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any sums payable by the Secretary of State under the provisions of that Act relating to pensioners, other than sums falling to be paid out of the National Insurance Fund or the Industrial Injuries Fund, but not exceeding the following amount in the case of any person, that is to say, £10 together with a further sum of £10 in respect of any spouse of that person;

  (b) the administrative costs incurred by a Minister of the Crown or any Government department under those provisions;

  (c) any increase in the sums so payable by way of Exchequer supplement under section 7 of the National Insurance Act 1965 resulting from provisions of the said Act of the present Session increasing weekly rates of contributions under the said Act of 1965;

  (2) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of so much of any administrative costs mentioned in paragraph (1)(b) above as relates to payments made to pensioners out of the National Insurance Fund or the Industrial Injuries Fund.—[Mr. Hawkins.]

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

  MIDDLE EAST
  3.58 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): The roots of this latest Arab-Israel war reach back more than half a century. Since 1917 there has never been peace, neither during the years of dispute as to the meaning of the Balfour Declaration, nor since the time when the international community accepted the State of Israel into the United Nations.
  Since the 1967 war the situation has been greatly aggravated by the inability of the parties to the dispute to come to the negotiating table. Every kind of initiative has been taken to help them into conference, but there has always been breakdown on two pre-conditions, one laid down by each side. The Arab stipulation has been that Israel must first commit herself to withdraw from the territories occupied in the 1967 war. The Israeli insistence has been that there must be substantial changes to their pre-1967 physical frontiers so that their security may be assured. That has been the essence of the deadlock all this time.
  If there is total stalemate, what can anyone else do about it? Some will take sides. That is their decision. I think I state the situation correctly when I say that the attitude of successive British Governments has been to try to understand, but not to take sides.
  Resolution 242 of the United Nations was an attempt to translate this attitude into practice by laying down a framework within which a peace agreement would be able to meet the two requirements—first the return of occupied territory and, second, physical safety for Israel. There was, and is, an ambiguity in the interpretation of Resolution 242, but the definition of the nature of the settlement required was sufficiently comprehensive to allow the settlement to be completed under that resolution, given the will. That, of course, is what has been absent. It was in an attempt to create that will that the Jarring mission was appointed but so far, as right hon. and hon. Members know, it has been unable to create conditions for a peace conference or to bring together the two sides mainly concerned.
  420
  There is, however, one good feature of recent years which should be marked, as it is of the first significance. On many occasions in the last three years President Sadat of Egypt has said that it is his wish to live in peace with the State of Israel and that the signature of a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel will be with the State of Israel. Jordan has said the same, and I have no doubt that President Sadat and the King of Jordan would carry Syria with them.
  This is a great change in the Arab attitude as hon. Members will recall it over the years, and, although it is only one factor, I believe its significance has been very much underrated. It was and is the essential key to any permanent peace between Israel and the Arab world and it has been provided.
  May I now consider the Israeli situation? Taking their past experience they have considered that the life of their country may be at stake and they have decided that they should rely only on their own strength as reliance on others had proved in the past to be a broken reed.
  So far, Israel takes the attitude that the only way to lead a peaceful life is to prove to the Arabs her overwhelming strength so that they will never challenge her frontiers, or if they do they will be crushed. Israel is certainly entitled to her security and she is certainly entitled to take her decisions and this, one feels, is her decision. No one can take decisions for the State of Israel. A fact of geography is that if this is her conclusion she will then have to live in a hostile environment always unless peace is made. This is for Israel to judge. Nobody else can judge this for her.
  But there is another system which would have a chance of gaining for her that permanent peace which has been so elusive, namely buffer demilitarised zones and an international force policing them, with the insistence that that international force should not be withdrawn by one side or the other to the dispute. That is a system. Otherwise I am afraid a situation will exist in which Israel will be among Arab countries which will not rest until the occupied territories are returned.
  The decision for Israel is really this: is it to be her old policies or her present

  421
  Policy, which is the continued occupation of Arab territory so that there should be a buffer between her Arab neighbours and herself, or can that buffer be provided in any other way by international action?
  Mr. Edward Short rose—
  Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I am trying to present a very careful argument. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will restrain himself until I have finished.
  Even if Israel were to win a decisive victory in the present war there would only be another trial by arms sooner or later. After this long history of violence over all these years I do not believe that it profits us to try to apportion blame. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why are you doing it?"] The last Government did not do it in 1967 and we have not done so now. The only constructive course is to put ourselves in the best position possible to try to reconcile and ensure that there is no more war between the Arab countries and the State of Israel. This is the main motive behind the embargo on arms which we have applied to both sides. The same policy is being followed by virtually all the European countries. In 1967 the Socialist Government applied an embargo but this was modified on the third day of the Six Day War when the Soviet Union would not join it. A universal embargo would still be the right answer but there is a very substantial difference between then and now.
  In recent years we have been supplying Israel and the Arab countries with arms. In doing so we have tried to maintain a balance which would give some sense of security to each country but would not tempt either to launch a war against its neighbour. I fully understand the very deep feeling among hon. Members on both sides of the House about the embargo. Our only motive in imposing it has been the belief that by so doing we would bring peace nearer.
  The continued existence and prosperity of Israel as a State has been one of the cardinal points in our whole policy towards the Middle East. We are totally determined that the State of Israel shall continue to exist within secure frontiers.
  422
  At the outbreak of this war however, we were faced with a state of affairs where Egypt, Israel and Jordan had all paid for certain consignments of arms. We allowed those which were on the sea to proceed. We stopped those which were still ashore. There are, I recognise, doubts on both sides about the evenhandedness of our policy.
  We do not give details of our arms supplies—no Government would do that—but I can tell the House that export licences had been approved and shipment was expected in the next few weeks of combat arms, spares and ammunition to the Arab States affected by the embargo and of far greater value in money terms than those to Israel and at least equal in terms of combat effectiveness. Furthermore, Centurion ammunition spares were in the immediate pipeline to Jordan, many more than had been intended for Israel.
  It is a fact that Israel has other sources for Centurion ammunition than Britain and it is true that she manufactures Centurion ammunition for herself.
  Mr. Andrew Faulds: On that point—
  Sir Alec Douglas-Home: May I go on, because it is important for the House to get the whole picture.
  Over the years, Israel has made extremely good use—and I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will not underestimate Israel's intelligence—of the contract with Britain to accumulate spare parts, and some of these she, too, can manufacture. We do not, for obvious reasons, define our arms sales, but some of the equipment ordered by Egypt and awaiting delivery now would have a very significant effect in a battle of armour. But I will take the obvious case which is public knowledge.
  It could be argued that sending to Jordan the requirements for their Centurians—the majority of their tanks are Centurions while about half of Israel's tanks are Centurions—could have the implication that it would put Israel at a disadvantage. It was and is, therefore, a choice between adding to the fire power of both sides or of withholding fire power from both sides, and the calculation is pretty well even. Israel cannot be pre-

  423
  ferred as against Jordan and Egypt, or vice versa. So it is a question of withholding from both sides or of giving to both sides because both have made these contracts, both have ordered the arms. Thus, those who advocate the sale to Israel must face the fact that to be consistent they are advocating the sale of Centurion ammunition and spares to Jordan on a very much greater scale than those to Israel. The Jordanian Ambassador called on the Minister of State this morning to represent to us the harsh effect which the embargo is having in his country.
  Mr. Faulds: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that in the massive American shipments to Israel there are shells which fit the Centurion tank and that it is totally fallacious to argue that without our supplying the arms those tanks are useless?
  Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Certainly the American shell fits the Centurion gun.
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: The right hon. Gentleman talked a moment ago about even-handedness in supplies of spares and ammunition for Centurion tanks possessed by Israel and Jordan. Should he not be frank with the House and point out that Israel possesses 1,000 Centurion tanks, which are a major part of her armaments, compared with about 100 Centurion tanks owned by Jordan and that Jordan did not take part in the blitzkreig on Israel on 6th October which Israel had to resist with those 1,000 Centurion tanks?
  Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The proportions are not as given. The Israelis have many more Centurion tanks than the Jordanians, but the whole Jordanian Army armour consists of Centurion tanks. I give one figure about ammunition. The desire of the Israelis at present is for 4,000 rounds. The order from Jordan which would have been delivered if the ban had not been put on is for 10,000 rounds.
  There are two prime reasons why I am convinced that our policy is right for the time being. First, it is the right policy overall because it limits the area and degree of military damage and casualties. If America and Russia adopted it, we should all applaud. I
  424
  find that all our European partners are of the same mind and have adopted the same policy. In the last 10 days we have been in active political contact with the United States and the European countries and in touch with the Soviet Union. The House will have read in the Press today of Mr. Kosygin's arrival in Cairo. I believe that he is there on a mission of peace. The House will also have heard of the high level contacts now taking place between the Americans and Russians to bring about peace. Hon. Members will have read of Mr. Eban's statement that Israel is ready to make substantial compromises provided her security is assured.
  It begins to look as though there may be a gleam of light, a hope that powerful forces are beginning to work towards a ceasefire and a settlement. Is this the time, now as I speak, for us to resume sending arms and ammunition to the combatants? How could that possibly help towards an end to the bloodshed? Surely the opposite must be true.
  I know that many people in this country are worried that by denying ammunition and spares to Israel we are putting her very existence in jeopardy. I can give the House the firm assurance that were the existence of Israel at any stage to be at risk we would reconsider our policy, and I would see to it that it would not be too late. I repeat that it is our firm intention that Israel should continue to exist within secure frontiers.
  Mr. R. T. Paget: Will the right hon. Gentleman recollect that the assurance that we would reverse our policy if the existence of Israel were menaced is precisely the same undertaking which we gave to Czechoslovakia?
  Sir Alec Douglas-Home: This time it is meant—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] May I withdraw that, because the House will know that it is not what I intended to say. As I am talking now in the context of the Israel-Arab war, I say solemnly on behalf of Her Majesty's Government—and I repeat this—that we cannot, of course, allow any risk to the security of Israel and the State of Israel, which is recognised in the United Nations as an entity in its own right.
  Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: Accepting as we do that this country

  425
  would not allow the State of Israel to be extinguished, may we take it that the right hon. Gentleman is relieved that the Americans are supplying the ammunition which we are not supplying in order to shell the tanks which we have provided?
  Sir Alec Douglas-Home: No. That is not right. We are concerned with the State of Israel and its existence and ability to defend itself. The question is whether at this particular time an embargo applied by this country is right or wrong. There is no danger of an Israel collapse.
  The question has been raised about the extension of the embargo to certain arms deliveries to the Gulf countries. The House generally recognises that the stability of the Gulf now depends on the security and strength of all the States around the Gulf. We should not put this at hazard because of the Arab-Israel war; there are others ready to profit from it should we do so. Our contributions are directed to the medium and long-term defence capability of Saudia Arabia and the other Gulf States in the interests of their security. Military aircraft now in Saudi Arabia which had been sold by us to Saudi Arabia are subject to a clause in the contract preventing their use by anyone else. No new major arms are going to the area for at least a month.
  May I say a few words about oil? I shall be brief because to this subject we shall surely return. We cannot—and here I echo something said by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) the other day—be diverted from policies which we believe to be right by threats to our oil supplies. It is timely that I should make that clear. The House will have read of the decision taken by the Arab oil-producing Governments in Kuwait yesterday. The full implications are not clear, but two things stand out. First, the nature of the measures to be taken to carry out that decision have not yet been worked out. In the immensely complicated machinery of oil production and distribution the effect of those measures, whatever they may be, will need very careful study before they can be taken as the basis for any decision of policy on our part. Second, there is no evidence that the decision made in Kuwait is directed at this country. What evidence we have seen so far suggests
  426
  the opposite. In these circumstances, it would be quite wrong to take any precipitate decisions today which might prove wrong tomorrow or wrong in a week's time.
  I have said that we shall not be diverted from our policy by threats. Nor should we be diverted by indignation which may be premature. I will listen always to the voices of Israel and the Arab countries and it is right to hear their respective interests as they describe them to us, but my concern must be with the British interest as it affects our own future and may affect our future for many years to come, both economically and politically.
  It will affect, too, our ability to exercise some influence in limiting and ending this war whenever the opportunity is offered to us. The House today must be acutely aware of the stakes for Britain. This war could increase in scale until the Soviet Union and the United States were so deeply involved that neither could diplomatically influence the other. We are, of course, in the closest touch with the Americans. We have been in touch with the Soviet Ambassador; the latest conversation that I had with him was this morning, when I pointed out that unless the Soviet Union will lend its influence to stopping the war, the whole framework of East-West détente could be put in jeopardy, with the return, with all its horrible consequences, of total cold war. I believe that he understood, and that the Russians understand, this danger.
  The Arabs, as the House can readily see, could get themselves, in the heat of emotion, so involved as to do most serious damage to the Europeans and the Western world who are essentially their friends. We must preserve our ability as a country to persuade the Arabs that this is totally against their interests. We are perhaps the country of all in the world best able to do this.
  I say to the House most solemnly that these issues are easily the most serious—the situation in the war in the Middle East and the oil situation—that we in Western Europe and indeed the Western world have faced since the war. The overwhelming, overriding British interest is to stop the war, not to stoke its fires—especially at the very moment

  427
  when the dread consequences of its continuation are beginning to be fully understood and moves towards peace may be afoot.
  With all that is at stake, I believe that the embargo is right for the present. I hope that I am not an obstinate politician. At least—let me put it to the House another way—I hope that I am obstinate only where a paramount British interest is concerned. I believe that it is a paramount British interest that this war should stop and that we have a diplomatic rôle of the first importance to play in stopping it.
  In that context, as I stand here, I believe that the embargo is right. I will review the policy from day to day, even hour to hour, but I ask the House not to cripple our diplomacy at a time when it is needed most in the cause of peace.
  What I can offer to the House is this: I will listen to everything that is said today, I am available at any time over the next few days to see right hon. and hon. Gentlemen to discuss this matter. Certainly I should like to keep in touch with the Leader of the Opposition on it. Subject to that, and what I hear today, I would not like, while these intensive peace moves are going on, to indicate any timing in which a modification of policy might be right.
  These peace moves are bound to take a little time before we know whether they will succeed. That they will succeed must be the hope echoed by every hon. Member. Should they fail, then a new situation would arise. I hope that they will not, but should they fail, I will come to this House—and anyway I will come to the House next week—and try to advise the House to the best of my ability and judgment how best to proceed.
  4.16 p.m.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: The House today is debating a tragedy. It is a tragedy, first, in terms of the heavy casualties on both sides and, unless peace comes quickly, of the inevitability of many, many more casualties. Many of us throughout the House have friends, both Jew and Arab, suddenly torn from their families by the outbreak of fighting, many wil not return, and daily each of us waits anxiously for bad news.
  428
  The uneasy security under which those families have lived, Jew and Arab, for the past six years, has been shattered. Now they have nothing to look forward to, even after the fighting stops, except further insecurity. That is the abiding reality underlying the power politics, underlying the deep feelings aroused by national loyalties, religious loyalties and by history. That is the reality underlying the world reaction. There is also underlying all our debates, the grave danger that what has already been described as a super-Power struggle by proxy could escalate into global conflict.
  There is tragedy for Britain—for one family in Britain and for a wider circle. We all mourn the death yesterday in the course of duty of a distinguished and highly respected journalist known to many of us. I know that we would all wish to express our sympathy to his wife and young Family and to his editor and colleagues.
  When, from our different approaches, we analyse the events which have led to this fresh outbreak of fighting, we are faced with a further tragedy—the tragedy of missed opportunities, of six years of attempts to bring the parties together, to reconcile under the wide sweep—and it is a wide sweep—of Resolution 242 what proved for so long to be irreconcilable claims and demands—on Israel's side the acknowledgement of her right to exist as a nation, her right to secure defensive frontiers, as Resolution 242 set out; on the Egyptian and Syrian side, their claim based on the resolution's denial of the right of any nation to acquire territories by force; and the problem, far older than those created by the Six-Day War, of the Palestinians who lost their homes, what they too regard as the land of their fathers, in 1948.
  This is a problem that I have constantly raised. I have raised it in Israel, in private and in public, and, as many of my hon. Friends know, I have spelled it out on the record at Jewish gatherings in this country. Let there be no argument about this. The Palestinian problem must be dealt with not only in any ultimate permanent solution but even in a temporary and limited solution. Last year, in Israel, I said that, if there were to be a limited settlement on, for example, the opening of the Canal, this

  429
  matter would have to be brought under it.
  As the head of the Government that sponsored Resolution 242, I would be the first to concede that it has proved capable of very differing interpretations, particularly in the reference to
  "… withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict".
  But if it had not been so wide there would never have been agreement in the United Nations Security Council in November 1967.
  For three years the Security Council tailed to obtain agreement. For two of those three years the work was put into commission on a four-Power basis, with the United States, the Soviet Union, France and Britain. The Jarring mission failed to bring the parties together. The Israelis were willing, right up to this present outbreak of fighting, to sit down with their neighbours. I have every reason to know—I emphasise the word "know"; not to "think"—that had their neighbours sat down with them, the Israelis were prepared to make very substantial offers within the terms of Resolution 242. Their neighbours, for their part, were unwilling to meet Israel in direct confrontation until there had been Israeli compliance with, or an Israeli Government undertaking to comply with, the Egyptian and Syrian interpretation of Resolution 242 so far as it related to evacuation of captured territories.
  One of the greatest tragedies is that failure to reach agreement has meant that the nations in that region of the Middle East had to remain in a semi-mobilised state with a prodigious defence burden. Failure meant the deferment of the day which I believe everyone, Jew and Arab, longs to see, when all the nations of that area can co-operate and can work together in economic and social development.
  In such a task Israel, from her experience, has a great deal to give, after her own successful experience—but not only Israel. Others have a great deal to give as well. The Foreign Secretary, in his approach, which he put before the House both on Tuesday and again today, is right in one thing above all. However apparently hopeless the immediate prospect, it is not too early even now to begin think-
  430
  ing of the kind of terms on which a ceasefire can be achieved and, still more, about a long-term and lasting solution. If the Foreign Secretary's speech at Blackpool last Friday still represents his position, I shall probably have considerable disagreement with him about where the ceasefire lines might be—but I shall not press that matter today. On the long-term solution he has revived the proposal for an international peacekeeping force, in my view rightly.
  For many years peace was kept by the tripartite declaration, which perished with Suez. It was, I think, the then Conservative Government in this country who said that the tripartite declaration and guarantees were dead. For 10 years longer the United Nations carried out its peacekeeping rôle, but that was rudely shattered by U Thant's regrettable decision to recall the United Nations troops when asked to do so by President Nasser. I am not simply saying that now. I said it to U Thant at the time and, indeed, publicly.
  From then on, Israel decided that her security could be entrusted to none but her own fighting men. Her neighbours have shown this month that they take the same view about their security. But the right hon. Gentleman is right to canvass the idea again. We may have to return to it.
  Apart from the question of the arms embargo, I do not want to press too many points of basic disagreement. There are disagreements, and it is absolutely fair to say that, where they occur, they occur on each side of the House. No party can claim today to put forward homogeneous views, either supporting the Foreign Secretary's policy and basic attitude or opposing them. The only disagreement I would refer to at this point is this: there will be many of us who regret that the right hon. Gentleman, having over the past year on a number of occasions voted for and, indeed, on three occasions having sponsored, separately or with the French Government, resolutions condemning Israel for alleged military raids, should have remained silent in condemning the vastly greater act of aggression on the Day of Atonement. Whether or not right hon. and hon. Members on either side of the House like it, I did condemn that aggression and I identified it early on the following Sunday morning. I stand by what I said.

  431
  I come now to the difficult question of arms supply. Here again, the division between us is not a simple one across the Table. There are divisions on each side of the House.
  Britain has been a principal supplier for the Israeli army and navy, most of all for tanks, guns mounted on tanks, ammunition for those guns, and spares. This war, like that of six years ago, is a war predominantly of tanks, anti-tank weapons and aircraft, but now with the new dimension of lethal missiles.
  Successive British Governments have supplied Israel, as we have supplied Jordan, in good faith. On Tuesday, some hon. Members on both sides of the House challenged the good faith of the present Government for their action in dishonouring contractual obligations at the very moment of Israel's greatest need. One right hon. Gentleman was reported as having gone so far, outside the House, as to compare them with a dud insurance company which continued to collect premiums but failed to honour the contract when a claim had to be met. I hope that the Government would agree that where arms have been supplied on a continuing basis, only absolutely overriding considerations could justify a failure to honour the letter and the spirit of the contract.
  Reference has been made—I raised the matter myself in the House on Tuesday—to the embargo imposed by the Labour Government when the fighting began on 5th June 1967. That was not an unconditional embargo. It was for 24 hours in the first instance, as the House was told. It was conditional on all other arms-supplying countries coming into line. As soon as it became clear that the Soviet Union would not accept it and were, indeed, shipping prodigious supplies, the arms embargo was ended, two days after it was imposed. The overriding consideration that we had in mind—and there must be one—namely, an international embargo on arms supplies into the area, had not been fulfilled.
  On 8th June 1967, three days after the war began, the then Foreign Secretary told the House:
  "We still have no positive response from the Soviet Government about arms supplies and it is clear that for the time being there is no immediate prospect of a general embargo, We are, therefore, reverting to our normal practice of scrutinising applications for arms
  432
  in each particular case, and we are, naturally, doing so particularly carefully in the present situation."
  I should like, however, to remind the House of the reaction of the right hon. Gentleman the present Foreign Secretary to that statement by the then Foreign Secretary. Having referred to something else which the then Foreign Secretary said about the Arabs' oil embargo, the present Foreign Secretary said:
  "We would support, too, the right hon. Gentleman's decision on arms as long as the Russians do not co-operate. There are rumours that arms are going into Alexandria."
  —obviously Russian arms—
  "The Government's decision is right "[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th June, 1967; Vol. 747, c. 1292–93.]
  The right hon. Gentleman said in 1967 that the Government's decision was right. But if it were right then, why is it wrong today?
  I accept that there is a different situation. I shall refer to some of the differences shortly. There has not been, for example, at any time over the past fortnight, any hope, any reason for hope, or any remote possibility that an embargo would be followed by other major arms suppliers, as we thought that there could have been in 1967. As soon as the fighting began this time. States on the North African littoral of the Mediterranean not merely announced their determination to supply arms, and, indeed, troops, but immediately began to supply them within hours of the fighting beginning. It was clear also that no lead by us or by anyone else would have stopped the massive shipment of arms from the Soviet Union, and now from the United States. So the Government, in their arms embargo policy, do not have and do not purport to have the justification that, as we hoped six years ago, it would be followed by other countries.
  Mr. John Gorst: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that official Israeli sources in this country have confirmed that military equipment supplied to Israel and returned to this country either for repair or for servicing has been withheld from return to Israel under the present embargo and that this supports his point about the difference between the time about which he is talking and the present?
  Mr. Wilson: I was not aware of that. I thought I was aware of most things in

  433
  the present situation. If what the hon. Gentleman says is true, it underlines some of the things that I am now saying. If we were right then to supply these arms, as the Foreign Secretary said we were, he must deduce some other overriding situation sufficient to justify this palpable breach of our relationship on arms supplies to Israel. He has set out to say what the overriding consideration is. He did so on Tuesday. He based his case on more tenuous grounds. He said:
  "We did this"—
  he was referring to the arms embargo—
  "because we considered it inconsistent to call for an immediate end to the fighting and yet to continue to send arms to the conflict."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th October 1973; Vol. 861. c. 30.]
  That is what he said, and that is what I understand him to say today.
  We did not consider it inconsistent in 1967. There has been a major shift of policy since 1967 with the change of Government, despite undisputed and admitted evidence of aggression on 6th October this year. I could have understood the right hon. Gentleman if in 1967 he had taken a different line on an arms embargo, on the ground that Israel had started the war. He might have argued that, and he might have taken a different view this time on the ground that the aggression came from the Egyptians and the Syrians. No one can argue about that. It has been admitted. Strangely, however, in 1967, when he supported the withdrawal of the arms embargo he felt, as most people felt, that Israel had struck the first blow. Now in 1973 when he imposes an arms embargo, he knows perfectly well that the arms embargo is favourable to the very people who started the war. This is a very big shift in the situation.
  Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Of course, the situation now is that we have contracts with the Arab countries as well. Ellis seems to me to make a considerable difference to the situation. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that we should alter our policy and send arms to Israel alone, or that we should send them to Jordar and Israel as well?
  Mr. Wilson: I think that is a very thin explanation of the change from 1967. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Certainly
  434
  I will answer, but I must comment on what the right hon. Gentleman said. We were supplying the Arab countries in 1967. He asks whether I would say that we should modify the embargo in order to supply only Israel. No. My answer is "No". I was asked this question on television two days ago and I answered absolutely categorically as far as Jordan and other Arab States were concerned.
  What I say our policy should be is what I quoted from the then Foreign Secretary in 1967, endorsed by the right hon. Gentleman, that we should resume our traditional posture of supplying arms subject to a check case by case. That is what I said then and that is what I say now to the right hon. Gentleman. This is what I am saying, and this is the logic of what the right hon. Gentleman said. [interruption.] I cannot expect to speak for all hon. Members on either side of the House. I am saying where the Labour Government stood, and that is where the right hon. Gentleman, who supported the Labour Government's attitude, should stand today.
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: The right hon. Gentleman is advocating supplying the aggressor and the defender in that case?
  Mr. Wilson: For what that interruption may constitute in the hon. Member's mind, I am saying that we should revert to our position which we adopted after the two-day attempt in 1967, that where we have contractual obligations we should fulfil them subject to checking each individual case on its merits. That is what the Labour Government did. That is what the right hon. Gentleman supported in 1967 and that is what I am pressing him to do now. This has been the policy of successive Governments for 20 years. There is no problem here.
  The right hon. Gentleman's argument today is that since her Majesty's Government have sought to secure a cease-fire resolution through the Security Council, such action would be incompatible with a decision to supply ammunition or other contracted requirements to Israel, that it would affect the validity of his approach. I do not accept this argument at all. The fact that arms were being sent to Israel by the Labour Government did not prevent us in 1967 from taking the lead and successfully

  435
  sponsoring Resolution No. 242 which is still the governing resolution. We were supplying arms to the Middle East at that time. It did not stop us taking a lead in the Security Council, which the right hon. Gentleman has so far not been able to do.
  Our position as arms suppliers did not prevent us taking, a lead in the negotiations which began to make that resolution a reality. I want to underline this point. It did not prevent our selection by the Security Council as one of the four countries to whom the task of peacemaking was delegated in those years of quadripartite discussion. We were chosen as one of those four countries not because our hands were clean of arms supplies—we were supplying arms—but because the Security Council felt that progress could best be made on the basis of the selection of four countries, two of them super-Powers and two of them middle-rank Powers, of which it could be reasonably assumed that the United States and Britain took a broadly Israel line and the USSR and France took a broadly Arab line. That is why we were in the inner circle of mediation from 1967 onwards, because it was thought that we, with the United States, would support Israel and the other two would support the Arabs.
  The Foreign Secretary must ask himself—indeed, the House must ask—whether, if his aim is to win a ticket to the mediators' table, he is not just as likely to be disqualifying himself from such a rôle. I will explain this. The whole House will hope that the initiatives of the Soviet Union and the American Government lead to a speedy and honourable solution. It was not easy in 1967 when the initiative of Lord Caradon proved successful, but an infernally difficult question is now complicated by a new dimension, the dimension of China—a China which has been in a highly competitive situation with the Soviet Union in Africa, a China which I suspect aspires to similar influence with the Arab countries, and a China, in the Security Council context, with a veto.
  All this makes Russia's task that much harder, and it makes the right hon. Gentleman's task that much harder as well. After Chinese claims that it had won the day in Vietnam, let none of us
  436
  forget that the Soviet Union has its own domino theorem—the fear of being pushed from pillar to post, which is no less acute than the one we used to hear from the United States.
  To return to the present issue, I have to say that the present Government's refusal to meet our obligations in the matter of arms supplies is symptomatic of a wider general attitude to Middle East affairs, a total change in Britain's present position since 1967.
  Mr. Christopher Mayhew: I am still unclear. Is my right hon. Friend proposing that we should lift the embargo both for the 10,000 Jordanian rounds and the 4,000 Israeli rounds?
  Mr. Harold Wilson: I have already answered that question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I have already answered it. I hope hon. Members will treat this subject with the gravity that it deserves. None of us wants a party fight on this issue. If some hon. Members do, they must be warned of the consequences. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I have already answered it, and it is in the recollection of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes or No?"] I have answered it twice this afternoon and once on television. Can I do more? I have said that as far as the arms embargo is concerned, it should be ended. We should revert to the 1967 posture, whether it is arms for Israel or for the Arab countries.
  Mr. John Wilkinson rose—
  Mr. Wilson: No. I was saying that to some of us the Government's refusal to meet our obligations in the matter of arms supplies is symptomatic of a wider general attitude to Middle East affairs and a total change in Britain's position since 1967. The Harrogate speech, referred to by the right hon. Gentleman on Tuesday, is a total reversal of the policy of the previous Government, and he cannot expect us to go along in a bipartisan way on the basis of that speech, which was not the position either of Lord Caradon or of the Government at that time.
  I say this to the right hon. Gentleman, and I say it in all seriousness and not in

  437
  a contumacious manner. He will, I think, have cause to remember the international problems of the 1930s, in part dominated by the Spanish Civil War. There is almost a ghoulish similarity—[Laughter.] This is not a laughing matter. The hon. Gentleman could laugh as much as he liked yesterday, but I ask him not to do so today. There is an almost ghoulish similarity in what is happening now and what happened during the Spanish Civil War, including the use of a localised war to test the products of super-Power military technology, hitherto untested, and with no loss of blood on the part of those supplying the technological weapons. [Laughter.] I wish that hon. Members would be serious. This is too important a debate for an attitude like that.
  The other parallel with the Spanish Civil War is this: Britain's rôle in the Spanish Civil War was a policy of what was called—in capital letters—Non-Intervention. That was the posture of the Conservative Government towards the Spanish Civil War and I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that statesmen who elevate a posture of non-intervention into an act of State must sometimes expect to be asked, "Who are you non-intervening against?". That was the position in the Spanish Civil War. I believe that it is the position today. I shall not press that point further now, but how far my suspicions are valid we shall see in the next few days. I must, however, press the question of the arms embargo.
  I do not believe that any hon. Member wishes, over so grave a matter as this, that we should have a major confrontation in the Division Lobby. I hope that there will not be a Division. I do not want a Division. As far as I am concerned, there will be no vote, if the right hon. Gentleman now, or when winding up tonight, will tell us that the Government have decided to accept the argument put to them by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides. I shall spell out what it means. It will mean adopting the stance which the Labour Government adopted in 1967 after the failure of our attempt to secure a general embargo, namely, a reversion to
  "our normal practice of scrutinising applications for arms in each particular case".
  438
  If we cannot have that assurance—it will be a grave step to take—many of my right hon. and hon. Friends and I shall feel that we have no alternative but to vote.
  I do not know how far the Foreign Secretary's posture is dictated by a desire, an understandable desire—I say that, whatever differences we have had on the subject—to present a united front on the part of the EEC countries. That is understandable, but my experience in these matters is that the highest common factor of European agreement on Middle East affairs tends to be a simple reflection of the views of the French Government, which in 1967 turned from pro-Israel to sharply pro-Arab.
  I hope that I am wrong in my assessment of the Foreign Secretary's speech today, but I doubt that there will be in this case much of a rôle for the professional neutral. The rôle of mediation is most likely to rest upon those who have won the confidence not of both sides—the right hon. Gentleman has not won the confidence of both sides, and, though we all regret it, the fact is that there cannot be such notions—but upon those who have won the confidence of one side.
  I think that it is likely to be most fruitful if the 1967 precedent is followed, however disappointing the consequences were, with a small group of super-Powers and medium-rank Powers chosen as friends of one side or the other who, being friends, are likely to have some influence in assisting the warring parties to begin to accept a process of give and take.
  I think that we can best understand this situation in the Middle East if we regard it as a duel. Both sides have spoken as though it is a duel to the death. Peace is likely to come only after great bloodshed. It will come, I believe, through the wisdom and patience of the duellists' seconds, of the duellists' friends, not from those who may have tried to avoid any commitment in this situation.
  I referred a minute ago to the use of the products of advanced military technology, and there is one matter which, I think, should be put before the House. It is a matter of history and it may not be generally known. Again, I do not propose to press it home, but the House should have the facts.

  439
  Between 1968 and 1970, the Israeli Government repeatedly pressed the Labour Government to supply Chieftain tanks in place of Centurions. We had similar requests from Libya. One of the arguments used by the Israelis was the likelihood—indeed, the certainty in their minds—that in time the Arab forces would be supplied with Soviet T62s. It was a difficult decision for us to make.
  We informed the Israeli Government that we could not at that time accede to the request for Chieftains. But there was an understanding between the Labour Government and Israel that if at any time the Soviet Government started to supply T62s to Israel's neighbours we would make Chieftains available in strength. We made clear to the Israeli Government that, while we could not in that matter and on every occasion agree to all they asked of us, we would not in the matter of arms supplies put them at peril.
  In this fight, many hundreds—the Government know the figure, and I know it—of T62s have been deployed against Israel, on both the Sinai and Syrian fronts. The intelligence facilities available to Her Majesty's Government are such that Ministers must have known of the supply of T62 tanks. They cannot deny it. Both of us know. The right hon. Gentleman, the Prime Minister and I know the quality of the intelligence sources. Therefore, they must have known not only of the understanding which we had with the Israelis, but also of the supply of T62s to Israel's neighbours.
  But the understanding, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart), then Foreign Secretary, can confirm, has clearly not been accepted by the present Government. It was, of course, within their rights not to accept it. I think that the House should know—the Government know it, and it is a cheerful factor which, I hope, the right hon. Gentleman will confirm—that the Centurions have given a very good account of themselves in destroying T62s on both fronts. I am glad to see the Foreign Secretary nod his head to that. But, if that is so, the Government, who have not followed up our understanding by supplying Chieftains, have even less justification now for refusing to implement contractual obligations relating to the Centurions.
  440
  I said earlier that no spokesman from either Front Bench today could claim that everything he said carried the support of all his right hon. and hon. Friends. I certainly do not claim that In one sense, the approach of each of us to all these problems is uniquely personal. That is the special character of this debate. My position is, I believe, well understood, and it has been made clear over many years.
  I do not lay claim to the support of hon. Friends who, with equal sincerity, have taken a diametrically opposed view. I respect their sincerity and I hope that they respect mine. I cannot speak for them. For them, as for me and for many others on both sides of the House, a time when our friends, be they Jew or Arab, are bleeding and in great need is a time to proclaim and not to conceal a personal declaration of a faith. I believe, also, that this is where Britain's highest interest lies, with the interest of world peace.
  But there is another argument in my mind and that of many of my hon. Friends. I recognise that this will have no appeal to hon. Members opposite. Perhaps they will switch off listening for the moment. It is something which concerns us more than them, and I do not apologise.
  Israel is a democratic socialist country. More than that, it is a community with a national wealth as well as national burdens shared in common. It is a country which, despite her prodigious arms burden, has established a remarkable record in the social services and care for people, especially for her children. [An HON. MEMBER: "Palestinians?"] It is now producing better facilities for educating Arabs than they ever had before 1967. I have seen them, as other hon. Gentlemen have. By certain very difficult tests Israel's record in education, one of the social services, is the finest in the world with the exception of Canada, and I should be prepared to give my evidence for that.
  Therefore I believe that something is owed by some of us to the only democratic social State in that vast region. Indeed, by any test that would apply it is the only democracy in that region, and I bitterly regret that at this time more of my fellow democratic Socialist leaders in the Socialist International have not declared where their loyalties lie. Some

  441
  are corralled in the Foreign Secretary's EEC—the see-no-evil, hear-no-evil, speak-no-evil camp. But the silence has not been confined to them.
  I must before I close refer to oil, as the right hon. Gentleman did. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. We must not be blackmailed by oil sanctions. No one underestimates the gravity of what is happening on this front—the cost, simply, of the increase in prices and its effect on inflation in this country. We had to face the same situation in 1967. I hope that I may show a little more understanding to the problems of the present Prime Minister than he did then, because that was a most important factor leading to the devaluation in 1967. I understand the position, but we must not be blackmailed. We must decide what is right as a nation, as a Government, as a Parliament, and abide by it. Danegeld is Danegeld, whether exacted by pillagers from the Kattegat or by oil-rich monarchs and presidents.
  But the characteristic of Danegeld through the ages is insatiability. They come again. Their appetite feeds on appeasement. That is why I was glad to hear what the Foreign Secretary said this afternoon.
  I am grateful to the House for its forbearance in what has been for me a very difficult speech to make. I raised earlier in a Business Question the idea of a further debate, if that becomes necessary—the Leader of the House was forthcoming—on the proposition that if there is a change in the Middle East for good or for ill, be it good news or grave news, the House of Commons will not be put in baulk by the preliminaries to Prorogation.
  I end as I began. This war is taking place against a background of almost unimaginable tragedy. Each of us, with our different approaches to the issues, can never forget that tragedy, and that is why for each of us this is so anxious a debate. We must all hope that current efforts to promote a cease-fire will be successful. I have expresed my doubts—I have understated them—about whether the Government's actions are likely to contribute to this. But whatever doubts there may be, the conditions of the ceasefire must include a demand binding all
  442
  the parties concerned to meet directly and not by proxy, and to reach a settlement.
  4.53 p.m.
  Mr. Philip Goodhart: I do not pretend to this House that I am an impartial observer of the scene in the Middle East, but even this afternoon I would not urge this Government to depart from what the Foreign Secretary described as the traditional policy of successive Governments of not taking sides.
  Of course I understand the Government's predicament. The Government, quite rightly, want to be in a position to mediate when the combatants are perhaps at long last prepared to talk. Then, again, the Government must protect this country's fuel supplies. Everyone in the House agrees, I am sure, that we must not give way to blackmail on oil. But, at the same time, I appreciate how desperately difficult it is to walk this line between safeguarding the oil supplies of this country and giving way to unreasonable demands.
  Therefore this afternoon I would not even go as far as the Leader of the Opposition, when he said that Ministers should have gone to the Dispatch Box to condemn the massive assault by Egypt and Syria on Israel on the holiest day in the Jewish Year. I do not even argue that this country, this Government, should go out of their way to rush arms to Israel. But I do argue that this Government are wrong when they describe their present arms embargo policy as even-handed.
  One does not even have to go to the battlefield to learn the facts. Most of them are outlined by the Institute of Strategic Studies in their volume on the balance of forces. Every student of the military scene knows that Syria has no British equipment worth talking about; it all comes from the Soviet Union. The vast bulk of Egyptian equipment also comes from the Soviet Union. There is nothing of substantial importance to them that the Egyptians purchase from us. Jordan has 200 Centurion tanks in its army but it seems, thank heaven, highly unlikely—and I was on the Jordan border only two days ago—that Jordan will play a major offensive role in this war. On the other hand, British Centurion tanks make up about half of Israel's tank force

  443
  on which her very survival depends, and these Centurions have performed magnificently in the past 10 days.
  The Leader of the Opposition referred to clashes between the British Centurion tanks and the Soviet T62s. I have seen six Soviet T62 tanks that had been knocked out by British Centurion tanks, and I have talked to the Israeli tank crews who were in that battle when the T62s were knocked out. I saw the dents in the armour of one of these Centurion tanks after it had received a direct hit from the gun of a T62. The Centurion survived to fight again, but the T62 did not.
  I do not pretend that the arms, the shells and the spare parts—or the equipment which my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) quite rightly said has already been in use in Israel and has been sent back to this country for servicing, but has then not been allowed to return to Israel—are at this moment essential to Israel's survival. But I know that the way in which this embargo has been drawn has caused the Israelis pain and uncertainty at a moment of enormous stress to them. They know that it would have been perfectly easy to redraw the embargo in a way that prevented the supply of fresh weapons to this area but allowed the dispatch of these items of equipment on which, eventually, they may have to depend. It looks to the Israeli Government like a gratuitous and unnecessary attempt to hurt them. I am afraid that when the Foreign Secretary came to do his military sums on this matter his advisers gave him the wrong box of matches.
  Mr. Wilkinson: My hon. Friend referred to Jordan. He will recall that about 60 per cent. or 70 per cent. of the Jordanian Air Force, which has no surface-to-air guided weapons, is British equipped. He will recall, too, that at least three-quarters of the Jordanian Army's armoured vehicles and artillery are British. Jordan has no Russian weapons, and cannot get them, and has no recourse to weapons from the United States in the way that Israel has. In 1967 Jordan proved herself vulnerable. I hope that my hon. Friend will bring that out in his speech. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. I hope hon. Mem-
  444
  bers will remember that more than 40 hon. Members wish to take part in the debate.
  Mr. Goodhart: I accept the point made by my hon. Friend, and I am willing to see the embargo lifted for the Jordanian orders, too.
  Irael's frustrations are much increased by the knowledge that for more than a week the Soviet Union has been pouring arms into Egypt and Syria. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary believes that Mr. Kosygin is in Cairo on a mission of peace. I wish that I believed that, and I hope that whoever winds up the debate will be able to give us more evidence for my right hon. Friend's assertion. It looks to me as though during the last week the hawks in the Soviet Union have won their internal argument with the doves. Do we intend to stand aside for long while the Soviet Union makes a mockery of the present policy of détente? Do not we care whether the Soviet hawks try to secure a cheap victory? Can we stand aside with detachment, day after day, while the Soviet Union tries to inflict grievous wounds on a country which has a special relationship with our major ally in NATO?
  Years ago, when we desperately needed arms from the United States, Winston Churchill said. "Give us the tools and we will finish the job". Today, Israel is making no such extravagant request. All that she says is, "Give us the supplies that we have already bought and paid for and we will try to use them to deter present and future aggression".
  There was much in the Foreign Secretary's speech with which I agreed, but, alas, I am sorry to part company from hon. Friends, and particularly from my right hon. Friend, but I could not this afternoon accept his argument about the embargo. I cannot accept it, and I will not.
  5.4 p.m.
  Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart), although recently returned from Israel and obviously emotionally much more recently and more closely associated with that country than any of us who have not been there since this war, spoke with feeling, but with great moderation. Whether or not the House

  445
  agrees with what the hon. Gentleman said, I declare at once that I do. I think that his speech was a distinguished contribution to the debate.
  The tragic and terrifying nature of the present dispute and the widely differing views held in the House should not obscure the fact that in this House of Commons there are certain points on which there can be total agreement. First, that the House is appalled at the loss of human life and suffering, wherever that may be occurring. Secondly, that we must deplore the failure of the international political scene whereby we still have a situation, remaining totally unresolved, there where there is territory which the Arabs find occupied by foreign Powers, carrying with it the logical consequences of a refugee problem, whilst Israel for her part finds for the fourth time that her existence is threatened. I am sure the House must agree that there can be no achievement of a lasting peace through force.
  Mr. Dennis Walters rose—
  Mr. Thorpe: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue, and I may in a moment or two cover the point that he wishes to raise. Perhaps I may deal with matters in my own way.
  There cannot, either, in my view, be a settlement which does not convincingly remedy existing grievances on both sides, and I therefore want to do three things: First, to examine what has happened—not to apportion blame, but to put it in a world perspective—because sometimes there are events which are so menacing and threatening that to adopt a position of total neutrality can be taken as condoning something that is incredibly evil.
  Next, I want to examine the posture of so-called even-handedness and ask whether it is wise and honest, and whether it will achieve its objective, and then to answer, in a slightly different way from the Leader of the Opposition with whose views I did not agree on this issue, the question about what should be our posture over the supply of arms. That was the question which the Foreign Secretary quite properly and justifiably put to those who are opposed to his policies. Thirdly, I propose to say shortly what, tentatively, might be done.
  446
  We all agree with the Leader of the Opposition about the tragic nature of this war, but I do not think that on this occasion we should mince words. The fact that the Arab nations have many grievances and that much of their territory is occupied is accepted and, indeed, was recognised in Resolution 242, but the fact remains that between 1356 and 1400 hours on 6th October Syrian and Egyptian forces attacked territory occupied, rightly or wrongly, by Israel. In other words, two attacks hundreds of miles apart were launched within four minutes of each other on the most sacred day for the Jewish people and they were totally unprepared.
  I happen to believe that the coincidence of the timing of the attacks on the Syrian and Egyptian frontiers, the build-up of modern equipment which was put in not three days, but possibly up to six months before, and the total surprise of what happened indicated how the fighting began. That, in my view, makes it all the more imperative that a settlement should, in so far as it is possible, safeguard both sides against the dangers of sudden attack, and that is why the Foreign Secretary's Harrogate speech and his subsequent speech at Blackpool were unrealistic.
  I think he suggested that the only matter for negotiation in Sinai was the Gaza Strip, and the question of the Golan Heights must, he hoped, be settled on the basis that people were back to their own pre-1967 frontiers, on the supposition that Syria will accept Resolution 242, which hitherto she has not. While I believe that the Israelis will have to make major withdrawals, I believe that we shall have to be flexible in negotiating what the subsequent frontiers will be.
  To put it in the broadest political terms, if I were the Prime Minister of Israel and I gave up the Golan Heights and allowed the kibbutzim to be in a position in which they could be shelled again, I should not expect my administration to last more than five minutes.
  Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I agree, but the choice for the Israelis and for everybody is whether the buffer is provided by occupied territory or by a demilitarised zone with an international force.
  Mr. Thorpe: I take the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary's present position. I accept that he is saying that there must be a buffer. But it is only fair to say that Harrogate and Blackpool did not refer to a buffer but simply referred to withdrawal to the 1967 lines. All I am saying is that that position was not realistic. The right hon. Gentleman's present position is more flexible, and therefore to be welcomed.
  Secondly, we must realise that Syria and Egypt are, as the Leader of the Opposition said, using the most up-to-date equipment which the Soviet Union possesses. Much of it is not even available to its partners in the Warsaw Pact. Some of it has -never been outside the Soviet Union, and some of it has never been operational before. The 600–650 T62 tanks have never before seen combat. The SAM 6 missiles are out of the Soviet Union for the first time, and they took at least three months to set up on their launching pads. The Suchoi 20 is the most up-to-date long-range fighter possessed by the Soviet Union. The Celt missile, with an 80-mile range, was originally refused to the Egyptians when they requested it because it was on the top secret list in the Soviet Union. It was granted to them only when Soviet military advisers left.
  It would be simplistic to say that those arms are supplied because the Soviet Union is using the Middle East as a testing ground, as the Italians and Germans used Spain in the Spanish Civil War. Why should the Soviet Union wish to endanger Helsinki, to endanger the whole possibility of European détente? It is very simply because it wishes to dominate the Middle East.
  What is tragic is that the Soviet involvement has much less to do with the problem of the Palestine refugees, with the problem of Arab unity, with the problem of Arab nationalism, than with the old-fashioned Soviet aim to dominate the area politically and economically. That is why we must be realistic about the involvement of the Soviet Union, whose motives are very different from those of the Arabs whom they are backing and using, because there could be an Arab victory only with total Russian backing.
  If the Soviet Union were politically and economically to dominate the area, as she would, she could dictate the course
  448
  of the economy for the whole of the free world. That is why the United States is supplying arms, not just out of any sentiment but because she realises that if the Soviet Union is allowed to crush Israel, using Arab forces with her own equipment, it will politically dominate the area.
  It is extraordinary that the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, who is a hard-liner in Helsinki, asking what is tactics and what is genuine in the Russian attitude, manages to take a position of total neutrality when the Russians carry out policies which he would deplore in certain parts of the world. He remains strangely neutral on those policies in the Middle East. Therefore, I believe that if there are peace feelers from the Soviet Union one has to ask whether those feelers are put forward to assist Russian political objectives in the area, or whether Russia is repeating her position of 1967 of merely accepting that those whom she seeks to use cannot be successful and therefore wanting to cut her losses. It is wholly wrong if we do not recognise and publicly state that the Arab nations are being armed by the Soviet Union with the most up-to-date equipment that the Soviet Union possesses in order to assist the Soviet Union in her own political and economic strategy in the Mediterranean, and that the interests of the Arab nations come second, very far down on the list.
  I accept that the embargo is the Government's attempt to become an honest broker. To be an honest broker one does not have to be the ally of both sides, but one must be regarded as someone who can honour obligations and be trusted. I do not believe that the embargo on the 200 tons comprising 4,000 shells waiting in Liverpool, paid for and simply awaiting an Israeli ship, equipment which would have been shipped 10 days before the war broke out if the Israelis had not decided that they would wait and take two months' shipments at a time, has strategically had a tremendous impact or effect in Israel. But psycholgically what has happened has been about as maladroit as anything could be.
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary does not assist his concept of evenhandedness by telling me, as he did on Tuesday that it was all right to train Egyptian helicopter

  449
  pilots because they would be going back in six weeks but were trained only in helicopters which they had not got in Egypt and which would be sold much further into the future. In the mind of the world, those six pilots will be going back having been trained in Britain, having put in some extra hours in helicopters in Britain, and will be taking to other helicopters in the front line.
  I do not believe either that to say that we should supply Lightnings to Saudi Arabia, which two days ago pulled out one of her armoured car regiments in Jordan, a regiment now in the front line in Syria, is evidence of being even-handed.
  I turn to the question of tanks to be supplied to Dubai, a country which I know well and for which I have friendly feelings. I declare an interest, in that for a while I worked on an economic project for Dubai. We are told on the one hand that the purpose of the tanks is purely ceremonial. If that is so, there does not seem to be tremendous urgency in supplying them. On the other hand, it is said that they are to be used for the security of the Gulf. [Interruption.] We have had both explanations, without guarantees, and I accept that they conflict. It seems to me that that is not being even-handed in the supply of arms to the Arab countries.
  Even if there were guarantees, I do not believe that they would be particularly valuable in time of war, after the guarantees which Libya gave to France. She guaranteed that the Mirages would not be used, but two have already been shot down on the Syrian front.
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary may lead us all to the view that supplying arms is rather a dirty business.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: It Is.
  Mr. Thorpe: The right hon. Gentleman may have done something to discourage people from buying British arms in the future. No one will buy British arms for his self-defence if he believes that the minute they are needed for self-defence he will not have the ammunition to make them operational.
  Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Before the right hon. Gentleman spoke I looked up on how many countries we had imposed arms embargoes since 1960. The' answer is eight or nine. All of them are now buying arms from us.
  Mr. Thorpe: Whether that is a matter for pride, I do not know. If the right hon. Gentleman is saying that the embargoes have not been bad for business, so that we need not worry, it is not an elevating or good argument. The right hon. Gentleman is saying that it does not matter, that our long-term interests are all right because the customers still come, and therefore I am wrong. I believe that confidence in a country from which one purchased arms would be undermined if one were denied ammunition when it was really needed, but the right hon. Gentleman tells me that that has not been out experience.
  We are a traditional supplier of arms to both sides. I accept that. I should be surprised if the volume of arms we sell to Israel is less than £15 million a year, and it may be as much as £20 million. I believe that there is a considerable defence purchasing mission in the Israeli Embassy, with the knowledge of the Government, and presumably with their consent.
  I believe that it would have been right to send to Israel the ammunition to which I have referred and then to say that there would be a rigorous embargo on further deliveries. I will tell the right hon. Gentleman why. He answered it in his own statement when he said that of course we would never allow the State of Israel to go under. If ever that happened, he said, he would immediately reconsider the position.
  He did not feel it necessary to give the same undertaking to the Arabs because the future existence of the Arab States is not threatened. That is the difference. Territorial acquisitions there have been and certainly there will have to be territorrial concessions but there has never been a threat to the existence of any Arab country. Were that so the Egyptians would have found the Israelis in Cairo last time just as the Syrians might find them in Damascus this time. [An HON. MEMBER: "What happened to Palestine?"] To go back to the Balfour Declaration of 1917 would so elongate.

  451
  this debate that we should need at least 10 days for it.
  The Foreign Secretary said he would not allow Israel to go under, to be extinguished. It might have run that risk had the Americans followed the policy which he is following in regard to arms. He is like the car salesman who offers to sell someone a car and says that he will not sell spare parts or do repairs but that the garage down the road will. That is an easy way to luxuriate in neutrality, in the safe knowledge that someone else will see that the country in question is not extinguished. Therefore I certainly would have supplied the ammunition and would have wanted thereafter to be satisfied that there was sufficient ammunition to ensure that that country was not extinguished.
  Mr. Reginald Freeson: The position is even worse than that which the right hon. Gentleman the Liberal leader has described. The embargo became effective the day after the invasion by Syria and Egypt took place when no one could know what the results of that invasion would be. That is a disgraceful thing to have happened.
  Mr. Thorpe: That is why I am appalled at the Foreign Secretary's attitude that he will judge when Israel runs the risk of extinction and then he will act. That does not seem to be a satisfactory basis for security.
  There is one other worrying aspect. All the indications are that the country with which this country may well seek to take a joint initiative is the Republic of France. We damned ourselves psychologically by the manner of the embargo—and it is the psychological way in which the embargo was handled and not the actuality of the ammunition which caused the damage. But there is no European country which could be more mistrusted, certainly in Israel, than France. It cut off the supply of Mirages in 1967, then sold them to Libya with the undertaking that they would not be used when, as everyone knows, they have been.
  I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman said he would review the situation and I hope that Israel will not be in extremis before the review is carried out. I do not believe the Foreign Secretary has achieved the rôle of the honest
  452
  broker. He is totally mistrusted—perhaps not mistrusted but there is bitterness in Israel which will take many years to live down, and he has not gained the confidence of the Arabs.
  There will be a settlement only when the super-Powers and others become convinced that there can be no victory through war and that there may be no alternative to peaceful negotiations without preconditions. The full appalling tragedy and irony is that the longer the war goes on, the more bloodshed, slaughter and destruction, the greater will be the likelihood of the beginning of wisdom and that out of the carnage it will be realised there can be no settlement without peaceful negotiation.
  Otherwise there will only be a stalemate or a five-year peace at the best.
  What I am sad about is that the British Government, without winning the respect of the Arabs, have lost the trust of the Israelis. The Government have probably proved more pliable than Moscow ever dreamed they would be and that is the supreme irony for the right hon. Gentleman who was always regarded as the hardliner in Helsinki.
  I believe the Government's posture has been wrong and if they will now try and make amends by using the United Nations and trying to get a peacekeeping force going, of which it would be difficult for us to be a part, then we may find a Cuba situation once again in which the terror of mutual destruction is such that the super-Powers will come together.
  They cannot impose a settlement. They must realise that a settlement is vital and that applies particularly to the Soviet Union. If the super-Powers realise that, the Arabs and Israelis must do likewise. They must realise that in a Middle East war there can be no victor; there can be no peace without negotiations between the parties without preconditions; and the hawks on both sides must be prepared to make generous concessions. I am saddened only that my country has not played a more positive rôle and has so bitterly divided people by its policies.
  5.26 p.m.
  Sir Frederic Bennett: The only reason I have sought to make a short intervention is that I have believed since this tragic struggle began that there was

  453
  room for a third voice by someone with the same sincerity of passion as others who have spoken, but which was neither pro-Israeli nor pro-Arab. That third voice, to which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary referred briefly, like him wants to consider what is the basic British interest at stake.
  I welcome my right hon. Friend's assertion. I notice that the Leader of the Opposition said he respected the sincerity of those who were emotionally involved on one side or another. I, too, respect their sincerity and I understand it, but I believe that respect is also due to people like myself who are doing their best not to be emotionally involved on one side or the other but to consider the best interests for this country and for gaining an enduring peace settlement in the Middle East. I stress "enduring". We shall be doing no service if we merely patch up something which in a period of years will lead to a renewal of a struggle which will be even more painful.
  Therefore I ask for the same understanding that I am willing to accord to those with different views from my own. I have been considering what are the best chances of obtaining an enduring peace settlement. Several right hon. and hon. Members commented earlier in such a way that though they may differ in their conclusions they did not differ much from my thinking. I notice the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) gave a fair and graphic description of how Soviet penetration in the Middle East was seeking to exploit the struggle in order to further its own aims. I do not differ from that. There is no doubt that the Soviet Union is trying and has been trying to exploit Arab-Israeli differences since they first emerged not just for the purpose of gaining a just settlement for its allies but to further its own penetration in that part of the world.
  However, having agreed with the right hon. Gentleman on that, I wonder how we serve our ends in persuading the Arab countries that they should not be lured wholeheartedly into the Soviet camp, how we achieve that by driving them into the position where they think that their only friends in the world are the Soviet Union. To that the right hon.
  454
  Gentleman did not address himself. He correctly described what the Soviet Union was achieving but he did not show how we should seek to divert the overwhelming influence of the Soviet Union, with perhaps China at a later date, on the Arabs of the Middle East.
  Mr. Thorpe: Did the hon. Member notice the very important initiatives taken around 25th September this year by Dr. Kissinger for a peace settlement? They were well received by the King of Saudi Arabia and in other Arab capitals. It is untrue to say there was no initiative from the West.
  Sir F. Bennett: I did not say that. I did not say there had been no initiatives. The question which I was posing to all right hon. and hon. Members is that, whatever Dr. Kissinger may or may not have done, one of our aims within the next few weeks should be not to make the Arabs feel that they have no home to go to other than the Soviet Union. That is the only point which I am seeking to make in that context if we are to achieve an enduring peace and a settlement.
  Surely we should realise that a crushing defeat of Israel would be unacceptable not only here but throughout the Western world. Such a defeat would obviously not lead to a tenable state of affairs. The Israelis would be driven to the most desperate ends if that position faced them. Nor do I believe that a lasting settlement would be achieved by a crushing defeat for the Arabs. If we think of the bitterness which is built up from century to century when a country has suffered successive defeats and is occupied by alien forces, it is clear that such bitterness continues over the centuries.
  If there is another crushing defeat for the Arab States, they will retire once again to lick their wounds and to put themselves even further in pawn to the Soviet Union. Eventually the unhappy tragedy would be unfolded once again for the whole world to face, including Great Britain and this House.
  I am guided by two factors. First, we should not adopt policies which drive the Arab States irrevocably into the arms of the Soviet Union, nor should we treat Israel unfairly. Secondly, we should not

  455
  stand idly by, and by a negative or positive move encourage a crushing defeat for either side. We would be singularly, blindly short-term in our thinking if we did so.
  I have noticed that there is a tendency to try to allocate responsibility for aggression. I shall not yield to that temptation. When nations feel themselves passionately affronted, whether they be Arabs or Israelis, what we say will not affect their feelings of outrage. We must dismiss from our minds a one-sided outlook. Many hon. Members have been in this House a long time. We have seen repeatedly—for example, India and Pakistan—that it does no good for us to determine who is the aggressor. What matters is what the people on the spot think, and who they consider to have been the aggressor.
  There is not the slightest doubt that both sides from time to time, and sometimes more clearly than at other times, have sought to gain a lasting advantage by hostilities. It would be folly to do otherwise than to agree that the physical aggression on this occasion took place from the Arab side. Yet I ask hon. Members to put themselves in the picture and to try to understand the feelings of those whose national territory is being occupied by someone else. If in this country there had been a large section of territory placed in foreign hands as a result of the last war, and if we had sought to get back that national territory, I doubt whether the British people would regard such action as aggression. That is a matter I plead with those who take a partisan view.
  I endorse the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. We shall do no good now if we seek to allocate responsibility to one side or the other. Such action will not go towards a settlement. I expressed exactly the same opinion on the last occasion and on the occasion before that.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition was questioned closely about the lifting of the present embargo. With his usual facility he avoided giving a definitive answer. He avoided saying whether he was asking for the embargo to be lifted on both sides or only on one side.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: You must be hard of hearing.
  Sir F. Bennett: What the right hon. Gentleman said can be checked in HANSARD tomorrow. I heard very well what he said and I shall repeat it. He said that he favoured the lifting of the embargo on both sides subject to the usual checks. I am not sure what "subject to the usual checks" means.
  Let us assume that the tide of the war turns. Let us assume that Jordan invades Israel and that Jordan runs out of spare parts for its Centurion tanks and requires further spare parts. Will the right hon. Gentleman's statement that he favours an all-round lifting of the embargo subject to the usual checks cover such a contingency? Would Opposition hon. Members and some of my hon. Friends applaud my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he were to come to the House at a time when Jordanian troops were marching on Israel and to say, "I have had to respond to a plea to lift the embargo and supplies of ammunition and spare parts are on their way to Jordan."?
  We all know that the response which would greet my right hon. Friend would be 10 times more antagonistic than the response which he has already received from certain sections. It is not honest for those who want the embargo on supplies to Israel lifted to claim that they equally want the embargo lifted for both sides. In their hearts they know different. My hon. Friends who are partisan to Israel know what it is that they mean. They do not mean that there should be an all-round lifting of the embargo. To make that clear would be a far more honest way in which to portray their feelings, but that has not been the way in which it has been done, at least by the Leader of the Opposition.
  I do not believe that we should ever yield to blackmail from whatever source. Equally, if we are elected to this House we should not gratuitously take steps which will not improve the chances of an enduring peace. At the same time, we should not take steps which would harm the industrial life of this country. I have a shrewd suspicion that many hon. Members and many people outside this House are thinking in terms of petrol rationing as only affecting so

  457
  many gallons for a private car. I am not sure that everybody realises the extent to which the whole of our industrial life is affected—for example, workers, factories and power generators depend on the import of oil.
  It is not to yield to blackmail to face the reality of the situation. If we were to do so because it appeared that there was no other way out and because it was thought that such action would bring peace, I should be the first to say, "Let us put up with any of the consequences because this will help to bring about peace". I do not believe that to drive the Arab countries into the arms of the Soviet Union will help to bring about an enduring peace. Nor do I believe that a crushing victory for either side will help the cause of peace. Hence I do not see why we should contemplate damaging the interest of this country for what I regard as a negative policy.
  I have been interested to listen to those who have pleaded that once a contract has been drawn up there is a sanctity. It has been suggested that once arms sales have been arranged and promises made that the sanctity should be overriding and that we should fulfil our obligations. I have listened to debates in the past and I suspect that I shall live to hear differing views in future about the sanctity of such contracts. I am in no doubt that I shall suspect again that the propriety of sales of arms in various parts of the world will be often subject to differing selective interpretations according to individuals' prejudices.
  5.40 p.m.
  Mr. Christopher Mayhew: I agree warmly with a number of points made by the hon. Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett)—and I hope that that does not embarrass him in his non-partisan aspirations. I particularly agreed with his common sense and clarifying remarks about the nature of aggression in this case. I want particularly to refer to what the Leader of the Liberal Party said about the arms embargo
  The right hon. Gentleman's position seems to me to be consistent and to have principle in it. The Liberal Party has long been an avowed supporter of Israel and he takes the view that the embargo should therefore be lifted from an important shipment of arms to Israel and
  458
  thereafter reimposed on all countries. I disagree with that view but it has some principle in it, as I understand it.
  What puzzles me is the attitude of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. He, too, showed an undoubted and frank sympathy with Israel. I do not agree with that at all. Indeed, one might have expected him—I am glad that he did not—to take the view expressed by the Leader of the Liberal Party. But my right hon. Friend's view of the embargo is quite different. It is that it must be lifted for the Israelis and the Arabs, that we need to suspend it both for 10,000 rounds for Jordan and 4,000 rounds for Israel. My right hon. Friend could not have been plainer about this in the end, although I agree with the hon. Member for Torquay that it took a little getting to.
  What is the moral principle behind that policy? Is it really the policy of the British Labour Party to sell arms to both sides in a bloody war? I was brought up on the theory that the private manufacture of weapons was immoral and should be abolished. The facts of life have pushed the party away from that. But I never thought that I would live to hear the Leader of the Labour Party saying that the private manufacture and sale of arms to both sides at once in a bloody war was Labour policy. It is inconceivable.
  I would rather take the Russian view, or the American view. The European countries have imposed a total embargo which is what we have done. But the Americans and the Russians are at least being consistent and logical. The action of the Americans is not even in Israel's interest, according to my information or to the information available to the Foreign Secretary. I cannot understand how my right hon. Friend got himself into this position.
  I have always supported the idea—and would do so now—of allowing arms to go from this country to Israel to increase her security within her own frontiers in support of a peaceful settlement in accordance with the United Nations charter. But that is not what the Leader of the Liberal party is suggesting. He is suggesting sending arms to Israel for use outside Israeli territory, in Arab lands, to help her maintain if not extend her conquered territories. The right hon.

  459
  Gentleman laid down no conditions. They could be used to conquer Damascus or Amman, to enable Israel, as she has done in the past, to decline to co-operate fully in a Resolution 242 settlement.
  There are other conditions to be considered. Has the Leader of the Liberal Party considered that if the war continues there are likely to be serious internal security problems for Israel in the Gaza Strip and on the West Bank of the Jordan? Is he laying down conditions about the use of these British-made tanks for internal security? That has always been the policy of the Labour Party. I believe that the Leader of the Liberal Party protested when British-made Saracen armoured cars were used at Sharpeville. Does he want Centurion tanks used in Gaza and on the West Bank? Or has he not considered it?
  What about the position of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in this? I hope that the Opposition Front Bench will assure us that the Labour Party will in no circumstances send Centurions to Israel to be used in an internal security rôle against the Palestinians.
  But the most important point, on which the House is most divided, on which the Israelis are most divided and which has done most to hold up a settlement—and it was reflected in the reaction below the Gangway on this side of the House when the Foreign Secretary referred to it—concerns what he called "preventing the destruction of the State of Israel". The Foreign Secretary said that he would prevent it. All through this debate we have heard resistance to any kind of compromise involving the withdrawal to Israel's frontiers because of a sincerely-held feeling below the Gangway and in Israel that if they got to the frontiers the Arabs would not stop there. I believe profoundly that this is the major difficulty we have to deal with.
  I believe that it is the feeling in Israel that if ever they had a settlement which brought the Arabs to their frontiers the Arabs would escalate their demands, would start supporting the Palestinian solution for a united Jewish-Arab Palestine and dismantling the Israeli State. Therefore, they believe that what they are fighting for in keeping the Arabs outside, what they are fighting for in the
  460
  conquered territories, which they do not value, in themselves, is their existence, their survival, even the physical safety of themselves and their families. I believe that this is the basic problem we have to overcome. It is this fear in the minds of the Israelis—a fear which I know is shared by many of my hon. Friends below the Gangway—that this is what would happen in a settlement of the kind we are proposing.
  I beg the Israelis themselves to try to analyse this feeling, to try to reason with themselves about how rational or how irrational it is. Some part of it at least is unreasonable. Those who have been to Israel, as I have, and have been on the receiving end of a great deal of Israeli opinion—hon. Members may imagine that—know that there is strong Israeli feeling, a feeling that goes so far as to imagine undisciplined Arab soldiers and terrorists at loose in Israel; it imagines massacre, even extermination. That feeling is there and we can none of us underestimate the obstacle it presents to the achievement of a peaceful settlement in the present circumstances. No one should deride those fears in a people with such a tragic and terrible history.
  I do not need to spell out the settlement which we envisage but I am more optimistic than others. I see a settlement coming to the fore in which Israel agrees to withdraw to the pre-1967 frontiers as defined by Mr. William Rodgers, the former United States Secretary of State, and in which she also agrees to make some restitution to the Palestinians for the grievous sufferings she has imposed upon them, and, on the other side, in which she receives, as she can now both through Resolution 242 and from President Sadat's very moderate speech, recognition by her Arab neighbours, an end to the 26-year-old state of belligerancy, the freeing of the Suez Canal and the Gulf of Aqaba and a demilitarised zone on both sides of the pre-1967 frontiers, with an international force inside it, not recallable except by unanimous vote of the Security Council, unlike the case in 1967, and with British and French troops, and with, in addition, a conference at which President Sadat has said that Arabs and Israelis could meet face to face. The whole thing would be underwritten by a peace treaty guaranteed by the great Powers.

  461
  All this is on offer to Israel. I beg the Israelis now to accept a cease-fire and settlement terms of this kind. I am profoundly convinced that it is in their interest to do so, that they will do no good for themselves by continuing this fighting to the bitter end. I ask them to reflect back on the past and to consider whose advice to them has been soundest. Was it the advice of the friends of Israel or the advice of the critics of Israel? Was it the advice of those who said, "Be careful—the Arabs intend to drive the Israelis into the sea and you are right to be very careful to keep the enemy at a distance and to insist on preconditions for negotiations"?
  Or were those right who said that Israel was wrong, that the balance of power was changing, that there could never be peace while she insisted on occupying the territory of her neighbours and therefore she should compromise while she is strong and agree to Resolution 242? Whose advice was best from the Israeli point of view? Let them listen less to some of their more bellicose friends who are trying to encourage, to help them to prolong the war, who are telling them not to accept a settlement or a cease-fire. Let them listen to those who tell them in complete sincerity that now is the time to accept the terms for the cease-fire and settlement available to them.
  Mr. James Callaghan: May I intervene, as a non-bellicose friend? My hon. Friend has told us what is on offer for Israel in this search for a solution. I understood from President Sadat's speech that it was a precondition, that there should first be a withdrawal to the 1967 frontiers and then these things would be negotiable and perhaps, as my hon. Friend has said, would be fulfilled. Does he think it is reasonable to ask Israel to withdraw to the 1967 frontiers in advance of negotiations about particular matters which he says are are on offer?
  Mr. Mayhew: I do not think it reasonable and I have never said that. What I have said is that they should agree to withdraw before negotiations begin. This is what President Sadat said, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made clear. There is all the difference in the world between withdrawing before negotiations and
  462
  agreeing to withdraw before negotiations. That is what is at stake.
  This is the important part. If we had this settlement then these fears I have been talking about will not be rational. For example, if we have this settlement no Arab soldiers will ever reach Israeli frontiers. None will even reach the borders of the demilitarised zone until that zone is occupied by an international force. Those who reach the zone will not be undisciplined mobs of soldiers and terrorists. They will be the soldiers of the Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian armed forces who we now see to be good soldiers, who are disciplined and who have observed the rules of war.
  These are the simple facts about a settlement and I wish those who had influence in Israel would convey them and try to put them across to the people of Israel rather than the stories we have heard so often, usually apocryphal, often taken out of context, often mis-translated, to the effect that the soldiers of the neighbouring countries wish to drive the Jews into the sea.
  Mr. Hugh Fraser: It is true.
  Mr. Mayhew: Perhaps I could repeat what I said on television two years ago. I offered £5,000 to anyone who could give me documentation for such a statement from any responsible Arab leader. I repeat the offer now. The statements are damaging, they are not true and they make a settlement infinitely more difficult.
  Mr. Paget: Will my hon. Friend qualify his challenge by saying what is a responsible Arab leader? Is there one?
  Mr. Mayhew: I am sorry that I gave way. I have spoken of the unreasonable fears of the Israelis. May I deal now with what is a reasonable fear. That is a fear that the Palestinians will oppose and disrupt the settlement and seek the destruction of the Israeli State. The Israelis are right in thinking that a strong minority of Palestinians oppose a settlement of this kind. They do. But in the event of this settlement the situation is wholly changed.
  When the settlement comes some Palestinians will continue demanding the whole loaf and there might be one or

  463
  two terrorists among them. But for the vast majority of Palestinians the settlement will transform their lives. Those on the West Bank will have the job and opportunity of building their own free Palestinian community. Hundreds of thousands of refugees will have the opportunity of returning to the occupied territories and building a new life there. Thus the militancy, the bitterness and frustrations of the Palestinians after a settlement will net be comparable with their frustrations and bitterness today or, even worse, as it might become if Israel does not make this move towards a settlement.
  My plea to those who have influence in Israel is this: ask Israel to consider carefully whether her best interests would not be served by accepting the Resolution 242 settlement and cease-fire.
  5.55 p.m.
  Mr. Hugh Fraser: We have heard the argument put forward today by the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) many times before. It is a view which is scarcely relevant to what has happened today. What has happened is that the State of Israel has been, attacked, attacked on a holy day in the Jewish Year. What the hon. Member said therefore does not really reflect the realities of the situation. The realities are that a country has been attacked with a front-line strength of something like 2,000 tanks—
  Mr. Faulds: Get your facts right. Occupied territories have been attacked.
  Mr. Fraser: —in an all-out attack. This is a question not of territory but of existence. This is an attack against the existence of Israel as a State. It is not for the hon. Gentleman or others to say that territory is the issue for the Israeli people. It is because they believe, after four wars in one generation, that there are those who are determined to thrust the Israelis into the sea.
  That is why it is difficult for people in Israel to understand the point of view put forward by the hon. Gentleman. The issue before the House is infinitely more simple than trying to put forward great schemes for settling this matter. Many such schemes have been put forward over the years.
  464
  There are two issues here to which I want to address myself. The first is the question of the British Government and the arms embargo and the second is the question to which the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) addressed himself, the long-term interest of this country in the Middle East.
  These two matters are inextricably interlinked and can be discussed as one. The first point deals with the talk by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary about level, even-handed action over the embargo. That is totally unacceptable when one looks at some of the facts. This is not a level or even-handed decision. It is undoubtedly regarded by the Israelis and anyone who has studied the immediate situation as a positive attack on the military situation. Israel is being attacked by the most sophisticated weapons in the world.
  Those weapons are not even given to the satellite Slates. Now they are being hurled against Israel. More and more are being hurled every day as the forces fly in to Syria, Damascus and Cairo. This is the fact. Israel is fighting for her life, on the whole with equipment which is much more out of date than the equipment available to the other side. The question of ammunition for the Centurion tanks is of enormous importance. It is not a small matter. It is a matter of 4,000 rounds of antitank ammunition. I do not know how many hon. Members have taken part in an antitank battle. The character of armour-piercing ammunition is totally different from that put down in an artillery barrage. Armour-piercing ammunition of the type that we are committed to sell—that is to say, a tungsten penetrator with a cap built round it that falls away—is extremely difficult to manufacture. I do not think it can be obtained elsewhere. It is the key to Israel's tank defences.
  To say that 4,000 rounds of this ammunition is a small matter for a country fighting for its life is to mistake the facts. Four thousand rounds of antitank armour-penetrating ammunition could have turned the battle of El Alamein. Four thousand rounds of this ammunition could knock out 400 tanks. My right hon. Friends on the Front Bench are saying that this is a small matter, but more is given to Jordan, and

  465
  Jordan is not engaged in the war except in a small way. Most of the Jordanian tanks are protecting the royal palace or along the river line, apart from the 30 or 40 which are helping the Syrians in their attack on Israel.
  That is why what the Government have done can only be interpreted by the people of Israel as a hostile act. It is a great mistake for Her Majesty's Government to imagine that after this they can have any influence whatsoever in the Middle East.
  Mr. Carol Mather: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this ammunition is available from other countries?
  Mr. Fraser: I am saying what will be the reaction of the ordinary Israeli and the Israeli chiefs of staff when they are told "We are terribly sorry, what we premised to give you we will not give you".
  I am net sure that the 105-mm. ammunition of the armour-piercing type is available from other countries. I do not know that what my hon. Friend says or has been told to say by the Whips is even accurate. This ammunition is essentially of a British character and it is needed.
  It therefore follows as clear as day follows night that my right hon. Friend and the Government will be regarded in Israel as perfidious characters. We shall be unable to do anything to bring together the two sides.
  The right hon. Member for Devon, North touched on certain facts which are the key to our understanding of what this conflict is about. In the Middle East there is a struggle between the great Powers for hegemony and power. It would be foolish and weak-minded of us to imagine that our interests there are other than those of the United States of America. It may be said that we made a mistake over Suez, but in 1973 the interests of the West are concentrated on the American attitude to the Middle East, and the survival of Israel is essential to our interests. Any step, however feeble or vaguely malevolent, taken by the British Government which led to the destruction of Israel would be a disaster.
  There is a danger after this aggression against Israel of the Foreign Secretary's
  466
  speech-writers rewriting the parable of the Good Samaritan in terms of the man who was on the road from Jerusalem to Jericho being kicked in the teeth.
  6.5 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Stewart: A great deal has been said and written over the years about the general situation in the Middle East but now that war has broken out we have to strip the argument down to its essentials. We shall never get it in the right perspective unless we realise that what is at issue is the right of the State of Israel to continue to exist. In framing a settlement many other factors have to be taken into account, but if we neglect that one we shall get nowhere
  I must confess that when I held office there were occasions when I could not agree with the Israeli Government. In the years after the Six-Day War they snowed a lack of patience and a lack of flexibility—though, if I were an Israeli who had lived through the previous 20 years in mortal peril I do not know how much patience and flexibility would be left in my personality. I did occasionally warn Israel that not everything could be solved by Israel's strong right arm and valour, strong and valorous as she is.
  Against those criticisms two factors should be considered. As doubt has been thrown on this it had better be reasserted. First, Israel after the Six-Day War, was prepared to accept and carry out Resolution 242 on the clear understanding that that meant the whole of Resolution 242. What she was not prepared to do was to carry out a clause about withdrawing from territories and then look round to see whether anything would be done about the rest of Resolution 242. Moreover, anyone who sincerely accepted Resolution 242 must have known that it was not a completely detailed treaty and that many details on doubtful points had to be filled in. Therefore, anyone who was sincere about accepting Resolution 242 would have been ready to meet the other side to reach an exact settlement based on Resolution 242.
  The other factor to consider is the steady refusal of the Arab Governments to do that. I use the words "Arab Governments" deliberately because among the sufferers in this tragedy of the Middle East have been the people of

  467
  the Arab countries who are so desperately in need of good government and of some of the money which is now being spent on armaments to be spent on welfare. They are tragically encouraged to believe that a great benefit will accrue to them if Israel is mortally injured.
  That is what the Arab Governments have done. Not only did they refuse to meet at the conference table, but from the time when Israel became a member of the United Nations the Arab Governments steadily refused to carry out the ordinary duties that one member of the United Nations has to another, particularly if that other is a neighbour.
  For example, the Arab Governments continued to say that they were at war with Israel. They made repeated raids, harassed the Israelis and refused to come to the conference table. It is in that situation that one has to judge what is happening now.
  When one remembers those essential facts, what follows if this conflict results in any substantial military advantage to the Arab Governments is that the struggle would be renewed at the first moment that suited them. It cannot be in the interests of peace in the Middle East or in the interests of Israel, Britain and the whole Western Alliance that this conflict should result in a substantial military advantage to the Arab Governments. None of us knows what the coming few days may bring. But I would set that as a guiding principle of how we should judge any proposals for a settlement.
  It may be said that perhaps the Arabs are changing their minds. We were all interested and to some extent gratified by President Sadat's speech. I wish only that I had heard from him a speech like that a considerable time ago. But I am bound to wonder and still more the Israelis are bound to wonder whether, if the past 12 days had brought substantial military victory to the Arab Governments, that speech would have been made at all. Israel cannot be expected to barter away her security for the sake of a speech which unhappily still contains the impossible proposition that Israel must first withdraw before the rest of the agreement is tied up and settled firmly.
  What we have to do if it is at all possible is to get back to Resolution 242
  468
  on the understanding this time that the parties will meet in a conference and work out the necessary details. That will not happen if in a week or two the Arab countries feel that what they have done recently has given them a substantial advantage and that they can therefore think in terms of trying again later on rather than in terms of coming to a conference table.
  It is again in these contexts that one must judge the immediate problem before us today concerning the policy of Her Majesty's Government. It is always a serious matter to break a contract. I accept that circumstances, especially the outbreak of war, may create a situation in which it is right to do so. But I am sure that everyone will agree that we must look very closely at the reasons that we give for doing so.
  What were the reasons in this case? The Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary said that he believed this to be the right policy for us and for everyone. That is the whole point. Most of us will agree that it is the right policy for everyone. But everyone is not pursuing it. If everyone was pursuing it we should be facing a totally different situation. We ask whether it is the right policy for us when quite plainly it is not everyone's policy.
  The right hon. Gentleman went on to argue that it was even-handed. I put forward these points in any consideration of the reasons why it does not seem to me to be even-handed.
  First, it does not take into account the comparative numbers of Centurions on both sides. With respect, the proportion of Centurions in the total armament of one side or the other is not what is in issue. What is in issue is the total amount on both sides. After all, the Jordanian army is nothing like as much in issue as the armies of the other Arab belligerents who are nothing like as dependent on Centurion spares and ammunition as Israel.
  Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman's even-handed argument does not take into account the total balance of forces between Israel and her enemies. If that is taken into account it must be apparent that this embargo, coming when it does and in the form that it does, will make Arab success more likely so far as it

  469
  has any effect at all. Here I agree with a number of right hon. and hon. Members that the actual physical effect might not be all that great. But if it has any effect—and the Government will hardly defend their policy on the ground that it will not have any effect—it will be the wrong effect of encouraging the kind of result which will not promote a peaceful settlement in the future.
  Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman's argument does not take into account arms, some of which are of British origin, supplied to other Arab countries further from the field of conflict but which are now being thrown into the scales.
  The fourth point is the very important one mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. It is the presence on the Arab side now of considerable numbers of Russian TU62s. As my right hon. Friend said, if those had been supplied to the Arab countries when we were in office we should have taken a very different view of what we ought to make available to Israel. It appears therefore that while the present Government have been responsible for these matters the balance of armour has shifted considerably in favour of the Arab States, and that that is not taken into account when this embargo is called "even-handed".
  The last reason why it is not even-handed is that it does not take into account the fact that the stakes of the two sides are very different. The worst that the Arabs face is defeat and disappointment. The Israelis face destruction.
  Mr. Mayhew: Once again my right hon. Friend says that the Israelis face total destruction. That is the kind of language which makes a settlement infinitely more difficult. A peaceful Resolution 242 settlement does not mean total destruction for the Israelis.
  Mr. Stewart: Of course it does not. But if out of this conflict there results a victory for the Arab Governments there will not be a Resolution 242 settlement.
  Mr. Mayhew: It could be reached today.
  Mr. Steward: If my hon. Friend really believes that he does not understand the situation at all.
  The other argument used for the Government's policy is that the pursuit of what they are doing now may be helpful in enabling them to mediate later. If as a result of what they are doing now and as a result of other factors there is a substantial Arab success, as I was saying just now to my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), all the resolutions and draft resolutions on the table of the Security Council will be swept into the dustbin. We shall not be speaking in terms of mediation then. We shall be speaking in terms of an arrogant victorious side which is not interested in a settlement.
  Even if events turn out better than that, are we equipping ourselves to be a mediator by a gesture which is greeted on one side with indignation and on the other with amused contempt? Do not let the Government think that they will get any gratitude from the Arab Government. If their policy were even-handed, there would be very different reactions from the Middle East. If it were even-handed, I should have expected both Israel and the Arab countries all to be brusquely complaining about it—
  Mr. Mayhew: Jordan is.
  Mr. Stewart: We are told that Jordan is. That was not public knowledge until today. Jordan, which is not a main belligerent, is said to have made a protest. Do we believe that the other Arab belligerents are protesting indignantly or feeling anything like what Israel feels about it?
  It seems to me that none of these arguments stands up—[Interruption.] A number of my hon. Friends keep talking about the occupied territories. If the Arab countries had been prepared to come to a conference and if they had really meant what they said about Resolution 242, a settlement could have been achieved. If they had agreed to come to a conference table, signed a peace treaty and made it clear that they would live in peace with Israel, they would have been surprised at the concessions that they would have gained on every other point. The territories remain occupied

  471
  because the Arab countries were not prepared to take the necessary steps to put Resolution 242 into effect.
  If as a result of our infirmity of purpose or for any other reason the conflict goes on to the destruction or to the reduction to servitude of the State of Israel, it will have three consequences. First, a State whose social order and method of government is a splendid example to mankind will have been removed from the map. Secondly, there will be planted in that part of the world a group of nations with no reason for gratitude towards Britain but with contempt for her, closely linked with the Soviet Union, altering the shift of power in the world and gravely endangering what were the great hopes of detente. Thirdly, the rule of law will be set at complete defiance, and countries like Britain, which is not one of the super-Powers, depend very much on the observance of the rule of law. Surely, on any analysis that looks further than the end of one's nose, these are British interests and it is these that the Government are neglecting.
  6.20 p.m.
  Sir Douglas Dodds-Parker: The right hon. Member for Ful-ham (Mr. Michael Stewart) has had considerable experience in recent years of trying to solve this acute problem. I agree with much of his analysis but not with the conclusions to which he comes. I will not go backwards.
  I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, like every hon. Member is heart sick that we are again discussing the Middle East, for the fourth time as a war is raging in that part of the world between two branches of the great Semitic race who for so many centuries lived together in peace.
  The Leader of the Opposition said that we all have many friends on both sides in this struggle. I have never believed, since 1948, that there will be complete victory for either side, but one day there must be a settlement acceptable to both sides in that part of the world.
  Many hen. Members on both sides of the House try not to be partisan. It is much easier to be partisan, because whoever tries to reconcile the two sides will never get any thanks from either of them. They will never have any regard for the
  472
  peacemaker. It is said in the Book that is holy to all three religions in the Middle East that "blessed is the peacemaker." But he is pretty unpopular while trying to make peace. If he succeeds, well and good. If he does not, he certainly is not blessed.
  I believe that in 1973, as never before, it is in the interests of this country, whose interests I am elected to represent, and of both sides in the struggle that the United Kingdom should try to act as the honest broker, which is what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is trying to do, when the time comes. The earlier that time comes, the better, as The Times set out in some detail in a leading article today.
  I believe that there hopeful signs that both sides are prepared to consider a cease-fire and a conference leading to some settlement, however far-fetched the preconditions may be at present which both sides put forward. I believe that the declaration by the Foreign Secretary today has gone further than any other given by Her Majesty's Government in the last 25 years. I hope that it will help to reassure. Israel about some of the fears that have been expressed in this House today.
  Dr. M. S. Miller: Presumably the British Government were providing Israel with Centurion tanks, parts and ammunition for months, perhaps years, until new. What did Israel do on 6th October this year that made the British Government change their mind in that regard?
  Sir D. Dodds-Parke?: It is no use putting that question to me. I am not a member of the Government. The hen. Gentleman must address that point to the Government or make it in a speech in due course. I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman manages to catch your eye Mr. Speaker, and puts that question, whoever replies to the debate will answer it.
  Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is it not possible that on that day Israel was maintaining huge numbers of her armed forces in her neighbours territory contrary to the United Nations resolution? Surely that is what Israel was doing.
  Sir D. Dodds-Parker: That is another point which it is for hon. Members on

  473
  both sides to put to the Government. I believe that the declaration made by my right hon. Friend should reassure the Israelis and remove some of the fears that have been expressed in the debate today.
  I believe that any final settlement must be a package based broadly on the 1956 suggestion, in the Johnson Plan, that includes security, frontiers, access by sea, Jordan waters and refugees. I believe that one can see a better chance of a settlement today. Like the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), I am more optimistic, strange though it may seem at the moment, than I have been for some time. Were the political will present, it would not be too difficult for heads of agreement to be reached. I do not wish to embarrass those concerned on either side, many of whom I have known for a number of years, by naming them in this House. They have lived with this problem for a long time and know what would be an acceptable settlement. In my view, a solution is possibly nearer today than it has been in the past.
  I have spent the last three days at the European Parliament in Strasbourg among Members who feel as do hon. Members in this House. Everybody to whom I spoke said that Europe should have a European policy on this matter. Although there is considerable divergence of opinion at the moment, I believe that emerging fairly rapidly is the idea of a European policy towards the Holy Land. They are working towards it in diplomatic moves. They will not do it by public statements and debate, because that is not the way to reach a solution. However, the European Declaration was welcomed by both sides in the Middle East. I understand that our European colleagues are taking the same line as ourselves on an arms embargo.
  I do not want to go into the details, but the Leader of the Opposition seemed to be suggesting that we should raise the embargo "subject to the usual checks". Of course, any Government could say "We will raise the embargo, but the checks show that we should not make any deliveries". Perhaps that would satisfy the right hon. Gentleman and allow us to proceed with unanimity this evening. However, that would not be entirely straightforward. We must
  474
  make it clear that we are putting on an embargo. I will not use pejorative terms about what would happen if we took off the embargo, but I can imagine some hon. Members saying rude things.
  I have for many years advocated that as the super-Powers are now partisan in this issue, Europe should be willing to underwrite any settlement. After all, Europe has great historic ties—religious, cultural and trade—with the Eastern Mediterranean. Those of us who work in Europe find that these ties are getting stronger every day and are frustrated only by this Arab-Israel problem in one part of that area.
  Therefore, I again put forward the suggestion that, when it comes to a settlement, we in this country should play our part within Europe as one area not committed to either side in the struggle in helping to reach a settlement. It is in the interests of world peace, of Europe and of this country that we should get a settlement.
  My experience in the past, and particularly the last few days, leads me to believe that nobody is better placed than my right hon. Friend by personal authority and experience to work towards some settlement of this issue. I hope that the House will tonight show the greatest degree of support for the Government on the line they are taking.
  We must remain neutral, whatever emotions any of us may feel at one time or another. If we breached that neutrality it would not necessarily help one side or the other. Some details have been given about figures today; but it was the practice, starting in 1950, not to give such details. I also believe that to breach our neutrality would destroy our ability to help stop the fighting, which I am sure is the object of everyone in this House and beyond, and to work towards a permanent settlement.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It is obvious that many hon. Members wish to speak in this debate and I hope that it will be possible for those who catch my eye to confine themselves to about 10 minutes each.
  6.30 p.m.
  Mr. Raymond Fletcher: There is no need for me to remind the House, particularly those hon. Members

  475
  on this side, where I stand in relation to Israel. I am a partisan of Israel. I have been a partisan of Israel for many years and I state the fact without any qualification. But I feel that it is my duty in this debate only to make one or two observations about what the general attitude of this country and of Her Majesty's Government should be in the unfolding situation in the Middle East.
  The first point I wish to make, again rather dogmatically and without qualification, is that, unfortunately, I see the Middle East through exactly the same pair of spectacles as I see Europe, the Far East, Latin America and even North America. The principles which I try to apply to my observations on one continent apply equally to the others. Questions are raised about the legitimacy of Israel's existence and the legitimacy in law and in morality of Israel's presence on the Golan Heights and in Sinai. The same questions could be directed at other countries.
  Britain has a presence in West Berlin not because of our superior morality but by right of conquest. I firmly support our right to be there. We are in Gibraltar as a result of a dubious treaty contracted more than two centuries ago. I firmly support the British presence in Gibraltar in defiance of the whole General Assembly of the United Nations organisation. We are in Hong Kong because opium wars were fought in the early part of the nineteenth century. We remain in Hong Kong not only because it is right for us to remain, but primarily because the Chinese, very sensibly, being very good businessmen want us to remain. If we were to raise questions of legitimacy against these three areas where we have a presence, we might go down if we approached it in the same arid way in which so many hon. Members approach the Middle East.
  I cannot for the life of me see why there should be a special category reserved in the world today for the Arab States and Arab interests. There is a special reason for the Foreign Office considering very carefully what the Arab States want and what the Arab States may be, but I have never regarded due consideration for our oil supply as being a matter of the highest moral principle. Nevertheless, there is a general feeling
  476
  in certain quarters of the House that, for historical reasons, we must pay special attention to the Arab States and Arab interests. Of all the people who have been sinned against in the world since it exploded in violence 34 years ago, the Arabs have apparently been more sinned against and demand more consideration than any others.
  When I was trying to compose my speech I heard from other hon. Members the sort of speech which I intended to make and there was an intervention from one of my hon. Friends about what had happened to Palestine. I replied that something happened to other countries in the course of the Second World War and as a consequence of that war. Something happened to Prussia, and here I inject a personal note. I have never had the misery of being a refugee but my wife has. She comes from East Prussia. Her family were driven out of East Prussia as one of the consequences of the Second World War. My father-in-law was murdered in what is now the German Democratic Republic. But my wife has never, as a consequence of these tragic events, indulged in hate propaganda against the Soviet Union, still less has she campaigned for a war of revenge in the Federal Republic of Germany. My wife is known to many hon. Members and her attitude is shared by our whole family and myself. Despite my wife being a refugee and despite the loss of my father-in-law, we have never felt that we should bang the drum for a war of revenge against the victor powers of World War Two.
  The great majority of Germans are now taking the same attitude, as their voting behaviour indicates. They support a Chancellor who has accepted post-war realities in Eastern Europe and the new eastern frontiers of Germany. If the Germans can accept that in the interests of peace, why cannot the Arabs? What makes the Arabs so special? Why do they deserve more consideration than all the others who suffered from the splintering effects of World War Two and the immediate postwar consequences?
  Why do so many assume that there is nothing wrong in the attack on Sinai or the Golan Heights because those territories—and this I do not deny—are Arab territories? Attacking with armed

  477
  forces is, after all, attacking with armed forces, whatever the historical justification may be. We live in an age when the very concept of victory has to be removed from the military and even the political vocabulary. No one can win in 1973, given the type of weapons which have to be used in armed conflicts, if these conflicts persist for any time.
  I repeat, what is so special about the Arab claims? Why is it so impossible for the Arabs to take the same path as 10 million German refugees have taken in the last 25 years, in the Federal Republic, of relying on peaceful though painfully slow negotiation? What makes the Arabs so special? Why do they have to go to war when other ways are open to them?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), in what I thought was the best speech he has made in the House for some time on this question and to which I listened very carefully, said that certain options were open to the Israelis. He made the point that President Sadat had offered, at a certain stage, to meet the Israelis face to face in peaceful negotiations. When was this offer made? To whom was it extended? Why is it that no one in this House has ever heard of it? I do not pretend to be in the confidence of the Israeli Government. I have no influence, bellicose or otherwise, on the Israeli Government. I do not presume to make such a claim, but I am one Member of this House who would have heard very quickly if such an offer had been transmitted, no matter how secretly the channels through which it was transmitted.
  The plain fact is that the Arabs have consistently since 1967 demanded a special role for themselves in the councils of the world and have repudiated those methods of negotiation to which other countries with grievances have had to resort. In these circumstances the interests of this country, and the interests of any British Government that correctly assesses the interests of this country, lie in world order. There may be injustices embedded in that world order. There are injustices embedded in our existing system of industrial relations in this country, but those of us who know something about industrial relations would never take the path of the Angry
  478
  Brigade, as I fear the Arabs have done on an international scale.
  Accepting that the world order as we know it can embody injustices and perpetuate historic wrongs, the alternative to world order is not victory of the Arab States or even of Israel. It is disorder and chaos, and the chaos would be infinitely worse perhaps than world war three, which it would closely resemble.
  In so far as the British Government have influence—and I think it has been virtually demolished by the decision against which I intend to vote—the whole of it should be directed to preserving order and then to remedying the injustices which were built into that order. Israel can win four or five wars but can never win complete victory on the battlefield, for reasons which we know quite well. Because of the disparity in populations and in equipment, Israel is constantly under threat as long as the present situation continues.
  We have lost whatever influence we may have had with Israel and, for reasons slated by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—on this occasion I find myself at one with him—we have given the impression that we do not particularly care what happens to Israel and that we accept, if I may use the patois of industrial relations negotiations, that the Arabs are a "special case" and are entitled to special consideration. In the present context, we must struggle to preserve some kind of working order in the world. Consequently, I shall do my duty by voting against the Governments decision in the Lobby tonight.
  6.42 p.m.
  Sir Henry d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: You, Mr. Speaker, have been good enough to give me 10 minutes in which to speak. I shall not abuse your kindness. I apologise to the hon. Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Raymond Fletcher) for not commenting on his remarks, although I do not find myself in much disagreement with them.
  It is correct that I should first declare an interest. For the last 25 years I have been actively engaged in fomenting, encouraging and building up agricultural colonies in Israel. It is a non-profit-making activity, but it does not leave me emotionally half-hearted. Emotionally I am entirely one-sided in this matter.

  479
  We had a debate on this problem on 31st May 1967, when I was sitting on the benches opposite. The circumstances then were very different. As a supporter of the State of Israel, I saw it as being seemingly on the point of being overwhelmed by the massed Arab forces on each side of it. I prayed for the intervention of the major Powers—the United States and Russia—to prevent what seemed to be the inevitable holocaust and the obliteration of Israel, which we were promised and which I think most of us expected.
  But the miracle happened. There was the Six Day War which the Israelis won by an unbelievable margin. I am sorry to say that I think the completeness and speed of that victory has had an influence which is not entirely useful. Most of us in Europe know that wars are long and painful and do not end in the way one expects. Nor do we feel that we solve any problems by them. In 1918 Siegfried Sassoon, after the war in which he played a gallant part, went on the salt marshes when the armistice was signed. I was in a military hospital at the corresponding time in 1945 and that was not the most auspicious circumstances in which to celebrate. People do not celebrate victories which are won at such cost.
  I hope I shall not be regarded as being hypocritical, bat I am sorry to say that the Israelis won too easily. They got the impression that they could ride roughshod over their neighbours whom they thought were a contemptible military force. Clearly the Arabs, who are an ancient race, were not prepared to live with that, and we have seen in 10 days of bitter bloodshed, which does not show much sign of ending, the price which is exacted for undervaluing one's opponents.
  The traumatic experience which the Israelis enjoyed in 1967 is behind them and they must think in terms of 1973. They had the idea that overwhelming scientific knowledge, technological sophistication in modern weapons and well-trained and brave soldiers are the answer. They may be the answer, but their aim cannot be achieved without much and huge suffering such as that which is going on.
  Mr. Raphael Tuck rose—
  Sir H. d'Avigder-Goldsmid: It would be fairer not to give way; I am limiting myself to 10 minutes.
  This may be purely romanticism, but I believe that in future the Israelis will look quite differently on their Arab neighbours. Whatever their thoughts, they will realise that the Arabs are not simply the squalid nuisance which they seem to have been over the past 20 years. They are people to regarded. Clearly one can in certain circumstances come to terms with people whom one regards. I should not be taken as supporting the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew). I am not suggesting capitulation, and I do not think there is any question of capitulation. I go further: the Israelis will fight; they will not stop. However, I am worried when I learn from an article in The Times about the sophisticated weapons which have not yet played their part in the battle, one of which is called the Jericho. I. know nothing of such instruments. Some of us have guesses about the atomic capability of Israel. Do any of us think that Israel will surrender without deploying every ounce of muscle? Of course she will not.
  That brings me to the arms embargo. I shall not quarrel with my hon. Friends about 4,000 rounds of ammunition. However, I cannot agree with what has been said about "even-handed justice". There is no such thing as even-handed justice when Israel fights for its life with Centurion tanks, Jordan, wisely enough, keeps them in reserve and the Syrians and Eqyptians do not have them.
  I remind my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary of a quotation from Macbeth in the Financial Times today:
  "This even handed justice commends the ingredients of our poison'd chalice to our own lips."
  This is my lesson. I shall not seek to drink or hand on this poisoned chalice to someone else. I shall vote against it tonight.
  6.51 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Pannell: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid), whom I have known for a very long time. He declared his interest at the start, and I think that anybody rising in this debate at this time of night

  481
  who has listened to most of the speeches should declare his interest.
  I have completed something like 24 years as a representative of the City of Leeds, which I believe has one of the highest, if not the highest, percentage of Jews in the United Kingdom. One could not share the friendship of those people without understanding what a community they are. They are largely locked together in suffering, which is their past, but if there is anything that will unite them in the future it is the survival of the State of Israel. It represents something far more than merely terrain, and it often exposes them to the charge which my hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) brought against them, that they are people of a dual nationality.
  That is part of the answer that I would make to the point put by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Raymond Fletcher) who said that the people in Germany do not have the continuing hatred that the Arabs appear to have. I can only tell him that the continuing memories of the Jews who suffered at the hands of the Germans are an essential element in their lives, and unless one realises that one will not understand them at all.
  Mr. Maurice Edelman: My right hon. Friend has made a very important point. He quoted my hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) and he referred to the question of dual nationality. I hope that he is not supporting the thought that Jews in this country have dual nationality. Jews in Britain have a single allegiance to this country. They have sympathies with their fellow Jews dating very often, alas, from a tragic past.
  Mr. Pannell: I thought I made it perfectly clear that I was quoting what my hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick said.
  Mr. Faulds: In fact, my hon. Friend misquoted me.
  Mr. Pannell: I am sorry. I have the Floor.
  Mr. Faulds: My phrase was "dual loyalty".
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has the Floor.
  Mr. Pannell: Dual loyalty or dual nationality, it does not matter which, for this purpose. An old friend of mine who has just died, who served all through the war, used to say, "I do not know whether I am a Jewish Yorkshireman or a Yorkshire Jew." I knew what he meant, because his loyalties were absolutely fundamental. I am merely trying to make the point that nothing else of which I know, from my mental and spiritual experience, can be likened to the fervent hope that goes out from the Jewish community for the sustenance of the State of Israel.
  So when at the beginning of this year I was asked to lead a parliamentary delegation to Egypt, I took with me all of my prejudices, all of my animosities and all of my opinions—largely from Leeds—about Egypt. We arrived a day or two after the Libyan air crash, when an aircraft had been brought down by the Israelis. I have read everything that has been written on the subject and I do not want to give an opinion today about who was responsible. But when we arrived in Egypt there was a curtain of hostility and we were subjected to a great deal of interrogation. There was an attempt on the part of the Egyptian Prime Minister to issue a joint communique, in which the British parliamentary delegation would have condemned something which they considered to be an atrocity. But I told them that the Minister of Slate was coming out the following week and it was for him to issue a joint communique. But having talked to the Egyptian Prime Minister for one-and-a-half hours and having met the friendly people all over the country, the words of Norman Angell were borne in upon me He said,
  "Wars are not fought by bad men believing they are wicked, but by good men on both sides passionately believing they are right."
  Considering the rather one-sided speeches that I have heard here today, it seems to me that that is a truth which has to be appreciated.
  When one speaks about the influence of Russia on Egypt and the Arab countries, one needs to go up to the High Dam at Aswan and see all the benefits that Russian involvement has brought to that country on such a vast scale. As an engineer, I would say that it is one of the engineering wonders of the world and

  483
  it leaves one gasping. It is no use mixing up terms such as "democracy", because, fundamentally, the Arab people are a feudal people. I want to say straight away that I am as appalled as anybody at the brooding presence of Russia in the Middle East but I can understand it, and it is due to Foster Dulles, Eisenhower and the sheer stupidity of Anthony Eden. If we understand that, it is easier to understand a nation's history.
  The Egyptians said, "We cannot have these people"—meaning the Israelis—"indefinitely on our soil". I asked them when they were going to shift them and they said, "Probably before the end of the year." There is no doubt about the terrific resentment against the presence of the Israelis on what is regarded as Egyptian soil. One of the factors which annoyed them—and I hope that I am not blamed in Leeds for these opinions—was what they considered to be the Israeli arrogance and the setting up of communities in the Sinai Desert. My understanding of what the Israelis and Egyptians wanted in the way of a confrontation is not the view put out here this afternoon. When I asked the Egyptians, "Why will you not have a direct confrontation with the Israelis?", they replied, "In that sort of confrontation we would be there only as the conquered in front of the conquerors. So we shall have a confrontation under the aegis of a world community or any other form of negotiation you like."
  They gave almost biblical significance to Resolution 242 which I must say—because its authorship does not seem to have been recognised here today—came largely from the inspiration of George Brown. They want the implementation of Resolution 242, which involves going back to the 1967 frontiers. But we all know that that is just not "on", because one benefit of the present position is that the present unpleasantness has not broken out on Israeli soil. There needs to be a great buffer zone between the countries.
  One therefore looks to what will come out of all this. One must consider this in the context of the peace that one hopes will come. It seems that the United States and Russia are fighting a war by proxy, piling in arms on both sides, but we know that at the end of the day by
  484
  the direction only of these super-Powers—both of them; it is not a one-sided idea—peace will be imposed in the Middle East. I do not know whether there will be a buffer State in which there will be a cease-fire area of 25 miles or so, but something like that will have to be done at the end of the day.
  I had no doubt that the Egyptian people passionately wanted peace. The whole thing was bedevilled by what Nasser said in 1967 about driving the Israelis into the sea. That language is not used nowadays. Reference has been made to what Sadat said. I thought that it was said before the Egyptian Parliament a day or two ago. I have read a long account of that.
  Mr. Raymond Fletcher: Will my right hon. Friend tell us exactly what was said, and whether at any point President Sadat offered direct negotiations with Israel to end this conflict?
  Mr. Pannell: That was my comprehension. I do not know whether the Minister of State can underwrite that.
  The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Lord Balniel): I think that it is point 2 of President Sadat's speech, and as monitored by the BBC the words are:
  "We are prepared to accept a cease-fire on the basis of the immediate withdrawal of the Israeli forces from all the occupied territories, under international supervision, to the pre-5th June 1967 lines."
  I hope that that is a correct interpretation.
  Mr. Pannell: I think that that involves the recognition of the State of Israel, which is important.
  I passionately believe in the State of Israel, for many of the reasons given by my hon. Friends. It is a democratic Socialist State. When I went there I marvelled because so many of the things that we in this country see as dim in the future are coming true there now. I recognise the dynamic of its citizens who serve not only in war but in peace, too. One of the things that we lack in this country is that we do great things in time of war but appear to disunite in time of peace.
  The Israelis have learned their lesson. The continuing war is welding them together as a terrific community which at

  485
  any price must be cherished. I do not brush on one side issues such as the balance of payments, sterling balances, the threat to oil supplies, and the vulnerable position in which we find ourselves in the world, but those are secondary considerations. This is a time when men must stand up and be counted.
  7.4 p.m.
  Mr. Dennis Walters: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made an important and moderate speech, the kind of speech that one would expect from a British Foreign Secretary at a time of crisis. The Leader of the Opposition made an extraordinary speech. Quite apart from his posture over the arms embargo, he did not speak as the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition. He spoke as a committed Zionist, a Socialist Zionist, but nevertheless a committed and emotional Zionist. It was a strange performance.
  The Leader of the Liberal Party spoke about the obliteration of Israel. My right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) repeated that view more dramatically. The right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart) put forward a similar view. But this is simply not true. Why is it that people are not prepared to accept that nobody is talking about destroying Israel? President Sadat has said, and repeated, that such an end is the opposite of the aims of the Egyptians, the Jordanians and the Syrians. Surely it must be in the interests of the friends of Israel to accept that what is being asked for is Resolution 242 and the 1967 boundaries.
  There is a Zionist campaign directed at whipping up feeling. It is seen in the attitude adopted towards the Foreign Office. The other day there was an article in The Times by the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Cross-man), perhaps the leading British Zionist if this position has not now been pre-empted by the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore), in which he alleged that the Foreign Office was wildly pro-Arab.
  The reason for all this is that Zionists will not forgive the fact that the Foreign Office is concerned primarily with British interests. Is that so extraordinary? That is what a British Foreign Office should be concerned with. The Israeli Foreign
  486
  Office should be concerned primarily with Israeli interests, and it would be odd if it were not.
  Mrs. Sally Oppenheim rose—
  Mr. Walters: I shall not give way, because of the time. And this campaign is being orchestrated in spite of the fact that Israel is not threatened and that this fact has been repeated by all the relevant Arab leaders.
  The new outbreak of fighting in the Middle East started precisely because, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said at Blackpool last week, it was not possible for the Arabs to continue indefinitely gazing across a cease-fire line at their lands without war erupting, and that is what some hon. Members on both sides of the House have been saying consistently for the last five years.
  Let us look at the record. Hon. members will know that that interruption we have just seen from the Gallery is typical of what goes on at every meeting—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. Perhaps the hon. Member will resume his seat for a moment and continue when order has been restored.
  Mr. Walters: After that bit of fun I can go back to saying that an examination of the record strengthens my conviction that it was despair at the attitude of the United States and the failure to make any progress towards an acceptable peaceful settlement that were the primary causes of the last round of the war.
  When I spoke to President Sadat in Cairo about four weeks ago, his major disappointment over the policy of the United States was the central theme of our conversation. He found it profoundly difficult to understand why, in spite of his response to the Jarring questionnaire of two years ago, the expulsion of the Russians last year and the repeated series of diplomatic overtures in public speeches, the United States continued to pursue a course which seemed almost slavishly in line with Israeli policy however hawkish.
  Resolution 242, passed unanimously nearly six years ago, states categorically in its preamble that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible. That unequivocal statement stands in spite of

  487
  the many legalistic and largely irrelevant arguments about the exact meaning of "territory". Withdrawal on the one hand and the recognition of Israel behind secure and recognised boundaries were the essence of the resolution.
  The next important milestone was the Egyptian response to the Jarring questionnaire of February 1971. I regret that the right hon. Member for Fulham did not mention that. In its response, Egypt declared its readiness to enter into a peace agreement with Israel and in particular to terminate all states of belligerency, to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of both parties and to respect the right of the two parties to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries. It also declared its acceptance of non-interference in the internal affairs of each party, liberty of navigation in the Suez Canal and the Straits of Tiran, the stationing of United Nations forces at Sharm-el-Sheikh, and demilitarisation of certain areas. That can all be read by anybody who wishes to read the documents and take an objective view of the situation and not a biased or slanted view.
  The Israeli response to the Jarring questionnaire did not embody any of the commitments sought. It ignored them completely. But in spite of the negative response by Israel, the United States failed to put on any pressure, which Mr. Rogers had privately assured the Egyptians he would do in the event of a positive Egyptian response. Instead it supplied a further number of Phantom strike aircraft. That caused a serious political situation in Egypt, where President Sadat's position was seriously threatened because, in spite of his major concessions, he had apparently achieved nothing. There was an attempted coup by Ali Sabri, which fortunately failed, but inevitably that and the American behaviour were not forgotten.
  The next important development was the expulsion of the Russian military advisers by Egypt in the summer of 1972. This courageous and, in the view of many objective observers, rash step by the Egyptian President, although it evoked a warm and constructive response from Britain and France, completely failed to move the American position. When I
  488
  spoke to President Sadat in September 1972, soon after those events, his disillusionment and disappointment with the negative American reaction were overwhelming and acute.
  In July this year the next step was a United Nations Resolution which was submitted to the Security Council, reaffirming Resolution No. 242 and endorsing the February 1971 proposals of Ambassador Jarring. The Resolution went on to oppose any changes in the occupied territories which might obstruct a settlement or affect the rights of the inhabitants, and to ask the Secretary-General to resume peace efforts. It stressed respect for the rights and legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians, and finally it expressed serious concern at Israel's lack of co-operation with the United Nations Middle East peace efforts and its continued occupation of the territories occupied in 1967. Our Permanent Representative, Sir Colin Crowe, in supporting the resolution on behalf of Britain, indicated that it was fully in line with Resolution No. 242. The resolution was vetoed by the United States.
  At that stage a number of us asked ourselves what would happen next, what further diplomatic move the Egyptions hoped would take place. Many of us thought that war was inevitable sooner or later.
  What are Britain's interests? In the war it used to be said that they were oil and communications. We lost communications in 1956. There is now a danger to oil. There has always been a third interest which bracketed the other two: that the area should be at peace. That has not happened because of a non-peaceful presence in the area, the State of Israel, becoming increasingly nationalistic and aggressive and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) said in a moving speech, over-confident as a result of its sensational victory in 1967. Looking at the situation from the point of view of Britain, I would say that it is the Arabs who can provide us with the communications and oil that we need, and also share our interests in the sort of stability that should be arranged.
  When we try to find some of the positive factors in the present situation, it might be pointed out that often things keep on going round in circles until a

  489
  new element is introduced. The 1967 war was a new element. Now, in a quite different way, a new element is the war which started 10 days ago. It has shown Egypt acting independently and unexpectedly. It has shown that the Egyptians and Syrians can fight well, that their officers can get them to the right place at the right time and that they know how to handle modern weapons, including sea and air weapons. [An HON. MEMBER: "Russian weapons."] Whatever the outcome, the situation will never be the same again.
  Egypt and Syria have gone into battle saying that they are fighting for the cause of peace. No doubt that is what people always say when they go to war, but on the whole Arabs have not said it in the past. I think they mean it. I believe that they are genuinely willing to talk peace, if peace is now what the Israelis really want—peace, not territories.
  I should like an assurance from my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary that there is the closest consultation with our European partners on the question of the Middle East. In spite of all that has been said about the loss of British influence in the area, I believe that British influence there is infinitely greater today than it has been for many years and that an offer by Britain for a European or Anglo-French peace-keeping force on the ground at the right moment would have a significant effect.
  7.18 p.m.
  Mr. Maurice Edelman: The hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Walters), who has just advocated the Egyptian case so ably, used the term "Zionist" in an opprobrious sense. I remind him that Sir Winston Churchill was not ashamed to apply that label to himself. In view of the greatness of one who was concerned with British interests and world peace, the application of that label to Sir Winston Churchill establishes it as one not inconsistent with the interests of Britain. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said today that the subject of the debate was Britain's interests and the interests of world peace. Few in the Chamber tonight will disagree with that.
  Everyone must deplore the carnage that is taking place. Everyone wants to see a cease-fire bringing an end to a
  490
  slaughter that has been on a scale not exceeded by anything during the Second World War. The fact that Israel is asking that the arms embargo should be raised, when it will mean that she will obtain 4,000 shells compared with at any rate the potential 10,000 shells for Jordan's Centurions, is a measure of the desperation of the battle.
  I want to recall briefly the circumstances and conditions in which the situation has arisen. The war was not a spontaneous outbreak of rage of countries which were looking across the frontiers at the occupied land. It was a product of careful preparation by Egypt and Syria to break the cease-fire with Soviet connivance and help. It was a war prepared and supported by the Soviet Union for many years, and that preparation began long before the Six-Day War on which occasion Israel made her pre-emptive strike against troops massed by President Nasser on its frontiers.
  After Israel's victory the Soviet Union, perhaps understandably, burned with resentment because Israel had captured quantities of Soviet equipment in the Sinai Desert. What hurt the Russians was not Israel's alleged aggression in 1967. After all, the invaders of Czechoslovakia had no reason to claim that they were not aggressors themselves. What they objected to was that Israel had defied them. More than that, Israel, having defied them, continued to defy them by giving support to immigrants from the Soviet Union who were intellectual dissenters who established that the Soviet Union was not a worker's paradise but a country they should get away from as quickly as possible.
  No one should be hoodwinked by the fact that Soviet technicians retreated from Syria before the outbreak of hostilities as if to suggest that somehow the Soviet Union, alarmed by the possibilities of the outbreak of war, decided to have nothing to do with it. On the contrary, although President Sadat invited some of the Soviet technicians to leave, there remained behind the most expert technicians dealing with rocketry and with weapons such as SAM and Frog. They left them behind so that when Egypt and Syria struck they would have the benefit of this expertise and advice.

  491
  The day after the war broke out the Antonovs started arriving with supplies for Egypt and Syria at the rate of about 800 tons a day. What was the Foreign Secretary's response to that? Was it to aid Israel in her hour of difficulty when action had been taken against her in breach of the cease-fire previously agreed? No, the response of the Foreign Secretary was primarily to order an embargo on arms which could mean only damage to Israel. The Egyptians relied on the Russians. Jordan was not in the war and was therefore exempt from the ban. Syria was being supplied by Russia in large quantities and sustained and supported by Soviet technicians who could be seen at any time in Damascus. Only Israel, which relied to such great measure on Centurion tanks, was hurt.
  The Foreign Secretary has come forward with his talk of non-intervention—one of those double-talk expressions which the Foreign Office provides with such skill. It provided them at the time of the Spanish Civil War when in the name of non-intervention, while the German Nazis and the Italian Fascists were able to pour arms into Spain in aid of Franco, the accredited Government of the day was denied the arms with which to defend itself.
  After non-intervention came appeasement which the Foreign Secretary supported so ardently in 1938 and which was the prelude to war.
  Now the policy of alleged non-intervention has been described by the Foreign Secretary as even-handed. I recall him the other day using a simile, moving his hands about in order to show that the even-handedness was merely a matter of balancing two weights. But what sort of even-handedness is it that shackles a side relying on British supplies while it leaves the other side free to obtain massive quantities of Russian arms to the detriment of Israel?
  Let us conceive something that is almost impossible. Let us conceive that Israel had promised Britain certain vital commodities if the need arose and when the moment came for those commodities to be supplied simply broke its word and its contract. After the Six-Day War General de Gaulle, with a certain cynicism and with a strong commercial sense,
  492
  decided he would sell arms to Libya. I was in Paris the day the decision was taken. I believe that I was the first to be told by M. Maurice Schumann that the Mirages were to be sent to Libya and he gave me an assurance that in no circumstances would they be allowed to be transferred from Libya to any of the potential combatant countries in the area. Everyone knew that that was cynicism. Everyone knew that in time of need those aircraft would be transferred to the friends of Libya who wanted to fight Israel.
  I ask the Foreign Secretary whether there is not an element of that kind of cynicism in the even-handedness which he refers to with such persuasiveness. He has spoken of Britain able to use its good offices to restore peace. Does he imagine that anyone in Israel and far beyond will believe that, not in view of his having shown even-handedness—because the moment has come to dismiss the term—but in view of his having shown effective partiality, an objective partiality perhaps, and not a partiality intended, against Israel in the supply of arms? Does he believe that Israel or anyone sympathetic with Israel, including America, will imagine that he is qualified to be a mediator in the conflict? I do not believe that. Nor do I believe there is any validity in his undertaking that should Israel's position become dire, the matter will be reconsidered and possibly the embargo raised.
  How will he measure these things? So far his policy of even-handedness has consisted of getting intelligence reports and of giving licences for arms to be exported from one side to another. But how will he gauge when the circumstance arises that Israel is in such a position that it is right for the embargo to be lifted and arms to be exported there? Will it be when the Egyptians and Syrians are at the gates of Tel Aviv and Haifa? Will he suddenly decide by an act of inspiration that the time has come to succour these people who are fighting with their backs to the sea for survival? Is that when he will decide that the embargo must be lifted? If that moment were to come he would be unable to send arms. All he would be able to send would be condolences.
  What does the Foreign Secretary imagine he can do when he seeks to appease, because that is the word and

  493
  no doubt he will forgive me if I dwell upon it. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said, I do not want to be contumacious. Why does he retain his concern for appeasement in the present conflict? Whom is he seeking to appease by immobilising Israel's Centurion tanks? By denying them spare parts he will immobilise them. By denying them ammunition he is rendering them useless. Does he expect to appease the Russians, because their propaganda is against Western Zionist imperialism, and their propaganda against imperialism is directed against Britain.
  The other day in New York he said that there should be a real détente but we must not be misled by a word trap. He was right but détente is meaningless if it is simply a word. It must have reality. The Russians have translated that word into reality by sending 800 tons of tanks and aircraft daily into the Middle East. No one can possibly believe that that is détente.
  Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that he will appease the Arabs and deflect them from their oil blackmail by denying to the Israelis the equipment which they need for their defence? I do not think that the Arabs will be appeased. Faced with the present oil blackmail, to which the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) referred, I have the feeling which I have had in the past when there have been hijackings and we have seen great and proud States surrendering their principles and honour to the demands of a couple of blackmailers with guns. Appeasement in that sense does not pay.
  If by chance a combination or a coalition of the Soviet Union and the present belligerents, Egypt, Syria and others who support them, were to result in the crushing of Israel, it would not be Egypt or Syria who would control the Mediterranean, it would be the Soviet Union. Britain would then not even be in a negotiating position about arms with the Arab States. It would be the Russians who would then decide how and when to turn off the oil tap.
  Even-handedness is a bogus term. It is a policy of discrimination against Israel, which is now fighting not for territory but for life. I earnestly ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his
  494
  decision to place what is, in effect, a one-sided embargo on arms to Israel.
  Israel has many reasons to thank those noble British statesmen who, through the Balfour Declaration, provided after 2,000 years for the return of many Jews to the Holy Land. Israel has reason to thank the British people who, with traditional generosity, gave refuge to those who fled from the Tsar's pogroms, to those who escaped from Hitler's gas chambers and to those who fled from religious persecution by Mr. Brezhnev in the Soviet Union.
  Israel is now fighting with its back to the wall. There are 3 million people surrounded by 100 million enemies. Is this a time for the right hon. Gentleman to take away their arms? I say emphatically that there are millions of Britons who will feel a deep sense of shame at the right hon. Gentleman's betrayal. The war is not yet over. When peace eventually comes there will be men and women throughout the world who will feel grateful to those who tonight go into the Division Lobby against the right hon. Gentleman's bogus ambivalence about arms for Israel. I believe that they will remember with gratitude those who upheld the honour of Britain and with contempt those who conspired to stab Israel in the back.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Before I call the next hon. Member, I am asked by Mr. Speaker to remind the House of what he said earlier—namely, that if anything like the number of hon. Members who wish to speak are to speak, hon. Members would do well to confine their remarks to 10 minutes each.
  7.36 p.m.
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: I shall try to follow your exhortation, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to be brief. I shall adhere to it because there are many hon. Members who wish to speak. I hope that the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) will forgive me if I do not deal in detail with many of his comments, I agree with a great deal of what he said and his views are familiar to the House.
  I do not expect for one moment that my views will be familiar to the House. However, I am concerned to make a few brief comments about what I think is a

  495
  sad policy selected by my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary on this grave matter. It makes me sad to say that because of the respect which I hold for my right hon. Friend. That is a respect which transcends party lines and which is held widely outside the House while, of course, it is held most powerfully of all on the Government beaches.
  I say with a great deal of reluctance that I am grievously and most anxiously disappointed by the announcement of policy today by my right hon. Friend. I know that that feeling is shared by others of my hon. Friends. My right hon. Friend's anouncement of policy today is. except for a few changes of minor matters on the margin, a reiteration of Tuesday's statement. With all due respect to my right hon. Friend, I do not think that his speech today did enough to allay the anxieties felt by many Conservative Members about the Government's policy. I say that in a paradoxical context because I feel that there are many aspects of the policy which paradoxically are attractive per se.
  There is some validity in Britain trying to b;: a bit of a neutral in this tragic context. There is a certain validity in Britain saying that it has a peace-making potential, even if that is in a subsidiary role alongside the United States and other interested parties. There is a strong case and a natural preoccupation by the Foreign Office, which is its duty and the duly of the Government as a whole, with the oil threat to this country. That is understood. However, where we hesitate is over the realities of the situation as they now exist in the Middle East. I am not commenting or, the military campaign. There is fundamentally a different position facing Israel than that which faces all the other combatants, even individually, let alone combined.
  I shall not apportion blame in the narrow sense or use the word "aggression" about the initial action which Syria and Egypt perpetrated. I do not think that it helps the matter to do so. A real settlement of the conflict will come out of a serious and realistic compromise by both sides, by the Israelis as well as by the Arabs.
  I fear the extremists' view which is expressed not by the leaders of any of
  496
  the countries involved. We have only the written and visible evidence to go on. We are limited in our judgment in that respect. The extremists' views are expressed by the extremists on either side. There are those in Israel who say that the only prospect for their country is years of struggle. That is no privilege for the children of Israel. That is no resolution of the solemn obligation of Israel's citizens to provide its children and grandchildren with a secure future.
  On the other side, there are Arabs who say "Yes, we freely admit that our ultimate aim is the disappearance of Israel." Neither of those views should be upheld by any hon. Members. I do not think that they would be. I believe that they would be rejected outside by the world as a whole. I do not believe that the leaders of the various communities hold such views.
  There is a minor role for Britain to play as a peacemaker on a modest level. It has nothing to do with the final analysis and with the realities and obligations of contracts of a residual nature in so far as they are operational and in a certain sense obligatory for fulfilment when an embargo is introduced and the curtain falls. That is the awful dilemma faced by my right hon. Friend.
  With respect, my right hon. Friend is -now stuck with a policy in which the minor detail, which is important for Israel, of an unresolved delivery or a series of deliveries of vitally important equipment leads him into the embarrassing justificatory position of saying that his policy is even-handed.
  That cannot be. It is not even-handed in that the residual deliveries were delayed by an artificial accident. They would already have been on their way had that not occurred. Nor can it be even-handed in the longer run when Israel's real position is considered. Its position, without any action by the United States, would be progressively deteriorating. That is axiomatic and it is by definition a result of Israel's preponderant dependence on British equipment.
  We now know that new United States supplies are being sent. That changes the situation but it does so to only a certain extent. I submit that it does not change the real position. It does not change the dubious moral position into which we now seem to have put ourselves.

  497
  I ask my right hon. Friend when he replies to the debate to state clearly, if he can, whether our position in this scenario has the full approval of the United States. We have had conflicting views on this publicly and it is a confusing situation. I would be more comforted by the British position if it had that approval but I have serious doubts about it.
  One appreciates his difficulties but I hope that my right hon. Friend will say a little more about the background of the situation. One realises the enormous constraints which lie upon him. I hope he will say a little more about any possible measure of modification or adjustment to the policy should the position of Israel significantly deteriorate, because it will be very difficult for the policy to change quickly and in a sympathetic fashion as a result of a fundamental change without the timing going wrong and Israel being grossly let down in a way which the whole House would regret.
  7.41 p.m.
  Mr. Andrew Faulds: I hope that the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) will forgive me if I do not take up any of my 10 minutes by commenting on his speech, although I disagreed with many of the points he made.
  It is Israeli intransigence which has made the fourth round of the Arab-Israeli conflict inevitable. No one has been more to blame for the impasse since 1967 than the Israeli Government under Mrs. Meir and General Dyan. They have adopted a totally intransigent attitude both towards implementing Resolution 242 and to the many signs which have come from Arab countries of willingness to negotiate.
  Egypt early on declared both her acceptance of the existence of the State of Israel—which was a considerable step in advance of her previous opposition—and of Resolution 242. So did Jordan Although Syria opposed Resolution 242, her stance has changed considerably in the last couple of years. I sensed this in a visit to Damascus last year. [Interruption.] Perhaps it would do some of our Zionist friends a lot of good if they would listen just now and again to reasonable Arab opinion. I sensed that
  498
  change of opinion in Syria when we had the resumption of diplomatic relations between the Syrian and United Kingdom Governments.
  The gross misjudgment of the Israeli leaders—they suffer from this—was that they themselves fell prey to the myth of Israeli superiority. Their pre-emptive strike in 1967 destroyed the Arab forces not only materially but morally, and that tremendous advantage gained by starting the war in 1967 has led them since to underestimate Arab will and spirit. [Interruption.] These poor fellows do not want to listen because they are so convinced of the Tightness of the Israeli case.
  From my visits to the Middle East—visits from which these unfortunate fellows do not benefit, although they would have done Zionists good—I sensed in the Arab countries a determination to regain their lost territories—and as a Scot I understand that attitude. If Israel had had the sense to relinquish the lands she conquered in 1967, that Arab will would not have had to assert itself on 6th October.
  Let us remember that the Israelis had clearly indicated—through Mrs. Meir's speeches and others—that they had no intention of allowing certain areas of occupied territory to be negotiable. Jerusalem was not negotiable; settlements in Sinai, on the Golan Heights and on the West Bank were built to create facts which were not negotiable. But the Zionist machine poured out propaganda that it was the Arabs who refused negotiations because they would not sit down across a table for bilateral talks.
  Of course the Arabs were not prepared to accept the terms of the conqueror. Would we have accepted the terms offered by the Nazis? That Zionist propaganda machine acts as a fifth column in every country in the world with a Jewish community—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."]—and that is why I talk of dual loyalties, not dual nationalities. That machine has got into top gear again to convince the world that Egypt and Syria were guilty of aggression on 6th October. What nonsense that argument is.
  Egypt and Syria were re-occupying their own territories, by force because the Israelis were not prepared in any other circumstances to yield them up. Would the allies in 1944 have accepted such a

  499
  description of our operations on D-Day? That was not aggression, and if it was not aggression, how can we talk of aggression when Egypt and Syria go in to re-conquer their own territories? The 6th October was the Arabs' D-Day.
  In a letter to The Times I have said that it is clear that Egypt and Syria in these operations have a limited objective—the recovery of their territories. They could not have intended an invasion of Israel or an occupation of that country because their astute leaders know that no conceivable American Government would allow that to happen. Syria and Egypt have no wish to take on the might of America in defence of its satrapy, its settlement in the Middle East.
  I remind many of my hon. Friends who opposed the disastrous Suez adventure—rightly—that Israel was involved in that disgraceful and dishonest collusion, yet I am surprised that now many of them seem prepared to take on the Arab countries with all that that means in order to fortify this neo-colonialist State of Israel. All the argument about ammunition for Centurion tanks is a cover for the belief of certain hon. Members—and some are honest enough to admit it—that Britain should openly support Israel against the Arabs, support a State which has consistently refused to implement United Nations resolutions on refugees, on Jerusalem, on withdrawal from occupied territories, on attacks on the Lebanon.
  As a Socialist, I find it particularly difficult to understand how colleagues who, I believe, share my belief in the international nature of Socialism and my profound hatred of racialism—[Laughter.]—I expect some uncomprehending idiots opposite with their selfish interests to giggle, but my own colleagues understand—can support a Government whose policies are based on belief in racial exclusivity, a society in which non-Jews, who are those not blessed by the special qualities of a Jewish womb, are second-class citizens. [HON. MEMBERS: "Drivel."] These facts should have sunk in by now.
  This is a State which has created millions of displaced and dispossessed people, the wandering Palestinians. How can we accept this Zionist nonsense of
  500
  racial exclusivity? I say to Zionist supporters on both sides of the House that one day they must start questioning their present emotional and uncritical support of the Israeli State. Whether they like it or not, there is simply no future for the present theocratic State that Israel is. It is historically inevitable that Israel at some stage will have to come to terms with her Arab neighbours.
  But now people perhaps are beginning to realise that the Israelis may have to come to terms which the Arabs are prepared to agree. I believe, sadly, that the Jews in the Middle East will come to this realisation probably before Zionist supporters elsewhere—and let us remember, when we discuss the present intransigence of Israel, that it is a democratic parliamentary State, with equal rights for all communities, Moslems. Christians, and Jews, that the Palestinians want to see as the future for Palestine.
  There is no reason—although this is what will happen unless we change our attitude in the West towards Israel—why the world should tag along to Armageddon behind the intransigence and arrogance of this or any other Zionist Government. [Interruption.] I remind my hon. Friends that the 1967 United Nations resolution, which, some of us should remember, was proposed by one of our right hon. Friends, is still valid as a starting point towards peace in the Middle East. But peace is not promoted by the British Government fuelling the armaments of both sides, yet that apparently is what the Labour Front Bench wants to do. The arms embargo must be maintained.
  Fundamentally I believe it to be a proper rule of thumb that in any international crisis Britain should clearly and calmly assess where her real interests lie. I stress "British interests". In this situation I am much more concerned with them than with Israeli interests. It is British interests which are the paramount consideration for this House.
  It is no good dismissing the reality of our dependence upon oil resources. We can talk as we like about oil blackmail. Britain receives two-thirds of her oil supplies from the Middle East and no responsible British Government—the Labour Party could not do it if our leader sat where the Foreign Secretary sits tonight—can pretend that they can disregard the effect of a chronic oil shortage

  501
  on this country. The wheels of industry would grind to a halt—[Interruption.] Transport would slow drastically. Unemployment would be widespread— [Interruption.] You may not want to listen to this, my friends, but it happens to be true and you had better take it in. The economy would totter more dangerously than it has ever done under all the stresses of stop and go.
  We need the oil, we need good relations with the Arabs. We need to understand, if we can adopt a little humility, which the Zionists do not have, the justifiable anger that the Arab States have both against Israeli aggression and intransigence and against the West over this alien State which has been imposed on Arab territory by a Western decision without regard to the rights of the indigenous people.
  The Government are right to adopt an embargo and to call for a cease-fire. If we had an end to fighting, issues of right and wrong might be adjudged more coolly perhaps between the combatants, because the Arabs have re-asserted their rights and self-respect and because the intransigence of Israel might have been somewhat chastened, if possible, by the destruction of her self-propagated image of invincibility and her conviction of superiority. President Sadat has given the opportunity in his speech a couple of days ago. Let us hope that the Israelis have the sense to grab it. It is because I believe the Government's policies to be correct and in Britain's real interests that I shall support the Government in the Lobby this evening.
  7.53 p.m.
  Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: As I listened to the Leader of the Opposition opening the debate today my mind went back to a debate in 1969, when I was sitting on the Opposition benches, to an event of which I felt deeply ashamed.
  The House will recollect that in 1939 three countries which feared they might be over-run by their enemies deposited the whole of their gold reserves with the Bank of England for one purpose—for safekeeping in case they were over-run. On that disgraceful evening the right hon. Gentleman, who was then the Prime Minister, came to the House and asked it, by retroactive legislation, to sanction
  502
  what he had already promised to do, which was to hand over the whole of those gold reserves of Latvia, Lithuania and Esthonia to the country which had overrun them, Russia. It was a shameful thing. When I heard him talking of a breach of trust today I wondered how the words could come out of his mouth.
  That was not an occasion when the world was at war, that was not done in the course of bringing about peace between warring countries. That was a flagrant, shameful breach of faith with no redeeming virtue whatever. I honestly believe that what my right hon. Friend is endeavouring to do is not just to bring about a cease-fire but to bring about a state of peace. The two are not the same and it is easy to mistake a cease-fire for peace. The difference between the two is that one is an unstable condition while the other is a stable condition.
  It might appear that this debate is about ammunition. If it is about peace rather than a cease-fire it is about attitudes rather than ammunition. In his moving and constructive speech my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) grasped the point that part of the desperate damage done in the war of 1967 was to do with the attitude which it generated.
  Six weeks after that war six hon. Members of this House, three from each side, including myself, went to Israel and to Jordan as the guests of those countries. There was a horrifying moment for me. We were all present as guests at lunch of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Knesset in Jerusalem. After lunch the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Knesset spoke with great intemperance and at great length to us about the Arabs. When he drew breath I was constrained to say, "Doctor Hacohen, I am profoundly shocked that you should speak of other human beings in terms similar to those in which Julius Streicher spoke of the Jews. Have you learned nothing?" I shall remember his reply to my dying day. He smote the table with both hands and said, "But they are not human beings, they are not people, they are Arabs." He was speaking of the Arab refugees.
  As long as that attitude persists there will be no peace between Arab and Jew. Cease-fires may come and go, there may

  503
  be first strikes from one side or the other but there will not be peace. Nor will there be peace while 750,000 people are permanently driven out of the land of their birth, and while huge numbers of people who are encompassed within a territory taken by armed force are refused the elementary human rights which elsewhere we take for granted. They are refused the vote and higher education. They are even refused the right to marry whom they wish.
  In this country we have enacted legislation against religious and racial discrimination. When we see it in South Africa, and I deplore it, we use a Dutch word and call it "apartheid". But in Israel an Arab is not allowed to marry a Jew unless the former changes his or her religion.
  Mr. Gorst: That has nothing to do with it.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: It has a lot to do with it because Israel has conquered by military force a large number of other people who have no wish to live in Israel. Her armies have overrun those countries. Some people in Israel can see this. That is why there is political argument between those in Israel who say that they should embody at any rate the West Bank permanently within their State and those who have a little perspicacity and who can see what the result of that will be in the long run in terms of a lack of cohesion within the community. I am profoundly convinced that it is the attitudes rather than arguments about ammunition which are most real for a peaceful solution.
  The next question is: do we want peace or do we want a cease-fire? I repeat, these are not the same. It is all very well to say that one can have negotiations, but if one knows that to a huge number of people a certain situation is literally unacceptable, any cease-fire that is built on those foundations will never transmute itself into peace. As a result of the war which began on 6th October, this truth will be apparent to more and more people throughout the Middle East, be they Jew or Arab.
  To that extent the appalling violence of the last 12 days may in the light of
  504
  history prove to have been a necessary prelude in the transmutation of unstable cease-fire into stable peace. If history does show that, then those lives will not have been lost in vain.
  It has been said that these are not wicked men full of wicked ideas who are fighting each other but, by and large, good men with worthy ideas. That may well be a true analysis. If so, this violence that we deplore will not have been in vain. But that is not so say that we should lift a finger to prolong it. How the supply of munitions of war can be construed as other than taking steps to prolong it, I cannot conceive. It is another question entirely, and not one for tonight, to inquire into the ethics of arms supply.
  I end with the historical comment that every country of which I am aware that is an armaments manufacturer and exporter has always regarded the export of armaments as being in a different category from any other form of trade, a category in which the overriding policy of the State implicitly must give the right to infringe the normal laws of contract. Although there is a solecism that all arms are supplied for defence, the truth is that arms are supplied to kill people, and that it why it is right that the overriding policy of the Government of the day should take precedence over the commercial wording of a contract to supply arms. That is why I shall with a clear conscience go into the Lobby to support my right hon. Friend.
  8.2 p.m.
  Mr. R. T. Paget: This House is full of surprises. After listening to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) I did not expect it to be followed by an even sillier speech. Reference was made to the Baltic reserves. If one holds the reserves of a nation what does one do with them if one does not hand them back to the Government of that nation, however reluctantly one may have recognised that Government?
  The hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Walters) made a good pro-Arab speech. He posed a fundamental question when he asked what diplomatic avenue was open to Egypt. Surely there was one—to negotiate peace with Israel. That is

  505
  what Israel had always asked for, but neither Egypt nor any of her neighbours was prepared to negotiate with Israel. Their view is that Israel does not exist and must be destroyed. If that is not so, why did they not negotiate?
  For all these years Israel has been saying that it does not want to hold this land permanently but wants to negotiate to secure peace. The Arabs have said, "We will not negotiate, we will not meet you." The hon. Gentleman said that the Foreign Office was not prejudiced in favour of the Arabs, but was prejudiced in favour of British interests. One may sometimes take too narrow a view of British interests. Among British interests may be placed honour and self-respect. These are intangible interests. It is these intangible interests that enable the State of Israel to live. She has them. I wonder whether we do.
  This is a simple issue. We made a contract to supply Israel with arms. Those arms were to be used to enable Israel to defend herself within the borders she was occupying. Let us have no hypocrisy about it being Arab land. It was Arab land when we supplied the tanks. It was Arab land when we agreed to maintain the tanks and supply armaments. It was Arab land when we operated the contract. There was no change on 6th October.
  The contract for the tanks and ammunition was for a specific purpose. It was to enable Israel to defend herself if she were attacked. When she was attacked, we reneged. Surely in our history we have done few things, if any, more dis-honourable than that. That is what horrifies me.
  The position with Jordan is wholly different. There was, I presume, in our Jordan arms contract, as I think there is in all our arms contracts, an undertaking not to transfer these arms to any State without our permission. That is what Jordan has done. She is not using her arms to defend Jordan. There is peace on that frontier. The arms have been lent to Syria in breach of our contract. They are being used to take part in aggression somewhere else under the command of other people. Of course we are entitled to stop that. Israel is needing the arms for the one purpose for which the con-
  506
  tract was made and maintained. To refuse them is dishonourable.
  It is said that this action is to enable us to be in the best position to arbitrate. I am becoming an old man, I am about at the end of my course, but I have a horrid feeling that this is where I came in. When I came into politics the great issue before us was the Spanish war. We heard talk about non-intervention while Fascist armies intervened in Spain and all the weapons which were subsequently to be used against us were tested in Spain. While all this happened we insisted on non-intervention and said that the Spanish Government must not be allowed the means to defend themselves.
  It is said that at the end we want to be in a position to arbitrate. At the end we were in a position to arbitrate between the Fascists and their victims. We arbitrated at Munich, where we ordered Czechoslovakia to surrender to Germany areas in which the majority of the population was German. We compelled her to do so with the assurance that we guaranteed the integrity of her national existence. Unfortunately that land was occupied by a majority of Germans but it was also totally necessary to her defence and existence. When she lost that land, her existence lasted four months.
  The Israelis remember that. They ask themselves what would have happened on their Day of Atonement if they had been on their old frontiers and whether they could have survived this surprise attack. It was the new frontiers which saved them. It was this land—call it Arab land or what you will—which is as necessary for Israel's existence as the Sudetenland was for Czechoslovakia. That is the land in issue—
  Sir Alec Douglas-Home: That is not what the Israelis are saying. They are not arguing that these lands have to be occupied for the defence of Israel for all time.
  Mr. Paget: They have to be occupied until an equally safe frontier and construction can be made. At this stage, the Israelis could not possibly surrender them. They must defend them and their invaders must go back. But this is the stage at which we are reneging on our contract. That is what horrifies me.

  507
  We are saying that this is to put us into a position in which we can arbitrate. This is a neo-Chamberlain situation. It is the situation of the 1930s back again. It is inconceivable that the Israelis could accept such an arbitrator on such terms—
  Mr. Faulds: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?
  Mr. Paget: I will not.
  Mr. Faulds: I am obliged to my hon. and learned Friend for his courtesy. He is equalling Arabs with Fascists.
  Mr. Paget: That is the situation that we face today. If we want to arbitrate we should be backing America with all that we have. The Americans and the Russians are the people who can stop the conflict. If we add our determination that Israel shall survive to the American determination, we raise the risk to the Russians and we create an arbitrating situation. It is our sitting back with these appeasement era pretences all coming to life again that I find so horrifying.
  We are told that we cannot be diverted from the right policy by a threat to our oil. But we are being diverted by just that. That is the trouble. Blackmail cannot buy certain things. It cannot buy respect. We shall not buy the respect of the Arabs by reneging on our friends. It cannot buy security because the price always goes up and up. Ultimately it cannot buy oil because, once the Arabs recognise that we are willing to dishonour ourselves for oil, we are at their mercy.
  My awful feeling is that I do not weep for Israel; I weep for my own country. I believe that Israel will survive. She has the will and the determination to do so. I am wondering whether we have. I am wondering whether in these new circumstances we can survive in this era. We have lost our Empire. We have lost our means to defend ourselves, having put our Army into commission with NATO where it cannot fight, and we have failed to train a generation. We have lost our Gulf oil without having shown the energy to garner our North Sea oil. Now we are losing our self-respect. Israel will live. I hope that our fate will not be that of an-
  508
  other great and distinguished trading empire—that of Venice—which died finally without a whimper.
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. John Gorst: A country which has only interests to defend and no feelings to express is no nation at all. We have heard a great deal today about the interests of this country. We have not heard very much about the feelings of the people who live in it towards affairs in the Middle East.
  During recent years we have become accustomed to the deeply-felt attachment shown by many of our fellow countrymen to those whom we choose to call our kith and kin in Rhodesia. Much more profoundly, many of my constituents, of whom perhaps a third are of Jewish origin, feel an emotional bond with the Israelis because they regard them as their kith and kin. This is no divided loyalty. It is a sense of identity with them. Many of them have expressed the feeling in correspondence and telegrams to me that they are British as well as being Jewish. They fought in the last war. They were not members of a fifth column. They were members of the British columns fighting in the last war and naturally they feel a considerable involvement in and concern about what this country is doing in the Middle East. The attitude that they have expresed to me is not the stiff upper lip, British type of sentiment. It is not like the attitude which some of us feel towards our kith and kin in Rhodesia, and for a very good reason. No one is actually dying in Rhodesia. But a great many people are dying in the Middle East and, rightly, they are very concerned.
  I ask this House, therefore, not to expect either a cerebral or a dialectical nicety of argument to appease, persuade or mollify very large numbers of my constituents in this situation. No Jews and few Gentiles accept that the claims about our even-handedness, which in my view is heavy-handedness, are in the least bit to be believed.
  I want my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary to tell us how we are to explain and justify the disparity and unfairness which dictates that an Israeli resort to arms in 1967 merited United Nations and British condemnation whereas an Arab assault in

  509
  1973 deserves no such condemnation. Both are acts of hostility, and it is those acts and the resort to violence, rather than the territorial acquisitions or losses, which merit our disapproval not only in 1967 but now. So why are Her Majesty's Government silent now? Where is the even-handedness in an attitude of that kind?
  The Arabs have asserted that the recapture of the land lost in the 1967 war is their first objective. The Syrians have made it clear that, although that is their first objective, their second and ultimate remains the liberation of Palestine. Let us have no mealy-mouthed misunderstanding of what that means. It means the destruction of Israel.
  In that situation no nation can afford to stand on the sideline playing the role of Good Samaritan and at the same time limping furtively on the other side of world events as if no hurt or harm existed. Nevertheless, that is the position of Her Majesty's Government if the arms embargo is not lifted and if this spurious neutrality is pursued any longer.
  I admit readily that commitment to a cause or any form of ideal creates hazards for people and countries. But if we are cowed into failing to face these facts of life, we shall for ever remain cowardly, because timidity and cowardice are attitudes which breed like rabbits.
  Yesterday the conference in Kuwait articulated the oil threat from the Arab States. We all knew that it was coming. Since it is here, we are now faced with two choices. We can submit with discredit to the Mafia threats of oil-rich bullies—we can, as the Leader of the Opposition put it, pay the Dane his Danegeld—in the hope that buying an ignominious neutrality will give us the dubious affluence of a sort of latterday Switzerland or Sweden; or we can stand up honourably and be counted, as the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) said, not just in Heaven one day, but here and now, along with those who are proud to repulse the imperialist overtures of the Russians in the Middle East and along with those who acknowledge Israel as a bastion of democracy in an area which is Balkan-style in its turbulence.
  Britain must be explicit and candid, because no one aids the cause of
  510
  democracy by concealing their support for it. It is one thing, rightly and wisely, to jettison old colonial connections, but let us not abandon our self-respect.
  Her Majesty's Government have aspirations to act as an honest broker and peace maker when this calamitous war is finished, but these ambitions will be a mockery if Israel lies prostrate, snuffed out, and neglected by her friends. I am sure that the Government do not wish to countenance this. It has been quite clear from what the Foreign Secretary said that he does not wish to do so. That being so, let the Government say as much now and do something about it. I implore the Foreign Secretary to drop this mask of non-alignment. If we are not careful, this excursion into neutrality will hang round the neck of this country and will choke and throttle us with shame in years to come. We are no International Court at the Hague which can stand idly by unmoved, unruffled and impervious.
  Finally, does the Foreign Secretary seriously think that the Second World War might have evaporated had the United States embargoed arms supplies to Churchillian Britain and Hitlerite Germany? Of course, it is true that the United States came late to the rescue, but they came and helped us to win the war. Likewise, we are late to support Israel, but we are not too late.
  Unless a radical reconsideration, leading to the lifting of the arms embargo, can be immediately announced at the end of the debate, I regret that I shall feel obliged, when there is a Division, which I hope there will be, to vote against what I believe to be a misguided and discreditable policy.
  8.24 p.m.
  Mr. Frank Judd: Throughout the debate we have been aware of the background of the intensity of the struggle in the Middle East and of the desperate loss of life on both sides. We have also been aware of the deep personal involvement of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House in friendships and acquaintances with both sides in this battle. Therefore, if we are genuine in our anxiety not only for a cease-fire but, as was so ably pointed out earlier, for a lasting peace, it behoves all of us to

  511
  maintain as much dispassionate objectivity as is possible about the situation and the way we assess it.
  I am in a difficult situation, because I regard myself as having genuine friends on both sides in this conflict. I have visited Israel on a number of occasions. I was in Israel in 1967 while the battle was raging. Therefore, I regard myself in every sense as a friend of the people who make the nation of Israel. However, I believe that genuine friendship demands candidness in relationships. Despite the heat of the battle at the moment, if we are looking for a long-term solution it is essential that we speak with candour as well as with objectivity in this debate.
  The first point about which we should remind ourselves over and over again is that the tragedy of this conflict is that there are two sides to the argument. I find it almost impossible to think of any crisis in world affairs which I have experienced which more clearly had two sides to the argument.
  There is the Israeli position. There is no need to rehearse it in detail. The whole historical experience of the Jewish people, of persecution for generations across the surface of the world, is relevant to the Jewish position. Unless one takes that into account, one cannot begin to understand it at this juncture.
  Also fundamental to the Israeli position is the need for a guarantee of security for Israel within the Middle East. I believe that we in this House have an inescapable responsibility in this context, because Britain played a major part in the creation of Israel. Therefore, we have a responsibility to follow through what is necessary to guarantee what we helped to bring into being.
  But there is the Arab side to the argument as well. One must not overlook that. One can accept or discard it, but it is a very real argument seen from the Arab position. The Arabs say "There were 5 million Jews killed in the Second World War. We did not kill them. The creation of the State of Israel was a neat European solution to the Jewish problem. But at Arab territorial expense." There is also the Arab argument that we talk of justice and of the need for guaranteed security, but what of the rights of the Palestinians within
  512
  Israel as it operates at the moment? We have two deeply-held convictions and we must somehow in the long run find a solution which will accommodate both positions.
  The point has been well brought out in the debate by the way the word "aggression" has been sincerely bandied about by people from quite different standpoints. Undoubtedly the Israelis see what happened at the beginning of this bout in the war as an act of aggression on Israeli security, but the Arabs see it as an inevitable step towards the liberation of occupied Arab territories. Here again we have a genuine conflict with deeply-held convictions and emotions which we must take into account.
  How are we to set about finding a lasting solution, which must be based on the principles of justice as applied to all the people involved in the Middle East confrontation? We must learn sooner or later that any so-called solution which is imposed cannot be a lasting solution in a conflict of this kind. A solution, if it is really to be a solution, has to be seen as one which desperately tries to achieve greater justice for all the people involved in the conflict.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Raymond Fletcher) made a speech in which I could see the logic of his case for order, but are we blind to the realities of the generation of politicians in which we live? One of the lessons of the urban guerrilla warfare techniques as they have developed is that where there is a wide constituency of unrest caused by a deep feeling of frustration and injustice, it is virtually impossible to build with certainty security and stability for the future. It is easy to talk of the principle of order and of orderly advance towards justice in a system of order, but it is not always as practical as it sounds.
  I am sorry if I appear to repeat the obvious, but if there are to be negotiations I believe that they must take account of the rights of the Palestianians. They must also take into account—this is sometimes unthinkable to many—the rights of the Arabs in Jerusalem as well as the rights of the Jewish community. They will have to take into account the position of the occupied territories and Arab rights as well as Israeli demands for guaranteed

  513
  security. Above all, the Israeli need for a cast-iron guarantee for the integrity and security of the nation must be taken into account.
  If we fail to move towards this, the sad truth about the future is that we may expect repeated outbreaks of conflict between Israel and her Arab neighbours. This would be disastrous for them. It could mean, in the long run, the bleeding to death of the younger generation in Israel, on whom the future of Israel depends.
  The nuclear dimension must also be considered, because we know that it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that, sooner perhaps rather than later, a nuclear weapon may become a factor in the conflict. When there is a nuclear dimension to a conflict of this kind, with the super-Powers involved but not altogether in control, there can be long-term dangerous implications for the international community as a whole.
  How are we to move towards providing what I believe to be absolutely essential from the Israeli standpoint, namely, guaranteed frontiers? I can understand Israeli cynicism about this, bearing in mind what happened earlier.
  I differ in one respect from the sentiments expressed in the very sincere personal speech by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon. He spoke in criticism of U Thant. But he misunderstands the legality of the situation as it affected the United Nations force. It was there before 1967, not on the instructions of the Security Council because of the veto in the council, but because of the tolerance of the Egyptians who allowed it to be present on their territory. The Israelis refused to allow its presence on their territory, as was their right, but if U Thant had delayed for days let alone for weeks when the Egyptians asked for its removel, the whole of the United Nations and the entire machinery of the international system at the UN would immediately have been condemned by the entire Third World as a tool of imperialism. It is easy to condemn U Thant, but the legal position must be taken into account. If we are to guarantee Israel her rights this time, there must be a force there with the full backing of the Security Council.
  It may be said that this is difficult to achieve with the full involvement of
  514
  the super-Powers, but simply because of the nuclear dimension, the wider international dimension to which I have referred, there is a greater chance than ever of that happening. That in itself can only be an interim solution.
  We can only have peace in the Middle East, as several hon. Members have said, when the parties to the conflict want it. In the end what we must aim for is the policing of the areas by the parties to the conflict themselves in some form of direct international local involvement. That means direct local negotiations between the parties to the conflict.
  Our duty in the House and the duty of the Government must be to do everything possible to facilitate moves forward in this direction. The Government by their action in this context have forgone the opportunity to influence the Israelis effectively. The Israelis believe that we have not retreated to a position of impartiality. But by our refusal to see through our obligation—and I hate the whole despicable business of exporting arms for profit—having invited the Israelis on to the mat only to draw it away from under their feet at their hour of need we seem to have doubled the cynicism of our handling of the arms deal.
  Therefore, with many regrets, I find myself compelled to vote against the Foreign Secretary, although I believe that he is sincere and earnest in much of what he is trying to do. I wish to put it on record that at least some of us will vote with misgivings, because we do not wish our action to be interpreted as meaning that we endorse everything which has been said in the name of Israel before and during this present conflict.
  8.35 p.m.
  Mr. Richard Luce: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) in the debate because I liked the tone of his speech.
  We in the House have an overwhelming duty to show a great deal of humility in our approach to this problem in an extremely dangerous situation. Our duty is not to be inflammatory. As perhaps with Ireland, the Middle East creates a great deal of passion in the House, perhaps understandably. It is, however, easy to express passionate convictions in

  515
  favour of one side or the other. It is easy to make well-intentioned but quite often unwise statements such as the one John Foster Dulles made when he went to the Middle East in the 1950s in the middle of a crisis and said "Let us settle this problem in a truly Christian manner." I shall try to avoid making statements of that kind.
  Inevitably, but probably understandably, we have become bogged down on the problem of the arms embargo. It would be wrong to make a speech without at least touching on it because it seems to be becoming the dominant issue in discussions in Britain about the Middle East. I sympathise with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and with the Government in taking what is inevitably an extremely difficult decision. They are presented with a dilemma. The arguments against the embargo—that we should in time of peace supply arms and the moment war comes stop doing so, and that the supplying of arms gives us influence—are strong. On the other hand, it is hypocritical to put forward peace proposals—I hope that in the context of Europe we are not alone, because some of us still think that we have great influence there, much greater influence than we have in the Middle East—and to stoke up the fires by continuing to supply arms to both sides. That is why for the time being I shall support the present line. However, if I understood aright what the Foreign Secretary said, the other European countries are imposing an embargo. If they are, and if there is a prospect of the Community evolving a common approach towards the Middle East, I would for the time being support the embargo.
  Dr. Tom Stuttaford: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is quite a difference between supplying new arms and supplying spares for arms which we have already sold? My hon. Friend talks about the arms embargo, but he does not say whether he means supplying the necessary spares to maintain arms already sold or supplying new arms. This is where Europe comes into it.
  Mr. Luce: I was coming to that. I agree with my hon. Friend to some extent, but the reasons why I shall continue for the time being to support this policy are,
  516
  first, that my right hon. Friend has said he will review it literally from hour to hour, according to the situation and. secondly, that I have doubts about the spare parts aspect. I think it is right when one has an embargo to say that one will not send any new equipment, but one of the reasons why I have been through some personal agonies on this point—alhough I still support the embargo—is that I think it would have been better to say both to Jordan and to Israel "We shall continue to provide ammunition and spare parts."
  That having been said, I want to reinforce another point which my right hon. Friend made about the Gulf area—and I ask hon. Members to note that I said neither "Persian Gulf" nor "Arabian Gulf". I do not think some people realise what is at stake if stability does not continue in that area, and what would happen if we stopped supplying arms to, for example, the United Arab Emirate. If we stopped supplying them we should be opening up opportunities to the Russians, for example, to exploit the situation, and that would create greater instability.
  But the overwhelming question that we must answer is: what are British interests in the Middle East conflict at the present time? We have to consider two major factors. First, as we all know, we in Britain and Western Europe depend to a large extent on the Middle East for our oil supples. Secondly, and allied to that, we are also concerned with peace and stability in the Middle East. A settlement between the Arabs and the Israelis is therefore of vital interest to Great Britain. We have seen that the existence of a conflict between the Arab world and the Israeli world leads to a breakdown in the supply of oil.
  My point, therefore, is that the free flow of oil supplies and a settlement between the Arab and the Israeli worlds are indivisible. For this reason, it is as much in Britain's interest to support a secure Israel as it is to keep on friendly terms with the Arab world. There is no contradiction in those two statements. However difficult or even impossible the problem, we must seek our areas for hope and progress in the future.
  I want to mention four factors. The first, which has already been touched

  517
  upon, is the Russian rôle in the Middle East. The differences of opinion between one side and the other provide the right kind of explosive material for Russian intrusion into the Middle East. Therefore, it is a common interest of the Arab world, of the Israelis and of Great Britain and Western Europe to ensure that we counteract the Russian influence. There is thus great value in Britain having a strong relationship with and influence in the Arab world.
  The second factor is the position of the United States. It is right and understandable that it should give support to Israel in contradistinction to the Russian support of the Arab world. But the fact is that by 1980 something like one-eighth of the total oil supplies of the United States will come from the Arab world, so it is vital for us to try to influence the Israelis, as much as anyone else, to compromise so far as possible when the ceasefire comes about.
  The third factor is that while Resolution 242 must be the right basis, nevertheless there is room for manoeuvre. To say that Israel must withdraw to the 1967 boundaries is neither satisfactory nor fair to her, and there is room for compromise on the need for a demilitarised zone in Sinai, in the Golan Heights and in Sharmel-Sheikh. So we must negotiate on that basis.
  The last factor that I want to mention is this. On my recent visit to Israel, which I found most impressive in many respects, I was interested in the attitude of the Israelis towards the Arabs in the occupied territories. There are a great number of Israelis who wish to prove that they can live side by side with the Arabs on a friendly basis, although there are some extremists, as there are in any country, who do not wish to prove this.
  The Israelis do not wish to have a country that is dominated by Arabs, and therefore, in the long-term, they cannot wish to have the whole of the occupied territories under their control. It was said that they did not react in a favourable way to King Hussein's proposals, but they can be persuaded to take a positive interest in the kind of proposals that he put forward last year. The only thing that has spoiled it is the rather provocative way in which the Israelis have established settlements in several parts of the occupied territories.
  518
  The British rôle must be to try to take a lead in the European Community. The European Community and the Arab world depend upon each other. The Community wants the Arab world's oil supplies, and the Arab world sells most of its oil supplies to Europe.
  We also have an interest in peace and stability, and our rôle now is to take the initiative within the Community to try to set mediation going. A crisis has its dangers, but it is also a catalyst for a new initiative and that is what we have to take in Britain.
  8.46 p.m.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I have been a friend of the State of Israel from the day that it was formed, but I want to explain to my hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds), who apparently is not in his place, that I have not been an uncritical friend. When I have thought that the State of Israel has been wrong, I have said so. That is what a friend is for. He is not there just to say that everything that is being done is right. He is there to say so when something wrong is being done.
  I have always been reinforced in my criticisms of various aspects of Israeli policy by the knowledge that many people in Israel were saying precisely the same as I was saying. The Israeli State is extremely democratic. There is a saying in Israel that everyone wants to be the Foreign Minister. When I went there I thought that they all were, because everyone wishes to express an opinion on everything. I say that I have not been an uncritical friend of Israel, and that is true, but it is also true that the Israelis themselves are not uncritical of their State.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) said that he had friends on both sides and that he, too, was not uncritical. I believe that friendship carries the responsibility of being critical when the need arises, and also of standing shoulder to shoulder with a friend when he is in trouble.
  Let us look at the history of Israel. It is true that it is an artificial State, created because of conditions for which the Jewish people were not responsible—largely because of the holocaust. If the Germans had not destroyed 6 million

  519
  Jews, there would never have been a State of Israel. But there is such a State, and from the day on which it was formed it has been living in a state of siege.
  The State of Israel has never been accepted by the Arab countries that surround it. To that extent it is a case of right against right. Both sides have a good case, but let us consider the situation. I say to my friends on the Left of the Labour Party who do not accept my position that there is only one democratic State in the whole of the Middle East, and that is Israel. Will anyone suggest that King Feisal and his régime are a régime of great social progress advancing the peasantry to higher levels? From all the money made out of oil, what have the peasantry gained in that country? Is that not true of most of the Middle East countries? Can anyone say of any one of them that it is as democratic a State as is Israel?
  In Israel there are two Communist parties—not one, two. That is typical of Israel. It is surprising that there are not 27 Communist parties. One can be a Communist and be safe in Israel. One can be elected to a local authority or to the Knesset. One can be an Arab Communist in Israel and be elected to a city council or even to the Knesset, provided, of course, that one gets sufficient votes. Where will a Communist in Saudi Arabia get? Or in Syria? Or the Sudan? They hanged them in the Sudan.
  In considering Israel we are considering the most democratic State in the Middle East, and, in certain respects, possibly the most democratic State in the world. I said "in certain respects", I would not expect all my colleagues to go along with that argument. I have heard arguments advanced tonight which made me wonder where I was. One hon. Member on the Government side said that if one were an Arab one would not have a vote in Israel. Where did he get that nonsense? He talked about Jews and Arabs not looking kindly on a Jew and Arab inter-marrying. The hon. Member should come to Liverpool, to my own home town, where a good Catholic boy is not looked on all that kindly by some people if he marries a Protestant girl—and vice versa. So do
  520
  no talk about inter-marriage in that way; there are such problems in our own country.
  Mr. Mayhew: Will my hon. Friend allow me?
  Dr. M. S. Miller: My hon. Friend has made his speech. He should sit down.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): A great many people still want to speak in the debate. There should not be too many interruptions.
  Mr. Heffer: I do not want to be discourteous but I do not want to take too much time. I will take my hon. Friend's point if he will be quick.
  Mr. Mayhew: My hon. Friend is quite right in paying tribute to the democratic institutions in Israel but he has slightly overstated the case, for Israel does not permit an Arab political party and Arabs cannot vote in the occupied territories.
  Dr. Miller: Absolute rubbish.
  Mr. Mayhew: These are very important points.
  Mr. Heffer: Obviously I ought not to have given way to my hon. Friend because to answer that specific point I should have to go into the whole question of Arabs and political parties in Israel, but one does not have to have separate racial parties to have democracy. I think it a good thing if Arabs and Jews are in the same political party, and I think that is the measure of the advanced state of Israel at the present time.
  I shall conclude by talking of the Government's policy. I do not like the idea of Britain selling arms to anyone. I hate the whole concept of that. I remember that during the last days of the Labour Government we had a disarmament Minister and an arms salesman at the same time—a somewhat contradictory situation, I thought. I did not like it. I always objected to it. But I regard the situation in the following way. We talk about even-handedness. That is the expression used by the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. Even-handedness? Has anyone totted up the total numbers of armed men in the 10 Arab countries

  521
  which say they are opposed to Israel, and the number of their tanks, aircraft and missiles compared with Israel's?
  Some of my friends on the Left will say that Israel is getting its arms from America. Israel would be entitled to get its arms from the Devil to defend itself in the present situation. When we consider the differences we see that there is no question of even-handedness. The Israeli people have their backs to the wall.
  I have been to Israel and talked to Israeli politicians. The last thing they want is to expand their borders and control more and more territory. They have always been embarrassed by the fact that they have been controlling territory since the Six-Day War. They would have loved to get rid of it on the basis of peace and secure borders. That is what the Israeli people want—all of them.
  The Government must help by honouring their contract but at the same time exerting their influence to ensure that the people of Israel can settle with the Arabs and have peace and secure borders.
  8.57 p.m.
  Mr. T. L. Iremonger: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) observed that it is safe to be a Communist in Israel. He might have added that it is not safe to be a Jew in Communist Russia, as many have reason to know.
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and the Leader of the Opposition both referred to Members who take sides, and expressed disapproval of taking sides. I can announce with relish that I have the disapproval of both my right hon. Friend and the Leader of the Opposition, because I take a side—Britain's side. I take the side of this country, and in my view that is the side of Israel.
  The only school that I know in my constituency at whose speech day the national anthem is sung is the Jewish school. The children in that school are taught to sing their national anthem, as they feel that it is—and it is. They are also taught to sing Israeli songs. Their parents and grandparents came to find refuge from cruelty and oppression, and today Jews come here from the Soviet Union, when they can, and find here,
  522
  as they find in the United States, a country that has freedom and had the courage to defend that freedom in the same way as the people of Israel have the courage to defend their country now.
  I am profoundly disappointed in and dissatisfied with the Government's policy as announced by my right hon. Friend. A more realistic view of what is happening in terms of power is that the Arab side, which I do not take, has been built up and is being maintained by the Soviet Union. The Soviet purpose has been expressed explicitly time and again, just as explicitly as Hitler's purpose was expressed in "Mein Kampf". Krushchev expressed it in a classic phrase when he said to us, to the free world, to the democracies, of which Israel is the only one in the Middle East, "We shall bury you." That is the expression of the abiding dream and determination of Soviet policy in the world. Its policy in the Middle East is to make the Arab nations an instrument of its determination to dominate the entire world and to eliminate democracy's only bastion in the Middle East, which is the State of Israel.
  The Soviet method of achieving its purpose is perfectly obvious and sensible and it makes no bones about it. It is to exploit Arab grievances so as to dominate the Middle East and thereby to dominate the Western world which depends entirely upon the Middle East for its supplies of oil. The obstacle to achieving that purpose is the survival and integrity of the State of Israel, and that is what the war in the Middle East is about. That is why Israel's side is our side and why our side is Israel's side.
  I am not satisfied at the Government's attitude in refusing to supply arms to Israel. I would not be satisfied if it were neutrality but still less am I satisfied because it is neutrality in favour of the Arab side. It is not even-handed justice. I do not want to go into the pettifogging bookkeeping arguments, but even if we were to supply arms to Israel alone and to stop supplying them to the Arabs I would regard that as perfectly right and justified, because when we supply arms to one Arab country we supply them to the rest. I am not persuaded that letting Israel down now will give us an opportunity to influence the Arabs as mediators. That is a pathetic illusion. I am

  523
  regretfully persuaded that the idea of a United Nations peace-keeping force, which has always been attractive and which still seems to attract my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the Leader of the Opposition, has also been shown to be an illusion.
  To be fair to the Foreign Secretary, I welcome certain of his statements today. He actually said specifically in terms that the Government were determined to maintain the State of Israel and that it should continue to exist within secure frontiers. That was welcome. My right hon. Friend said that if the existence of Israel were at risk the Government would consider a change of policy, and that is welcome, though it is difficult to see how it could be done at the right moment. My right hon. Friend said on Tuesday that he would keep his policies under review. He moved a little this afternoon because he said that he would keep them under review from hour to hour. He said that our policy was the policy for the present, and all this was an improvement. I welcome the shift of emphasis and I do not want to be ungrateful, but I am sorry; the shift is not enough to satisfy me.
  I say with great regret, therefore, that I shall vote against the motion for the Adjournment tonight. This matter is a source of shame and anger to many of my constituents, by no means all of them Jewish, and it is a source of shame and anger to me.
  9.4 p.m.
  Mr. Greville Janner: My position is exactly the opposite in one sense to that of the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger). I am a Jew and a Zionist and I sit for a constituency with practically no Jews in it. I have received tonight a telegram of support from my executive and for that I am grateful. The views I express I believe to be the views of hundreds of thousands of people in this country, irrespective of their religion.
  I have listened to the debate all day, and to me the most interesting exchange came almost by mistake. It was when one of my hon. Friends challenged the Foreign Secretary when he said that he would not let Israel go under. My hon. Friend said, "What about Czecho-
  524
  slovakia?" and the Foreign Secretary said, "Ah, this time it is meant." He then withdrew it and made it appear as if it were a slip, but if it were, it was a most potent slip because it shows precisely how the Israelis feel. They are not prepared to have that sort of mistake made at their expense. They have lived for years under the guns of the Golan and they are not prepared to have their children live that way again. They were in borders before 1967 to which it is said they should now return. Those borders did not prevent a war in 1967.
  They want peace. I have been to Israel many times and I have never met one person whose aim was not peace. I have never met one who did not want only to live with his wife and children without living in fear. That is all they want. Whether we talk in terms of aggression or invasion, we know who started the present war and we know that the people who brought it about have a debt to pay in Arab lives and in Israeli lives, including those hundreds of refugees from Arab countries. I mourn for the life of my friend Nicholas Tomalin. This is war and they are all dead, the Arabs and the Jews.
  What matters to Israel, first, is to survive and, second, to have a peace in which it is worth living. For her survival Israel needs our help, and for once the House has the power to give that help. It is rare these days—in the old colonial days it was common—but we have in our power tonight to see whether Israel can survive. That is because we sold to Israel two-thirds of its tanks and we are refusing ammunition for those tanks.
  What is the excuse which is given? It is that contracts can be suspended. Suspended until when? Suspended until Israel is defeated, until the war is over or until the arms are no longer needed? Or is it, maybe, that for some other reason when we sold the tanks to Israel the Israelis were in exactly the same position as they were on the day the war started? There was no question of saying, "Here are tanks which you may use in your defence, but if war breaks out and you have to defend yourself we shall not provide you with ammunition or the spare parts."
  The fact is that the embargo has been totally one-sided. If the right hon.

  525
  Gentleman wishes to act as a peacemaker he should at least attempt to recognise that he needs the respect of both sides before Britain can act as a peacemaker. What has happened? There is no embargo on Saudi Arabia. The Strike-masters are still being built and will be delivered in a few weeks' time. There is no embargo on any Gulf State. Tanks are being supplied to Dubai. There are 1,500 British Aircraft Corporation personnel in Saudi Arabia. How can that situation be regarded in any sense as an embargo on the Gulf States?
  The right hon. Gentleman will find it impossible, if he continues in this way, to act as a peacemaker. His embargo is regarded, and I regard it so, as spurious, fraudulent, bogus and one-sided. If we intervene in a war of survival of this sort on the side of four or five nations which do not need our arms, we are acting against the one nation which needs them desperately for two-thirds of its tank force.
  Those are the facts. That is the even-handedness. Tonight we have an opportunity to vote in a way which matters. Anyone who goes into the Lobby with the Government should test his own conscience. If something should happen tomorrow he will bear a personal responsibility.
  9.8 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Fidler: I never thought that the moment would come when I should rise to speak with a sense of shame about the action of my own Government. We have had many history lessons tonight and I do not propose to add to them. I say to the hon. Members for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) and Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) that their words will hardly be acceptable to the Israeli Government as a guarantee of Israel's future security.
  Ever since 1947 Israel has been under attack. Six years ago it was faced with an Arab mobilisation threat on all sides. Israel launched a pre-emptive strike for which she was condemned internationally. Israel has been condemned since when it has engaged in punitive expeditions to deal with Arab terrorism. There has been condemnation of what Israel did when armies marched on her pre-June 1967 borders.
  526
  Six years ago the Arab States sought war and sued for and obtained a cease-fire to end hostilities, a cease-fire which they accepted and which became recognised in international law. During the ensuing six years, Israel has over and over again offered to enter into negotiations, preferably direct, with her Arab neighbours in the spirit of and accepting Resolution 242 as the way of effecting permanent peace in the Middle East.
  For six years Israel's efforts in this direction have been thwarted by the Arab States, which have refused to enter into such direct negotiations and, despite persuasion from both Conservative and Labour Governments in the United Kingdom, to withdraw from the administered territories. Israel has held on to what she thought was the only way of guaranteeing her sovereignty. A week ago last Saturday her fears and beliefs materialised because once again the massing of Arab forces in Egypt and Syria led to that quite unprovoked aggression. Two sovereign member States of the United Nations committed an act of aggression against a third sovereign State, also a member of the United Nations.
  Six years ago we condemned Israel for starting the war. Where has been the United Nations denunciation of Syria and Egypt for the war begun a week last Saturday? Where is the thundering condemnation from the United Nations or, indeed, from the United Kingdom? Our representative at the United Nations says that he does not seek to apportion blame. Last Tuesday my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary talked about what should be our best posture. I suggest that our best posture cannot be a recumbent posture.
  Here we have a clear case of aggressor and victim. One cannot talk of evenhanded policies in such a situation—between antagonists, yes, but where an aggressor and victim are concerned it is our clear duty to go to the aid of the victim in line with the great traditions of this country.
  I do not support the Leader of the Opposition in talking of lifting the embargo for all. I say categorically that in this case, where there is a victim of aggression, we have a bounden duty not to abandon the supply of arms to that victim which she so sorely needs in her

  527
  defence, particularly at a time when we are still, despite the embargo, supplying countries like Saudi Arabia, which has a detachment of troops fighting alongside the Syrian forces on the Golan Heights.
  Nor should we underestimate the Russian evil influence in this matter. Six years ago it was lying Russian statements that Israel had mobilised which were used as an excuse for condemning Israel. A week last Saturday we had aggression by Egypt and Syria and two days later the Soviet Government published, through its Press department at the Soviet Embassy in London, this statement:
  "In recent days Israel had concentrated considerable armed forces on the ceasefire lines with Syria and Egypt, had called up reservists and, having thereby heated up the situation to the limit, unleashed military operations."
  It so happens that, unlike most if not all other hon. Members, I have children living in Israel, and I spoke to my son-in-law on 6th October. He confirmed that the order for mobilisation began after the attack on that Saturday afternoon, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar. It is a blatant Russian propaganda lie to say that there had been mobilisation and the massing of military equipment by the Israelis before what happened a week last Saturday.
  I believe that it is shameful for us to be reneging on our legal contract to supply 4,000 or so shells to Israel's Centurion tanks. But even worse is the attitude which the Government have taken in another place. My noble Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said on Tuesday:
  "I should like to inform the House that in fact there is another major Power which manufactures this ammunition under licence from this country and therefore Israel is able to secure it not only from this country."
  When taxed the noble Lady answered:
  "it is the United States of America."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. House of Lords, 16th Oct., 1973; Vol. 345, c. 181–2.]
  In the same breath, according to the Press reports we refused the Americans landing facilities in Cyprus to airlift ammunition and spares to Israel.
  Well might the House think back on what was said by so many of us about Portugal—that it is Portugal and not Great Britain that becomes the medium for American succour to Israel. Great Britain has a responsibility to itself.
  528
  Every hon. Member ought to be animated not by considerations of what is best for Israel, Egypt or Syria, but of what is in the best interests of this country.
  In an advance of his position last Tuesday my right hon. Friend said this afternoon that we would go to Israel's rescue in dire straits. We know that we in this country are in no position to mount the transport exercise which would be involved if the "dire straits" materialised. I am more concerned with the precedent which is set if we do not lift our embargo on the supply of arms.
  We use a lot of American equipment and arms. So do our European allies. Are we saying that America can say to us, having supplied us with weaponry, that in the event of our being involved in a war she will apply our formula to us and refuse to supply ammunition or spare parts? If so, then Heaven forfend that we should ever suffer an invasion, that we or our European allies should ever become victims of aggression. America would then be able to say to us that because we were a battlefield it could not supply arms, ammunition or spares but would instead maintain a position of neutrality. That cannot be in the best interests of this country.
  If we believe that it is in our interests to have a reliable friend in the Middle East, let us subscribe to the view expressed on Tuesday that there is only one democratic free State in that area on whom we can rely—Israel. Let us remember that we supplied military weapons, including Centurion tanks, to Israel, which believed that our intention was that when danger threatened she would be able to use those weapons. I plead with my right hon. Friend on behalf of many hon. Members and certainly on behalf of the overwhelming majority in the country. We have nothing to gain by continuing to interfere with the supply of arms and spares to Israel, contracted before the war and ready now to be flown out.
  America has not lost her ability to intervene and secure a settlement because she has supplied one side. Neither has Russia in any way destroyed her position of influence by supplying the other side. Israel relies on limited resources while the Arab aggressors rely on large resources. I ask my right hon. Friend to tell the House that, in response to the

  529
  feeling expressed tonight, he will lift this interference with the supply of arms. Without such an assurance I shall, unhappily and most reluctantly, have to vote against the Government.
  Mr. Raphael Tuck: The hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Walters) said that if only Israel would get back behind the 1967 lines everything in the garden would be lovely. But before the Six-Day War Israel was in that very position—behind the 1967 lines—yet the Arab States were massing vast armies on their borders with the result which we all know.
  The Foreign Secretary said he wanted even-handedness, but the Russians have been pouring arms into the Arab States while we stand supinely by. Is this even-handedness? "But", says the Foreign Secretary, "If Israel looks like being exterminated we will act." By that time it will be too late to act.
  The Foreign Secretary also said that he welcomed the peace overtures. May I remind him that it is only because the Arabs are not triumphing over Israel that peace overtures are being made. If they were victorious over Israel there would be no peace talks at all and Israel would be exterminated. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart) that there would be no peace talks and no Resolution 242.
  The Foreign Secretary said that he did not want to be blackmailed. Is that not exactly what is happening now? We are being blackmailed. The Arab nations are saying that they will supply oil to friendly nations and we want to keep friendly so that the Arabs supply us with oil, so we dance to their tune. [Interruption.] I am making only a short speech.
  In conclusion, I remind the Foreign Secretary of what Abba Eban said some years ago at the United Nations:
  "The British Government have taken the Imperial Crown, dipped it in Jewish blood and washed it clean with Arabian oil."
  I hope that the Foreign Secretary will not act in such a way that this can be said of the present Government. If he does, history will never forgive him.
  9.22 p.m.
  Mr. James Callaghan: My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck) has sat here
  530
  all day. He made a very short speech, as did most hon. Members, and it is right that the Front Benches should yield to the expressed views of others that we should take as little time as possible in concluding the debate.
  We have heard many excellent speeches filled with passion, conviction and sincerity. I take the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) that it is not necessary when espousing one side to be entirely oblivious to the faults of that side and to the virtues of the other side. I have heard every speech except two in this debate. Although there has been passionate advocacy by those who feel that the Israeli position is beyond dispute and by those who feel that the Arab case has by no means been given a fair hearing, whatever view has been taken, in many speeches there has been a recognition of the other side of the case. That is a matter for some hope. If we are to get progress not merely towards a cease-fire but towards a settlement, that is an absolute imperative.
  Most hon. and right hon. Members have declared where they stand. I suppose that I should do the same. Having visited Israel and the Arab States, like most people, I see faults and virtues in both. No one who goes to Israel can fail to be moved by the way in which that small State, starting from such humble beginnings, has built itself on a basis of democracy and Socialist practice into a community to which almost anyone would be proud to belong. I was animated by that feeling when I went there. Likewise, none of us can fail to understand and sympathise with the desire of the Arab people for self-respect, dignity and recognition of their claims.
  I thought that one of the encouraging features of the debate was the way in which, to take but one example, the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) spoke about the position of Israel. It could not have come from anyone better. Likewise it seems to me that if those who are passionate advocates of one side are willing not only to advocate that side, as he did, but also to put forward constructive views on the other side, perhaps out of this holocaust there is the prospect of some peace being achieved which will be lasting.

  531
  I come to the sentence used by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) which struck me as truer than almost anything else said today, and I repeat it for those who were not present at the time. My hon. Friend said that no peace can last if it is imposed. We have only to read our history books and to look at the lessons of the past to see how true that is. A peace will last only if it is acceptable to both sides. In this conflict that means that there can be no victor if there is to be a permanent peace and that there must be an agreed solution and a settlement.
  In view of that we ask the Foreign Secretary not merely to work for a ceasefire. We ask him to work for a cease-fire which will have a continuing momentum in carrying forward discussions so that, however long they may take, some kind of settlement acceptable to both sides can be achieved. If we do not do that, all that we shall secure, valuable though it may be, is a breathing space for some months, perhaps even for some years, but with the inevitable result that there will be an outbreak of war again in due course.
  The merits have been debated. One of my complaints against the Foreign Secretary is that by his decision on the embargo on the ammunition he has focused attention on the arms embargo itself. We have heard many speeches about the merits or otherwise of supplying the ammunition to the Israelis for use in their Centurion tanks. But the debate is about wider issues, some of which I have tried to outline already.
  Following the Foreign Secretary's decision, it was almost inevitable that the Israelis should feel that the decision was not even-handed. If they feel that, then that is important in the interests which the Foreign Secretary has to take into account. I have been asked about the position of the Labour Party on an arms embargo. I want to state it as clearly as I can and to interpret my own view of it, because a number of hon. Members have expressed their own views today. I speak for the Labour Party and probably for everyone in it, bearing in mind its deep elements of pacifism and the feeling that profits should not be made out of arms, when I say that the Labour movement
  532
  at its deepest levels is strenuously opposed to the sale of arms at all.
  It is not enough to say, "But you have done it". Perhaps it is worse to say that we are doing it to both sides. I do not contest that. But as a number of right hon. and hon. Members have pointed out, we have reached the position where the tanks have been supplied and the ammunition is at the dockside. As I said earlier in the week, had it not been for the prospect of another consignment being linked with it, it would have been on its way now.
  The position taken by the Labour Party on arms is that, just as we did in 1967, we believe that if it is possible to get a universal embargo that would be the best thing. If that is not possible, we believe that every case should be reviewed on its merits. Speaking only for myself, although I hope that I carry others with me, it is my view that although we should review every case on its merits, there is now only one case which has merit, and that relates to the supply of ammunition to Israel.
  People may quite properly say to me, "But what about Jordan?" This is a hypothetical case because Jordan is not at the moment directly involved face to face and is not under attack by Israel. Therefore, it is not pressing upon the Foreign Secretary to decide that issue. As he said, he wants to get back to day-by-day consideration case by case. If a moment arrived when Jordan should be subject to invasion—that might not necessarily be from Israel; it could be from other quarters, too—the Foreign Secretary would then be entitled to say that he will consider that case as it stands.
  I want to make my position clear. There is only one case that stands up. It stands up on merits. It stands up because of the Israeli position at this time. If we are considering cases on their merits, clearly there must be distinctions between countries and the cases that they make. Jordan might later have a case. I do not know. I do not think that Jordan has a case now. That is where I stand and where it is sensible to stand on the matter of arms supply.
  Mr. Mayhew: Will my right hon. Friend explain the statement made by

  533
  his right hon. Friend? I thought quite clearly that he wished the embargo to be raised not only on both Arab and Israeli arms supplies, but, when I asked him about it, on the 10,000 shells for Jordan and the 4,000 shells for Israel. I understood him to say that he was in favour of that when I put it to him.
  Mr. Callaghan: My right hon. Friend stated the position as I have just stated it—namely, that every case should be considered on its merits. That is the case that has to be made and that is the way that the House should consider it. I do not think that my right hon. Friend was trying to carry forward the argument that we should be having about it. The case I have made is perfectly valid. Israel should now be supplied with the ammunition for the various reasons that have been adduced throughout the whole of this debate. Any other case should be considered on its merits when it is made. I do not know that such a case has been made. If one were made it should be scrutinised. I do not at this moment believe that such a case exists by whoever it is made.
  I pass from that point to other questions that have arisen in the debate. We feel that the Foreign Secretary is correct in saying that he will try to work for a peaceful settlement that will recognise the needs of both sides. But the nub of the problem will be the statement that has been made by President Sadat about withdrawal from Sinai.
  This afternoon my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) said that he took the view that it would be unreasonable to expect Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories in advance of a settlement. I think that I have interpreted him fairly. I am glad that he said that, because that would be the view of most of us, whichever side we happen to take.
  That is not the position of President Sadat, as reported in The Times. In his open letter to President Nixon, which is reproduced here, dated Beirut, 16th October, President Sadat says that Egypt's "theory of peace" is based on five points, the second being:
  "We are ready to accept a ceasefire based on immediate and complete withdrawal of Israel to borders existing before June 5, 1967.
  534
  As soon as the withdrawal is complete we shall observe the ceasefire."
  There is only one interpretation that I can place on that: withdrawal first, cease-fire second, and negotiations third. That is the reverse of the position that my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East thought was reasonable. I agree with him, but I think there is a long way to go before his position and that of President Sadat will be reconciled on this matter.
  This is the nub of the problem. It seems totally unrealistic, whatever one's views about the merits, to expect the Israelis to withdraw in advance of negotiations and a cease-fire. I do not believe that any of us faced with that kind of situation could accept such a position.
  The Israelis are, therefore, standing where they are. Some would argue that they should go back to the Canal. It may be that the best solution, if a military stalemate builds up, as we are told by some military experts—Heaven knows, I am not an expert—would be for a cease-fire to take place on the lines which exist at present or wherever they may be when a cease-fire is agreed.
  Whatever the position is, one of the most difficult tasks facing the Foreign Secretary is to try to reconcile the statement of President Sadat with what can reasonably be expected from the Israeli Army, which has not been defeated in the field, and which is standing fast on territories and borders which it believes it rightfully holds for its own security. This is the beginning of the problem which has to be solved.
  Any steps which the right hon. Gentleman can take to find a formula to achieve a cease-fire on this basis will have support from this side of the House in general and from myself. We ask him to do what he can to get direct talks going. The question of voting tonight is a matter of judgment.
  We do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman will prejudice his position if he yields to considerations of honour, fair play and justice which could lead him to complete this contract with the Israelis for the ammunition. If 200 tons of ammunition is involved from Britain, and if the USA and the USSR have provided 5,000 tons apiece in the last few days, I cannot believe that whatever we

  535
  in this Chamber do would endanger any rôle he has to play—and I hope he will have one to play—as mediator.
  Although basically the Shadow Cabinet believes that the Foreign Secretary is wrong in this narrow aspect, if a vote is called we shall vote only on this narrow aspect. If the right hon. Gentleman could even now say that the embargo will be lifted and that the arms and ammunition will be supplied, we shall not feel it necessary at this stage to vote. No Opposition Whip will be imposed on anybody. Members of the Opposition will be free to vote in accordance with their conscience and judgment.
  I would like to feel that the same applied to hon. Members opposite. On an issue like this, clearly there is a considerable difference of view and judgment, and no one need attempt to hide it. This is an issue on which an individual Member should be free to express his view as best he thinks. That is our broad attitude throughout this matter.
  We welcome the Foreign Secretary's undertaking to keep in touch and to keep us informed as to what is taking place. We shall be available to him at any time he wishes. We welcome his intentions to follow up the issue of mediation. We believe he can follow it up perfectly well, even if he takes the course which our judgment convinces us is right.
  We also welcome the Foreign Secretary's statement about oil. We are in agreement on all these matters. There is the single matter of judgment on the question of supplying ammunition. If, when the right hon. Gentleman replies, he can give an assurance that not only will he review this problem but he will reverse his decision, we can avoid a Division tonight and we shall give him our support in his efforts to bring about a cease-fire and to find a permanent and just solution which will ensure not only the security of the Israeli boundary and territory but some solace and a final settlement for the Palestinian refugees who have suffered so much during the years of occupation.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance? At ten o'clock we may be called upon to vote. We have been debating a serious issue, and I have
  536
  in my hand a copy of what has appeared on the tape, which states that a private meeting of the Tory Party has been taking place at which secret information has been given by the Prime Minister—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. That cannot conceivably be a matter for me.
  Mr. Lewis: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, until you have heard my point surely you are not in a position to rule on it. If information is available which could and should have been given to the House, should not the Prime Minister have given it to the House and not to a private meeting upstairs? We are supposed to take a decision, but there is information of which the right hon. Gentleman has not apprised us.
  Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.
  9.41 p.m.
  Sir Alec Douglas-Home: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and by leave of the House, I should like to say a few words.
  It was clear even before the start of the debate that emotions would run deep and that hon. Members would express their passionate feelings. That is as it should be. No one listening to the debate could doubt the sincerity of the widely-held, diverse views which have been expressed. No one could doubt the sincerity of the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) and the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman), who passionately opposed the view which I had advanced. They put their case extremely moderately and in a way about which I could not possibly complain.
  Nor has there been any absence of appreciation of the magnitude of the issues involved. We have to work for a cease-fire; but a cease-fire is not enough. That point was stressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). If we have a ceasefire, of which we have had many in the last few years, everything will simply happen all over again, with its dreary monotony and danger. A cease-fire must be followed by a real peace. It is no good unless it is a prelude to a real peace.

  537
  I should like to say a few words about one aspect of the broad canvas against which the debate has taken place. The Leader of the Liberal Party called attention to the strategic purpose of the Soviet Union in the Gulf. He asked me whether I had forgotten it. With deep respect, I have been calling attention to it for a very long time and all too few have listened. I have also been acutely aware that the only thing which enabled the Russians to be champions of the Arab cause was the existence of the Israel-Arab war. That, and that alone, is why they are able to pose today as the champions of the Arabs, because Arab instincts are antagonistic to Communism.
  Over the past three years I have tried to convince the Arab countries that there are other countries to which they can look, which are sympathetic about their development and about their desire to be independent, and which understand, that there is a threat to their security as well as the other way round. The purpose of my approaches to the Arab Governments has been not to back their fight against Israel, but the very opposite—to convince them that a policy of seeking to annihilate the State of Israel is futile and wrong and that there must be a negotiated peace which guarantees Israel's security and theirs.
  I believe that the statements by President Sadat and the King of Jordan—and I hope that Syria will soon join in them—that they will make peace with the State of Israel is evidence that we have had some success, because this is a very different attitude from their attitude three years ago.
  To speak of policy is really no good if it takes the form of unqualified support for either Israelis or Arabs. The purpose must be to achieve a recognition by each that force cannot pay and that their security and prosperity lie in living in peace with each other—an extraordinarily difficult task in which every diplomat everywhere has failed up to now, including Dr. Jarring and the Secretary-General of the United Nations. But we must not accept failure. We must not be fatalistic in this respect.
  But I now believe, although one may be disproved, that at long last Israel is beginning to realise that there may be a better way of guaranteeing her security than by her own strength—I am not sure
  538
  about this, but I think it is likely—and that the Arabs may be beginning to realise that they cannot any longer tenably hold their position and say that their object is to annihilate the State of Israel; that they are at least accepting that they have to live in peace with the State of Israel and that that will pay. That is the background against which we have held our debate.
  I come now to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. I think that the main difference—I do not want to harp on this, because we have debated it fairly fully—between 1967 and now is this. In 1967 a continuing embargo would have worked quickly and to the disadvantage of Israel, and if that war had been prolonged the disadvantage to Israel would have been very severe. I shall leave Jordan out of the argument, although I would correct the right hon. Gentleman and point out that the Jordanian army was in an armoured battle yesterday in which it inflicted casualties and suffered casualties. It has been in the battle and could very easily get back into the battle again. I think that the right hon. Gentleman—
  Mr. Callaghan: Jordan was not being attacked.
  Sir Alec Douglas-Home: But Jordan did, I am afraid, make an attack and was repulsed and, therefore, suffered casualties.
  But there is also powerful weaponry which has been ordered by Egypt, and which was due to go to Egypt on exactly the same terms of contract as the contract with Israel. On the whole, the orders that Jordan and Egypt together had placed would, as I said this afternoon, have tipped the scales against Israel. The United States and the Russians are clearly continuing to supply both sides. Our supplies are marginal. Our supplies were not so marginal in 1967 and, as I said, if the war had continued and if the supplies had not continued they would have made a great difference to Israel.
  The Leader of the Opposition stated his policy on the embargo, and the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) has tried again to enlighten us. I am not sure how far he has succeeded. Was he saying that existing contracts which have been signed should be fulfilled and that any new orders should be scrutinised in the normal way?

  539
  Or was he saying that everything which is now in the pipeline, including existing contracts, should be scrutinised?
  There is a big difference here, as the House will realise. If the right hon. Gentleman was saying that all contracts should be rescrutinised now, that would mean that the Government could supply everything to Israel and nothing to any of the Arab States—that was what he seemed to be suggesting—and it would be within the Government's discretion to make up their own minds on this matter. On the other hand, if the right hon. Gentleman believes that existing contracts should be fulfilled—this was, I thought, the line of the Leader of the Opposition—it inevitably follows that not only should we supply Israel but we should also supply considerable quantities both to Egypt and to Jordan: in other words, the 10,000 rounds of ammunition to Jordan and the 4,000 rounds to Israel. I do not ask the two right hon. Gentlemen to clarify that point any further but, if they do not mind my saying so, there is a difference between the two.
  The Leader of the Opposition said that his administration had given the Israeli Government an undertaking that, if T62 tanks were delivered by the Russians to the Arabs, the British Government would supply Chieftains to Israel. What undertakings the right hon. Gentleman may have given to other Governments is within his knowledge only. We have no access to such knowledge, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, and perfectly properly so. This is a constitutional matter, and we have no knowledge of the deal done by the right hon. Gentleman.
  The right hon. Gentleman has told me what happened, but I can tell him that since the election in 1970 the Israeli Government have never made any request for Chieftain tanks, and I can tell him why. It is because, having been refused Chieftain tanks, the Israelis went for American tanks and gave up the idea of the Chieftain. I think that that is the correct interpretation. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will not imply—he has no right to imply—that Her Majesty's Government have in some way defaulted on an obligation which his administration may have undertaken with the Government of Israel.
  540
  This afternoon I spoke only briefly about oil. There are two questions which the right hon. Gentleman might fairly say face the Western world, price and cutoff. The risk of serious damage to Western Europe by action taken in an atmosphere of emotion, charged and overflowing, is obvious. We must try to be in a position to bring sanity and comprehension to the Arabs about where their real interests lie in this matter, and their interest cannot he to destroy the economy of Western Europe.
  Quite a lot has been said this afternoon about contracts. There must be occasions, I am afraid, when wider considerations override contracts. I remember my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) making the most passionate plea that humanity should override contracts in the context of Biafra. I remember that argument very well. There must, I am afraid, be occasions when, in the wider interest, contracts must be overridden.
  All these licences have in them provision for modification or cancellation, but the overriding interest now is to stop this war. The only phrase of what I said this afternoon that I shall repeat is that our overriding purpose must be to stop the war, not to stoke it. I cannot see how supplying arms to both sides does anything but stoke the war. British Governments have taken that view on at least 11 occasions since 1945 and applied temporary embargoes, and I believe that this is such an occasion.
  Mr. Arthur Latham: Is it not reasonable to say that arms can be supplied only on the assumption that they may be used Is it not therefore true, in terms of principle, that there can be only two consistent decisions: first, that one is in favour of supplying arms before the outbreak of hostilities and afterwards; and secondly, that one is opposed on principle to supplying arms both before and after the outbreak of hostilities?
  Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The hon. Gentleman cannot say that his party is opposed in principle to the sale of arms, because the Labour administration appointed the arms salesman. That is not a tenable position.

  541
  Peace making must take preference over the supply of marginal quantities of arms to both sides. I repeat to the House that we shall keep the most vigilant watch on the state of the battle. The destruction of Israel could not be tolerated. This is a commitment of the whole Western world.
  Some hon. Members have suggested a total loss of trust between the Israeli Government and ourselves. I can only say to the House that almost every day we are in the closest contact and discussion with the Israeli Government in a constructive dialogue—
  Mr. Thorpe: And the Russians?
  Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The right hon. Gentleman, I hope, is not arguing now that we should not be in dialogue with the Russians or the Israelis, or indeed anybody else.
  Mr. Thorpe: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman wants to be fair. He is suggesting that Anglo-Israeli relations are based on complete trust because he is in daily contact with the Israelis. He also told us he is in almost daily contact with the Russians. Has he total trust in them as well?
  Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I said that it has been suggested that we were not in a position where we had easy relations with Israel. This is not true. We are having them daily—every day. I think that the right hon. Gentleman probably did not mean to suggest what he clearly was suggesting to the House by his first intervention while still sitting down. Dialogue must be a good thing in all the circumstances. I am glad that he assents.
  I cannot say to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff. South-East that I will modify my policy now or in
  a fixed number of days. That is not the way international affairs of this complexity and magnitude can be conducted. The Soviet Union, the United States, we ourselves, the Europeans, are all making very complicated diplomatic contacts at this moment trying to arrange the basis on which a cease-fire and, following the cease-fire, a peace conference can be built.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: In 1967 when talks were going on for a cease-fire and were nearer to a case-fire than now, we ended our 24-hour embargo with the right hon. Gentleman's full assent. He said it was right. Will lie now tell us why it is not right?
  Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I gave it my full assent because the circumstances were different. It was right to do it at the time. Whenever I could, in Opposition, I tried to help the Government of the day.
  I renew the offer that I made earlier this afternoon. I will keep in touch with the right hon. Gentleman. I will from day to day—and as I said, from hour to hour—see whether any review of our policy is justified, but I cannot go further than that. We must give priority to the peace-making efforts of not only ourselves but America and the Soviet Union as well. So I renew the offer I made this afternoon, but I cannot go further. I will return to the House immediately I can see how the peace-making opportunities are developing and give the Government's guidance as to how it seems to us wise to proceed.
  Question put, That this House do now adjourn:—
  The House divided: Ayes, 175, Noes 251.

  Division No. 212.

  AYES

  [10.0 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

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

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Albu, Austen

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

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

  Archer, Poter (Rowley Regis)

  Cant, R. B.

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Carter, Ray (Birmingha'm, Northfield)

  Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

  Ashley, Jack

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Atkinson, Norman

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Austick, David

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Barnes, Michael

  Cohen, Stanley

  Edelman, Maurice

  Barnelt, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Ellis, Tom

  Beaney, Alan

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Fidler, Michael

  Bishop, E. S

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Dalyell, Tam

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

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Davidson, Arthur

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

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

  Freeson, Reginald

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Probert, Arthur

  Freud, Clement

  Lipton, Marcus

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Galpern, Sir Meyer

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Richard, Ivor

  Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Roberts, Rt.Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Golding, John

  McBride, Neil

  Rose, Paul B.

  Goodhart, Philip

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Gorst, John

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Sandelson, Neville

  Gourlay, Harry

  Maginnis, John E.

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

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

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

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Marsden, F.

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Hamling, William

  Mendelson, John

  Silverman, Julius

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Soref, Harold

  Hardy, Peter

  Milne, Edward

  Stallard, A. W.

  Harper, Joseph

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

  Steel, David

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Money, Ernie

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Hattersley, Roy

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Summerskil, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Horam, John

  Moyle, Roland

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Tope, Graham

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Torney, Tom

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Ogden, Eric

  Tuck, Raphael

  Hunter, Adam

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Varley, Eric G.

  Iremonger, T. L.

  O'Malley, Brian

  Wainwright, Edwin

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

  Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

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

  Janner, Greville

  Oram, Bert

  Weitzman, David

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena

  Orbach, Maurice

  Wellbeloved, James

  Jessel, Toby

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  John, Brynmor

  Paget, R. T.

  Whitlock, William

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

  Paisley, Rev. Ian

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

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

  Pardoe, John

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Judd, Frank

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Pavitt, Laurie

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Mr. Donald Coleman and

  Leonard, Dick

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Mr. James A. Dunn

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Price, William (Rugby)

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Carlisle, Mark

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Channon, Paul

  Fortescue, Tim

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Foster, Sir John

  Astor, John

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Fowler, Norman

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Fox, Marcus

  Awdry, Daniel

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Cockeram, Eric

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord

  Conlan, Bernard

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Batsford, Brian

  Cooke, Robert

  Goodhew, Victor

  Baxter, William

  Coombs, Derek

  Gower, Raymond

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Bell, Ronald

  Costain, A. P.

  Gray, Hamish

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Crouch, David

  Green, Alan

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Crowder, F. P.

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Benyon, W.

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Grylls, Michael

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Dean, Paul

  Gummer, J. Selwyn

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Biffen, John

  Dixon, Piers

  Hall, Sir John (Wycombe)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Blaker, Peter

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Body, Richard

  Drayson, G. B.

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Boscawen, Hn. Robert

  Driberg, Tom

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Bray, Ronald

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Hawkins, Paul

  Brewis, John

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

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Emery, Peter

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Eyre, Reginald

  Heseltine, Michael

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Farr, John

  Hicks, Robert

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

  Faulds, Andrew

  Higgins, Terence L

  Buck, Antony

  Fell, Anthony

  Hiley, Joseph

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Holland, Philip

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Holt, Miss Mary

  544

  545

  Hordern, Peter

  Maudling, Rt Hn. Reginald

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Mawby, Ray

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Maxwell-Hyslop. R. J.

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

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Speed, Keith

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Spence, John

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Sproat, lain

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Hunt, John

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Moate, Roger

  Stokes, John

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Stott, Roger

  James, David

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Sutcliffe, John

  Jenkin, Rt. Hn. Patrick (Woodford)

  More, Jasper

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Morrison, Charles

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Neave, Airey

  Tebbit, Norman

  Jopling, Michael

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Temple, John M.

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Nott, John

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Onslow, Cranley

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

  Osborn, John

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

  Kelley, Richard

  Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Peer, Sir John

  Tilney, Sir John

  Kimball, Marcus

  Percival, Ian

  Tinn, James

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Trew, Peter

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Kitson, Timothy

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Prior, Rt. Hn J. M. L.

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Knox, David

  Proundfoot, Wilfred

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Lane, David

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Waddington, David

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Raison, Timothy

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Lawson, George

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Wall, Patrick

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Redmond, Robert

  Wallers, Dennis

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

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Ward, Dame Irene

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

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Watkins, David

  Longden, Sir Gilbert

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Loveridge, John

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Luce, R. N.

  Ridsdale, Julian

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  McGuire, Michael

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  McLaren, Martin

  Royle, Anthony

  Wilkinson, John

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Winterton, Nicholas

  McMaster, Stanley

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

  Woodnutt, Mark

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Madel, David

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Younger, Hn. George

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Marten, Nell

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Mr. Walter Clegg and

  Mather, Carol

  Shersby, Michael

  Mr. Oscar Murton

  Question accordingly negatived.

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

  HOSPITAL (SOMERSET)
  10.13 p.m.
  Mr. Edward du Cann: I am most grateful for the devoted support of right hon. and hon. Members. I appreciate that what I have to say is of more local interest. I am concerned to complain as strongly as I can about the delay in the provision of a new general hospital for Somerset at Lyngford on the Bridgwater side of Taunton. It is a delay which I regard as unnecessary, disappointing in the extreme and cruel in its effects. I shall put specific requests to Ministers arising out of the matter.
  I am grateful for the support and interest of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King) and my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin). They and our constituents share my deep concern about the matter. I appreciate too the presence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. It is not unprecedented for a Secretary of State to answer an Adjournment debate. However, my right hon. Friend's interest in the matter is especially appreciated. Perhaps his presence underlines the seriousness of the matter. He surely knows the concern which we all feel.
  Of all the specific tasks which I set myself to realise when I was elected the Member for Taunton in 1956, this has proved to be by far and away the most intractable. It is worth reciting part of the history. I was pressing the matter with the planners before 1962. In that year, as my right hon. Friend will know, we had the Government's hospital plan. In 1966, I led a deputation to the Ministry and in that year the plan was revised. In October 1970, we had an announcement that construction would start in 1975–76. I wonder whether we would have got that far if we had not put on so much pressure over the years. I omit all reference to the letters, personal representations and the like, of which my right hon. Friend is aware.
  548
  Then, on 11th March 1971, we had a debate in this House in which my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater joined. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who is good enough to be here also, kindly said then:
  "This is not by any means the first time that my right hon. Friend has presented a case for the early provision of a new hospital for the area. He has been active in the matter for a great many years."
  Necessary as that pressure has been and is, I regret the need for it at all.
  What is our hospital in Taunton? The Taunton hospital service is provided in four different buildings in the town, with departments divided—Trinity for geriatrics, chest medicine at Cheddon Road, and the two main branches at Musgrove Park, a temporary wartime building, inconvenient and dispersed, and at East Reach, built in 1809, which is 164 years ago, old and inadequate. How right was my hon. Friend when he said in that debate in 1971:
  "We all agree that there is a need for a new hospital to serve the Taunton area." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th March 1971; Vol. 813, c. 764 and 761.]
  It is sufficient criticism of these places to say that, in addition to the ordinary maintenance expenditure, which is necessarily higher in the case of old buildings than it otherwise might be in the case of more modern places, additional capital expenditure on essential facilities, such as engineering renewals, the modernisation of the ophthalmic and orthopaedic theatres and so on, was authorised at the beginning of 1971–72 amounting to at least £500,000.
  A few days ago my right hon. Friend was in Taunton—and how much his presence was appreciated. He said:
  "I am the biggest slum landlord in the country."
  This is his inheritance, not his fault. Our social services probably owe more to him for their development and maintenance than to almost any one of his predecessors. But, alas, what he said was true, and Taunton is a bad example. Yet my right hon. Friend knows that we have in Taunton as high and as devoted a standard of care and service in our hospitals as anywhere in England or in Somerset itself—and I speak of what I know, since my family have benefited from these services and are grateful.
  The Secretary of State for Social Services (Sir Keith Joseph)indicated assent.
  Mr. du Cann: It is good to see my right hon. Friend, with his special knowledge, acknowledging that point.
  I have no hesitation in saying that instead of patching up buildings not fit to serve as hospitals, taxpayers' money could be better applied. Working in poor conditions is a profound discouragement to those who are obliged to do so. The Bridgwater and Taunton constituencies perhaps take in together a catchment area of some 250,000 souls who inevitably receive a lower quality of service than is their reasonable and legitimate expectation. We have said this before. It is still true today.
  Now what is the position about the new district general hospital? There are two main areas of change of plan, newly announced. First, when planning started in 1971 the target starting date for construction was April 1975. It is now estimated to be October 1976—in other words, a further 17 months delay. This is unacceptable to us and I ask my right hon. Friend to see that the original starting date is maintained.
  Second, the original programme was in three phases. Phase I would provide the bulk of the acute services and 676 beds; phase 2 would provide the balance of 226 acute beds; phase 3 would provide 283 community and mental handicap beds, the total bed complement thus being 1,185.
  In summary and in simple language, the board's original proposal was to build in one place a 676-bed hospital with full accident and emergency, out-patient, day hospital, diagnostic and treatment facilities, in one building which would centralise all the services on one side. It would enable a number of existing hospitals to be closed.
  Now it is proposed to divide phase 1 into two sub-phases of 344 and 322 beds respectively. Phase 3 is perhaps to be abandoned and 250 beds to be provided at Musgrove Park. The revised total bed complement of the new hospital will be 937. This change in plan is also unacceptable to us and I ask my right hon. Friend to reject these proposals out of hand. I will say plainly why. The original phase 1 comprised a viable unit for all acute medicine and surgery and
  550
  would allow for major life-saving and supporting services to be provided in a single building with all the convenience and economy that implies, in stark contrast to the situation today with our hospitals so divided.
  Now with the new proposals to divide phase 1, with half the beds in one centre and half in another, there will be extra expense in terms of money and manpower and difficulty of administration. It may even prove impossible to provide life-saving and supporting services in both centres.
  The present revised proposals are not only unsatisfactory in the way I have described. Under them as presently stated we have no guarantee that the second half of phase 1 will follow promptly upon the first. If it does it will still be 10 to 15 years from now before a fully viable entity will be available. If no undertaking to that effect is given, if there is a 10-year gap, I do not want to exaggerate, but it is possible that it will he 20 to 25 years before the unit is complete.
  Thus, as plans stand, Somerset will be deprived of a full district hospital for a further 10 to 25 years, and perhaps between 30 to 40 years since I first interested myself in this matter. My right hon. Friend will therefore understand my concern. I live locally, as do both my hon. Friends. Some of my constituents have even longer memories. The need for a new major hospital was recognised before the war. The Lyngford site was purchased by the then hospital board of governors in 1943 for a new Taunton and Somerset hospital which it was proposed to build immediately after the war. What an irony it is—and I speak as a supporter of the National Health Service—that the nationalisation of medicine has in fact deprived us of a new hospital.
  The present situation is a discouragement to consultants, medical staff, doctors and nurses and all working in the hospital. It is bound to affect recruitment and this we can ill afford. Nor can we afford the waste of public money involved. Phasing will inevitably add to the overall costs in terms of capital and running expenses. I want to emphasise the practical difficulties. Medical staff will be hard pressed if there are two

  551
  acute hospitals. Nursing supervision, because of the potential split in services between Musgrove Park and Lyngford, will be more difficult. Neither the complexities of modern medicine nor the thinness of our resources should be forgotten.
  Above all it is people we are talking about—our constituents. It is the patients who will suffer. The life-saving problem, as I hope I have indicated, has existed for many years. I had hoped that we were in sight of ending it. It is a bit of a disappointment to find that we are not.
  It is people that count. The quarterly returns of the waiting list as at 30th September 1973 showed that 2,000 people were awaiting surgery and orthopaedics. Of that number 800 were waiting up to a year, 400 more than a year and over 200 were waiting two years. A further 200 were waiting more than three years. I leave it to the House to imagine the personal anxieties involved in each individual case for
  "Hope deferred maketh the heart sick."
  It is true that the regional hospital board, soon to become the area board, has responsibility for the allocation of funds and the decision on priorities as to expenditure in this or that location. But it can allocate only what the Government allow.
  There is a desperate need—I hope that what I have said has shown that. Indeed, I believe it to have been acknowledged by what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend have said. I beg my right hon. Friend to see that our need is satisfied without further delay.
  10.25 p.m.
  Mr. Tom King: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) for the opportunity to add my voice to his plea about the Lyngford hospital. My interest is slightly different from that of my right hon. Friend. Although the hospital will be sited within his constituency, it will serve also my constituents.
  There is a particular reason why my constituents feel aggrieved. The whole basis of the organisation in Somerset and in my constituency has been to
  552
  centralise health services and to justify some diminution of the services in my constituency on the grounds that the services could be better rendered centrally in the main Taunton area. If the hospitals in my constituency are to have their services reduced, the least they expect is that the corollary of this argument for centralisation will be honoured and that there will be by that same token much better services centralised in a new district hospital.
  More than two years ago in a debate on this subject I said that when by reason of a particular complaint or need patients were transferred to Taunton they had an unenviable choice between mid-Georgian and "World War 2 temporary" in hospital provision. My constituents feel most strongly about this.
  I am grateful to the Secretary of State for being here. My right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton has paid a tribute to him which I totally endorse. The Secretary of State's presence is a recognition of the concern which we share.
  I am glad that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is also here. We had an Adjournment debate on this subject on 11th March 1971, and I am surprised that it is necessary to return to this subject. We voiced our concern about the hospital and we received perfectly satisfactory assurances from the Minister on that occasion. My hon. Friend said that hospitals take several years to plan and several further years to build, but he was able to assure us that the planning of the hospital was in a formative stage. He went on to say that the project team was urgently working out plans for the new hospital and hoped that this news would give a welcome assurance to the people in the area which the new hospital would serve. In the light of the latest news of a possible delay, where is that assurance now, and how welcome can it be?
  I remember the words of the last line of Shaw's St. Joan:
  "How long, O Lord, how long?"
  If there is any truth in the rumour of a further delay that will be far too long. It is a delay which cannot be accepted. No one who is aware of the facilities available in the Taunton area can contemplate the sort of delay that my right

  553
  hon. Friend the Member for Taunton envisages.
  I enter the strongest plea with my right hon. Friend. This is a matter of paramount importance. If the regional hospital board cannot raise the necessary resources for this matter of the highest priority I ask my right hon. Friend for special assistance from him and his Department.
  10.30 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Social Services (Sir Keith Joseph): I should like to start by paying tribute to the unremitting assiduity and vigour of my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) in the interests of his constituents.
  While I have complete confidence in the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison), who has probably answered 50 or 60 Adjournment debates in this Parliament, I thought I should break my duck regarding Adjournment debates and answer my very first one in 3¼ years in office. I do so for two reasons: first, out of respect for my right hon. Friend and, secondly, because it is right that I should take the blame firmly for the delays which are occurring not only in Taunton, but in other parts of the country.
  I assure my right hon. Friend that no one in my Department disputes the need for a new district general hospital at Taunton. He does not have to argue the need. In this respect I should like to echo his tribute to the staff who have served, are serving, and, I am sure, will continue to serve, the public devotedly in buildings which, to put it mildly, are less than convenient.
  The House will be aware that there was no hospital building for 15 years after the war. Rightly or wrongly, successive Governments put their priority on building roads, factories, houses and schools.
  When we started the hospital building programme again in 1962 not only had we to rebuild museum hospitals all over the country, but we had to catch up with the growth in population and try to make good the neglect of generations regarding the needs of the growing numbers of elderly, mentally ill, mentally handicapped and physically disabled.
  554
  That is the background against which we now have to view the hospital building programme.
  I could say to my right hon. Friend, in truth, that under this Government the hospital building programme has increased substantially in real terms. That would be the truth. However, it may be no comfort to him, because it has not yet produced a new hospital for Taunton.
  I could say to my right hon. Friend, in truth, that the share of the growing hospital building programme going to the South-West region has also increased. That would be true, but that again would be no comfort to him because that has not yet produced a new hospital for Taunton.
  The size of the total hospital building programme is my responsibility within the Government. The regional hospital board—from April, the regional health authority—has to use the money allocated to the best of its ability. It is its invidious job to choose the sequence of building operations.
  In the region there are a number of district general hospitals in course of building. It is hoped that the Barnstaple district general hospital will soon start. Consideration is being given to a new district general hospital in Plymouth. I note the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin). Consideration is being given to a new district general hospital at Weston-super-Mare.
  It is the opinion of the regional hospital board that those areas, for a combination of reasons associated with the vintage of the buildings that respectively serve the different population centres, have the edge on Taunton when it comes to priority. It is infuriating for my right hon. Friend and his constituents that that should be so. They should blame me for the total size of the cake. But they should, I think, respect the difficulty of the task of the regional hospital board. Let them criticise it and argue with it, but let them recognise that the blame lies with me.
  My right hon. Friend is perfectly entitled to criticise the length of the waiting lists. Alas, waiting lists are long in many parts of the country. This situation is unrelated to private accommodation or to the vintage of the buildings. The

  555
  Government, I hope with the help of the medical profession, are about to give advice on how waiting lists can be cut.
  My right hon. Friend allowed himself to suggest that perhaps it was shortsighted to spend scarce resources on what he was pleased to call patching, but the patching to which he referred is the substantial provision of modern departments—admittedly in old shells—the provision of new services—though I admit not enough—and the provision of new facilities. Since we cannot at present expect to have the resources to rebuild everywhere simultaneously, we have to make tolerable life and working conditions in the hospitals which still have a number of years before them. I take some comfort from the fact that over the last years money to the tune of seven figures has been spent in improving working conditions at Taunton.
  My right hon. Friend also criticised the proposal of the regional hospital board to alter the phasing so as to have a series of slightly smaller contracts—more numerous, but smaller—than the original proposal. This is because the recent rise in building costs and the current inflation have made building contractors hesistant to take on large, long phases of contracts. The board considers that it will get more reasonable tenders if it breaks up the complete new hospital into a greater number of rather smaller contracts. This is done in order to tackle the building more quickly than might otherwise be the case.
  The need in the hospital building programme, as in so much else, is to increase the growth rate of this country so that we have more resources. Provided our legislation is correct, we can have growth
  556
  virtually without tears, and if we have more growth we can perhaps find more resources for many things, including more hospital building. I sometimes envy my opposite number in Japan who, with his colleagues, is dealing with the disposal of a 12 per cent. annual growth rate, when we had a 2 per cent. rate in the 'sixties, a 5 per cent. rate last year, and a rate this year of perhaps 3 per cent. or 4 per cent. Growth is the ally of the social and hospital services.
  All this, I say again, can be no great comfort to my right hon. Friend, and I can give him no absolute assurance on date. But I can tell him that, after the hospitals I have mentioned, Taunton, so far as I understand it from the regional hospital board's intentions, comes next. It will be our intention, for the sake of the people of Taunton and for the sake of placating my formidable right hon. Friend, to make that date as early as possible, and I hope that he will be an ally in helping to get the growth rate that we need so that we can do it more quickly.
  In the meantime, I end as I began by paying tribute to those who work in the hospital services at Tauton, by extending to them my recognition of the difficulty of their tasks, and by explaining to them that scores of other hospitals are sharing their difficulties. The only reason why other hospitals are being rebuilt earlier is that the conditions in them are marginally, or much, worse. I regret that I cannot give my right hon. Friend a more comforting answer, but at least he has had a straightforward and frank reply.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to Eleven o'clock.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Prices
  Prices
  Icelandic Fisheries
  Icelandic Fisheries
  Animals (Export)
  Animals (Export)
  Lard Imports
  Lard Imports
  Beer
  Beer
  Cheese (Import Levy)
  Cheese (Import Levy)
  Sea Bed Resources
  Sea Bed Resources
  Pest Control
  Pest Control
  Food and Feeding Stuff Imports
  Food and Feeding Stuff Imports
  Grain Harvest
  Grain Harvest
  International Sugar Agreement
  International Sugar Agreement
  Brucellosis Reactor Cattle (Compensation)
  Brucellosis Reactor Cattle (Compensation)
  Straw Burning
  Straw Burning
  Milk (EEC Regulations)
  Milk (EEC Regulations)
  Horticulture Improvement Scheme
  Horticulture Improvement Scheme
  Tenanted Land
  Tenanted Land
  Commonwealth Sugar
  Commonwealth Sugar
  Production Costs
  Production Costs
  Cane Sugar Refining
  Cane Sugar Refining
  New Fish Quay (North Shields)
  New Fish Quay (North Shields)
  Orthophenylphenol
  Orthophenylphenol
  Fish Prices
  Fish Prices
  Butter Stocks
  Butter Stocks
  Dressed Poultry
  Dressed Poultry
  Government Veterinary Service
  Government Veterinary Service
NATIONAL FINANCE
  £ Sterling (Value)
  £ Sterling (Value)
  Property Incomes
  Property Incomes
  Money Supply
  Money Supply
  Household Food Consumption
  Household Food Consumption
  Charities (Taxation)
  Charities (Taxation)
  Traders (Government Work)
  Traders (Government Work)
  Price Increases
  Price Increases
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Trade Union Subscriptions
  Trade Union Subscriptions
  Dividends
  Dividends
  Savings
  Savings
  Fixed Capital Formation
  Fixed Capital Formation
  Mortgage Interest
  Mortgage Interest
  Profits
  Profits
  Industrial Products
  Industrial Products
  Tax Evasion (Outworkers)
  Tax Evasion (Outworkers)
  "Operating Surplus"
  "Operating Surplus"
  Income Distribution
  Income Distribution
  Pensioners (Income Tax)
  Pensioners (Income Tax)
  Investment Income Surcharge
  Investment Income Surcharge
  Life Assurance (Tax Relief)
  Life Assurance (Tax Relief)
  Capital Gains and Estate Duty
  Capital Gains and Estate Duty
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Extradition (Republic of Ireland)
  Extradition (Republic of Ireland)
  Civic Catering Establishments (Licensing)
  Civic Catering Establishments (Licensing)
  Taxi Trade
  Taxi Trade
  Prisoners (Consultations with Solicitors)
  Prisoners (Consultations with Solicitors)
  Immigrants (Referee Status)
  Immigrants (Referee Status)
  Immigrants (Repatriation)
  Immigrants (Repatriation)
  Langley Oil Depot (Fire)
  Langley Oil Depot (Fire)
  Fire Precautions
  Fire Precautions
  Royal Commission on the Constitution
  Royal Commission on the Constitution
  Miss Hilary Creek
  Miss Hilary Creek
  Prison Officers
  Prison Officers
  Corn Stubble Burning
  Corn Stubble Burning
  Deodorants
  Deodorants
  Marriages of Convenience
  Marriages of Convenience
  Police (Recruitment)
  Police (Recruitment)
  Metropolitan Police (Pay)
  Metropolitan Police (Pay)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Extradition
  Extradition
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Police Authority
  Police Authority
  Dietetics
  Dietetics
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Regional Employment Premium (Wales)
  Regional Employment Premium (Wales)
  Cattle Exports
  Cattle Exports
  Concorde
  Concorde
  Industrial Concentration Ratios
  Industrial Concentration Ratios
  Girvan
  Girvan
  Steel Supplies (Northern Ireland)
  Steel Supplies (Northern Ireland)
  Aircraft Noise (Compensation)
  Aircraft Noise (Compensation)
  Textiles and Footwear (Preference Schemes)
  Textiles and Footwear (Preference Schemes)
  Electricity Generation (Nuclear Plants)
  Electricity Generation (Nuclear Plants)
  Rocket Launcher Development
  Rocket Launcher Development
  FOOD PRICES (MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  FOOD PRICES (MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  CBI AND TUC (TALKS)
  CBI AND TUC (TALKS)
  PRIME MINISTER (OFFICIAL VISITS)
  PRIME MINISTER (OFFICIAL VISITS)
  COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' CONFERENCE
  COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' CONFERENCE
  MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
  BLACKPOOL
  BLACKPOOL
  SMALL BUSINESSES
  SMALL BUSINESSES
  LORD ROTHSCHILD (SPEECH)
  LORD ROTHSCHILD (SPEECH)
  INDONESIA
  INDONESIA
  FEEDSTOCKS (COST)
  FEEDSTOCKS (COST)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Pay
  Pay
  Government Offices (Dispersal)
  Government Offices (Dispersal)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Teachers (Housing)
  Teachers (Housing)
ENVIRONMENT
  Heathrow and Maplin (Rail Links)
  Heathrow and Maplin (Rail Links)
  Rent Rebates and Allowances
  Rent Rebates and Allowances
  Housing (Insulation)
  Housing (Insulation)
  Toll Bridges and Tunnels
  Toll Bridges and Tunnels
  Sewage Discharge
  Sewage Discharge
  Pedestrian Footbridges
  Pedestrian Footbridges
  Planning Applications (Residential Property)
  Planning Applications (Residential Property)
  Langley Oil Depot (Explosion)
  Langley Oil Depot (Explosion)
  Railway Travel Concessions
  Railway Travel Concessions
EMPLOYMENT
  Industrial Relations Act
  Industrial Relations Act
  School Leaving Age
  School Leaving Age
  Outworkers
  Outworkers
  Transfer Scheme
  Transfer Scheme
DEFENCE
  Rhodesia (Service Personnel)
  Rhodesia (Service Personnel)
  Low-flying Aircraft
  Low-flying Aircraft
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Mr. David John Flippance
  Mr. David John Flippance
  Middle East
  Middle East
  Republic of Ireland (Extradition)
  Republic of Ireland (Extradition)
SCOTLAND
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Housing)
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Housing)
  Fire Services
  Fire Services
  Town and Country Planning (Oil Industry)
  Town and Country Planning (Oil Industry)
  Summary Courts
  Summary Courts
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Alcoholics
  Alcoholics
  Gas and Electricity (Disconnection)
  Gas and Electricity (Disconnection)
  Benefits (Overpayments and Fraudulent Claims)
  Benefits (Overpayments and Fraudulent Claims)
  Spain (Reciprocity)
  Spain (Reciprocity)
  Christmas Bonus
  Christmas Bonus
  National Insurance Contributions (Outworkers)
  National Insurance Contributions (Outworkers)
  Chemists (All-night Service)
  Chemists (All-night Service)
  Family Allowances
  Family Allowances
  Holiday Centres for Children
  Holiday Centres for Children
  One-Parent Families (Report)
  One-Parent Families (Report)
  Retirement and Invalidity Pensions
  Retirement and Invalidity Pensions
  Pneumoconiosis and Byssinosis
  Pneumoconiosis and Byssinosis
WALES
  Sewerage Schemes
  Sewerage Schemes
  Roads
  Roads
  Junior School (Llangollen)
  Junior School (Llangollen)
  Mentally Handicapped Children (Residential Services)
  Mentally Handicapped Children (Residential Services)

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Bristol):
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Lord Melchett—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

EAST GERMANY AND NAZI VICTIMS' COMPENSATION
LORD JANNER: 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 steps have been taken and are to be taken to obtain compensation from the German Democratic Republic for material losses sustained by the victims of Nazi persecution in East Germany.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, we raised the question of compensation for victims of Nazi persecution during talks held earlier this year on the establishment of diplomatic relations. It was agreed then that each Government would be entitled in subsequent negotiations to raise any questions it wished relating to claims. We have recently proposed to the Government of the German Democratic Republic that there should be a preliminary round of talks on the whole range of claims questions in the near future.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that reply and for the previous reply which she gave on this matter, and while also thanking the Government for having raised the matter in the way they did at the meeting the other day, I should like to ask the noble Baroness whether she would consider ways and means by which other Governments—let me put it this way: other civilised Governments—would be prepared to support her and those who
372
supported her at the meeting in pressing on the East German Government the obligation on them to see to it that these people are properly compensated. Nobody asks for compensation for the moral wrong and for the terrible things the Nazis did in that regard, but people should certainly be compensated for what they have lost in a material way. Would the noble Baroness be good enough to do all she possibly can to persuade the rest of the nations in this way?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVE: My Lords, I think we shall first have to raise this question in the talks which we hope to have with the G.D.R. I know the noble Lord will be aware that the public position of the G.D.R. Government is that it does not in principle accept liability for the actions of the Third Reich, but we will do our best.

POSTAL BUS SERVICES
3.3 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD: 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 progress has been made in England, Scotland and Wales respectively with schemes for combining the postal service with passenger transport in outlying rural areas by employing small buses to carry both passengers and mail, and what is their policy for advertising such services.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I understand the Post Office has now introduced 32 postal bus services: 5 in England, 26 in Scotland and 1 in Wales. These services are publicised locally, and timetables are available.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that the publicity for such services has been very small compared with that for other rural transport services? Further, since these services have proved so successful in parts of England, would he not agree that five is really a small number bearing in mind that these services were first introduced about three years ago?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I understand that the bus services are publicised locally and seem to be meeting a need. The Scottish Postal Board has issued a timetable for all Scottish postal bus services. With regard to the question as to whether there should be any more of these services, if my noble friend has any particular suggestions perhaps he should take them up with the Post Office.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I have just one more supplementary question, if I may ask it. Bearing in mind the fact that the Post Office is not responsible principally for the carriage of passengers, would it not be a good thing if the Government took this up with the Post Office, and not a private individual?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, as I think my noble friend is probably aware, these buses have no significant effect on Post Office finances, but they are providing a service where a service is required. They are not required to compete with existing bus services. If my noble friend or any other noble Lord has any knowledge of where a need exists, the Post Office will no doubt be very glad to hear about it.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, now that the Post Office generally uses buses and goes to all sorts of places where ordinary bus services do not go, could this not become a perfectly general service all over the country, particularly in small places where there are not regular services?
LORD DENHAM: Yes, my Lords. Again, if my noble friend knows of any such places I am sure that the Post Office will be very glad to hear from him, too. But the difficulty is that qualifying conditions are laid down for such a service. The first is that it should fit in with Post Office operational requirements; secondly, that any additional net running costs should be met by the local authority; thirdly, that there should be a manifest need for the service in this particular area; and, fourthly, that the service should not compete with any existing bus service.
VISCOUNT MONCK: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether, if it is intended to combine the postal service with passenger transport in the same vehicle, any attention is being paid to
374
the security of the postal service? One could of course answer for England and Scotland, but I am not sure about Wales.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I am sure that the Post Office have my noble friend's point very much in mind.

D.T.I. PETROLEUM DIVISIONS STAFF
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper, and at the same time beg to ask leave of the House to ask the Questions in the reverse order to that in which they are printed on the Order Paper because it is likely to be more convenient then to the noble Lord who is to reply and to the House.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Earl could tell us what he is saying? I do not think we heard.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper, but simultaneously I beg leave to ask these two Questions in the reverse order to that in which they are placed on the Order Paper so that noble Lords on both sides of the House—both those hard of hearing and otherwise—can hear the Answers in the logical order, as being more to their convenience.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many geophysicists, geologists, petroleum engineers and economists are employed in the Petroleum Division of the D.T.I.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, currently the staff of the Petroleum Divisions of the Department of Trade and Industry includes a geophysicist, a geologist, 7 petroleum engineers and 5 other specialists. Recruitment of 5 additional staff in these categories is under way. The Petroleum Divisions also have a call upon the Institute of Geological Sciences for advice and for analysis of United Kingdom Continental Shelf operations. Economists specialising in petroleum matters are located in the Economics and Statistics Divisions of the Department.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for that reply may I ask him whether or not he would agree that the figures he has given represent about a quarter of the number which persons experienced in the oil industry believe to be necessary, and can he tell us whether this very small body of personnel are divided into teams of a multi-disciplinary character so that they can separately concentrate on particular areas of significance, like the Shetlands Basin or the Celtic Sea Basin?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, dealing with the first supplementary question, I cannot say what other people think is necessary, but I can tell my noble friend that there has been a steady increase in the numbers to match the expansion in the production of United Kingdom offshore oil, and another increase is envisaged for next year. I think I can best answer the second part of the noble Earl's supplementary question by saying that the functions of the Inspectorate are to evaluate the results of the exploration activities: to supervise the carrying out of the work by licensees: to see that this is done in accordance with the conditions of their licences; to carry out statutory safety inspections, and to provide information and advice for administrators, Ministers and other Departments on the technical aspects of the exploration and exploitation of petroleum resources. I am sure that where it is necessary to divide them into multidisciplinary groups that will be done.
THE EARL or LAUDERDALE: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that there is one glaring omission from the lists that he has enumerated; namely, the evaluation of the vast volume of seismic data which comes into the D.T.I. and which should form the basis of future policy decisions about future licensing?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, this is largely done by the Institute of Geological Sciences which gives information to the Department as and when it is called for.

D.T.I. PETROLEUM DIVISIONS SALARIES
3.12 p.m.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question
376
which stands first in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how salaries paid to staff of the D.T.I. Petroleum Division compare with those paid to personnel of similar qualifications and experience in the oil industry.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, insufficient detailed information is available to enable the making of reliable comparisons.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that the shortage of staff which has been demonstrated in the Answer to my second Question on the Order Paper is confirmed in my noble friend's Answer to this, my first? Would not he agree that it is a very serious matter that the D.T.I. appears to be seriously undermanned in the view of the industry, largely because they cannot offer comparable salaries?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, in my answer to the previous Question I have already stated that the appointment of five additional staff in these categories is under way. As my noble friend will realise, these matters, the pay determination, the level of pay rates, are the subject of agreement with the appropriate staff associations.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, is the noble Lord seriously saying, if I understood him correctly, that even if the Department does not know, his noble friend Lord Windlesham cannot find out what are the comparable figures in industry? Do I conclude from this that, owing to the Government's pay and prices policy, they have disbanded the central organ for finding out this information? If they cannot get it from within Government sources is the noble Lord aware that there are a number of reliable commercial bodies who can provide this information for a small fee?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the point is that it would not be practicable to determine the pay of very small classes like the geophysicists and the geologists, one of each, and petroleum engineers on the basis of the direct application of pay research. This is done in the larger groups whose pay is aligned with the

377
major professional groups, whose pay is determined by pay research.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, could my noble friend say whether the recruitment, so proudly announced, of five new experts (where the industry seemed to think that 40 would have been better) is in any way impeded by the salary scales offered?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, in cases where there is a rapid expansion of demand for people of this kind, I think it is likely that others outside will be prepared to pay in order to attract
employees; but the point is they would still be prepared to pay more than whatever rate we fixed for the salary scales.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us how many applicants there were for the last vacancies advertised?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I know that there were at least as many applicants as there were jobs offered.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, is this not a prime case of paying the "cops" just enough to make sure they do not catch the robbers?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord has experience of these matters and he will know the difficulty involved here. I think it is sensible when you have small groups of this kind to relate their pay to the professional group as a whole. I do not see what alternative is possible.
LORD BERNSTEIN: My Lords, since it appears that oil is going to be more important than beef, would it not be a good idea for the D.T.I. to consult with other areas as to what the salary scales should be for the people responsible for North Sea Oil?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I have no doubt that this could be done. These are matters which are settled in the normal way under the normal negotiating procedure of the Pay Commission.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, is it not the case that this matter is something which should have been looked at with foresight by the previous Administration?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I cannot answer for the previous Administration; but I can say that the establishments have been fixed; that I have indicated the vacancies at the moment and I have indicated the further vacancies at the moment and I have indicated that further vacancies will be available.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the previous Administration did not pursue the "barmy" policy that the Government are at the moment pursuing on prices and incomes.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, perhaps it would have been better had they done so.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL
3.16 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty The Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Local Government (Scotland) Bill, has consented to place Her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD POLWARTH): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Polwarth.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
Clause 52 [Schemes]:
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 28, line 3, at end insert—
("( )provisions concerning the procedures to be adopted by which the community councils on the one hand and the local and public authorities with responsibilities in the areas of the community councils on the other will keep each other informed on matters of mutual interest;")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we now come to the last phase in this long and, for us living in Scotland, extremely important Bill. This Amendment which I now move—I think for the third time, although I have made one or

379
two alterations in consultation with those powers that be who are much better at drafting Amendments and Bills than I am—I now with some confidence hope that the Government will accept. I must apologise to the House for the fact that there is a mistake in the printing: namely, that this Amendment applies to Clause 52 where it appears on the Marshalled List as applying to Clause 53.
This Amendment is quite a simple one. The reorganisation of local government in Scotland is on a large scale, it is creating large authorities and it will mean that those people who live in the small areas, villages and townships will be further away from the regional government than they were when we had simply the ordinary county councils, district councils and, in some cases, advisory committees for local councillors. The community council, which is to replace the local advisory sub-committee and the district council, should be treated with great importance because it is to be composed of those very people whom the district and regional government should consult and represent.
In this Amendment I have put forward a suggestion that there should be a two-way conducting of affairs and information and that the public authority with responsibility in the area of the community council should keep the community council informed on matters of mutual interest. I am quite sure that it will make it easier for the district and regional councils if they know what is going on at the very grass roots. I very much hope the Government will consider this a helpful Amendment, that it is not being put forward in a critical manner but in an effort to help make the reorganisation run smoothly. I have the pleasure of moving at Third Reading an Amendment almost exactly the same as the one I moved on Report stage. I beg to move.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I am sure we all admire the persistence of the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, in coming forward with yet another version of her original Amendment. I can see that it is an improvement on the previous one; it no longer contains provisions which I think would have been unenforceable regarding regular and sufficient information and activities and proposals. I have some reservations about
380
how much the Amendment, even in this form, will achieve. I think it is more a pious expression of intent than anything that could lead to enforcing the provisions on information. Nevertheless, it may well be the wish of the House to allow this Amendment to pass, as it were as a sort of gesture in favour of arrangements for the mutual exchange of information on which we are extremely keen. So I should not be disposed to ask your Lordships to object to this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 97 [Establishment of Commission for Local Authority Accounts in Scotland]:
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 52, line 2, leave out from ('Audit") to end of line 9, and insert (",officers of the Commission, being professional accountants. and approved auditors by the Commission for the purpose of conducting audits or, as the case may be, a particular audit, under this part of this Act, and "approved auditor" means an auditor who is qualified under subsection (7) below.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at Report stage your Lordships agreed to Amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, which wrote into the Bill requirements as to the qualifications of auditors appointed by the Commission for Local Authority Accounts. The present Amendments are designed to correct the drafting of the noble Lord's Amendments without altering the principle of them in any way.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 3.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, leave out from beginning of line 10 to ("are") in line 11, and insert—
("(7) An auditor is qualified for the purposes of subsection (6) above if, and only if he is a member, or a firm all the members of which")—(Lord Polwarth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [New Local Government Areas]:
LORD STRATHCLYDE LORD STRATHCLYDE moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 159, column 3, leave out lines 8 to 10 and insert ("that part of the parish of Ayr within the district of Dalmellington; the polling district of Coylton").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when the Bill first appeared, the county of Ayr was divided into two districts. In another place that was altered to four districts, two in the North and two in the South. The two in the South were named Kyle and Carrick and Cumnock and Doon Valley. In the latter district were included two parishes, one named Coylton and the other Dalrymple, an arrangement which met with the general satisfaction of the inhabitants of those parishes. During the Committee stage my noble friend the Minister carried an Amendment which removed Coylton and Dalrymple from Cumnock and Doon Valley and put those two parishes into Kyle and Carrick. I have no doubt that my noble friend was influenced by the fact that the boundary of Coylton parish was so close to the boundary of the Burgh of Ayr that it left little room for the expansion of that thriving and progressive burgh, and that accordingly he decided that it would be better if they were removed to the same district as Ayr; that is, to Kyle and Carrick. This caused much concern in the two parishes, particularly in Dalrymple which is very much an integral part of the Doon Valley. This Amendment, which returns Dalrymple parish to the Cumnock and Doon Valley district, leaving Coylton in Kyle and Carrick, is a compromise which I understand is generally acceptable to all concerned, and in these circumstances I hope that my noble friend will be able to accept it.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for bringing forward this Amendment. This matter has been very difficult to decide when one is obliged at this stage to use the existing boundaries. The answer is that no existing boundary really produces the right solution. At the end of the day I think that this is clearly a case for the Boundary Commission to draw a new line once the Bill is in operation as an Act. I would agree that the division suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is less unsatisfactory than any that we have had to date, and accordingly I should be happy to accept the Amendment.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I should like to join with the Minister in accepting the Amendment which the noble Lord. Lord Strathclyde, has moved. I
382
have been made aware by devious means—almost circuitous, I would say—that in another place both sides are now satisfied that this is the right way to do it. I believe the history was that it was done one way in Committee; it was reversed at the next stage, and each proposal had its own quota of opponents, and that what has now emerged is a half-way house between the first and the second proposal on which, in the sort of spirit that so often arises in these matters, people accepted that a compromise was perhaps the better way of doing it. Having regard to the way in which the Minister has received this Amendment I hope that this excellent spirit of compromise is a forerunner of what may take place in another place on much more important matters.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 7.
Amendment moved—
Page 159, column 3, leave out from ("except") in line 13 to end of line 16 and insert ("that part of the parish of Ayr within this district the polling district of Coylton)."). —(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 27 [Adaptation and Amendment of Enactments]:
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 278, line 10, at end insert—
("The Breeding of Dogs Act 1973
211. In section 5(2) (interpretation), in the definition of "local authority", for the words "the council of any county or burgh "there shall be substituted the words "an islands or district council".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this Amendment I should draw the attention of your Lordships to what appears to be a printer's error on the Marshalled List. The figure "195" should read "211". This is the Schedule relating to the transfer of functions to the new local authorities from the old ones. It refers to the functions under The Breeding of Dogs Act 1973 which received a Second Reading in your Lordships' House earlier this week and which I am quite sure the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, hopes will complete its remaining stages later this afternoon.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.25 p.m.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. In normal circumstances I think that several of your Lordships would have liked to say a few words before the Bill is returned to another place, but I feel sure that in the circumstances of this afternoon, with a long queue of speakers waiting to take part in another debate, your Lordships will feel it more sensible to deal with this in a formal manner. Accordingly I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass. — (Lord Polwarth.)
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I should like to follow the example of the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, and be very brief. During this week I have achieved a measurer of popularity on both sides of the House which has escaped me hitherto, but that will disappear almost entirely if I speak for a long time—certainly among the last seven in the list of 27 speakers who are to take part in the next debate. At the outset, even before the Bill was introduced in another place, I expressed the hope that we should consider it on a non-Party basis, and that has been done, certainly in Committee in another place. It has clearly been considered on a non-Party basis in your Lordships' House, and I hope that when the other place comes to consider what we have done it may be found possible for that to be done on a free vote. Obviously, if that proves to be so, it will be much easier for your Lordships to accept the advice which I have already given, that whatever they do in another place must be accepted. That certainly is my own view. But if it is clearly the expressed will of the Members of another place, rather than just an apparent Party division at the last minute, it will be much easier for us to accept it.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, may I, very warmly, on behalf of my noble friends and myself offer congratulations to my noble friend Lord Polwarth for his strenuous work on this Bill, which we all greatly appreciate. There is one small point with which I should not have troubled your Lordships were it not for a large banner-headline front-page article in the Glasgow Herald this morning referring to the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, carried on Monday.
384
As the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has just said, he would not ask your Lordships to insist on it if another place disagreed with it, and this article expresses the fear that it may be impossible to disentangle the noble Lord's Amendment with the other Amendments concerning the peripheral districts which your Lordships passed in July and which it is understood that the Secretary of State is willing to accept.
I will not quote Erskine May, because my noble friend Lord Polwarth assures me that he already agrees with this, but it is made quite clear that the other place can not only insert new words and leave out any words in an Amendment; they can, if they like, disagree with the whole Amendment and substitute a new one of their own and send it back for your Lordships to consider. There is not the slightest reason why they should not disagree with one set of proposals and agree with another, although we have combined them in the same Amendment. I thought it might be a good thing to allay the apprehensions which have been expressed this morning in the Press.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, on a point of clarification, I understand that the Motion at the moment is, That the Bill do now pass. Has the Bill to go to another place and to be returned to us again after they have considered these Amendments?
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I understand that this is quite normal procedure. We do move, "That the Bill do now pass", at this stage, but our Amendments must go back to the other place for their consideration.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

MAPLIN DEVELOPMENT BILL
3.2 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (BARONESS YOUNG): My Lords, in asking the House to give this Bill a Third Reading, I should first of all like to thank my noble friends who have helped me so much on this Bill—first, my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, who has borne the brunt of the most controversial issues, as always, with great conscientiousness

385
and care; and then my noble friend Lord Sandford, whose experience and knowledge of the background of this Bill has been invaluable. I should also like to thank my noble friend Lord Nugent for what he has said about planning aspects of the problem, my noble friend Lord Aldington for his speech on the Port of London Authority's proposals for the new seaport, and other noble Lords who have given their support. To the Opposition my thanks for initiating me into the rigours of political controversy in the House!
I should, too, like here to pay tribute to the Select Committee and to their exhaustive inquiry into the Bill as it affects particular local interests, and to thank them for the Amendments they have made to the Bill. I hope they can take some credit also for the Amendments which my noble friend Lord Sandford moved yesterday concerning Havengore Creek.
My Lords, it is natural with a major project of this kind that public attention should be concentrated on the disadvantages rather than on points in favour. But we must remember that the Maplin site was chosen on planning and environmental grounds. This Bill is an enabling Bill—essentially to reclaim land from the sea to build an airport and a seaport. By giving the Bill a Third Reading we are able to keep our options open to go ahead with it if after the full study that has been promised it is confirmed that this is the right course. Nor must we fall into the trap of thinking that there is any "do nothing" solution to the problem of increasing air traffic. The British Airports Authority have described vividly, in their recent annual report, the likely consequences for their airports at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted if the Maplin project is abandoned.
In the course of these debates there has been a great deal of interest expressed over the problem of public consultation, and I will if I may go outside the terms of the Bill and say that a consultation document on alternative possible routes for a new motorway and high-speed link to Maplin was published on July 23, and comments were invited by October 12. This has been added as an additional process of consultation. We have had some 2,800 replies to our questionnaire from individuals, and we have also had
386
the views of some sixty local authorities and other bodies. These views are now being analysed and the Secretary of State will be making a Statement when this process is complete. We shall clearly want to make public the Secretary of State's conclusion on a preferred corridor as soon as possible in order to remove blight on property along those routes which are not selected. In parallel we are considering the comments that we have received on our consultation document on the designation area for the New Town.
In addition to the major access to the site, we have been considering how best communications with the Maplin site could be improved to serve the period before the major access routes are available. I understand that it remains the intention of the British Railways Board to bring forward in a Private Bill in the coming Session proposals for an extension into the Maplin site of the existing railway line—the Thorpe Bay Link. We have also asked the Essex County Council, as the highway authority, to investigate the feasibility of finding a new route for the A.127 round the North of Southend so as to keep Maplin traffic off the built-up section of the A.127/A.13 route. We are now studying the results of these investigations and a statement will be made as soon as possible.
In conclusion, I think all those who have taken part in the debates on this Bill have recognised that the siting of the Third London Airport is a singularly intractable problem. When the Government announced their decision to go to Maplin in April, 1971, there was a general feeling that we had at last got an answer which represented a reasonable compromise. The co-ordination of the project then became a matter for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, and following the important Government Statements in February and August, 1972, the drafting of this Bill as an essential part of the mechanics for implementing the project was put in hand. Meanwhile, the Maplin decision has been challenged, but no one has produced an alternative strategy which we could now say is feasible and acceptable. These issues will be considered in our further study of the project.
Meanwhile, I cannot emphasise too strongly the Government's views that it would be totally irresponsible to slacken

387
our efforts on the planning of Maplin. We need this Bill so that the Maplin Development Authority can be set up, and to take over all the detailed work that will be needed before a contract for the reclamation of the Maplin site can be let. It is only in this way that we can keep open the option of bringing the Maplin Airport into operation in 1982 if our objective study confirms that this is necessary and this conclusion is acceptable to Parliament. It is on this basis that I invite the House to give the Bill a Third Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3ª. —(Baroness Young.)
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I should like to say a word about this, because unfortunately I was unable to be present yesterday. I want to congratulate the noble Baroness on what has happened, and to congratulate the Government upon having taken such steps as were required, particularly with regard to the matter of Havengore Creek, to relieve the matter and to make it much better to enable things to go on. I personally, although I am not in agreement with all the principles of the Bill, think that very good steps have been taken and I congratulate the Government on this.
On Question. Bill read 3ª, with the Amendment.
3.38 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass. —(Baroness Young.)
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I think the House is indebted to the noble Baroness and to her colleagues for the pleasant and courteous way in which they have piloted through a thoroughly unpleasant piece of legislation. There is only one redeeming feature to this Bill, and that is the provision in Clause 2, as amended—and against the advice of the Government—requiring the Government to come back to Parliament for permission to get work started. I should qualify that to the extent that, although it was against the original advice of the Government, to do them credit they did eventually accept the wish of the other place and of this House and insert
388
this Amendment. Before they ask for that permission, they are now committed to consultation with stated authorities and to putting before Parliament all the information which emerges from those consultations together with the Government's own assessment of the possibilities disclosed. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, yesterday himself acknowledged the sense of frustration of his own side as well as of this at the inadequate and incomplete facts which had so far been given. I sincerely hope that when we get the revised reports the Government will contrive to dispel this sense of frustration, and indeed the distrust which they have created.
My Lords, there is one other aspect of this Bill to which I would refer. I have thanked the noble Baroness for the courteous and competent way in which she has dealt with the Bill, and I do not detract from those thanks, but only criticise the tactics of the Government when I explain that hitherto all my inquiries about access routes have been met with a statement that the Bill itself dealt only with the reclamation of land and therefore it was not in order to deal with the access routes. But we cannot possibly make a sensible decision about the one matter unless there is full information about the other. For example, one argument for this Bill—and indeed an admitted merit of the Bill—is that it proposes to create new land, something which appeals to me and I think to everyone. But the fact of the matter is that with the new motorways and railways going down to the reclaimed land we possibly take away from existing users far more land than in fact we take from the sea. It really is an absurd saving to reclaim land on the one part and then have to use up so much land to get to it. I understand that so far in this consultative process about the access routes the Rochford District Council, the Rochford Rural District Council, the Chelmsford Borough Council, the Basildon District Council, the Brightlingsea Rural District Council, the Chigwell Urban District Council, the Castlepoint District Council and the Thurrocak Rural District Council have all declared themselves opposed to the Government's proposals. The Essex Association of Parish Councils and the Community Councils Association are also opposed to this wasteful and reactionary

389
attempt to deal with a nuisance at their expense instead of having the imagination to deal with it and reduce the noise at source.
My Lords, I give notice to the Government that I shall put down a Question asking for the total cost of these proposals, including road and rail access—and in 1974 monetary terms, as being the only date on which we shall be looking at this matter again, not in the 1972 terms by which so far the Government have insisted on camouflaging the actual cost. The Bill now goes back to another place, significantly amended, but it is still concerned with what the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, picturesquely called yesterday "a dead duck". I hope that the other place will now ensure, either on the Bill or on the Order, that the deceased bird will receive an appropriate interment.
3.45 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, for his very kind remarks about what we have been able to do for the yachting and sailing community and I am glad that he feels that 'we have met the Select Committee's points. On the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, I should like to say that I think in the course of this debate we have been discussing the facts, a great many of which are known. What we are all concerned about is the forecast. That of course is a much more difficult thing to achieve and that is largely what we shall he concerned with in future study. I should like to confirm that although we have discussed the access routes these are not part of the Bill. The Bill is concerned exclusively with the reclamation of land for a seaport and an airport. I stress the point about consultation because I am quite certain, although I have not seen the results of all the returns from our consultation process, that some will be against it—it does not help the issue to read out a list of authorities which are against it until we have a complete picture on which we can make a judgment. All that I wish to stress in making my remarks is that we have carried out the most extensive consultative process on this matter, and we have taken a great deal of trouble to try to ascertain the views of all the people concerned.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

BREEDING OF DOGS BILL
House in Committe: House resumed; Bill reported without Amendment; Report received.
Then Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of Monday last). Bill read 3ª and passed.

THE MIDDLE EAST: THE ARAB/ISRAELI CONFLICT
3.46 p.m.
LORD BYERS LORD BYERS rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a further Statement on what steps they have taken, or propose to take, towards the achievement of a durable peace in the Middle East. The noble Lord said: My Lords, by leave of the House in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, I should like to ask the Government the Unstarred Question on the Order Paper. At the outset I should like to make it clear that I believe in Israel's right to a peaceful existence. I do not think the Israeli Government or its High Command are without fault, but I do believe passionately in the right of Israel as a State to exist, and it is because of this belief that I do not understand the attitude and actions of Her Majesty's Government in the last few days. First there has been no recognition that this recent attack was totally unprovoked and carefully planned. This was a unilateral act of aggression carried out deliberately on a member of the United Nations on Israel's most vulnerable and sacred day. Secondly, there are enough indications to underline the Russian influence in launching this campaign.
I am told that two weeks before the attack there was a curious exercise carried out simultaneously in Beirut, Damascus and to a lesser extent in Baghdad, undoubtedly inspired by the Russians, which in identical terms in each capital leaked to Jerusalem the Arab desire for a peace formula on points which were quite specific and which met with a positive response from Israel for action after the Election. This, of course, was a blind to lull Israel into a sense of false security, and it worked. A further indicator that Russia is behind this latest move against

391
Israel is, I think, the absence of Colonel Ghadaffi from the fight. This is significant because he is well known to be a fanatical opponent of Communism, and I think also the very natural reluctance of King Hussein to get too involved in the conflict is another indicator on the same lines.
What we are witnessing, in my view, is not merely an attempt to destroy Israel but a further stage in the determination of Russia to dominate the industrial development of the whole of the Middle East. The Russians will pay for Middle East oil not with roubles or dollars but with steel plants and industrial hardware, until they are totally entrenched in the whole area. I say this with deep disappointment, but until the Foreign and Commonwealth Office recognise this fact and come off their pro-Arab perch they cannot hope to be effective in attempting to bring about a Middle East solution.
From that point I turn to the completely incomprehensible policy outlined in Tuesday's Statement by the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, which said in effect that Britain had decided not to honour its contracts with Israel or the Arab countries, so that it might be in a better position to mediate. I pointed out on Tuesday that this was totally illogical, and I think that within the last 48 hours I have been proved right. I asked the question: between whom does Britain propose to mediate? If they are thinking of mediating between Israel and the Arabs then it is vitally important to have Israel's confidence in the first place, because it is Israel's life which is at stake; it is Israel which has her back to the sea, and not the Arab States. And Israel has only one view of the arms embargo. They are not worried about other belligerents; they worry only about the embargo on arms and supplies for Israel, without which their tanks become pillboxes and death traps. I ask this question: what confidence can anyone have in a country that signs a contract, takes the money and then turns round and says, "Well, if we had thought you were going to use these tanks to defend yourselves we would never have sold them to you in the first place."In this House an aside was made in a most unladylike fashion to the effect that, "Anyhow, you can always get Centurion
392
spares from the White House." That is not, I think, the sort of brief which ought to be given to the noble Baroness who repeated the Statement, for whom we have the greatest respect.
It is humiliating to have a British Government acting with such an apparent lack of principle. And this is the image which we are putting out to the world. What is more, judging by the announcement made by the Arab States that they are going to cut our oil supplies, it seems that we have merely antagonised both sides without getting any advantage for ourselves or approaching nearer to a solution. Two days ago I called this action "commercially dishonest". I still think it is. It might have been more accurate to describe it as taking money under false pretences. It can do nothing to enhance our position as possible mediators. Tt merely advertises us as a nation without Principle, and I hope, for that reason alone, that the Government will speedily reconsider this decition and reverse it.
In his Statement on Tuesday, the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary said that he hoped the solution to the Middle East problem could be found on the basis of the United Nations Resolution 242 and in line with the proposals which he outlined in his Harrogate speech in 1970. I am quite sure there is a genuine desire for a permanent and a peaceful solution on the part of the Israeli Government and I am equally convinced that such a desire was present before the recent aggression by the Arabs, because it has been openly confirmed during the past 24 hours. Mr. Eban's statement in New York, which was reported this morning, was in very conciliatory terms. This is the sort of terms to which a response should be made. But the crux of Resolution 242, in my view, is that it has its priorities wrong and its ambiguity could lead to further mis-understanding. It says in effect that Israel should withdraw from territories occupied by her in 1967 and that every State, including Israel, shall have the right to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries.
My Lords, I know something of the Israeli front. I spent five months of the Second World War at the Haifa Staff College. We conducted tactical exercises from one end of Palestine to the other,

393
throughout its length and breadth, until we knew practically every nook and cranny. Also, in the last six years I have travelled extensively every year in Israel. If I were an Israeli Minister, and I am not—thank goodness! I do not have that responsibility and I speak only for myself—I would reverse the order contained in Resolution 242. I would not give up one inch of the territory which Israel has occupied to protect her existence until I had an unequivocal assurance that Israel's final frontiers were genuinely secure. The real trouble is that so many people who pronounce on this matter have no knowledge of the actual areas concerned—and with frontiers it is the area which really matters. No one can stand on the Golan Heights, where the Syrians were in 1967, and look down on Israeli villages and the Sea of Gallilee within shooting distance, and then proclaim that this is a secure frontier. It is total nonsense, and it is known to be total nonsense by anyone who has stood on those Heights. Then there is the Sharm el Sheikh. If this is surrendered by Israel, what sort of security would this represent for Israel? Perhaps some leasing arrangement might be agreed over some very long term, but to surrender it cannot constitute, on Israel's part, a secure frontier at all.
I am quite sure that Israel will bring to the negotiating table compassion, humanity and understanding of all the tragic problems involved, and especially those concerning the Palestinian refugees, the state of Jerusalem, and similar matters, but I do not believe she can be expected to do so until there is complete agreement on frontiers which really guarantees her right to exist in peace in perpetuity. In my view, these frontiers will not be the frontiers of 1967, if they are to give Israel the security she deserves as a member of the United Nations, because these frontiers and permanent security are quite incompatible. I hope the British Government will hear this in mind when they seek to influence the final decisions which are taken in the Middle East. What we need now is a final, permanent solution for everybody in the Middle East, so that they can live in real harmony and prosperity. My Lords, with the leave of the House, I opened this debate. I took the place of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and I hope that your Lordships will now agree
394
that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, should follow me, if that would be for the convenience of the House.
3.58 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, for having smoothed over an awkward moment, as he did so gracefully at the end of his speech. I apologise most profoundly to your Lordships for not being in my place earlier. I was taken unawares by the short length of time, as compared with the estimated length, that it took to deal with the preceding business, and I was still calmy talking to friends and considering what might be said in this debate.
We can face the beginning and the continuation of the fourth Israeli/Arab war only with a sense of profound horror and grief for the civilians who have been killed, as my noble friend Lord Shepherd expressed it the other day, including the two British subjects, the second of whom was Nicholas Tomalin, a journalist whose words we have all learnt to respect in daily consumption over recent years. One must also grieve not only for the civilians but also for the soldiers, all conscripts, the young people destined by fate to have been born in these countries and not in other countries.
I should like to repeat first of all what my noble friend Lord Shepherd said on Tuesday in support of the Government's aims, as they were outlined on that day—that is, the Government's aims for bringing to an end the war which is now raging in Syria and Egypt. The elements the Government then suggested were action to be taken by the United Nations Secretary General and getting a United Nations force on to the ground. To those, I would add myself (and many of my noble friends would agree) that there should be a demilitarised zone containing the U.N. force—because we must not forget what went wrong in 1967. The proximate cause of that war was the withdrawal of the United Nations force, and it was withdrawn because it was on the soil of one country only; which was free to ask it to leave whenever it wished. That mistake must not be repeated.
Let us consider the state of the world over as long a time-scale as we can bring ourselves to do. We have there an intrinsic and very long-standing instability

395
with all the classical ingredients of such a situation. We have unsettled territories, we have unsettled boundaries, we have whole populations existing without legal recognition by their neighbours, and we have many thousands of square miles the sovereignty over which is in dispute. If we add to this the spectacularly high armament levels—much the highest defence budgets in the whole world prevail on both sides in the Middle East—we can see it is an absolutely unbeatable recipe for repeated conflagrations.
What have we in the rich nations of the world, the industrial North, been doing about it? It is not a pretty picture if we look back. The United States have been arming one side, the Soviet Union have been arming the other side, and we have been arming both. It is an infallible recipe for conflagration and we have now had three conflagrations.
There has been progress: in 1956 we joined Israel in attacking Egypt. In 1967 we stood aside from the war and we imposed a short-lived arms embargo which lasted from between 24 and 36 hours. But there was disarray in Western Europe. France, in particular, did not come along with that embargo and we lifted it almost immediately.
In 1973 the Government have imposed another arms embargo regarding our shipments of arms to both sides, to what they call the "battlefield countries", to Israel and to those Arab countries actually engaged in the war, but net embargoing arms which are sent to Arab countries further away—that is, to the countries of North Africa, from Tunisia to the West, and to the Gulf countries and Saudi Arabia. This time we have for the first time a multiple arms embargo which, as I understand it—and perhaps the noble Baroness can fill in some details—is imposed not only by us, but by all the arms-exporting countries of Western Europe who are members of the European Economic Community, and by Sweden, which has for years followed a policy of not exporting arms to any countries they think are going to use them. It is a different situation from the situation in 1967 when it was clear almost from the very beginning that the embargo was not going to work in any meaningful sense. The Government may say that such a thing is not
396
lightly to be thrown away. All of us, whatever our views, must agree that the Government face a very difficult question on the embargo. One can only be glad that Sir Alec told the House of Commons yesterday, or the day before, that he was keeping an open mind about this. I expect that he is examining it hour by hour; and we have to consider what ought to be done now about that embargo.
The friends of Israel on both sides of our Parliament argue that the ban is unjust and that it operates to the detriment of Israel, but not to the detriment of the Arab States who are in the battle. The question then arises: if this is so, should one restore justice by lifting the embargo and supplying arms to both sides, or—and I only ask it—is there a case for examining the possibility of imposing a wider embargo on the Arab States so as to embargo the exports of arms not only to the battlefield countries, also to all Arab countries? If the embargo is to be abandoned there is the question of the timing to be considered. Should it be abandoned now, or would it be more justifiable to abandon it only if and when the War reaches the soil of Israel itself?
Parliament would have a much better opportunity of forming a view on these questions if the Government could tell us more about the operation of the embargo. We think we know what it means to Israel. The Press and Parliamentary speeches have been full of reports of their accounts of the damage they are suffering by the embargo on ammunition and spare parts for Centurion tanks. I think it is fair to say that neither House has had a clear idea of what the embargo means to Egypt and Syria—the other side of the war.
The Government say that it is evenhanded. My question is: is it? If it is not, it will be hard to justify. It is up to the Government to justify that statement that it is even-handed. Whatever we do about our embargo, whatever Western Europe does about our embargo, we are faced with the fact that the United States and the Soviet Union are pouring the arms in. We have been told that the Soviet arms lift has lasted for nine days now, and the American arms life five days, and each country is putting in something like 700 or 800 tons of arms per day.

397
We sometimes forget that the Soviet Union has been bracketed with the United States by China as a supplier to Israel. I repeat, "to Israel". Not, of course, of arms, but the Chinese have seized on this fact—and fact it is so far as we can make out—that over the past two years 70,000 Russian Jews have emigrated to Israel, and 800 of these are technicians and engineers who would be of direct military use to a nation at war. Moreover, it is expected that 40,000 more Russian Jews will go to Israel within the next few months. If this is so, and we have to accept that it is because we know it has been going on, one must see that the Soviet Union, if it wishes to keep level with China in the world propaganda war between Communists, is hooked on doing all it can for the Arabs with the other hand. It has been forced by the United States to permit the export of persons to Israel by the Jackson Amendment, and so long as this goes on it is going to be forced by world opinion, and its interpretation of it, to keep giving arms to the Arabs. This is one of the intensely dangerous factors of the situation which we have to understand. They are going to find it difficult to go back on that.
I do not need to outline the corresponding reason which hooks the Americans on continuing arms supply to Israel—it is built into their political structure that that should be so. There is a gloomy prospect before mankind if we do not get a cease-fire very shortly. If the Americans were forced by an impending defeat, or what they interpreted as an impending defeat, of Israel to land troops, the war could be very much prolonged by the fact that they were protecting a small client State from the impact of world opinion and the reality around it, exactly as we saw in Vietnam. We must face the real risk of another Vietnam arising out of this unless the conflagration is stopped very quickly indeed.
I believe that the Balfour Declaration must be mentioned once again. It is still the governing document of the whole existence of the State of Israel and can be supported by most countries concerned. It is important in this matter that everybody round the world, including ourselves, should distinguish between the Israeli cause and the Zionist cause,
398
or distinguish the distinctions made by others, if you like. Many people see the United States as supporting not solely the Israeli cause, but also the Zionist cause, which they distinguish and which they dislike, even though they admit the existence of the State of Israel. This is not for us to judge, but it is a reality.
There are three elements in the Balfour Declaration of which I should like to remind the House. The first is the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people. That is the one we remember. But then there are two provisos:
"It being clearly understood that nothing shall he done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine"
This one is not so often remembered, but is there as large as life in the Balfour Declaration. And lastly that nothing shall be done to prejudice the political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. This means of course because of the existence of Israel. That third proviso is I think we may say, happily, broadly observed throughout the world now.
This war is very bad news for the United States as well, for our greatest and, in practice, our oldest friend in the world. The United States have been training their army for desert warfare and indeed one must hope this does not presage any intention to make another Vietnam of it. At this time in the war the two main antagonists almost certainly both have missiles armed with exceptionally unpleasant warheads—I will go no further—and this must remind both super-Powers that the risks to the whole world of their own failure to persuade their clients to restraint are far greater than was the case even in Vietnam. Many more countries could be drawn into the war, Algeria, Morocco, the Gulf States, Saudi Arabia. When we come to oil production we should not forget that there are many members of the Oil Exporting Countries Organisation which, although they are not Arabs, are Muslims, and that religious sympathy plays a part in this conflict.
I come now to yesterday's oil cuts announced at the Kuwait meeting. I should like to say a word if I may and see whether the noble Baroness agrees when she comes to answer, to try and

399
get this matter into proportion after what I think have been some rather hysterical comments in the media. First, we must ask ourselves the question: have the Arab countries a right to do what they did yesterday? Is it their oil or is it the world's oil? A good way to answer this question—has somebody a right to do something we do not like?—is to consider what we would do ourselves in a similar case. Imagine that we ourselves were engaged in a war to recover part of our own country which is occupied by a foreign army—say, Scotland or part of Scotland. Would we cut oil exports from the North Sea, particularly to those countries which were arming the occupation army in Scotland? We on our side of this House must remember we are committed to the nationalisation of all mineral rights in this country and under our Continental Shelf, and I think that is right. Why have we undertaken this commitment? It is far better to use those mineral rights in our own national interest and for our own national purposes. Would we cut the supply of oil in the circumstances I have imaginatively outlined? I do not think so. I think we should ban it at once, beginning at midnight.
Let us look at the scale of the cut announced by the Arab countries. It is to be a 5 per cent. reduction every month from now on for so long as the war lasts. What does that mean to us? We get two-thirds of our oil from those countries and oil is half our raw material for energy. So we are talking of 5 per cent. of one-third; that is a reduction of about 1½ per cent. this month in the raw material for our energy supplies. Moreover, the 5 per cent. cut is not a simple continuing one. It is—I do not know what you would call it—a compound reduction; it is smaller every time, because next month the cut will not be 5 per cent. of what is then being exported but 5 per cent. of what is being exported now, so it will only be 5 per cent. of 95 per cent.; and the month after it will be 5 per cent. of 95 per cent. of 95 per cent., and so on. So the impact of the cuts will decrease every month as it continues and will never reach zero. It is an asymptotic curve—I hope I have got the word right.
400
Within that cut there is still plenty of room for manoeuvre, I think, by the oil-importing countries. The Arab Ministers made it perfectly clear yesterday that they saw two classes of countries concerned: those who were going overtly to help them in their cause, presumably by sending them arms, and those who were not; and they said that the former category of importing States need suffer no ill-effects. Obviously, that is not going to concern us because whatever else we do I do not believe we are going to send a large quantity of arms to the Arab countries. But presumably they would be open to the suggestion that a distinction should be made between countries which are solely and largely aiding their enemy, Israel, and countries which are either aiding nobody or aiding everybody in what the Government calls an even-handed way. I think we could put that to them. I do not believe we need shed tears if the United States have to accept most of this cut. We all know the figures: they have 6 per cent. of the world's population and already consume 40 per cent. of the world's energy. Their per capita consumption of energy is more than twice ours. I believe we should be morally justified in doing what we can within the new and not unwelcome cut proposed to ensure that that cut falls upon the country most able to bear it, because it has the highest standards and imports the least oil from the Middle East in any case.
Let us look further ahead. Are there elements of hope? There are indeed. We must put aside, and I hope we shall put aside, in this debate all the natural horror and outrage we may feel at the actions of this side or the other. I have particularly in mind the horror we must feel at the fact of the surprise attack by Egypt and Syria on Yom Kippur, of all days. But peace is what we need, it will not do to dwell on the horrors of war. In any war we must always hope for positiveness and imagination from the winning side. I am not quite sure which we should regard as the winning side at the moment; certainly to begin with it appeared to be Egypt if not Syria; and the winning side must always know how not to impose a crushing defeat. In fact I personally find some elements of hope in President Sadat's

401
speech of the day before yesterday, in which he offered to come to the negotiating table for a cease-fire immediately, and even before that to start opening the Suez Canal.
How are we to break through the quickening cycle of these disastrous wars? It was eight years from the first to the second, 11 years from the second to the third, and it has been only six years from the third to the fourth. What can we do now to make sure that the fifth does not come on us even sooner than that and make sure indeed that it never comes at all? I think we must all agree that Resolution 242 holds a quite special place in the existing phenomena of the situation. It is easy to say, it is tempting to say, that there are two sorts of United Nations resolutions—those in regard to which everybody knows what they mean and nobody agrees with, and those which everybody agrees with an nobody knows what they mean, and to say that Resolution 242 is one of the latter has some truth in it. But it did serve a purpose; it did secure a cease-fire in 1967. Something like it I hope will secure a ceasefire now. This will mean direct contact between Israelis and the Arabs—this should be happening at any moment; it will mean direct contact between the Americans and Russia—that is happening; direct contact between Americans and Arabs—that is happening. I should like to see direct contact between Israelis and Russians: so far as I know that is not happening.
If I may take one minute—I have already been much too long on an Unstarred Question—in looking ahead to the future I believe that what we need above all, after the cease-fire, and beginning at the same time as the negotiations for a peace treaty and for due recognition of the State of Israel at long last, is a general arms embargo. We cannot expect the Egyptians and the Israelis wisely to say, "Don't send us any more arms". It must come from Russia and America themselves. If we are to avoid the next round those two super Powers must learn themselves to kick the habit of pushing the drug, arms. You cannot expect the junkies to kick it; they need help. It is the pushers who have got to learn to discipline themselves. I believe that even to-morrow will be too late to start laying the plans for this.
402
This has got to be the thing which must go into effect immediately, no more rearmament by anybody of any of those countries; and if a powerful block of countries, remaining clean-handed, is able to urge no re-supply after a cease-fire, that I think will be something new and quite important. But to justify it I hope that the Government will be able to tell us what they mean by this present evenhanded embargo at the height of the war, because I remain unconvinced about that.
My Lords, this is not a Motion; we shall have no vote in this House, and I think we are fortunate that our procedure makes it so easy to have a fundamental debate about a matter which divides both Parties without having a vote on it. But the purpose of our discussion this afternoon, I should like to think, will be to make sure that the Government are able to hear all ideas about useful things which might be done to restore peace, and to keep it.
4.20 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, although in the list of speakers my name appears as following the noble Lord, Lord Byers, the Leader of the Liberal Party (may I say in parenthesis I agree with every word he said), I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Kennet for having preceded me. It enables me to say at once, without any intense feeling of passion, that I regard the Unstarred Question for which he is responsible as irrelevant and immaterial in existing circumstances, and therefore quite innocuous. The content of the Unstarred Question contains an implication. It is that our country, our Government—for which I have the utmost respect and affection, and devotion to their interests—are capable of exerting a substantial and effective influence in the deliberations of the Security Council or the General Assembly. I wish it were so. The evidence supporting such an implication or assertion (it depends how one views it) is of a very slender character.
Many years ago, at a conference convened under the auspices of the British-American Group, I visited Bermuda, along with prominent political celebrities —Reggie Maudling, and many others—and in the course of our discussions there I ventured the observation that if ever we were to promote peace (I do not use the

403
term "lasting peace"; we have hopes and aspirations but seldom are they realised), if ever we were to approach a period of peace, an end to conflict, it would be largely in consequence of the will, decision and action of the two super-Powers. The influence is vested in them and not in the United Nations. It is regrettable; I deplore it, but I merely state a fact that must be evident to every Member of your Lordships' House.
All of us, without exception, whatever views we hold about the rights and wrongs of the conflict now raging in the Middle East, must deplore the tragic loss of life on both sides. I derive no pleasure from reading about the casualties from which the Arab States have suffered—none whatever. There is no sense of enmity —more often of compassion, of sorrow rather than anger. I am sure that every Member of your Lordships' House, despite the respective views and differences of opinion about this conflict and what led to it, deplores the casualties on both sides and would like to put an end to it all. We are sick and tired of war, of conflicts among States. That we can all agree upon.
Let us spend a little time analysing the situation. First of all, there can be no doubt at all in the minds of reasonable men and women that for quite a long period of time the Israeli Government have declared their readiness to engage in confrontation at the conference table or in some building, even in separate rooms, with representatives of the Arab States. Nobody can question that; it is unchallengeable. As regards Resolution 242, I have doubts. I have been very sceptical about the possibility of its implementation. But the Israeli Government have said, "Yes, we are prepared to sit down and examine that. We may have to tear bits off. We may have to alter it moderately. But we are ready to discuss it". That also cannot be challenged.
If my noble friend Lord Kennet had proposed a Motion deploring the active aggression on the part of Egypt, I could have understood it. Not that I am very anxious about it, but i would understand it because then we should be dealing with facts, not fiction. But it did not happen. So let us consider, because this is the real issue, what is the position of Her
404
Majesty's Government. To begin with, several statements have been made and several assertions have been made manifest about their attitude. I happened to deal with one assertion, almost a condemnation of the State of Israel, the other day when I was offered the opportunity to say a few words on this subject. It was this: "It is often said that no nation has the right to acquire territory as a result of war". That is a condemnation of Israel—no right to hold any piece of territory which was formerly in the possession of another nation, as a result of conflict. My Lords, we should be the last people to use that argument. I know something, as we all do, about the history of our country. We have much to be proud of, glorious traditions, but there were some blemishes.
Take the case of our differences with Spain, not political differences so much as the matter of who is entitled to possess Gibraltar? It was not a gift: we took it. I say that just in passing. It is no use arguing about it; it happens to be a fact of history. Then, what about Hong Kong? I recall when I was quite young reading about the Boxer Rebellion and incidents of that kind. Again, we just took it. China did not like it, but were not able to prevent it. They could do it now, but it suits them to leave it where it is. There was another example. Take the case of the United States of America and the War of Independence. If they had not defeated the English, America would still be one of our colonies and part of our Commonwealth. Take even the case of the Soviet Union. Who are they to talk? What about East Germany and their efforts all along to prevent unification on the German issue. Why? Because East Germany is a satellite, a "stooge"—no more than that. This is the result of conflict. So let us not use that argument against the Israeli Government.
I recognise that it would be an abuse of the privileges accorded to us in this House if I were to speak at an inordinate length because of the length of the list of speakers; therefore, I will address myself at once to what has led to our debate. It was the refusal of Her Majesty's Government to endorse her contractual obligation to provide spare parts and some weapons which had been purchased by the State of Israel some time ago. That is what it is all about,

405
apart from our views about what should happen at the end of this conflict; and the sooner it ends, the better, of course. I have always had a very high regard for Sir Alec Douglas-Home. Indeed, I once described him as probably the best Foreign Secretary we have had in this century. Of course there have been some very poor Foreign Secretaries. I am not going to indulge in comparisons and I do not even take youth into account. Sir Alec is an honest man; there is no question about that. I do not doubt his intentions for a moment, but I shall really have to change my mind about him. He disclaimed one title but I will give him another—Sir Alec Douglas-Home Pasha. He is so enamoured of the Arabs, and of course it is not unusual for the Foreign Office to be so enamoured. Ever since I can recall there has been an Arab Desk in the Foreign Office, rigidly exclusive. I do not know whether the noble Baroness is aware of that fact. The Arabs are in the "top drawer" in the Foreign Office and they have influenced Foreign Secretaries all along the line. They even influenced Anthony Eden—now the noble Earl, Lord Avon—until he was frustrated by Nasser who, to Eden's sorrow, nationalised the Suez Canal. That led to a difference between them and I am quite certain that Anthony Eden has changed his mind—in fact I know he has.
But what does it matter? Here we are, faced with a situation. What is to be done about it? The other day I ventured to ask the noble Baroness a question which she might have thought was a bit impish, but it was not. Most of my colleagues on these Benches and on the other Benches—to their great credit, if I may be permitted to say so—asked questions as to why the Government should have decided to refuse to conform to their obligations. I put the question in another form, and I should like to repeat it now because the noble Baroness failed to answer it. It is this: when this business is over (and the sooner it ends the better) do the Government intend to provide the spare parts for the Centurion tanks? Let us bear in mind one of the purposes of Sir Alec Douglas-Home, and the Government, presumably—although when I refer to "the Government" I suspect that there are differences in the Cabinet. The noble Baroness might stand up now and say,
406
"That is a lot of nonsense", but I say that there are differences in the Cabinet—no names, no pack drill. What do the Government intend to do? They say, "Let us first seek peace; let us use our influence (such as it is) with the United Nations; let us address ourselves to Mr. Brezhnev on the one hand, on the left, and Mr. Nixon on the right. Of course we have remarkable influence. We just have to speak to them in our usual diplomatic fashion and they will agree, and so the conflict will shortly come to an end."
It is the purpose of the Government to bring the conflict to an end, so they tell us. They will have some difficulty, but they say that is their purpose. But what happens at the end? Do we then say to the Israelis, with the proper etiquette, "We apologise; we should have sent these things while you were in trouble, but now that you have no trouble you may have them"? This is a fantastic situation for which there is no justification whatever. But there is always a reason for something; there is always cause and effect. So let us examine the causation here. We want to be on good terms with the Arabs—we need oil; we need trade.
Let us deal with oil for a moment. Presumably the Government thought that if we were to act kindly by not giving the Israelis what they want, and show how even-handed we are—what a term to use!; I should like that term to be properly defined by the Government or perhaps by some intellectual in our assembly, of whom I do not happen to be one, not knowing sufficient of semantics—the Arabs would show us some consideration. Let us see what happens. We say we are not giving the Israelis what they want because it will be detrimental to the interests of the Arabs and against our traditions and principles. And then suddenly the Arabs come along and say, "We are going to cut down our oil exports and so we shall have to pay 2p a gallon more or perhaps 3p a gallon more, and before long it may be 6p a gallon more. So what have we got out of it? Nothing.
That reminds me of something. We once had a Foreign Secretary, Ernie Bevin, and he has been described as one of the greatest of our Foreign Secretaries. I have always had some difficulty in recalling any substantial achievements of

407
his, but I remember one thing he said which arose out of trouble in the Middle East. He infuriated the Israelis, he made angry—and that is a mild term—the Arabs and he annoyed the Russians. He did the lot. That is exactly what the present Foreign Secretary is doing: emulating Ernie Bevin. It is a poor lookout for us.
I have just one final word. What are we going to do about it? Of course I should be the last to object to Sir Alec Douglas-Home pleading with President Nixon and all concerned— even Sadat and even Golda Meir. I should not object to all that if I thought the conflict would be brought to an end. But in my judgment one cannot bring conflict in the Middle East to an end until Israel is assured of complete security. Perhaps I ought not to use the term "complete security"; it is too definitive. I will say "moderate security". I forget who mentioned it—it may have been Sir Alec Douglas-Home; I think it was originally in the Press (those organs of unimpeachable veracity who know exactly what ought to be done about it). What did they say? They said, "What we want is a guarantee. If we can get the super Powers to guarantee …"—one would imagine that had never been done before. Do your Lordships recall the tripartite agreement which existed for many years with Russia and with France—that was remarkable—and America? They were responsible for the tripartite agreement which guaranteed to protect Israel and the Arab State sovereignty—sovereignty for Israel, sovereignty for the Arab States. And look where we are. It is not worth the paper it is written on.
So what should we do? I regret saying this because, as I ventured to say before in a passing reference, I hate all these casualties, this conflict, this massacre, this holocaust; but it must be clearly understood that whether this ends as a result of some cease-fire or whether, later on, as a result of negotiations, confrontation or an attempt to impose the will of Russia and the United States of America and other countries on Israel and the Arab States, we ought not to depend so much on guarantees when there is something of a much more highly moral character and quality, namely, the goodwill of the people. We do not often get that in
408
Governments, but we might get it from the public, not only here, but elsewhere. What is required is not so much a decision of the United Nations, but a moral outlook on the part of the people of the world so that Israel can be secure and the Arab countries can be assured of no further conflict. But Sir Alec Douglas-Home cannot get away with what he has done, and neither can the noble Baroness, although we all admire and even love her. She cannot get away with it. It will not do. It may do irreparable harm in the future to this country and to Israel, who has few friends in the Arab States, and we do not want alleged friends from the Soviet Union because one cannot rely on them at all.
4.41 p.m.
LORD GRIDLEY: My Lords, it may well be that before the end of this debate I shall have to leave. I have to attend a funeral early to-morrow; I have suffered a family bereavement and that is the reason why I am speaking in this order to-day.
I listened with the greatest interest to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. I thought he covered a very wide canvas of the difficulties, and some of the hopes that he suggested we might achieve in considering this very grave problem. I also listened with interest to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Byers. It appeared to me that he concentrated most of what he said on the difficulties facing the Israelis, for which I have considerable sympathy, although I think there are also certain difficulties on the Arab side. It is my opinion that if ever we are to be of assistance in resolving this frightful war, we have to take into consideration the sufferings and problems of both the antagonists who face each other in this present battle. We meet in that situation, and it is a situation of some gravity. The great purpose in these circumstances is to sustain the Government. I believe it is immeasurably more difficult to govern in Britain to-day than at any other time over the last thirty to forty years—far more difficult than it was in the time of those who preceded us. Some of us are sons of fathers who served Britain in that capacity in the past.
Having said that, may I say something to my noble friend the Minister of State

409
for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs about the Centurion tanks. On the question of the supply of ammunition and spare parts for these tanks, the Government have said that if they refused to send spares and ammunition it is their considered opinion that their influence would be much greater in securing a cease-fire or an agreed peace. With respect, I am totally unable to understand this reasoning. Here we have a situation, for example, of an Israeli boy in the desert with first-class equipment supplied by us, borne up by the fact that he is fighting for his homeland, a representative of a small nation of 3 million people, a nation we created, and now in his extremity he is to be denied the tools with which to defend himself. What sort of influence do the Government really think they will have after that in bringing the Israelis to the conference table? In my view, their influence will probably be absolutely nil. I find the reasoning of the Government hard to understand in this. There are noble Lords who have been in battles such as I have; there are noble Lords who have been short of equipment such as we were in 1941 in the Far East. Men die because they cannot defend themselves and those that live in such circumstances curse any Government, whether Conservative, Labour or of any other complexion, for leaving them naked of the arms with which to defend themselves. I must say that I believe the Israelis would feel this way about us, and the whole of their nation would feel the same way. Therefore I would ask my noble friend the Minister of State whether she can refute the arguments which I have now propounded. If she cannot, may I ask her respectfully to use her influence to see that these supplies are resumed? I hope that she will do this.
My Lords, I come next to the subject of oil. If the Press reports are correct, the Arab producing countries are to cut their supplies to us and other nations by at least 5 per cent. if, in their opinion, we are unfriendly towards them. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has explained, this goes on from month to month. I should have been happier this morning if instead of a leading article in The Times to-day, which suggested that for peace we should do some sort of deal with the Arabs, that paper had pro
410
claimed that our country should stand firm against naked Arab blackmail. For are we not fighting inflation? Have we not problems in this country? Do we not have a prices and incomes policy? Has it not been calculated that by this act of the oil-producing countries something in the region of £400 million is likely to be added to the deficit in our balance of payments? Sometimes I feel that people, and even oneself, hardly know what is going on at the moment. One hears it stated that politics and politicians are debased. If this threat to our oil supplies threatens our industrial momentum and the nation, then let the politicians and the Press say so quite openly rather than surrender to blackmail. Let us in our private houses, in our offices with central heating go cold this winter. I sometimes feel that we have become over-soft. If one looks back 20 to 25 years, our fathers and mothers managed to keep themselves warm with one fire lit in one room. Lot the private motorist be rationed for his petrol if this is necessary. If meat prices are to soar because we are threatened by this oil cut, let the nation do with one meal less a day. Most of us are too fat. Let us eat less.
Above all, let us hear the truth. Instead of bleating about pensions, salaries and wages, let the Press and our political commentators and our politicians say plainly that we have become too soft. Nobody owes us a living. People are disillusioned because they suspect they do not hear the whole truth. They want the whole truth and they will not be satisfied with anything less, if truth is stated in plain language and hammered home, I believe the response from the people will be overwhelming. It is my belief that the Prime Minister has the courage and the leadership to evoke that response. Let him do so; let us get behind him. I believe that in this way and only in this way shall we surmount the dangers thrown up by the Middle East war.
4.51
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, am grateful to my noble friend, Lord Kennet, for tabling this Question, though I do not go all the way with him on it, and I am very happy to follow the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, with whose speech I agreed almost entirely. I will try to limit my comments to the Question and

411
not clutter up my intervention with recriminations against either countries or persons. First, the immediate steps the Government have taken so far have only given me an insight into the unacceptable face of neutrality. The Prime Minister has really given this country a wonderful all-purpose adjective and we should be grateful to him for it.
I will only go back to Resolution 242, which by reiteration should now become Resolution 2042. Presented as a panacea for peace, it stopped short of stating that the Arabs and Israelis must get round the conference table for negotiations. All honour to the men in the Labour Government for introducing it at the time, because it achieved the cease-fire. But during the years from 1967 Resolution 242 has become an inhibiting factor to peace negotiations. It has not only veiled the hard reality between the Arabs and the Israelis but it has given time for the Russians to re-arm the Arabs to the hilt.
Nowhere in the world has peace been achieved in any conflict unless we have had confrontation between the adversaries round the conference table. We have only to look back to the Vietnam war. Even though Nixon bombed his way to peace, he bombed his way to the conference table. Even to-day, when the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary have mentioned Resolution 242 they have not added anything about getting round the conference table. Whereas the Arab countries have continued to accept the Resolution they have interpreted it in their own way and against the Israelis. The Israelis have not won the propaganda war. This war is not only a war on the battle front; it is also a propaganda war. The Israelis have failed in one important respect to state their position about peace negotiations. In fact, they have not until recently stated that everything was negotiable and that they were ready for compromises. To-day I welcome what Mr. Abba Eban has said in his speech, that everything is negotiable and the Israelis are prepared for compromise. Over a year ago he came and spoke to a number of Labour peers, and I asked him why he did not repeat this statement, which he had made before, as many times
412
as everyone had repeated Resolution 242.
Egypt is a country with a great potential, and peace with Israel could be of great benefit to her people; peace between them would be of great benefit to both countries. Resolution 242 has done nothing to reduce the exaggerated fears of Israeli expansion. It always seems to be a very extraordinary thing that there are many people who fear the Jews. History over the last 2,000 years shows that Jews have had far greater reasons to fear Christians. What has happened is, in fact, that the Russians, by allowing Jews to emigrate to Israel, have not, as many Jews believe, yielded to the pressure of world liberal opinion. It has not been anything of that kind; they are not sensitive in that respect. They have done it deliberately as a lever to inflame and frighten Arabs about colonialism. The manœuvres of the Soviet Union, both in armaments and propaganda, have been very mischievous, and I do not believe somehow that the Government have put enough stress on this. Once again, as during the Cuba missile crisis, it has brought us to the brink of a world war. I believe Government intelligence has been extraordinarily poor on all this—poor, inadequate and unco-ordinated with intelligence in other countries, from all the analyses about the war that I have read. Many people are bewitched by the word détente and it leads them into pure wishful thinking, if not actually into danger.
The Government's bid to join other European countries by banning arms to both adversaries and their equivocal stance on neutrality I believe hold little hope of success After all, from the European countries there is a deafening silence on the fighting in the Middle East. All they can do is to capitulate to hijackers. It would seem that it must be left to Russia and America to bring about a peace settlement. And when people say we have a great part to play, well, I must say I do not believe it. We have been singularly ineffectual in breaking up the Afro-Asian Soviet bloc in the General Assembly of the United Nations. Here I believe we could have done much more. During the four successive years in which I was in the Human Rights Committee I found an extraordinary

413
silence about this subject. We did not do very much about it. What has happened is that the problems of the Palestinian refugees have been allowed to fester for years and become an obsession in the whole of this war. So far as I can see, we have done nothing to tell the truth and spread the facts that every move Israel has made to get anywhere near a solution has been repulsed by the heads of the Arab States. After the Hitler war there were thousands, millions of refugees who had lost their homes and livelihoods. Most of them have been rehabilitated. Does anyone really think that the problems of the Palestinian refugees could not have been resolved in a realistic way between the Israelis and the Arabs, in a humanitarian way with the help of other countries in the world? Instead of which one Government after the other has allowed the hatred of the Palestinians to continue to grow.
Finally, we helped to create the State of Israel at the United Nations, but unhappily, though the U.S.S.R. was a party to this, I do not believe now that the Soviet Union wants peace in the Middle East. In the years from 1947 until to-day one Government after another has missed many opportunities, out of their own self-interest, to play a strong, resolute and even quite honest part—and here we must remember Suez —towards achieving peace in the Middle East. What we should try now is to be fair rather than neutral.
5.0 p.m.
LORD BALLANTRAE: My Lords, to my sorrow I have had to live with this problem of Jews and Arabs intermittently, and at close quarters, for more than thirty-six years, well over half my life, beginning in 1937, again during the war for a short period, and again after the war when I was seconded from the Army to the Palestine Police during the last few years of the Mandate. It has always been a glory and a source of pride, looking back, how the soldiers, the police, and the officials never allowed themselves to take sides suffering many casualties, some in fair fight but many in cold-blooded murder, while holding the ring in a quarrel which was none of theirs. There were no reprisals. We just did not take sides. If I can illustrate this, one morning it fell to me to place
414
Jews on to Arab-held lands, which they had held for centuries, and to be stoned by Arabs, and in the afternoon to board a Jewish illegal immigrant ship and have my head cut open with a blow from behind with a plate. If anything could demonstrate impartiality more than that, then I rather wonder what it could be.
Those were sad days, all of them, from start to finish. I can understand those Members of your Lordships' House who feel committed, for obvious reasons, to one side or the other, such as the noble Lord, Lord Janner, and the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, whom I had hoped to greet on his eighty-ninth birthday, but he has left the Chamber. I can understand other noble Lords, and people elsewhere, who have had long connection, for one reason or another, with one side or the other, but what I want to commend to your Lordships is a more balanced approach from those who have not got this deep commitment. The noble Lord, Lord Boothby, referred two days ago to the State of Israel as one which we had helped to establish, and the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, said something much the same a few minutes ago. I would submit that if ever there was a State which established itself, it was the State of Israel.
The tragedy about the clash between the Jews and the Arabs is that they are both right. They have both suffered gross injustices over centuries. Both have been deprived of things which we have been fortunate enough to succeed to as our rightful heritage. If they have nothing else in common, they have this kind of history. Over the years, if people have put to me the Jewish case I have argued the Arab case; if they have put to me the Arab case, I have argued the Jewish case. I can assure noble Lords that I excel at both, having done it for so long. Again, I have had the advantage of listening to noble Lords, both today and the day before yesterday, and I have heard, and seen in the Press, the words "aggression" and "aggressor" being tossed from side to side. Who has been the aggressor over the years? Both. If I were an Arab I would regard the very foundation of the State of Israel as an aggression in itself. It is no good saying who is the aggressor this time, who was the aggressor in 1967, who was the

415
aggressor in 1948, or who was the aggressor over the years. This is the past. We are concerned, unhappily, with the present, and concerned even more with the future.
Six years ago, which was my last visit to Israel, I was entertained by Israeli friends. At a luncheon party my six hosts were people whose names would be household names here, and it was only four months after the Six-Day War. They said, "You know this country, you are an old friend of it. What would you do?" I was shy about saying what I would do, but when pressed I said, thinking aloud, "I would hang on to those areas from which you have been shelled in the past." The noble Lord, Lord Byers, is not here, but he talked about the Golan Heights. In 1941 I was with the Free French Forces which captured Kuneitra and Damascus, and I know that terrain, which has been in the news lately. I said, "I would retain those areas from which you have been shelled, as for instance Tel Aviv has been shelled from Qualquilya and Tulkarm; but I would surrender those areas which you do not need for defence purposes, such as much of Sinai and much of the West Bank from which Jerusalem could not be threatened." I did not think that this would go down very well, and it did not go down very well, but I thought that it would be a gesture that would "show willing". I cannot help feeling, with hindsight, that there must have been something in that.
It is very easy for us in this House, with no responsibility, to say what could or should be done. Frankly, I have no patience with what I have heard so often over the years, over the last few days, and in this Chamber this afternoon, that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has a built-in prejudice in favour of the Arabs. I should think that I have criticised the Foreign and Commonwealth Office under both its titles, and in all its incarnations, as much as anybody in this Chamber, but from my own knowledge over the years I would say that that is a canard of the first order, and it derives either from prejudice or from ignorance. I cannot think of any other source.
On this specific point of arms for resupplying Centurian tanks with spare
416
parts and specific weapons, here, alas! without the specialised knowledge of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, or the Secretary of State, I part company with what appears to be the policy. I share to the full the instinct that we should not inflame what is going on by taking sides by supplying arms, but it is my "simple soldier's" view that the decision to support with arms was one which was taken when we agreed to supply those arms, and it was a logical follow-up to that to supply what was necessary when the original purchase was negotiated. I agree, though with some regret, with those Members of this House who have taken that line. I am not thinking of our future commercial reputation, but I think as a matter of honour, that a decision was taken, whenever the decision was taken to sell these things, and it was the logical thing to follow through with the spares. I think that the whole arms trade is indecent, and I do not understand how, as other noble Lords have said, it is logical to supply people with arms and, if I may use an unparliamentary expression, "bellyache" when they use them. The old phrase on which I was brought up by my parents was this: "the right thing to do is always the best thing to do". The problem so often is to know what is the right thing to do. In applying that maxim I think we mean this, that considerations of our commercial prosperity and future supplies of oil—that sort of material consideration—should take second place to the moral ones.
I would sum up by saying that we have long-standing and age-old obligations to both sides, and that we should not shout from the touchline for one side or the other during this tragic situation in which we find ourselves. This is not our quarrel. Most speeches on this sort of subject end up with the pious words, "Pray for the peace of Jerusalem." That is not enough: we must do something positive. I believe that, however much we may disagree with some features of Her Majesty's Government's present policy, by and large this determination not to take sides, in the tradition which I described at the beginning of my remarks, is the right one, and the only one which will enable us to play our part in those negotiations for peace which we all hope will open very soon.
5.10 p.m.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, was quite right. I speak as one who for very many years not only has been interested in the subject that we are discussing to-day but has been as active as possible, I hope, to see to it that the Balfour Declaration, which was handed to a predecessor of mine, as President of the Zionist Federation, should be properly fulfilled. I think noble Lords will understand that when I say this about the speech which we have just heard about being fair—I do not want to use the phrase "evenhanded", because I am afraid that has become rather a dirty phrase at present, after the action of the Government in respect of arms for the Centurions. But I should like to point out to the House that on November 29, 1947, the United Nations voted in favour of the partition of Palestine, and that the State of Israel was formally proclaimed when the British Mandate was terminated on the day before the target date of May 14, 1948. One day later the United Nations Secretary General issued this statement:
"The Egyptian Government has declared in a cablegram to the President of the Security Council that Egyptian armed forces have entered Palestine and that it has engaged in armed intervention in that country. I consider it my duty to emphasise to you that this is the first time since the adoption of the Charter that member States have openly declared that they have engaged in armed intervention outside their own territory."
I do not want to keep the House for an undue length of time, but what followed after that was that the Arabs attacked Israel a number of times—little Israel, because it is only a small country. I believe it is a wonderful country, because I think that during the whole time, while there has been pressure on all sides from her enemies, Israel has shown herself to be an example to the world. Anyone who has been there or who knows anything at all about its achievements must agree with that. She did not want war. She wanted to be left alone in peace to build universities and to take into her fold the 700,000 Jews who had to flee from Arab countries—we must never forget that—and the immigrants from Russia and other countries where their fellow Jews were being persecuted. She accepted them as brothers; she accepted them as her own flesh and blood. I wish to goodness that the Arab nations, when we talk of the question of refugees,
418
had not taken the diabolical step of teaching their youngsters in the schools to hate; asking them for example (and this was discovered as soon as the 1967 war was over) not whether two and two made four but if they killed two Israelis and then two further Israelis were killed, how many Israelis would have been killed? That is not human; that is uncivilised; and it is one of the things that has caused this war and has created hatred, even amongst infants, against Israel. Let us face the facts: that that is the situation.
Israel is a country devoted to culture; a country devoted to, let me say, everything that we in this country hold dear; and a country which was very much devoted to this country until, unhappily —and I appeal to the noble Baroness—the Government took the step which they did the other day. There is bitterness in a country which loved the British people and which got on well with us in spite of all the incidents during the Mandate period and everything else. Those difficulties had all been forgotten. Thus, the quality and integrity of our Judiciary and their Judiciary are the same. They have followed our example as a democratic State and in practically everything, even to the creation of similar youth clubs. They are similar men. They have loved the contacts with our country. They have welcomed anybody who came from this country even more than they have welcomed other peoples. Anyone who has been there knows that. For heaven's sake!, why have we suddenly taken an action which has caused bitterness and which has made them feel that, once again, they are alone except for the U.S.A. and the Jewish communities of the world —and I am proud of the Jewish people because they are doing this. There has been not even a single peep of a voice condemning what was obviously an act of aggression by Egypt and Syria on the holiest day of the Jewish calendar.
We are not unaccustomed to the kind of attitude the Arab aggressors take towards religion. We know very well what happened when the Jordanians (quite wrongly, according to the United Nations) invaded Jerusalem and, out of the 35 synagogues with hundreds of years' standing, destroyed all but one and even used some of them for lavatories. They took tomb stones from the graveyards which were sacred to the Jewish people

419
and put them inside lavatories as floors. What is the matter with us? Are we civilised, or not? Do we not realise that what we are in fact doing if we do not support the cause of Israel is actually letting down the very State we created, or helped to create, and which has never let us down from the day the Declaration of Independence was made, when Ben Gurion declared to the world that he hoped the Arab world and every one of the surrounding nations would come together so that they could work with each other in order to do what Israel has since shown she has been able to do and what the Jewish settlements in Palestine had previously shown could be done. I-low can we possibly compare the situation in so far as land is concerned. I ask the noble Lord who spoke before me. When the First World War had finished millions of square miles were handed over by the Allies to the Arab nations—millions of square miles! They had every opportunity of cultivating them. And after the Second World War, after the holocaust which took place in Germany, after the horrific manner in which the Jews had been slaughtered in Germany, this little bit of land allotted to the Jews gave the remnants shelter. Who was hurt by that? Forgive my speaking plainly, but I think the time has come to speak plainly about Arabs who lived in Palestine before the State of Israel. What did the Arab landlords do? It is well known. They lived in Damascus and in Cairo and they ground down the peasants in Palestine. They made them pay both rent and a huge part of the results of the peasants' hard work. They made many of the peasants themselves who were working the land practically bankrupt. When Jews came and bought some land the benefits of their irrigating the soil and everything else they did also helped their Arab neighbours.
Does anyone honestly think that the Jewish people, either in Israel or in any other part of the world, are not grieving at the loss of life both of their kinsmen and of the Arabs. Of course they are. In Israel itself the death of a single individual, Arab or Jew, is mourned. The Arabs in Israel to-day are certainly not refusing to help. They are helping the Israeli people in their struggle against the aggressors. Why cannot we go to
420
the Arab world and say, "Why do you not do as Israel is doing? Why did you not do it with the refugees?" But let us forget that. Let them to-day come together with Israel to settle down and work out a plan whereby everybody living in the Middle East can live there in comfort and can live in peace. It is possible.
I turn again to the noble Baroness. I am sorry to have to do this. I wish that the Minister himself was sitting there, for I would then use harder words than I am using now. I know where the noble Baroness stands; I know that she has a good heart and a good head—if I may say so with respect—as had her very respected father-in-law who, when I was in the House of Commons and until he left for Canada, was at various times the Chairman of the Committee of the AngloIsrael Parliamentary Group. And let us remember what Churchill said at a time when he was planting a tree—and that is what the Arabs should be doing: planting trees, pushing back the desert; not indulging in wars against people who do not want to fight, and who never have wanted to fight their fellow men—in the garden of the site for the future Hebrew University, the provision of which was one of the first things the Jewish people did after the Balfour Declaration. Sir Winston said—and I remember his words; I noted them then:
"I believe that the building of a Jewish national home in Palestine will be a blessing to the whole world, a blessing to the Jewish race scattered all over the world, a blessing to Great Britain."
My Lords, I believe that that is what it is and should continue to be. What I am hoping is that the noble Baroness will go back to the Minister and tell him that it has not been a one-sided decision and ask him to save a small nation like Israel from being annihilated; for that is what the Arab leaders—I do not say the Arab people—wish to do. Does nobody on the Government side, or on any side of the House remember what has happened in the past? I fought my own Party on this issue many years ago. This is not a Party issue. Does nobody remember when the Grand Mufti and his associates were in Germany with Hitler declaring the same kind of policy as her against the Jews at that time? How on earth can we tolerate the kind of thing said by Nasser and by Sadat and all the

421
rest? If we take proper action the Arab people themselves will realise that civilisation is on their side and not on the side of their misleading leaders. What a terrible thing it was! Does not the noble Baroness agree?
My Lords, let us take the question of the Centurions. Israel has about 1,500 tanks. I do not know the exact figure but it is something like that. Over 600 of them are Centurions. The other day I asked: "How dare we break a contract which we entered into with those who relied on us and trusted us to supply the ammunition and spare parts of these tanks? We are giving a damaging blow to Israel's defence so far as tanks are concerned if we do not supply them with the accessories. A legal contract was entered into with them. Can the noble Baroness or the Government tell us what is the law with regard to contracts? Have the Government a right to break the contract without having put terms to that effect in the contract by which the Centurions were supplied? Of course we have not. In this connection, I should like to ask the noble Baroness another question. Is it true that the Centurions, having been handed over to the Israelis, were actually on a ship ready to go out and is it true that on a question of timing —perhaps she will remember why—the ship was stopped on the pretext that the Centurions should be carried on one ship instead of on two—thus enabling this terrible and vicious decision not to supply them to be come to? Where is the fairness of it? Where is the commercial integrity?
Other Members of your Lordships' House I am sure will be wanting to speak. I do not want to take up too much time of the House but I must ask the forgiveness of noble Lords if I do so; because this is something which has been in my life for the past 60 years. It has given me a tremendous amount of pride to see that what I have been striving for in a humble way was achieved and successfully worked out in the moral and civilised sense. I would say this to the noble Baroness. Do not imagine that it is a one-sided decision for that small State. A vast amount of armaments are being poured into the Arab States by Russia with her tremendous strength which no doubt has been planning much of the position for some considerable
422
time. Will we let Israel down on a matter of armaments?
It is obvious what is happening now. Britain has a marvellous reputation for fair play in the matter of contracts. I am not talking only about the contract for the Centurion tanks but also the contract which established the Jewish National Home in the State of Israel to which we pledged ourselves. Do not let that State down. Because if you do you are letting down the integrity of the British people that you seem to uphold; you are letting down Britain; you are letting down all civilised people in the world—and they will never forgive us. I pray to the noble Baroness, see that the Arabs and the Jews come together at a round table. Do not start saying the kind of thing that the Foreign Secretary said in his speech at Harrogate. How on earth can you possibly expect the Arabs not to be encouraged if our Foreign Secretary advises Israel, "Go back to the previous borders with minor alterations"? What would have happened if Israel had accepted that advice? She could have been annihilated within three or four minutes, when citizens were praying to God, the God of us all, on the day which they regard as the most important in their lives.
I appeal to the noble Baroness and to the Government, do not let us be blackmailed. I call it "black-moil", and I think that is right. You will never be able to succeed if you give in to a blackmailer. Appeasement is hopeless. We in the legal profession know this. Stand up to them. Tell them that the world will not stand for it, and I believe by that method we shall have the world behind us, and will come to a satisfactory solution.
5.32 p.m.
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: My Lords, if I am unable to stay for the whole of this debate it is not out of disrespect to your Lordships but because I have a long-standing outside engagement later in the evening. I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, on celebrating his birthday. He is an old political adversary of mine. We are all delighted to see him looking so well and so hearty.
My Lords, I am neither pro-Jew nor pro-Arab, though I must say that over the years and in another place I have

423
spoken on this matter and have frequently followed the noble Lord, Lord Janner. I must say clearly that my sympathies are with the Israelis and I shall try to explain why. At the outset I shall be frank and say that I have little confidence in the United Nations, having watched them at work over the years. When they do not want to do a thing they do not do it. No doubt when the settlement is brought about they will play a role by policing and bringing the forces to stay on a neutral line. But they will not bring about a complete settlement. That will be left to others. It seems to me, my Lords, that the United States has been very patient over this whole affair. They did not start to pour in arms on a massive scale until a few days ago, so far as we know. We read about Phantoms being flown from the Azores. That was the first intimation to the world of American reinforcements. But the Russians had been doing this for days and weeks and years on a scale which is unbelievable. One noble Lord, I forget which one, said this afternoon that we should bring about a complete embargo. If a complete embargo were brought about now, who has the stockpile to use to beat the other side? The Arabs, and that just would not do.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Harvey of Prestbury, will permit me to interrupt him? What he is saying is most interesting. Can he give us any figures? Does he know the relative military strength of the two sides? What is the size of the Arab stockpile which he thinks is superior to the Israeli stockpile?
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: My Lords, it is quite impossible for me to answer the noble Lord accurately. He probably knows much more about it than I do. I know only what I read in the newspapers and they are rather inaccurate. But it is generally accepted that the Arab countries have far more arms than the Israelis, probably three or four times more—at least four times—
LORD KENNET: My Lords, at the risk—
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: Let me finish my sentence. And the Egyptian air force has hardly been used to date. Now I will give way.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I know that continually to interrupt is very bad and I will not do it again. But the noble Lord says on the one hand that "nobody knows", and on the other hand that it is "generally accepted". I always find those two statements so hard to reconcile.
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: I did not say that nobody knows, my Lords. Obviously some people do. No doubt the British Government know. But I do not know. I am quoting only what I read in the papers and I accept the general assumption.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, will The noble Lord allow me to interrupt him for one moment? Would the noble Lord point out to his noble friend that the SAMS, which are the most effective weapon to-day, were, as is known by us and the world, provided by Russia? What steps did we take to give Israel a defensive weapon against them?
LORD HARVEY or PRESTBURY: My Lords, I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Janner. But he has spoken for some 20 minutes, and while I sympathise with him, I think that he must battle it out with his noble friend. Nobody who believes in democracy, as we in this country and in this House believe in it, could stand aside and watch Israel devastated; because that is what would happen if the Americans and ourselves stood aside. The Israelis would be devastated. And when they speak about going back to the 1967 boundaries, that is unthinkable from the Israeli point of view. But I would suggest to your Lordships that if they had really got together it might have been possible for them to have gone back for some distance. After all, Israel does not want the whole of the Sinai desert, though I think they need part of it. Certainly they need the Golan Heights. President Sadat says that there are weapons that can be fired to any part of Israel. Imagine what would happen if the Israelis had not got the Sinai desert between themselves and the Egyptians. So I think that we have got to come off that one.
My Lords, in my view Israel has had a very raw deal from the French and that is a matter which has hardly been discussed at all in recent days. In 1967

425
the French cut off the arms deliveries, including Mirage fighters. I recall that the Jews outsmarted the French at Cherbourg when they got six torpedo boats out of the harbour in the middle of the night. No doubt those vessels have proved very useful since. But, to make matters worse, the French have sold large numbers of Mirages to Libya. In fact, my Lords, the French sell arms wherever they can, and get money wherever they can, regardless of the consequences. They were given guarantees by Libya that these planes would not be used against Israel but I think that there is fairly definite proof now that they have been used; or at least some of them have been used against Israel. The Prime Minister of Israel says that she has evidence in the form of one Mirage that was shot down. We shall know more about that. But how does Britain stand with France in these matters if we are trying to do so much in mediation? We are in the E.E.C. with the French. Ought not there to be a unified policy with Britain and France and the European countries, not only with a view to bringing about a settlement, but also in order to face up to the fuel problem which will be upon us very shortly?
I should like to hear from my noble friend what is the position with the French and with the Western countries of Europe as a whole. To what extent are we working together to bring about a settlement and a unified policy among ourselves? An arms embargo would be a wonderful thing if all the nations agreed about it, but they do not. What is the point of Britain having an embargo in this respect and where do we really stand? The Israeli army is equipped mainly with Centurion tanks, and the Centurion is probably one of the best tanks in the world. I remember that the Israelis had two on loan when that tank was being developed years ago. In battle the Centurion tanks have proved their worth. They have out-gunned the Russian tanks. A great many of these British tanks have been put out of action and we are refusing to provide spare parts. I believe that at one time Mr. Harold Wilson even agreed to supply were sold to South Africa. Surely, if spares for the twin-engine aircraft that we sell a weapon to a nation we are under an obligation to honour that deal
426
by providing spare parts, otherwise it is not playing straight or fair with that nation. We should never have gone into the contract if the intention was not to supply spare parts. Our country will not be respected throughout the world, and least of all in the United States. Here we might have some influence to get President Nixon to do all he can to get together with the Russians. Had the relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union three years ago been what it is to-day, the war may not have happened. I believe that peace must come from the efforts of these two great nations. There may be a minor role for Britain. Do not let us overstate our case as to what we can do in this matter, but at least let us behave honourably and do what we believe to be the right thing.
My Lords, we applied an arms embargo in 1967 to the whole of the Middle East. Now it is applied to the battlefield countries. Does it apply to Saudi Arabia, who is supplying equipment and men and to whom we have commitments? And I am not too happy —it is a small contract—about the twelve helicopters which the Egyptians have ordered from Westlands down in the West Country, where the pilots even today, as I understand it, are being trained to fly. It is the impression that we are siding with the Arab countries that is all wrong. The effect of the embargo, in my view, has made Britain appear to be discriminating against Israel. We shall never live it down with the Israelis or with the millions of Jews in the United States.
I doubt whether either side will be able to claim an early victory. This war will go on far longer than most people realise, and before Israel runs out of equipment she will probably run out of trained technicians—air pilots and so on. That is the danger. Israel can afford her losses far less than Egypt. Egypt can put in another 50,000 troops and not notice it. I think the Secretary of State's policy a few days ago of trying to mediate was the right one, but I question whether it is the right policy to-day. I noticed in his Statement in the other place on Tuesday the Secretary of State said that he might be prepared to review it. I personally hope that he will. I have a great respect for the Secretary of

427
State and for his noble friend who is to answer the debate to-day, and I ask him to reconsider this whole matter, because otherwise it is something that we shall regret in the years to come.
I very much doubt whether Israel and the Arab countries are even capable of finding their own peace. I want to say again that Britain should bring all the pressure she can on the United States and Soviet Russia to get together. There may be a role for us here; I do not know: I should like to think that there could be. But what if in the meanwhile Israel is desperate. What secret weapons has Israel? They may have a small atomic weapon; we do not know. But she might have, because there are clever men there and technicians who have been working in the country for many years. We have to stop the war by every means we can.
Finally, my Lords, so far as North Sea oil is concerned, I think the Daily Express hit the nail on the head to-day in its leading article, which said that this ought to be treated as a wartime operation. Congress in America have been arguing the toss for two years as to whether the pipilinc from Alaska should or should not be laid down. They could have had oil to-day frond Alaska if they had got busy. I am sure that this country can accelerate the oil from the North Sea if we go about it in the right way and treat it as a war-time operation. Fuel is the lifeline for our trade and our people. I should like to have an assurance on this. I wish the Government well in their endeavours—it is not easy for them—but I ask them to bring all the pressure they can on the United States and Soviet Russia.
5.44 p.m.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, I shall endeavour, so far as possible, to keep within the words of the Motion. First of all, I want to apologise to the House and to the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, if I am prevented from staying to the end of the debate due to a commitment which, unfortunately, I am unable to waive at this stage. I should like to endorse completely all the words that we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Harvey of Prestbury, and would perhaps go even further. In my view, this is a stupid and totally unnecessary
428
war. If the fighting is allowed to go on, whichever side wins it can end only in utter disaster for both.
Egypt did not enter this war mainly to regain her lost territory. She has no need of the Sinai Desert. She already has enough desert of her own. She has no need of the Sinai oilfields. She has plenty of oil in the Western Desert, and if she had only had the wisdom and statesmanship to make a peace with Israel long ago, American capital could have flowed into these oilfields and made her people far more prosperous than ever they could hope to become with a regained Sinai Desert. No: she has gone into this war because she was smarting, naturally enough, under her defeat in 1967, and she had to restore her national pride and regain her self-respect and the respect of the world. This I think she has already achieved. She now holds both banks of the Suez Canal, and has, moreover, demonstrated her fighting qualities. So now her honour should be satisfied. If she seeks the destruction of Israel she is very likely to fail, and at a terrible cost to herself. So why need the war go on? Does Egypt want more of the Sinai Desert back? If so she can then have it today—any day—if only she can be persuaded to go to the negotiating table. Or else what? The war will go on, more precious blood will be spilt and more innocent Egyptian and Israeli lives will have to be sacrificed.
My Lords, why is Britain so impotent amid all this carnage? Do we have to remain just lookers-on, watching two fine nations destroy themselves? Where has all our moral leadership gone today? Are we just to wait, as the noble Baroness. Lady Tweedsmuir, suggested in this House last Monday, until we can ask our Allies, or anyone else who will listen to us, to come together? And if we ask and no-one listens to us, what then? Are we just to go on waiting in the hope that someone may one day come and listen to us? What a pitiful role for Britain to assume in the 'seventies. Do we just continue to sit on on a barbed wire fence in the hope that something may happen? Something certainly will happen. We shall be increasingly uncomfortable as time goes on. We cannot maintain our humiliating posture for very long. Already we are feeling the pinch of Arab blackmail over

429
oil. How much longer do we propose to submit to further blackmail? For sitting on the fence cannot help us.
What I am desperately anxious about, my Lords, is to see Britain regain her moral leadership even at this late hour. How can this best be done? I shall try to tell the noble Baroness. First, I should like Britain to-day to tell all the combatants that this round must be the final round, and that Britain intends to use all her power and all her moral authority to insist that this will be the final round; that we shall brook no more war in the Middle East. Whatever the outcome of this fighting this war must be the last round that Britain will allow. The time to say this is now, when a virtual stalemate has developed, and before one side has been able to crush the other.
I would ask the noble Baroness why she has not done this already. It will go further than anything else she can do—certainly much further than her unjust arms embargo—to assert Britain's moral leadership in the world. That is our first step. The second step is to insist that the cease-fire, when it comes, must be followed by a real peace, not merely an armed truce. We must insist on the breakdown of enmities and the establishment of free, civilised. cultural and commercial relationships between both sides. We must insist on an open door, not an impenetrable barrier of peace-keeping States to push Israel and her neighbours still further apart. The Arab peoples, not their leaders, are basically friendly and peace-loving. We must seek to draw all the peoples of the Middle East together, not to keep them further apart. That is the second way in which we can exert our moral leadership.
Thirdly, let us use all our influence on both sides to come together and talk together now. Israel, I imagine, is willing to do this. She has already lost the East bank of the Suez Canal to her strongest adversary, and the gain of a little Golan territory is no compensation for this. Since both sides have already proclaimed their faith in Resolution 242, for heaven's sake let us not insist on Israel's withdrawal as a pre-condition for negotiation. I was glad to see that this point was strongly brought out by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, in his excellent speech. It would be utterly unreasonable for us to
430
insist on this prior to a package deal and would needlessly prolong the war.
Israel is naturally only too suspicious of a confidence trick when there is so much at stake—even her very survival as a nation. So let us get her to guarantee her withdrawal out of Sinai and out of the newly-occupied Golan, not as a preliminary step but rather as the later step of a package deal, once the two sides have begun talking together, not as victor and vanquished but as honourable equals around a negotiating table. I feel sure that Israel could be pressed to accept this, and in my opinion it would afford a honourable cease-fire to both sides. And we must use all our moral authority as a true friend of Egypt to persuade her to accept these conditions now that her honour has been vindicated. The time to act is now, before Egypt attempts any further to weaken Israel and runs the certain risk of only still further weakening herself, even if she emerges as the victor, which may still be a matter of doubt. If we still have any capacity for moral leadership left I can only emphasise that the time to exert it is now, this very day, in this very debate.
There is one final point on which we must speak out clearly this evening. Just because this war is being financed largely out of Arab oil revenues to which Britain has made a significant contribution, so we must make it quite clear that our Treasury will place no obstacles in the way of voluntary funds being sent out to Israel for the succour of their wounded and their bereaved families in this cruel, senseless, preventable war. I would ask the noble Baroness to assert this quite clearly and beyond any doubt when she comes to reply this evening. Otherwise Britain will stand pilloried before world opinion and lose all the prestige of that moral leadership on which we have always prided ourselves in the past and which we can still assert to-day if we are strong enough to make our influence felt.
So I conclude, as I began, by saying that we can still, at this late hour, exercise our moral leadership in this terrible war by taking four clear steps: First, to insist beyond any doubt that this must be the last round of any war in the Middle East; secondly, to ensure that when a cease-fire comes it shall lead not to an armed truce but to a real peace in every sense of the word; thirdly, to take our

431
stand—as we have already done, I think, but not emphatically enough and not clearly enough—by Resolution 242, but with the proviso that withdrawal by Israel must not be a pre-condition of negotiations but the later stage of a package deal to ensure that Israel shall not fall victim to a confidence trick which might be perpetrated by the Arabs; and fourthly, to allow Israel to receive any funds contributed to her aid to succour the bereaved and the wounded, just as the oil revenues obtained from Britain by the Arab States have contributed to their war effort.
The noble Baroness has toiled incessantly for peace all her public life, certainly in Iceland and even in Scotland. There is a wonderful opportunity this evening to bring peace nearer to the Middle East. I can only pray that she will not let this opportunity slip. It is one that may never recur before humanity makes yet another hideous leap backwards into the Dark Ages.
5.57 p.m.
LORD GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, I should like to begin my speech with an apology to those who opened the debate that, as I explained to one of the noble Lords concerned, I was involved this afternoon in an appointment made three months ago which there was no possible avoiding. I would also, if I may, like to preface my remarks with a very sincere compliment to the noble Baroness who will be winding-up this debate for the skilful and conciliatory way in which she is handling an occasion which, whatever Government was in power and whatever the policy, would still be difficult.
I intervene in this debate for two reasons: the first is a purely personal one in that in my wanderings round the world I have made so many good friends from both Arab States and from Israel that it goes very much to my heart when these terrible things happen. I remember so well when I gave a lecture on foreign policy at one time in Delhi, the very intelligent Indian chairman at the end said, "You have spoken a great deal about a conciliatory policy towards all countries, but what do you do when your friends fall out with each other?" This is what we see now. Perhaps my more down-to-earth reason for trespassing on
432
your Lordships' time is that I was very close to events under the Foreign Secretaryship of the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, in 1967 when the last conflict occurred, and perhaps if I allude to one OT two aspects of that war it may help to dissipate certain illusions which go round and round in the air and on paper at the moment, and that may be of some service.
We have to remember that in May, 1967, in diplomatic terms, the State of Israel was "framed"; that is to say, that the action taken then by the then President of Egypt to insist on the withdrawal of the United Nations Emergency Force left Israel, in the atmosphere of those days, apparently without the proper ability to defend itself. Of course, things did not work out in that way; but I can assure your Lordships that when that particular event happened there was an immense apprehension as to what its consequences would be, and also an immense disappointment that the United Nations felt unable to do anything about it. On this point the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, has written very strongly, and while I do not necessarily share every word he uses I must share his criticism of that event.
When the Israelis had surprised the world by the result of the 1967 war, the sequel is important to remember. The immediate sequel was that the Soviet Government hurried to the United Nations General Assembly and sought to push through a totally pro-Arab and anti-Israel Motion. This in fact failed, but I mention it because there has been a great deal of protestation that the Powers did not get together at that moment and begin to put things in order. There has been also protestation that we all just sat around and did nothing for several months. I want to emphasise the nonsense of this kind of thing, because there is an inclination by people, from the very best of motives and with the most peaceful of intentions, to imagine that when you have a disaster like this you can come up at once with a solution and with conciliation, and they ask: "What are we all hanging around for?" But international life is not like that, and when you have the bitterness and the harm such as that caused by the Soviet Motion, you find that for some time you cannot do anything at all. This is not through

433
want of good will on our part or want of skill, and not through partisanship—and here perhaps, since my former Department has been mentioned in this connection, I might assure your Lordships that when I had the authority in this matter I regarded it as my duty not to get into a position of bias, and I am sure that my successor holds the same view.
The result of the situation was that for some months there was no possibility of progress, but in September in New York the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, in contact with the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, saw a glimmer of light on the possibility of reaching some kind of agreed Motion in the Security Council on which we could proceed further. But even then, when there is this background of bitterness and controversy and when you are trying to get the representatives of fifteen States to be unanimous in accepting a basis for a solution, you are not going to do that in a reasonable discussion lasting one afternoon. The fact that we achieved it between us in slightly less than two months, I can assure your Lordships, was really something of a miracle. But it was done, and it was done by hard work and good instinct. Perhaps I might add that it will be a source of some gratification to members of your Lordships' House to recall that the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, and the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, both played such a large part in this one constructive thing which has been done since 1967.
I will not labour the subsequent history, but there is one feature of the next period which I am bound, somewhat reluctantly, to emphasise. Of course it was the hope that after Resolution 242 had been adopted there could be some form of reconciling the Israeli and Arab points of view, but there was a certain fatality about this situation in which our Israeli friends insisted that there must be a particular kind of negotiation—direct negotiation—which at that stage, in their humiliation and fury, the Arab States were not prepared to entertain. It seems strange that things should have been halted on what is basically a point of procedure, though of course it was symbolic of the feelings on both sides. But this attitude had the very negative effect that the concessions which Israel might
434
have obtained by a quick and generous sequel to their outstanding victory were not obtained then, and will, I fear, be more difficult to obtain now. That is why the next round, and the finding of the solution we all hope for will be very difficult indeed.
I think there is one other point to be underlined about that—because again I have been astounded to hear, in the somewhat emotional atmosphere in the media, somebody who is reckoned to be an expert on the Middle East talking about "Israel's withdrawal from the territories occupied in 1967." I think it is not out of place to remind your Lordships that the Resolution itself says only "from territories". That was put in specially in that form to allow at least some concession to Israel—a small one, if important—in respect of what had been occupied at that time. It is as well to remember that Resolution 242 does have that amount of leeway, though it is not very great; and Resolution 242 will have to be, I am sure, the basis of a future solution.
Now may I turn away from the past and concentrate on the present and the future. On the subject of energy I have been, frankly, depressed by the kind of despondent rut into which the media of all kinds have got about the effect on our energy position of the present crisis. I think it was Field Marshall Wavell who once wrote to the effect that: "If you feel in a battle that you are in a very difficult position, just think for a moment what a terrible time the fellow on the other side is having". If you think for a moment from the point of view of the producers of the oil, it then occurs to you that oil is not much good unless you get money for it, and if you choose not to sell it you do not get money for it. There will be those among the producers who will quite soon realise that any excessive use of the apparent weapon of oil is, in the long run, not going to suit them particularly well. This is particularly true, I would submit vis-à-vis this country. We have other resources of energy. The noble Lord, Lord Harvey of Prestbury, referred to North Sea oil. One should also refer to coal and to nuclear energy. Of course I realise you cannot drive your automobile on nuclear energy or coal, and if we make considerable recourse to other forms of energy in order to carry on, we

435
shall have to change our style of life somewhat, and there is no reason why we should be frightened of that. But think that a recovery of morale on this subject does depend a little on the line that the Government are prepared to take, but I know that many people are worried that there has not been the possibility so far of a detailed and encouraging statement on future nuclear poky. I do hope that the noble Baroness will be able to give us a little encouragement on this—not so much on immediate precautions, because the British are very good at that sort of thing, but in regard to a more forward look at energy, just in case these things should go wrong.
Finally, if I may, I should like to turn to possible action in the immediate future, both as to stopping the war and as to what should be done afterwards—particularly the latter. I think, again, as the noble Lord, Lord Harvey of Prestbury, pointed out, that we must not exaggerate our own influence in these matters. We were able to be remarkably effective in 1967 because we happened to be the permanent member of the Security Council in the middle of the argument, and we may still have the advantage of that position. But I think we must never overrate our effect, particularly on the policies of the United States, and also those of the Soviet Union, though I have no doubt that the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary will be doing his best even at this stage. I think there are many ways in which, if we could get a cease-fire, we could then handle the matter. I believe that Sir Alec has suggested a conference as one way, and the conference might, again, go over to mediation.
I should like to make one suggestion on that matter. The United Nations have tried one kind of mediation and Dr. Gunnar Jarring did as much as anybody could in that particular style, which was to move around trying to see where there might be a little give in the attitude of one side or the other. This meant that the mediation kept on while ceasing to mediate. I hope that the Government might consider an alternative way of doing this, which might be for the United Nations to appoint somebody disinterested, and request that person to examine past history, to talk to anybody and everybody, including all the countries
436
concerned, and then to put forward a possible solution and retire from the job. The effect might well be that everybody would say that the solution was wrong; but it would be a document totally disinterested because its author would have detached himself from the operation in front of the world. The Secretary General of the United Nations would at least be bound to table it and to recommend nations to discuss it. I do not suggest that the Secretary General should undertake this task because he is at least under the influence of votes in the United Nations and these, as we all know in this matter and others, are singularly one-sided.
Now, the result of all this—what might happen in the peace settlement? I found it encouraging in the Statement which the noble Baroness repeated for us on Tuesday to note a reference to the setting up of an international force to police the cease fire and to guarantee what came after. I would ask the noble Baroness to take that a little further on two matters: would I be right in interpreting the Government as meaning that there would be an international force there under conditions in International Law which would enable it and indeed compel it to stay there? The great weakness of the previous position was that one Government could tell it to go away. Another weakness was that it was not on the Israeli side. In the future it would have to be on both sides of the line and it would have to be mighty difficult to get it ordered away.
The other point which may be more difficult to expand on is whether the word "guarantees" includes national guarantees for whatever is settled. You can interpret the statement either way on this point. I think this would be necessary, though one is aware again that guarantees have the difficulty that the guarantor is somewhat at the mercy of the people on whose behalf the guarantee has been given. None the less, it probably will be necessary in the future to have the settlement guaranteed by the international community of all political complexions.
My Lords, I apologise for having detained your Lordships so long with material of some detail but I think it is also of some relevance. I would make one general observation to conclude: When I hear my Arab and Israeli friends

437
talking I remain deeply worried by the blank in understanding. There is a great difficulty for the Arabs in understanding the unique, basic, deep-rooted meaning of Jerusalem to the Jewish race as a whole. It is something difficult to comprehend. Also, our friends from Israel sometimes find it difficult to understand a passionate devotion to land, even if it is land which produces nothing which the people of the Arab race have as part of their inner soul. That is the degree of the obstinacy of this problem, and one can only express the hope, as so many of your Lordships have expressed it, that with the efforts of our own Government and many others, at last we can arrive at a situation in which the Holy Land is no longer an Armageddon.
6.15 p.m.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, I am very glad that I am following the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, who has given us a very useful statement on the background of what we are discussing and has saved a lot of trouble for those of us who were going to have difficulty regarding Resolution 242. I am grateful to him for explaining—and this should have been made clear long ago—that in the negotiation of Resolution 242 the terms were not a question of "the territories", but of "territories". I was unofficially at the United Nations at the time when the discussion was going on, and it was obvious that no agreement would have been secured if it had meant that the Israelis would have had to surrender areas which they regard and which I myself emphatically regard as essential for their own protection: the Golan Heights and Northern Sinai. As has been pointed out already, if they had not had these at this time Israel would probably have been overrun.
The questions we are discussing are terribly difficult—nobody has to repeat that in this House. As the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, has explained, the whole of the international relations are complex and are far deeper than anything—except, if I may say so, our own problems in Northern Ireland. It is so complicated because of the nature of the misunderstandings: I profoundly regard them as misunderstandings. It is a depth of conviction arising from misunderstandings, because if the people in the Middle East had looked at their own
438
historical past, their own religious past and everything else, they might have seen how in contemporary society Israel could provide them with the answer to their age-old problems. If I confess that I am very much pro-Israeli, it is because since the foundation of the State of Israel I have, as I have on the other side of the border as well, been heavily involved in the question of technical development. And nowhere else in the world can you see in a more dramatic form what people can do when they have the will and knowledge to do it, and when they are not trying to exploit somebody else. They have developed whatever they had in their territory.
I repeat what somebody else said this afternoon: that in fact the Arabs might have done this in their territories if they had taken advantage of the example that Israel has set. That has been my case ever since I went to Israel for the United Nations in the early days. I discovered in Israel, if I may say so without recrimination, something which has now become a tenet with me: I believe in people who plant trees as against people who cut them down. The history of the desert in the Middle East is that it is very largely man made: people cut the trees down. In Israel they are replanting trees. To me this is important.
I cannot be truly impersonal or a true professor of international relations in this particular matter because at this moment my own intimate friends are in battle. Only a few months ago I was in the University of the Negev, which is a very remarkable institution created in the desert, in a city of now 80,000 people. When I first went there I went in a jeep across the desert trail to a camel market town. This has been created by the efforts of the people who in every sense have been making their own existence. I was at Rehovot when they were opening a new institute at the Weismann Institute, a very impressive building, and somebody had the impertinence to ask what everybody felt like asking of one of the professors: "How far is the nearest bomber base from here?" The answer was, "Ten minutes; but the nearest institute of this kind is 2,000 miles away." At the same time somebody said, "You are building for the future", and the answer was, "This is our future. There is nothing beyond this. If we lose the State of Israel we have lost everything."

439
Now that is what we are facing to-day in circumstances which I find quite intolerable. I must say, as a pacifist, a person who would never want to be engaged with the merchants of death or the sale of arms by Governments (I disapproved violently when we got into the racket ourselves) that to-day I feel that the uttermost betrayal is the betrayal of my friends in the desert, the professors, the students who are now exposed to enemy attack with no means of returning fire. Only to-day I had a telegram from a professor who is now in the battle line saying, "For goodness sake! make it clear to the British Government that what you are doing to us is something which is inhuman". Therefore I ask the noble Baroness and the Government to think very hard—I believe everyone has said it and I hope this lesson has been driven home—about an embargo which is certainly not even-handed but in fact means that we have betrayed. I do not want to get out of even the commercial relationship: if you give people arms and do not give them to ammunition, you have made them more vulnerable than they were originally, and made them dependent on something which is useless.
As to where we go from here, the answer is, as the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, said, on a long haul. The one thing we must get now is a peace, and, I would suggest, a peace with a great deal of urgency. I have got a sense that people are standing back and saying, "Let them bash it out and they will find their own answer". The answer is not like that at all. It is not only the involvement of the Sam missiles, not only the growing build-up of the big super-Powers, the possibility of intervention; not only the possibility, as has been stressed, that the cities of Israel will be directly attacked. We are also perilously on the brink of a nuclear war—perilously, I have no inside information, I have no spies, but on my calculation Israel has at least a capacity for two atomic bombs, and I do not believe that they would be lacking in the means of delivery. If this state of affairs deteriorates, as a drawn-out war will do, we shall find, as we did in the Second World War, people getting to extremities of inhumanity which will involve the whole world in a nuclear war.
6.23 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, we have had a most remarkable debate. I listened to all the speeches and there is no assembly that I can think of which can have had so many people talking about a subject with such wide experience, such great knowledge and such deep feelings as we have had this afternoon. I thought the speech of Lord Shinwell was one of the most moving that I have ever heard him make—in fact, one of the most moving that I ever have heard. I thought the speech of Lord Gore-Booth was one of the most interesting we could have in a debate of this kind, since he was absolutely at the centre of the last flare-up of the war between the Arabs and the Jews.
This is indeed a most terrible moment, and I share with everyone the anxiety and the agony that we feel about all these young people, brilliant people, who are being killed to-day in this year 1973, when most of us here have lived through two wars, perhaps three wars. Surely it would have been possible not to start another war in 1973. However it is there and it has started; and what can we do to help and to prevent its going any further? There is a point I find very difficult to understand in the Government policy, and that is this matter of the embargo on sending out the spares and the equipment to make it possible for the Israeli forces to use the tanks which they have bought from us. It is obvious that in this war tanks are one of the most important weapons which are being used by both sides. There are two ways you can knock out or destroy tanks: you can either shoot them down or bomb them down, in which case they are immobilised and of no use, or you can stop them from getting the spare parts that are going to make them mobile and useful. We are obviously not prepared to indulge in anything in the nature of shooting or bombing, but the effect of our policy in preventing the Israelis from having the spare parts, which were promised to them and sold to them before the war began, is doing exactly the same thing. It is immobilising the tanks in exactly the same partisan, if I may use the word—or one-sided, if you like—way as if we were shooting at them.
Now if we want to remain neutral—and there is everything to be said for not

441
being completely involved in this affair, although I myself find it very difficult to think of neutrality when so much in the civilised world is at stake—surely the action we have taken, which so obviously completely helps the Arab side (since their tanks are not being immobilised; their tanks and their equipment are all pouring in from Russia; there is nothing immobilised about that) while that action has been taken, I dare say, in good faith —I am not suggesting for a moment that we all do not admire the Foreign Secretary and also Lady Tweedsmuir; nobody has my greater admiration—is embarking on a policy which is partisan to the extreme, since the effect is identical. If, by something you can do yourself, even though it is not firing a gun or using a bomb, you stop the weapons from being used you are doing exactly the same thing as if you were shooting them down. I hope that the words of the Foreign Secretary do mean something and that this is a matter that can be reconsidered and will be reconsidered as fast as possible, because in my opinion, it is a most terrible thing.
The other matter that has been spoken about by Lord Harvey of Prestbury and Lord Gridley, and I think by Lord Ballantrae—they all said the same thing —is this idea that we can be blackmailed by the Arabs in connection with oil. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, that Arab countries want to sell their oil; they want to buy materials; they want to buy manufactured goods. Their standard of living depends on their being able to exchange what they have and what the world wants for what they have not got and do want. Therefore there is no reason on earth why they should be blackmailed by the oil-producing Arab States. I think that is wrong; I think that is something we should not do, and I agree with Lord Grindley, who said he would rather go without the comforts of a great deal of heating, et cetera, rather than yield to that kind of blackmail. I think that would be a disaster, and I hope that in no circumstances shall we indicate to the Arabs that we are prepared to do this.
I think somebody asked how it was that we all feel so strongly about the part that Russia has played in this matter. I have been a fortunate visitor to Israel
442
many times. I have a great many friends there. I have also been to the Arab countries; I have friends there. Whenever there was any opportunity, whenever there was any chance, of Arabs and Israelis working together—as they do in Israel, because I have seen it—one saw what could be done. I have seen men and women working together in a completely non-military sense—in local government, social services, child welfare, "what-have-you". I have seen all that going on.
I have seen the way the Israelis have helped the Arabs in Israel. We all know what they have done for the thousands of refugees who are still being persecuted in other countries. They can work together. But whenever they try to work together, along comes someone stirring up some kind of trouble. A bomb is thrown; something is blown up. What happens? The mass media immediately are on to it. The media do not tell us about the quiet, good, excellent things that are being done in Israel, with Arabs and Israelis working together. Not a bit of it. One has to go and see it. One has to go and see how the Arabs have been taught the agricultural methods of the Israelis. I have seen it myself. On one occasion I even had a meal in an Arab farm. I was taken there by an Israeli agriculturist to see how they taught them—I think this farm was growing fruit. I was there and was given a meal in an Arab house, with the Israeli advisers there. They were working together. But was that put out on the mass media? Did anybody see that? Was anybody told about that? Not a bit of it. But the next day, or the day after, somebody dropped a bomb. Headlines everywhere. I remember our Ambassador, Sir Michael Haddow, telling me that always he could get publicity on anything bad; he could never get publicity on anything good. That is one of the tragedies.
As I walked into your Lordships' House this afternoon I received a telegram from someone who is a great friend of Britain, whose husband was the Israeli Ambassador in Washington and was in the United Nations when I was there—I was there for three years. I knew them very well. The wife, Zena Harman, became a member of the Knesset. No two people did more for Britain in the

443
three years that I was a delegate to the United Nations than did that Israeli delegation. In the telegram I received as I walked into this Chamber this afternoon she says:
"Massive non-stop Soviet supplies to enemy aiming to destroy us. Friends here angered, saddened, confused. unable to comprehend policy of embargo including even refusal permission refuel planes bringing vital equipment. Knowing we are fighting for our very lives, feel we have right to expect fair evaluation, balanced forces and equitable treatment. Appeal understanding and help those able to influence reversal of decision."
We in this House may not be very influential in another place, but we are influential in Parliament. We have in this House, as we have heard this afternoon, people who are enormously knowledgeable about this subject, who have studied it all their lives, and who are our friends. Over there in Jerusalem and in Israel we have people who are our great friends for whom this, as they see it, let-down is tragic. I know they will feel that this is something they cannot bear to contemplate since they banked, and I think banked fairly, on our helping them through many troubles, as they have done for us. I pray and hope, my Lords, that the Government will seriously consider this matter. The situation is quite different from what it was a fortnight or even a week ago. It is something on which we are being misjudged. In my opinion, we are doing something which is not fair. And I pray that after the Government have heard the views of so many of us, whose only desire is that the war should end and that there should be peace, they will reconsider their policy.
6.35 p.m.
LORD BERNSTEIN: My Lords, I am the 13th speaker to-day and I think the carpet has been pulled from under my feet by most of the Members of your Lordships' House who have spoken so far. The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, made a very moving speech. She has made some points I was going to make and she has made them better than I could have done. I am biased, of course. I was in Israel about five weeks ago and I saw a group of young people working together in a small orchestra in a small hall, and they included some Arab children. Their ages were 17 to 21 and they were conducted by Casals, age
444
96—a very moving occasion. Arabs and Israelis are working together. I do not know enough Arabs in Israel to know whether they feel fully secure in working with the Israelis, but they appear happy together in the universities and museums and elsewhere.
I have only two points to make because it seems everything else has been said. We have had a remarkable and emotional speech from my noble friend Lord Janner and I agree with practically everything he said. As to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, I am not sure. I am sure he was speaking honestly about everything that happened. But, unfortunately for anybody in the Foreign Office, there appear constant biographies, autobiographies and diaries and sometimes when I refer to Hansards about the appeasement days it would seem that somebody was not giving us quite the facts. One day, what is happening in the Foreign Office to-day will be published by somebody or by a number of people and then we shall know what is really being said.
The noble Baroness who unfortunately has to answer for Her Majesty's Government to-day, said on Tuesday, October 16, that the United States were licensed to make ammunition for Israel for Centurion tanks. Is the noble Baroness suggesting, under the "even-handed" policy, that she does not mind the Americans making ammunition for tanks we have sold them? A question of principle? A question of ethics comes in. They are Centurion tanks for which we accepted payment. If the shells were not going to be available, what was the point of selling the tanks—unless one was trying to take money by false pretences? Does the noble Baroness consider that one order of shells which was ready for despatch by ship from an English port (I know the port) two weeks before the Egyptian and Syrian attack should be held up under the "even-handed" scheme? Incidentally, the reason why they were held up was that delivery of another order was expected, and for economy they thought they could get the two shipments on one ship. Unfortunately, the second shipment arrived too late and the Government stopped the first from going to Israel. They must know at the Foreign Office that this is further

445
evidence that the Israelis did not expect the aggression taken by Egypt on October 6.
When the noble Baroness says that ammunition could be made under licence by the United States, has she inquired whether the United States' manufacturers are tooled up to make these 105 mm shells, or whether they are being used in the United States for any of their armaments? Does the noble Baroness realise that even if the shells were now available in the United States, it takes longer to get them from a U.S.A. port to Israel than it does from Liverpool or Tilbury to Israel? The noble Baroness may not have a great nautical knowledge, but she has enough now, with her experience in Iceland, to know that it must take longer, and that one cannot transport the weight of these shells in any other way than by ship. From whichever way we look at this, it cannot be considered to be evenhanded.
The noble Lord, Lord Byers—and I am sorry he is not here now—raised the question of what is "even-handed". Two hands held out equally? If somebody has been "mugged" do you offer a hand to the aggressor and also a hand to the victim? What is "even-handed"? It rather reminds me of a story told to me by the great cartoonist, Vicki, who, by gosh ! is needed now to report in caricature this political situation. Vicki said he was stopped in Budapest by a man who said, "Can you find me a one-armed lawyer?" Vicki said, "A one-armed lawyer? I can find you a commercial lawyer, a divorce lawyer, a company lawyer, etc., but why a one-armed lawyer?" He was told, "I have been involved in litigation for a long time and every lawyer says, On the one hand … and on the other hand'." I think it is the same with "evenhanded": one cannot be even-handed even in this matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Barnby, felt that to withhold supplies ordered before the aggression started is commercially dishonest, and is not in accordance with normal practice in this country. Some countries are threatening to cut off our oil supplies, which seems to be a new kind of moral hijacking. Can we trace the present threats to the early days of hijacking and the fact that we did little, if anything, about it?
446
When the noble Lord, Lord Janner, mentioned Sir Winston Churchill my thoughts went back to what he would have done to-day. He was kept out of the Conservative Party for more years than the Conservative Party now wish to remember, but he stood up publicly for the State of Israel as he spoke for this country when the appeasers were in power, and in the same way I think he would have spoken to-day for Israel and against the ban on arms.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in his Statement said he had taken a "posture". I really do not know what he means, and again I think only Vicki or Low could really draw this political position for us. Surely he knows that Russia is really fighting Israel? For years Russia has been carefully training and, acting as a vendor, supplying the armaments for those two countries. On the Independent Television News on Tuesday, these were the words spoken with a piece of film they showed: Newscaster Mr. Nicholson was reading them:
"Just a few miles this side of Saaffaa, Israeli soldiers arrived at a deserted hut just off the main road After a brief inspection, they shot open the doors expecting to End, no doubt, Syrian soldiers but they found instead the headquarters of the Russian advisers who had been directing the war operation for the Syrian Army in this area."
"There were posters of Lenin, Moscow newspapers; there were propaganda leaflets and posters. There was also a long and very carefully drawn up list of the week's activities."
They showed a film of that scene. The area referred to war in the old Syrian part of the Golan Heights.
When the Egyptians and Syrians started the aggression of October 6 I thought of the evening when we learned of the German aggression against Russia. Questions were asked to-day about the size of the Israeli Army and the Egyptian and Syrian, Iraqi and Jordanian forces. I do not know whether I have got the figures right but I obtained them from a source which I consider to be a reliable source. The noble Baroness should know the facts, although not necessarily this fact, that I think it will be found that the number of tanks used by the Germans against Russia was less than the number of tanks used by the Egyptians and Syrians against Israel. That is the type of war that is being fought. What are

447
the figures? The total figure I have for Egyptian, Syrian, Iraq and Jordan but as your Lordships will know, Iraq and Jordan have very few tanks—is 5,500; Israel, somewhere between 1,500 and 1,600, of which 1,000 are Centurion tanks which we have sold to them but for which we are now refusing to give them spares or armaments. They were sold to them without any restriction on their use. It was not said that if they were attacked we would not supply them with shells or spare parts. I think it was only said that they should not be used for aggressive purposes. Now the Russians are still fighting Israel. We have heard to-day of the Sams—missiles—the 3, the 4 and the 6. We know that most Israeli planes which have fallen have been as a result of those missiles, and not through action by other aircraft piloted by Syrians or the Egyptians. What we do not know and what has not been mentioned in this country, to my great surprise, is that the T.62 tank, more powerful than the Centurion and never seen outside the Soviet Union, is now in Syria. When it will come into play I do not know, but perhaps the noble Baroness can find out.
I know that a debate is being held in another place. I hope that there, where they have the power (which we have not got) they will try to persuade the Government that they have a certain moral and contractual obligation to behave decently.
6.47 p.m.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, we should be debating this war with a certain amount of diffidence, if not shame, for our forefathers sowed its seeds in the years 1915 to 1918. British policy in those times was a muddle, either cynical or well-meaning according to taste. The Sykes Picot Agreement, the Foreign Office pledges to Emir Feisal, the India Office support for Ibn Saud and the ill-drafted Balfour Declaration which, as your Lordships are fully aware, was only opposed by one man in the Cabinet, the Jewish Secretary of State for India. Once these pledges were given the conflict between Jew and Arab began, for the first time for 1,300 years. When Jewish immigration became a flood because of the Hitlerian barbarism the section of the Balfour Declaration which, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said, was
448
supposed to guarantee the rights of the existing inhabitants, went out of the window.
It could be argued that the State of Israel was the child of the guilty conscience of Europe and America and the cynical opportunism of the Soviet Union, one of the first States to recognise Israel. This guilt may not be admitted but it is justified. The Roman Church only lifted the charge of deicide from the Jews in 1967. Newly Christianised Spain persecuted the Jews after they had lived in peace for 700 years under Moslem rule. Edward I of England first of all extracted their money and then pulled out their teeth and then banished them. The Russian and Polish pogroms of the 19th century were second only to the Olympian obscenity of Hitlerian Germany.
The Arabs, on the other hand, never persecuted them, never pogrommed them. They were never anti-Semitic—how could they be? On the contrary they allowed the request of the Jewish leaders for special areas in which to live and special privileges so that they could practise their religious laws in peace and private. Therefore, when the Jewish immigrants to Palestine started to evict Arab peasants from their lands a newer and more burning sense of injustice was added to the existing Jewish memories of persecution over the last 2,000 years. It is perhaps unpleasant to remind ourselves of our own guilt, but I think it is essential if we are to understand the background and if we can, even in a small way, contribute to a permanent lasting and willing peace in the Levant and the Middle East. This is what we should be trying to do: not arguing about some ammunition and spare parts for 40 per cent. of Israel's tanks and, as nobody yet has pointed out, of 100 per cent. of Jordan's tanks.
After all, nine-tenths of the cause of the bloodshed in this area at present is the fact that the two combatants are vastly over-armed. The Russians, who were, incidentally, much less liked in Egypt than we were, have behaved with callous indifference to the suffering by topping-up and even increasing armaments in Egypt and Syria. The United States, after Watergate, has not been able to give the proper lead it should have and is behaving nearly as badly. Luckily, it

449
appears from this morning's Press that the two super-Powers are trying to get together, but after 12 days of blowing the embers of war. Europe, as yet not united, has to watch impotently as the two great fleets manoeuvre in her dew-pond, the Mediterranean, while the client States from other Continents risk dragging us all towards Armageddon. At least Her Majesty's Government have said no more arms, no more spares, and no more ammunition. It may not be a pretty sight, and may be a breach of contract, but it is at least an example which others could well follow. It is even-handed. As the noble Baroness said, we sell more arms to the Arab countries than we do to the Israelis.
My Lords, the achievements of Israel, as the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, has rightly said, physically and militarily in the last 25 years have been a wonder for the world to see, achievements of which any nation should be justly proud. Israel's political actions since the Six Day War are actions of which any nation should be ashamed. She had in 1967, as the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, has just said, an opportunity to make a really generous peace. She did not even attempt it except on terms which she knew perfectly well that even the defeated Egyptians could not stomach. She has bombed refugee camps; she has intercepted civil air liners; she has raided Beirut airport; she has shot down a civilian airliner. She has pushed settlements on to the East bank of Jordan into Gaza and into Sinai. A few months ago a small occurrence took place. She wanted to make room for some of the 70,000 privileged Russians—and I use the word "privileged" advisedly. My Lords, I compare the Russian Jews, some of whom were allowed to emigrate, to some of the Crimean Tartars who were not even allowed back to their own homes in the Crimea. Some Arabs were evicted. Many appealed to the Supreme Court of Israel who found in their favour. The army, with that phrase beloved of all armies, even that of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said they were a security risk and the court was over-ruled. A few weeks later those same Arabs were found working as landless labourers on their own land.
My Lords, I am not saying that Arab behaviour in the last six years has been perfect. Far from it. But there has been
450
no State terrorism. Syria has tried to control her Palestine population, as has Lebanon, under immense difficulties. The Sudanese are trying the Khartoum murderers and King Hussein has stamped with vigour on the Palestinian guerrilla organisations in his country. Egypt has begged the Americans only recently for help to make peace with Israel on reasonable terms and to try and improve its relationship with the United States, but to no avail. She even booted out most of the Soviet advisers. We must make sure that the Arabs have Western friends. I think I am right in saying that I am the only person so far in your Lordships' House who has tried to put an Arab gloss on these things. I admit, as do the noble Lords, Lord Ballantrae, Lord Shinwell and Lord Janner, that I am a committed person. But we must have friends for the Arabs in this country and see they are advised not only by the cynical Mujiks, which are what those Russian advisers are for the Middle East. We must impress on Israel that a negotiated tolerant peace, however arrived at, is the only alternative to another Masseda and another Diaspora which will be inevitable if the present hate and mistrustful stubbornness continue.
Money is available in the world for Jewry and in Arabia for the resettlement of the Palestine refugees. There is space in that part of the world for most people who should want to go there. Could not Israel amend the law of the return so it applied only to persecuted Jews? After all, most countries have an immigration policy. The noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, was even suggesting something along those lines herself. Is it not odd that the Arabs should not be worried by the prospect of the immigration into that part of the world of another 13 million people—that is, three million Russian Jews, seven million European Jews, and seven million American Jews?—my mathematics is wrong. Admittedly they will not all go there but this must be something that weighs on the heads of the Arab peoples. Perhaps Israel could even consider confederation with some of her neighbours to form a non-theocratic State to be a home for non-State Jews and Palestinians. Her Majesty's Government have put themselves into a good position, in showing favour to neither side in spite of what the people committed to the Israeli cause have said,

451
to be able to offer help in achieving a peace. And achieved it must be.
Perhaps we can now hope, as a result of this new holocaust and a regained Arab pride, that the two sides could become sickened by blood and follow the example of the great Caliph Omar the Tolerant who allowed the Christians, Jews and Muslims all to use Islam's third holiest mosque, the Dome of the Rock, for their own religious purposes. President Sadat has by implication on Tuesday recognised the State of Israel and said lie will sit down with them at the United Nations. These are both major Arab concessions. Abba Eban was being much more conciliatory this morning. Perhaps if he had been like that in 1967, this would not have happened.
My Lords, there was a letter written to The Times on Wednesday from the prospective Labour candidate for Eastleigh —a Jew who showed, if I may say so, so much Christian moderation and compassion that it gave real hope for the future. These are a few small signs of hope amid an otherwise black sea of despair. Let us pray that the attitudes of Omar the Tolerant and Mr. Elkan Pressman, The Times letter writer will prevail and not those of George Habann and Menachim. Bugin, otherwise, in the words of the Psalmist, "His eyelids will try the children of men." Those are the eyelids of the God of Christiandom, Islam and Judaism and if the children of men fail, I myself presume to have no doubt what His judgment will be.
6.58 p.m.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, I am most interested to follow the noble Earl Lord Onslow and will make comment later on one or two of the points he made. I would apologise to my noble friend Lord Kennet because I missed the opening sentences of his speech—not his speech, but the opening sentences. I was not sure whether in fact he indicated he was speaking for himself and not for the Party. Frankly, I think it is unfortunate that he put the Question down and spoke on it from the Front Bench because the views he expressed, some of the comments and some questions put to the noble Baroness, are not the views of this Party, and it should be made clear they were his individual views and should have been
452
expressed as such. I hope that that was the case.
I am afraid I speak in this debate as a layman. I cannot speak either with the diplomatic authority of the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, or with the plain evenhandedness of my noble friend Lord Kennet, but every man to his own style. The reality and the truth behind this Question and the situation we face to-day seem to me a good deal sharper than has appeared so far from some of the speeches in this House. My reaction when I read the actual text of the Question was a hollow laugh because I could not understand how anyone could put down a Question of this sort to the British Government at this time. My view is that it would be far better if the British Governent kept out and held its tongue in this situation, for up to now they have taken up a position which has earned the respect of neither side.
I agree completely with what the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, said in this respect. We have developed a kind of bland blotting paper neutrality which seems to me to be based on no other principle except expediency. It is exemplified by the embargo. In sheer terms of salesmanship this is a descent to the level of the secondhand car market. It is worse. At least when you buy a secondhand car you get what you pay for, but the Israelis have bought and paid for spares which they have not received. Look at the morality. In terms of morality it is completely indefensible; it stinks. We sell them tanks for war, we sell them weapons for war. We know what tanks are going to be used for, and then we wag a finger and say, "But if you use them you are not going to get the ammunition and the supplies to keep them going". It is like giving somebody a bicycle and saying, "You can have the bicycle but do not ride it". We have sold to both sides in peace time; we have taken their money, and now we dare to sit back and talk in pious terms about what influence we can have on peace negotiations. I agree with the noble Lord who spoke before me; I think we should think in terms of shame in this situation and creep away.
I had the great compliment paid to me as I came to this debate this afternoon of being described as a Jew. I regret at this moment very deeply that I am not; that I am a gentile. But

453
I have many friends and comrades fighting and dying out there, some on both sides, and I should like in passing to pay a tribute to a man who was not a close friend of mine but an acquaintance, Nicholas Tomalin, the marvellous journalist who died yesterday, and it is with a special bitterness that I record his death, which seemed to me totally unnecessary. I am pro-Israel. I accept the fact that the Israelis are not angels, but I think we have to face the fact, which we tend to forget, that they are fighting to exist. The Arabs are now saying: "We will accept the 1967 borders. Withdraw from the lines of the cease-fire and go back to the lines that existed before the cease-fire in 1967". But those borders were not acceptable to them in 1967. How do we know that they are going to be acceptable to them now, if we agree to peace and allow them. When I say "we" I mean the Israelis, the United Nations, the Soviet Union, because I do not think we have anything to say in the matter.
Al Fatah was not born after the 1967 war; it was born a long time before that. Terrorist attacks and threats went on against Israel for many years. For twenty years in fact the Arabs and the terrorists have turned their backs on any attempt at peace with Israel. Egypt's aims were stated very clearly by Mr. Heikal, the editor of the influential paper El Ahram He has stated that even the 1947 borders are not acceptable. He has said that the Negev should be ceded to the Arab countries in any settlement. He is a man who is extremely influential in Egyptian circles. He said that there must be a land bridge uniting Arab countries and that land bridge is the Negev desert. He is keeping very quiet now, but it is a matter of Egyptian policy that Israel is a wedge between the Arab lands that must be removed. Who can doubt that if Israel was forced back to its pre-1967 frontiers that demand would not be raised again.
I would quote something which has a bearing on something the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, said earlier. It is this:
"If one is attacked and defends oneself and wins, one has the right to establish a definitive political solution which will guarantee the elimination of the source of the aggression, and one has the right to maintain the situation as long as there is a danger of
454
aggression. When one has obtained by great sacrifice a degree of security one will never accept a return to former frontiers. One is under no obligation at all to restore territory one has gained as long as there exists the danger of aggression."
That is not some remote doctrine of nineteenth century politics. It is a quotation from Pravda in the year 1964.
Peace must come, but it must come with secure frontiers and it can come only with secure frontiers. To me the two most moving things of this war are, first, the sight of poor blinded Egyptian soldiers staggering around in the desert, and the other the story I read yesterday of the Israeli major who picked up a stone on the Golan Heights and said, "Under this stone there is rich black earth and this could be marvellous agricultural country". To me those two things sum up the tragedy that is going on there now.
I said that I am pro-Israeli. That does not mean that I am anti-Arab. But I believe Israel has a right to exist and that any peace must give her the right to exist. I feel that we are talking of much more than an ordinary situation. I would close with a quotation which sums up my personal feelings about it:
"Israel is not just a nation like any other. It stands for the adventure of man par excellence. What the Israelis show the whole world by their social organisation and industrial development is the triumph of man over nature, and this is precisely the problem of this century. How does one set about creating a modern industry without raw materials of any kind? Israel has done it. How does one set about saving the countries of Africa and the Middle East or the countries of the Sumian Desert from under-development and squalor? Israel has done it. How does one set about becoming as far as possible a society of solidarity between man and man where not only does wealth confer no power but where men of strength and intelligence sacrifice themselves partly for the sake of those who have neither, those who are weak, sick, uneducated and maladjusted? Israel has not yet done it but she is on the way. One should not simply conclude from this that Israel is a model society—far from it; simply this, everything that puts Israel in peril menaces not only a nation, not only a courageous people but a part of man's hope".
7.8 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, should have spoken at this moment, but I understand that he is ill and cannot be here. I regret that, because I am sure the House would have desired to hear what he had

455
to say, and that we all wish him recovery at the earliest moment.
If one were to judge this conflict by right and wrong on the two sides, I should be pulled in two directions. I went to Israel several years ago and I regarded it as the most progressive social nation that I have ever visited. I was particularly impressed by the quite extraordinary constructive contribution made by the trade union movement in Histadruth. No one could go there without responding to what my noble friend Lord Richie-Calder has said about their amazing conquest of the desert. I had hoped on that visit that Israel might become an influence all over the Middle East in its social construction, a construction so much in contrast with the Arab nations, where, owing to oil revenue, a few rulers became the richest men in the world, while the masses of the people were left in poverty. That situation has been somewhat changed since, and I am afraid that Israel itself has, to some extent, gone back from the social democratic image which it previously had. Nevertheless, all that pulls me in the direction of Israel.
On the other hand, I saw in Palestine the destroyed villages of the Arab population. I went to Jordan and to the refugee camps and saw the sordid conditions of those who had fled from Palestine when they had been driven out. One cannot to-day deal with this situation without recognition that for six years now Israel has occupied large areas of Arab territory. Therefore it is extraordinarily difficult, if one is judging the two sides from the point of view of war, to come down on one side or to come down on the other. The only thing that we can seek to do is to try to contribute to a peace and a settlement.
The hope of that lay at first in Resolution 242 adopted by the United Nations. Neither Israel nor the Arab nations have carried out the implications of that Resolution, though they have both endorsed it in general principle. It asked for a withdrawal from the territories—not, as the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, has said, the entire terrorities occupied in the war of 1967, but the territories as a whole. Israel has not done that. On the other hand, the Resolution said that the Arab nations should recognise the State
456
of Israel. They have not done that. If they had they would not have refrained over these past years from entering into direct negotiation with the Israeli Government. One cannot say that one recognises a State, as that Resolution said, without agreeing to meet the representatives of that State in any negotiations.
My chief complaint to-night with Her Majesty's Government is that during these six years such little has been done to implement the United Nations Resolution. I was deeply interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, said. I recognise the contribution which the noble Lord. Lord George-Brown, and also the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, made at the United Nations in drafting and securing the adoption of that Resolution, but the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, and many of us, have urged ever since that that Resolution should be implemented by an international conference of all the nations involved, including Israel and the Arab nations. It may be said that they were unprepared to meet over a table: it is impossible to believe that, if a conference of that character had been called under United Nations auspices, both sides would not have been ready to appear.
A large part of our discussion has taken place about the arms embargo. I am opposed to the sale of armaments to any country whatsoever. One of the great tragedies of recent years has been, first in Vietnam, with American and Russian arms poured in to continue the war, and now in the Middle East Russian and American arms poured in to continue the war, Governments fighting it at the expense of other people's lives. When I spoke briefly on Tuesday, I criticised the sending of arms to another Arab nation in the Middle East and to the training of Egyptian pilots. On the question of the spare parts for the Centurions, I want to say quite frankly that I cannot see any difference—indeed, my noble friend Lord Willis emphasised this—in supplying arms in peace time for war preparations, and supplying them during the circumstances of war also. There is no difference of principle there. What I think is wrong is that the Western industrialised nations and the Soviet Union should be supplying arms to other areas of the earth for massive slaughter and for the profits of their own armaments industry, which many years ago I exposed in a book.

457
We have paid too much attention during this debate to the issue of the arms embargo. We ought to be concentrating our attention on how we are to secure peace. In that respect, unlike other speakers, I support entirely the attitude of Her Majesty's Government in seeking to end arms to either side, and in seeking a position which will enable Her Majesty's Government to act in an impartial and neutral way. The danger of the present situation is not merely the appalling tragedy and loss of life in the Middle East, already terrible—and, unless the war is ended, inevitably becoming more terrible; missiles will be used against civil populations and towns, bombs will be dropped on towns and their civil populations, and indeed we may see in the Middle East devastation and massacre of whole peoples—but the further tragedy that the war in the Middle East is affecting the hopeful tendencies which there have been in recent months towards peace in the world and towards the détente between the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. In Geneva at this moment meetings of the European Conference on Security and Co-operation, the strategic arms talks between the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. and the NATO and the Warsaw Force reduction talks have been suspended because of the war in the Middle East. The tragedy of this war is not merely what is happening in the Middle East but the disastrous effect which it may have on the tendencies to peace in the world.
My Lords, I think it possible, and likely, that both the United States of America and the Soviet Union place the hope of some movement towards world peace even before their support of Israel or the Arab countries. I shall not be surprised if within a very few hours there is a proposal by both the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. for common action to bring about a cease-fire; and, indeed, a proposal that they should establish an international peace-keeping force between the armies on the two sides. I hope we would support anything that would make for a cease-fire, yet in the background of one's mind one has the fear of these two great Powers, the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R., becoming dominant in the Middle East. Therefore, I hope very much that even if the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. now take steps towards bring-
458
ing about a cease-fire and towards contributing to an international peace-keeping force, such a move will not be limited to them but that the United Nations itself may become involved. I appreciate the indication by our Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to contribute towards such an international peacekeeping force. It should serve not merely to keep the armies separate at the present moment: it should serve as a contribution to a long-term solution of this problem.
I agree entirely with those who have said that security for Israel must be established. I have been in a kibbutz situated immediately under the Golan Heights. From the Heights bombs could be dropped almost perpendicularly upon that kibbutz. Even several years ago the children were sleeping in underground shelters. Now that kibbutz has been bombed. In that situation Israel can never have a sense of security if the Heights are in other, and possibly antagonistic, hands. I would therefore say that the object of any international peace-keeping force should not merely be to keep the armies apart now: it should be to establish continuing neutralised regions on the edges of Israel in order that there may be security for Israel.
Lastly, my Lords, I want to say a word on behalf of the Palestinians. They have really been the victims of this conflict between Israel and the Arab nations, and I hope that in any settlement towards which we ultimately move the right of the Palestinian people to their own nation, whether separately or associated with Jordan, may be recognised. I have been a little disappointed that in this debate it has been suggested that Her Majesty's Government can do nothing. I find myself a patriot in this respect. I believe that Great Britain can make a large contribution to peace in the Middle East, and not only by the attitude which it has adopted now, of declining to become responsible for arms on either side in this massive massacre. I believe Britain could establish moral leadership if it would propose a settlement which would be fair both to Israel, in its security, and to the Arab peoples, in the occupation of their lands. If the British Government did that, I am quite confident that in the

459
United Nations it would have overwhelming support, despite the attitude of any dominant great Powers. Britain to-day, having changed its Empire into a Commonwealth, can still provide the leadership of great moral principles leading to justice and peace in the world.
7.27 p.m.
LORD VERNON: My Lords, I wanted to intervene in this debate, not because I have any special knowledge—because I have not—but because in listening to what might be termed the mini-debate which took place following the Statement of my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir earlier in the week I got the impression that there was some confusion of thought about the motives of Her Majesty's Government's policy at the present time. The impression was also created that the Government lacked support from this side of the House, and I do not believe that that is true.
The Foreign Office have been attacked, unfairly in my view, on account of being pro-Arab. I do not think they are pro-Arab. I do not think they are pro-Israeli, either. What they are—and it is quite right that they should be—is pro the United Kingdom. In their opinion the long-term interests of this country, as indeed of most other countries, are best served by achieving not just another cease-fire but a long-term peace settlement. Of course, in such a settlement Israel's independence must be fully safeguarded, and that has been recognised. But at the same time I am convinced that there can be no genuine long-term solution until the question of the Palestinian refugees is tackled and unless, in accordance with Resolution 242, the Israelis surrender the major part (not all, but most) of the territory which they conquered by force of arms in 1967 —incidentally, by a surprise attack on that occasion.
One point has been touched on in this debate which I do not think can be too much emphasised. It is the appalling humiliation suffered by the Arabs in the Six-Day war. They are a very proud people with a very proud history. We have heard a certain amount about civilisation, and the Israeli civilisation, this afternoon. I know this to be true, but we must also remember that the Arabs were highly civilised many hun-
460
dreds of years ago, when we were rather more barbaric than we are to-day. I think it is tremendously important that the Arabs should recover their self-respect; because until they do recover it it is unlikely that a settlement will be achieved. For that reason I very much hope that if the Israelis are victorious in the present fighting—and it is by no means certain that they will be—they will adopt the well-known maxim, "In victory, magnanimity." The Arab nations undoubtedly have legitimate grievances. The Israelis have grievances too, but I think that it would be crass stupidity for any British Foreign Secretary to ignore these grievances of the Arab world—stretching as it does from the shores of the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean and controlling vast material resources. I think one should also remember that on the only recent occasion when Foreign Office advice was decisively rejected by the Government —in 1957—this country suffered one of the greatest humiliations in its history.
My Lords, a lot of emotion has been aroused over the question of the arms embargo. I confess that I find this problem an extraordinarily difficult one. There seems a certain amount to be said on both sides. It was, I thought, significant that the Minister in her Statement on Tuesday—and it has already been emphasised by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow—made it clear that the Egyptians were in receipt of more war material than were the Israelis; and we all know that the Jordanians are almost exclusively supplied from this country. Therefore, if we lift the embargo on Centurion tank parts for the Israelis we are bound in honour to lift it also on spare parts for the Jordanians and the Egyptians. Then the whole thing will escalate. It seems to me that the issues at stake at the present time are so great—world war itself could result from present hostilities—that if the Foreign Secretary believes that by remaining strictly neutral, even if it involves the suspension of contracts, he will be in a better position to promote the long-term settlement that we all regard as so absolutely vital—
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord at that point? I agree entirely that what he says would be the most desirable thing to achieve,

461
if we could persuade Russia to do likewise. But would he not agree that the Arabs, being so heavily supported by the Russians, is a rather parallel case to that of unilateral disarmament?
LORD VERNON: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord on that because it seems to me that the Arabs are supported by the Russians and the Israelis by the Americans. We are in a position to act as brokers and perhaps get the negotiations going; and they are not.
My Lords, I was just ending my speech before that interruption and I was going to say that if the Foreign Secretary believes that by remaining strictly neutral at the present time we will be in a better position to promote a settlement, then I believe that we all have a duty to support him.
7.35 p.m.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, this debate has taken place really at two levels: the frightfully serious level which has been going on for centuries, or at least all this generation, and which has its origin in the time of Solomon— that is, the general question; and the particular question of the Centurion tanks and arms for Israel. Both have been thoroughly covered. I shall spend a minute or two on each and not more on either. I think that on the big question the noble Lord, Lord Byers, set us off in a very forthright way by making no bones about the behaviour of the Russians. I do not think that we need be mealy-mouthed about this. As the noble Lord, Lord Somers, said, a minute ago to the noble Lord, Lord Vernon, as long as the Russians are supporting one side, let us hope that somebody supports the other side. "Thank God for the U.S.A.!", is what I say at this stage. I am proud to be their ally. Had we behaved during the civil war in Spain in the way they are behaving now, that period might not have been one of the most shameful of my own particular generation and life. People who were on the other side, which is perfectly fair, did not mind it as much as I. I do not think that the breach of non-intervention by the Fascist powers of Hitler and Mussolini as against the maintenance of non-intervention by this country can have been a great pleasure to anybody.
462
The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, interested me, first, because as a soldier his neutrality is particularly valuable, but secondly because as a soldier he "tipped off" the Israelis—over a glass of arak, I suppose—and told them that whatever they do they must not give up the Golan Heights. Not being a soldier and having looked around there, it is what I should have said. It means from a military point of view that you must not, when the peace-making conies, ask the Israelis to do the impossible. I think they are never going to sit and be lobbed at by Syrian mortars so long as there is an Israeli living. One may as well face that. I appreciated very much —and I have been looking a little for trouble this afternoon—Lord Harvey's attack on France, which was overdue in my opinion. I enjoyed that. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Segal, expected rather a lot of the noble Baroness, to make this evening an opportunity for bringing peace to the area. I think that this House has some influence and that nobody in it has more than the Minister; but I do not see her managing that as a result of this debate—at any rate, not this evening. I shall not ask that of her.
I was glad that the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, spoke up for the Arabs. He did it very fairly. It wants saying. We are a bit one-sided. I am pro-Jew for this reason and for this reason only: I agree with my right honourable friend, Dick Crossman, in The Times a week or two ago when he said that ever since he became mixed up with this matter in Ernie Bevin's time he has felt that the survival of Israel is the only thing that matters in this issue. I believe this; and at the moment I believe that Israel's survival is at risk. If you asked the Prime Minister Sadat, I think he would say that it was not, but I do not think that there is a single Israeli who believes him. I do not know who is right, but you have to deal with people in a reasonable way; and if many people time and time again say that they are going to drive you into the sea then someone is going to believe them.
My Lords, it seems to me that the Israelis cannot be expected to make concessions until they have some reason to hope that their present position is accepted. Mr. Crossman said, and I think that

463
the noble Lord, Lord Vernon—or someone else—said it also, that the humiliation was intolerable in the 1967 war. This has not only been lived down but also has been lived down magnificently. The Syrians and the Egyptians have fought magnificently, so that is over, and now perhaps we may be in a position where the Israelis who have, in my opinion, always been prepared to give quite a lot away in return for recognition and to secure some kind of security of boundary, may really get somewhere.
If I may turn to the more trivial part of this debate, the question of the Centurion tanks, when I was Chairman of the Consumer Council we had our knife very much into those firms which sold, often for large sums, washing machines and cookers, and things like that, to innocent housewives and then went bust or got taken over; and a year or so later it was found that they had made no provision for the supply of spare parts for the machines they had sold. And wretched women who had spent £120 on a washing machine found that it was completely useless. I am sorry, my Lords, but this seems to me to be what the British Government have done. I agree with my noble friend Lord Willis, who said that if you did not think they were going to use the tanks you ought not to have sold them, and this is fair. The arguments will not do. In the immortal words of Dorothy Parker, they make me feel like the gentle reader who wants to "throw up". It is not acceptable to sell things to people and not allow them to maintain what they have bought. There is no difficulty over this, although the noble Lord, Lord Vernon, suggested that there was. It is perfectly easy to continue to sell spare parts and ammunition but to have a complete ban on the sale of weapons, which is what I think we ought to do. I hope that before very long, as was said earlier by, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, the Americans and the Russians, the two nations who are doing the job above everybody else, will get together and will negotiate a cease-fire. I hope, also, with the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, that it will not stop there.
I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, that I agree with him that if
464
only people did not make armaments and sell them the world would be a much better place. But that applies also to a number of other things—if only the Arabs did not dislike the Jews, and so on. But that is not going to happen, and my view is that if we had never sold any armaments to anybody we should be a poorer but, I think, a more respectable country. But that is not the position and it is no good looking for it. On this limited issue of the Centurion tanks, I do not believe the Government have a lea to stand on, if you are going to stretch a point and allow Egyptian pilots to continue being trained here. Respecting the noble Baroness as I do, I cannot accept the argument that if they are already trained, to go on training them is not the same as training them. These are pilots trained in one thing who are over here being trained for something else, and learning something which it is thought will be good for the Egyptian Army. If we lean over backwards over that rather trivial point and over selling tanks to—is it Dubai or the Trucial States?—some Arab State which is not concerned with the war then with the greatest respect only someone in the Foreign Office would think for a moment that it was impossible that they would be shanghaied into joining in. If you are prepared to lean over backwards over both these things and then renege on your contract, it seems to me that you are putting yourself in the worst possible position from which to act as the sort of mediator we all want you to be. You have done something to please one side and you have very deeply embittered the other, and I hope it is not too late to put this right. I doubt very much whether the Israelis will trust us again in any form whatever for the next three or four years. To someone like me who, on the whole, is on their side, that is very sad. But it is what the Government have done and the nation has stood for it. I wish I had some hope that there could be a change, but I have very little.
7.45 p.m.
LORD MACLEOD OF FUINARY: My Lords, I do not want delay in referring, first, to the grave responsibility that lies with us and I do so by a quotation, for the sake of brevity, from as long ago as

465
1922 from Ramsay Macdonald regarding our responsibility for what I believe is happening now in the area about which we are speaking. Ramsay Macdonald said:
"We encouraged a revolt by the Arabs in Turkey to create an Arab kingdom for the Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire, including Palestine, and at the same time we were encouraging the Jews to help us by promising them that Palestine would be placed at their disposal for settlement and for government. Also at the same time we were making with the French the Sykes-Picot Agreement partitioning the territories which we had instructed our Governor-General in Egypt to promise to the Arabs."
Mr. Ramsay Macdonald concluded:
"The story is one of crude duplicity. We cannot expect to escape the reprobation which is bound to follow as a sequel."
My Lords,
"The mills of God grind slowly, but they grind exceeding small."
And here we are, at least by derivation, dealing with the ultimate consequences of that situation. It is our responsibility.
I would not have taken part in this debate but for one word in Lord Kennet's Question. He is seeking, and we are all seeking, a durable peace. I want to extend his plea in my first point for an embargo on the sale of armaments everywhere, which was so well supported by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. Everyone knows that the trouble is not going to be patched up by dealing with Centurion tanks on the one side and Egyptian airmen on the other, or even with ground missiles. Everyone knows that it will not be patched up at that level. But how is it to be patched up? It is not even going to be patched up by finding the supplies which go to Russia and which ought to go to America, and I am concerned with something deeper than that which has been only hinted at in the debate. Do we realise with our being the extent of the crisis that is upon us, of which this incident we are discussing to-day is but a derivative? U Thant, before he left the United Nations about three years ago, said that unless something was done about the arms race there was nothing but disaster facing us. How many of us are aware at the moment that we are spending £80 million helping the developing countries, and we are spending £3,000 million preparing for the next war which everyone agrees that no
466
one can win? In the last two years our estimates have gone up £800 million and I doubt not in the present situation that in the next two years, unless a stop is put to it, it will go up again by another £800 million—well beyond the £3,000 million which is an underestimation.
If for a moment we compare the situation with 1913 we realise the gravity. In 1913, Lord Grey of Falloden, who was at one time Foreign Secretary, said on a public occasion that one of the reasons for the inevitability of the First World War was the extent to which in 1913 there was an arms race. How many people realise that at constant prices we are at present spending ten times what we were spending preparing for the war in 1913? That is to say that if the pound now were equal to the pound then we are spending ten times as much. Recently the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said that only negotiations through strength were likely to procure an equitable agreement. He said it with complete sincerity, but a less euphemistic way of putting it is to say that the only way to have negotiations from strength must be by an arms race. Inevitably, if you are going to negotiate from strength, NATO will go one up and the Warsaw Pact will go another one up in order that they may negotiate from strength. So what we are really committed to in this solution is an arms race. Already again, are people aware that Britain is exporting £200 million a year of armaments to various nations of the world? Are we aware that that is only 15 per cent. of what is annually being spent on preparation for the next war? That means that something like £1,500 million of armaments is being sold out into the country. Is this really being done seriously, responsibly backing this country against that country and keeping a balance of power? No. I am suggesting to your Lordships that this is being done by love of money. Is it really being done to defend Christian civilisation against the skulduggery that is Communism? No. It is money.
We are apt to forget, to take a parallel again for brevity, that the Vietnam war, for all the high-sounding words about defending Christian civilisation, was about money. My quotation is from General Eisenhower when he was President—no idiot fringeman, he—at a conference of State Governors on August 5, 1953,

467
when the State Governors were not happy to take over what the French had been doing in Indo-China. Here is the President of the United States giving the reason for going into Vietnam—and I quote:
"Now let us assume that we lost Indo-China. If Indo-China goes, the tin and tungsten we so greatly value would cease coming. We are after the cheapest way to prevent something terrible—the loss of our ability to get what we. want from the riches of the Indo- Chinese territory and from South-East Asia."
It is odd that the mass media did not find that worthy of a quotation. Odd, too, that when it came to dealing with the situation in Vietnam. and, regretfully, there were peasants murdered, there was compensation organised by the Americans for the dependants of any civilian who was murdered as a result of the war, and 34 dollars was allotted for each person who was a fatal casualty. But when it came to rubber trees, the expenditure for each rubber tree was 87 dollars: that is 53 dollars more for a rubber tree than for a peasant. Presumably, peasants were expendable. But how could Michelin produce tyres for French motor cars if the trees were all knocked off? This is the real situation of what goes on under the name of Christian civilisation over against the skulduggery that is Communism.
I am suggesting to your Lordships that the real reason is love of money, and this is what must be dealt with. In 1970, the Cabora Basa time, when the Portuguese were taking something like 100,000 Africans off their ancestral lands in order to put in a dam and make the place blossom as the rose for Portuguese immigrants, your Lordships may remember that some students went to protest at the annual meeting of a British bank which was putting up some millions of pounds to help the Cabora Basa Dam, and the vice-chairman of that bank, who was also chairman of their foreign section, called the students together afterwards in a side room (they did not create a row; they all bought one share in the bank in order to make their protest) and he said to them: "It is time people realised that the trade of this world is so inter-twined that if you were to cut yourself off on matters of principle there would be no international trade." There we are. Where profit is concerned, to hell with
468
principle! This is the way in which we are run.
My Lords, we must realise that Parliament must somehow take over again the organisation of our finances; for the organisation of our finances is not in the hands of the Parliaments of any country at the present time. In May, 1969, the Secretary of the U.S. Treasury, when there was a dollar crisis was asked: "Do you approve of the latest credit tightening moves?" And he replied: It is not my job to approve;"—that is the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury—" it is the action of the Federal Reserve Bank"— whose accounts are not available to Congress or to the Senate of America. Or Reginald McKenna, Chairman of the Midland Bank and also a politician, who said:
"Those who create and issue the money and credit direct the politics and hold in their hands the destiny of the people."
That is the situation with which we are dealing, and it is only by Parliament's taking that control that all our words about stopping creating an embargo on arms are going to bear fruit.
Or, if this is being cynical, if in fact the matter is really ideological, if it really is a situation of Christian civilisation against Communist skulduggery, how is it that the West increasingly trade with the Soviet bloc in hardware which may well be used in a possible war? This year, for instance, we in the E.E.C., in April, sent over 200,000 tons of butter so that it was being sold at a quarter of the price that it was in this country. Is this a way of showing what skulduggery we are up against? Again, in April, the Occidental Petroleum Company in America went into a 20 years' contract for chemical fertiliser, a barter valued at 8 billion dollars. That dealt with chemicals. Could they not possibly be used? Or, in June of this year, International Telephones and Telegraphs in America interchanged scientific information about electronic components. Or, in July, in Italy the Montecatinin Edison Group agreed to construct seven chemical plants in exchange for ammonia. In summary, the United States sales to the Soviet bloc in the first half of this year amount to one million dollars, three times what they were last year: and the Soviet bloc have borrowed 1,000 million dollars this year from American banks. Trade is so inter-

469
twined that if we were to cut ourselves off for matters of principle there would be no international trade. If we are going to have a Christian civilisation against Communist skulduggery, how comes it that this vast trade is going on?
This is the situation that we have to deal with if all our easy words about embargoes are to get anywhere at all. The fact is that we are in moral chaos. We must control again our money or stop talking about the idea of controlling the export of arms. Finally, I claim that we must go further. We have come to a climatic point in history. Old means of power are of no avail, and yet we go on spending thousands of millions of pounds on it. Pope John said:
"It is impossible to conceive of a just war in a nuclear age."
Theoretically, that means to say that no Church should be backing the possibility of a just war or backing money to create a just war. But I will not go to parsons for my view here. Darwin said that the survival of the fittest is what matters. So many people think that that means the survival of the beefiest. The survival of the fittest, according to Darwin, does not mean the survival of the beefiest; it means the survival of that form of life which comes level with a new environment. And the new environment is one of co-operation in a united world. Roman Rolland said:
"This world has become a unity, and for this high destiny mankind is not yet fit."
We have to apply it sociologically. It is only if we are co-operative that we shall be the fittest to survive. It is not a question of going under. My last quotation is from no lunatic fringe man and from no airy-fairy parson. What about Sir Basil Liddell Hart, the great war correspondent of The Times? Your Lordships remember what he said about nonviolent resistance—and I quote:
"Nuclear war is not war at all as it defeats its own disciplined object."
Anyone who talks of winning a nuclear war is a menace to his country—and we are spending £3,000 million a year to be ready to do so. He goes on:
"The more Governments realise their incapacity for military defence"—
this is by a war correspondent—
"the more they will begin to take non-violent civilian defence seriously."
470
He goes on to say:
"To make non-violent civilian defence a national affair will be an extremely difficult task. Probably the most important thing is to educate people and convince them it is a workable policy."
This is by the war correspondent. No airy-fairy wanderer; no idiot fringe man, he.
It is, of course, the essence of the Christian claim. Unfortunately we cannot rely on the Church's witness to deal with this. It is up to this House; it is up to this Parliament to begin to study the implications of it. It is up to this nation, which has long ago lost its physical pre-eminence, to be the first to deal with the new kind of power and preeminence which is spiritual as the only viable way to peace. The road to peace in a nuclear age cannot possibly be by any kind of judiciousness about old armaments. Someone has said that there is no way to peace; peace is the way. It is no good saying, "As soon as this one is fixed up then we will deal with the next, and then we will deal with the next one", while, up, up go the armaments. Martin Luther King summed it up when he said, "It is either nonviolence or non-existence". At the moment our course is set for non-existence.
8.1 p.m.
LORD ARDWICK: My Lords, the tragedy of this war was brought home to us in Fleet Street yesterday afternoon by the news that Nicholas Tomalin had been killed by a Syrian rocket as he pursued his high professional duty of seeking information of great importance, of first importance to the public, even at the risk of his own life. It is very hard for us to believe that a man of such abundant vitality, such life and humour could be destroyed in a fraction of a second. The media are under a great deal of criticism nowadays—a great deal of it justified—but I feel I must remind you that we could not have a realistic debate in these Houses of Parliament if it were not for a thousand people—reporters, photographers, cameramen, television men, radio men—showing exactly the same kind of courage as Nicholas Tomalin showed.
My Lords, there is much propaganda being trumpeted about by those who are neither Jew nor Arab but have become

471
partisans of either side. There are acres of printed propaganda too, delving into the past and proving the innocence of one side and the guilt of the other—and most of it is factually true. But the deeper truth is that both sides have been caught up in tragedy, and I do not find my own profound sympathies for Israel are incompatible with an understanding of the fears and the sufferings and the aspirations of the Arabs. Indeed, such feelings are fully compatible with the policy outlined in Resolution 242, which I think all Parties in this House accept. The argument is not about the policies so expressed; it is about the Government's current reaction to the emergency which even people who are not their opponents have described as specious and devious; and perhaps they have used worse words such as hypocritical. When the Government claims that they are acting impartially hardly anybody fails to dissent, except the members of the pro-Arab factions. Hardly anybody believes what the Government are saying, or at least wholly believes what the Government are saying, in Parliament or in the Press or in the world.
There is a new political word coined by the Foreign Secretary to justify and explain his policy. He claims that in denying further arms to all their customers in the battle field countries the British Government are pursuing an "even-handed" policy. No doubt the Government could prove it—though they have not yet done so—by going back over the years and adding up all the bills presented to the Arab States and comparing the total with the Israeli bills. Of course the test of even-handedness is not an arithmetical one over time. There must be a qualitative test and it must be of the effect of the Government's action at this desperate moment of battle. Israel, perhaps unwisely, has bought many of her tanks from Britain. The noble Lord, Lord Bernstein, I think, estimated the number at two-thirds of their tank strength. These tanks, as we know, have been used defensively and they have been badly mauled, so the Israelis are in dire need of ammunition, of spare parts and of replenishments. Their stocks are not ample, as some people have suggested, otherwise they would not have placed that large order with us before the war
472
actually began, the large order that was never shipped.
So far as one can judge from this side, neither the Egyptians nor the Syrians have any vital need which the Russians cannot supply and are not supplying. Indeed, but for the lavish supplies of Soviet arms rushed to the Middle East after the first battles the war might be nearer its end now than it actually is. Whatever the various Arab States may owe in fire power and armour to Britain, the two Powers bearing the brunt of the fighting, the Egyptians and the Syrians, do not seem to be embarrassed by any drying up of supplies from us. Indeed, they among the Arab Powers seem to have been (though it is always hard to get the facts about these things) among our lesser customers. So any arithmetical calculation is meaningless. Cries at the British embargo do not come from the Arabs but from the Israelis, and the support for the Government's actions comes chiefly from partisans who, perfectly properly, are supporters of the Arab cause.
Of course, the British Government can put forward a humane reason for their action; they can claim that it is an expression of impartiality and they can say that it puts them in a posture which would enable them to use their specific influence on the combatants. In fact, the British Government, without much realism, seemed to be demanding a ceasefire at the very moment the battle began. I do not see this as diplomacy; I see it perhaps as propaganda. I am wondering what influence the Government think they will have as a pacifier with the Israelis. Even before the Foreign Secretary made his statement the emptiness of his words was apparent. The Israelis were incensed by the embargo. They felt as we should have felt at the time of the Battle of Britain if someone had denied us something vital for our defence in the hope that it would persuade us to come more quickly to the peace table.
How the British Government, looking at the weight of armour, looking at the fire power deployed against the Israelis with Soviet help, could have held back supplies they were contracted to send, I do not know. It was not merely a failure in commercial honesty; it was I think a failure of humanity. I do not know how they brought themselves into such a position, but I cannot help having suspicions

473
that, in our own national interest, they sought, perhaps even unconsciously, to appease the Arabs in the hope that they would spare us from their oil sanctions. I suspect that someone then thought that the Israelis would negotiate only if their military pride was humbled, and that the Egyptians could only negotiate if their pride was restored by military success. That well may be a subtle assessment of the proposed realities, but if this is what the Government were after it was far from the high-minded course they described. The even-handedness would have been a dose of humility for one side and an application of pride to the other. I wonder whether it really is realistic. President Sadat has advanced what has been called a peace plan, but is in effect his avowed war aim. "Go back to the 1967 frontiers", he says, "and I will cease fire. If you do not, I will fire my missiles into your cities."
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I am very sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but President Sadat did not say that. He said that if the Israelis bombed civilian targets in the Nile Delta or Damascus he would then use his missiles. He did not say he would use his missiles if they did not move back. I think that if the noble Lord reads exactly what he said, he will find that I am right. I hate to correct people who are older and cleverer than I am.
LORD ARDWICK: My Lords, I will accept the correction, but I think there is no doubt that the use of missiles was wrapped up with the peace plan. That was the point I was anxious to make. I wonder whether anyone believes that, if Israel acceded, this would be the end for all time of Arab aspirations. If the Israelis did go back to the 1967 lines, would it not just be preparing the ground for the next round? Could the Arabs really resist going back to the old cry calling for the destruction of the Israeli State?
There has been talk throughout this crisis of the possibility of Western Europe taking some kind of initial step, some kind of joint foreign policy, after hammering out a common policy on the Middle East. The idea is very attractive to me, as a European. Nevertheless, I see very grave dangers in it. It would be splendid if a just and lasting peace
474
could be obtained and Europe was able to make a constructive contribution to the safeguarding of the frontiers of these lands. It would be splendid, but only if the policy were one which the Americans could wholeheartedly accept. The NATO Alliance, as I see it, cannot possibly have two divergent policies on such a vital area as the Middle East. I do not see how you can have a distinctive European policy. Yet there are all the ingredients of such divergence. The United States has been left alone to succour the Israelis and it might find that the European consensus, nominally evenhanded, was in fact embarrassingly pro-Arab. At this moment only the Soviet Union and the United States can influence a settlement in the Middle East. They are the only ones, and they have every incentive to do so, if they value the détente they have so far achieved. Now there is, thank God! a whiff of peace in the air. There seems to be a possibility that they are preparing to use their vital influence in order to get a cease-fire. It is clear that the lines, as drawn both before and after the last Arab/Israeli war, cannot be made into permanent frontiers. For Israel to return to the 1967 frontiers would mean, modern weapons being what they are, a recipe for a potential new Warsaw ghetto.
As for ourselves and other European Powers, we shall suffer more in the short term than the Americans, if the Arabs apply oil sanctions; but I cannot believe that there is any future for us in allowing the Arabs to dictate our foreign policy. This kind of appeasement is one which might pay immediate dividends, but in the end yields only a bitter reward.
8.24 p.m.
LORD SOPER: My Lords, it gives me special pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, and to congratulate him upon his recovery from his recent illness. I hope that his appearance does not belie his condition and that he will continue to enjoy good health.
I have listened with assiduity and care to almost the entire debate. I have been deeply moved—as who cannot fail to be moved?—by the eloquence and passion with which which the Israeli case has been presented. I share it; and yet, with a queer quirk, I relished more the defence of the Arab position, as it was

475
so eloquently put by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. I sympathise entirely, if "sympathy" is not too weak a word. As a representative of the Christian Church, I can never repay the debt we owe, or indeed extirpate the crime we have committed in condemning this magnificent race of the Jews for nearly 2,000 years in our official testimonies in the Christian Church for the greatest of all crimes—that of Deocide. Yet, as I have listened to this debate, it has also been with a deep sense of sorrow and foreboding. I remember it was during the days of the Spanish Civil War that the Great Powers used the laboratory of Spain in order to prepare for an oncoming conflict. I pray that this present conflict may not so escalate that it becomes the workshop of an even greater conflagration.
It is for that reason that I am the more disturbed as I remember that it was, once upon a time, on Mount Sinai that the immortal Decalogue was proclaimed. Mischievously, perhaps, one might speculate that had Moses come down from that mountain and turned right instead of left it might be that the oil in the desert would have been differently distributed. It was within earshot of the Golan Heights that the Sermon on the Mount was proclaimed. It was on the road to Damascus that the light shone upon the man who is more responsible than any other human being for the dissemination of Christianity in the Western hemisphere and the building up of what we are pleased to call Western civilisation. It makes me feel very sad when I think what has happened over the years and of the way in which these three great religions have promoted such great discord. For a Jew, I suppose both Christianity and Islam are heresies of the Jewish Faith. So, strictly speaking, they are. Therefore, within this fragmentation there is yet one golden thread of continuing hope—the hope of the Grace of God, the compassion of Allah and the righteousness of Jehovah. I shall return to this, with no apology, a little later. But it strikes me that much of this debate has not endeavoured to plumb the depths of the issue with which humanity is now confronted. Without wishing to seem pompous, it seems to me that unless we can solve this problem, it profiteth us
476
little if we solve all the other problems of our civilisation and then get blown to pieces in a nuclear war. If that is a sombre fact, it is so because much of our debate to-day has been concerned with, if not the minutiæ, at least the "nuts and bolts'' of the present situation.
I support the Government, and if indeed this is a Motion that has a little relevance, I am going to speak to it. I am sure that the Government are right, in these dire circumstances, in pleading for an immediate cease-fire and offering their good offices in any bilateral or multilateral attempt to solve this grievous conflict. I must, as a pacifist, also commend the Government on their belated but, in my judgment, quite justified embargo on arms. As I say that, I realise the underlying problems confronting any Government which is at this moment endeavouring to do this thing. Of course it is absurd, in one sense, to say to people, "Yes, we will supply you with a bicycle but you must not ride it, because if you do we cannot give you a replacement tyre if you get a puncture". Of course it is ridiculous to say that at this point of time we have an evenhanded programme of embargo, when it is manifest that the embargo on spare parts for Centurion tanks is infinitely more precious to the wellbeing of the Israeli forces than perhaps would be the withdrawal of some of our commitments to the other side. Yet I would counsel this House if I may, without impudence, that we are verging on a very dangerous assumption if we think we shall improve our even-mindedness by favouring one side as over the other. This is the dilemma, and it is the dilemma which I beg leave to state demands a much more fundamental analysis.
I entirely agree with my noble friends Lord Brockway and Lord Macleod of Fuinary that the issue is really at the roots of that fundamental iniquity called the sale of arms. If I may draw from a source which is fairly representative the revelation or the exposure of the fact to people who might have known it before but I think did not, in this miserable arms business we are about fourth in the league, and we have been supplying vast amounts of arms to both sides who if not belligerent at the point of gun shooting, were belligerent at least in the concept that war is the continuation of

477
policy. We have much more to lose in the credibility of the community in which we live by a continuation of the supply of arms to both sides in warfare, or in the preparation for it, than we have in the honest, if imperfect, attempt to deal with this problem at the point at which it becomes most dangerous. Even recognising that this is a compromise and has within it many elements which are unjust, I believe that it may at least be the first stage to the entire cessation of this iniquitous business.
To return to what the Government ought to do and could do in excess of what they have already done, I have the strong conviction that a resolution of the spiritual and ecclesiastical problems that confront the three great competing religions can contribute a great deal more than has been advertised in any of the media that I have come across, or has even been mentioned this afternoon. Yesterday His Holiness of Rome made the pregnant observation that the sale of arms to belligerents hastens and makes more dangerous the outbreak of war. That may not be a Papal infallible statement on faith and morals carrying with it the ex cathedra imprimatur of the whole Church, but it has a lesson which seems unavoidable: one who would endeavour to persuade his fellows in the ways of peace must avoid those practices which, in their very nature, promote war. I regret to say that the World Council of Churches is a little less precise—not, I am afraid, an unusual occurrence. Dr. Philip Potter, its general secretary, announces on behalf of the World Council of Churches that on no account should we escalate the supply of arms. Apparently a moderate supply of arms to both sides is acceptable to Christians, but we must not go too far—the golden mean which actually means very little.
If, as in the relationships between Christians and Jews, a new relationship which my noble friend Lord Janner will know, as I do, to be one of the most hopeful signs of increasing opportunities of co-operation and peacemaking, can be extended, as I believe it can, to the Islamic world with its non-racial and multi-racial concept, then we are not necessarily contributing to the immediate cessation of the hostilities at present raging, but are doing something practical
478
to prevent the outbreak of a subsequent war. There is within each of these great religions a continuing promise or threat that those who consistently practise that which is evil progressively lose their capacity to do what is right. This is not part of a sermon for next Sunday, but it has immediate relevance for this debate this afternoon.
The assumption has been running through this debate that we can turn away from things that have been happening, we can turn over a new leaf, if that is what is meant, we can exert our moral pressure which we have upon countries (and that is much more minimal than some of your Lordships imagine), and begin to exercise a new power and turn in a new direction. Unfortunately, I believe in the event of this present conflict we have fallen over the cliff edge and there is no point when we are half way down in saying, "What do we do now?". What we have is the opportunity of learning from the dolorous conditions of the present conflict how it may never happen again. And pray God that in the meantime there will be exercised such mediation and common sense as will persuade the combatants not to look for overwhelming victory or unconditional surrender, but to look hopefully at the emergent signs of yesterday and to-day of the preparedness of the leaders on both sides to consider some kind of compromise so that this slaughter may indeed be ended!
My Lords, one final thought which to me is of profound importance; I testify to it. As a pacifist I have no programme, but I have a witness. We have taken incalculable and terrible risks over the period of the centuries with the most sophisticated weapons now in our hands in the interests of peace by the threat of counter-violence, and we have invested our sense of security in being stronger than the other man. Is it not high time for a Government, even without the foreknowledge and foretaste of what would be the effect, to take upon themselves what I believe will be the calculable risk of initiating a programme of disarmament even when we are unaware of what will be the result in the Kremlin or in New York—even without the foretaste of what its result can be in the amelioration and indeed the stopping of so many of our programmes?

479
I make that plea supporting the Government at the moment in the first stages of what I believe to be a necessary programme, praying that the people of Israel may have a secure place in which to live —a home as the Balfour Declaration makes for them. They will be far better served with a friendly neighbour, even if he is breathing down their neck, than an enemy pushed to the end of the street. The real hope is not for the maintenance of the nation's state; we have no right to ask other people to get rid of their arms, and we have no right to deny them those arms, if we are not prepared to take that lesson to our own heart and to our own community. This is indeed an ideal. I am a bit tired of the realists. I believe that this kind of idealism ought to be declared. I believe that to-day it would make its impact upon a great many more people than ever before. Once a federal system can be established for all the communities, the Palestinians, the Israelis and the Arabs, in what was once a holy land it may cause it once again to blossom as the rose, to be a haven for the afflicted, and a place for the children of God.
8.29 p.m.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, this is the second time since I have been a Member of your Lordships' House that I have had to follow my noble friend who has just sat down. He and I have known each other for something like 40 years. Generally, and during some part of that time, we have worked together in a number of different ways. I find it difficult to follow him because so much of what he says is so sound. It represents the thoughts of many of us; yet perhaps it is a measure of my own uncertainty that I am (shall I say?) personally worried by what he has said because I cannot bring myself to go the whole way with him. But of course that does not make my noble friend Lord Soper in any way wrong. It may well be, as so often is the case, that he is right and we are wrong.
May I say to the noble Baroness, the Minister, that. I hope that this debate will really have some significance. As I understand the situation, her right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has made it clear that he will keep this matter constantly under review; and the implication there is that if he sees that it is necessary to change, or to
480
advise the Government to change their attitude in any way, he will do so. If, however, the Government are completely inflexible then this afternoon and this evening we have wasted our time.
I am only concerned with the matters relating to the embargo. So much has been said about Resolution No. 242, about all the other matters which are of supreme importance in this particular matter, the cease-fire, guaranteed borders, some kind of supervision; these things I believe to be of supreme importance. But I am primarily concerned with the situation with which Israel is faced at the present moment. It would be cowardly of me not to say that I was shocked by the speech and its implications made by the Foreign Secretary last Tuesday and properly repeated in your Lordships' House by the noble Baroness. Having re-read the speech several times it does not in places, I think, do credit either to the Foreign Secretary, the Government, or to the United Kingdom. I say that it does not do credit because, although not a member of the Jewish Community, I am Chairman of the British Committee of Concern for Jews in Arab Countries, and in the years that I have been Chairman I have received a great deal of help from the Foreign Secretary, and I should like to take this opportunity of paying tribute to him for what he has done in that direction. It is not surprising that his Statement failed to find general approval in our newspapers, with one possible exception. I think The Times, if I may be allowed to quote from it, summed up the situation extremely well.The Times wrote:
"There is always an element of hypocrisy about arms embargoes. The gun-runner who turns pacifist overnight is never an especially convincing or dignified figure and the effect of his attitude is often to give an advantage to one side in the battle, the side which decided to start the fighting and therefore took the precaution of stocking-up with ammunition in advance".
That is precisely the position of Egypt and Syria. The Foreign Secretary claimed—and again I quote:
"Whereas in 1967 an embargo would have discriminated against Israel, it is now evenhanded",
and The Times comment on that particular remark was,
"This claim is almost certainly specious".
My noble friend Lord Kennet I think asked Lord Harvey of Prestbury, when he

481
suggested that the Israelis were at a disadvantage from a war point of view, whether Lord Harvey had any information to that effect. I may have misunderstood my noble friend, but I think this is what he said. The Observer for Sunday October 7 last said this, through their Defence Correspondent, Andrew Wilson:
"Against Egypt and Syria combined Israel is outnumbered three to two in immediately available manpower; three to two in tanks; and two to one in combat aircraft,"
and then it proceeds to give the breakdown of Israel, Egypt, Syria, Jordan and the Lebanon.
LORD KENNET: I thank the noble Lord very much for yielding. My point was not quite that. I think there is general agreement about what the situation was the day the war began. The point I was making to the noble Lord, Lord Harvey, was that we none of us know what the situation is now. We do not know what the losses have been, especially; and this was the point to which I was addressing myself, the losses on the Egyptian and Syrian side.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: Perhaps I can say to my noble friend that some of us do know what the losses are so far as Israel is concerned; but this would not be a time I think to go into the matter. The might and war potential of the Arab countries already involved in terms of men, arms, ammunition, planes and the very sophisticated surface-to-air missiles, and the supplies and backing they will get from Arab countries not involved at present gives, I believe, a new meaning to the words "even-handed". I would go so far as to say that history may well recall that "even-handed" meant that one hand was very full and the other was very empty. I ask the noble Baroness this question: what arms were we supplying to Egypt and Syria in comparison to what we were supplying under contract to Israel? Will she agree that we were supplying no arms to Syria and precious little to Egypt, so that the embargo does not affect Syria or Egypt but only affects Israel?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: And Jordan.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: It does not affect Jordan, because Jordan was well supplied by us long before the war
482
started. What we are doing now is to deny Israel the right to the equipment that she has been promised and I believe has already paid for. There is, on the one hand, the moral question of withholding the means of self-defence from a victim of an armed attack, and, on the other hand, the immorality of at the same time keeping the aggressors happy and supplied with British equipment.
When I asked the noble Baroness last Tuesday whether the Government would give an assurance that they would not supply any arms or ammunition to any Arab country whatsoever the noble Baroness replied, "No, I cannot give that assurance; and the implication can only be that we are prepared presumably, in certain circumstances, to make arms and ammunition available to some Arab countries. I would ask the noble Baroness whether we are fulfilling the £250 million defence contract that we have with Saudi Arabia which was signed earlier this year. I would ask her whether it is not true that we have about 1,500 British personnel in Saudi Arabia carrying out a wide range of advisory activities; and I would ask her whether it is true that British personnel virtually run King Feisal's air force.
So far as I understand, there has been no word of condemnation by the Government of Arab aggression. In fact, the Foreign Secretary is on record as having said there is no profit in denouncing aggression. You see, the stakes are not even. The most the Arab States can suffer is defeat. Israel faces a long-avowed intention of the Arab countries, namely, annihilation. That was once, and may well still be, the object of Egypt and her allies. This is the fourth time in 26 years that the people of Israel have been engaged in a battle for survival.
All we seem to be doing by imposing an embargo on arms to Israel, thereby appeasing the Arabs—and I say this deliberately—is to trade Israeli blood for Arab oil. What would have been our reaction in 1940 when we, as a nation, stood alone against the might of the German Army and Air Force if America, who at that time was neutral, had not come to our aid and given us the tools to get on with prosecuting the war? Should we have liked it if she had said, "Oh no, we are neutral; we must not send you anything"? How profoundly

483
grateful we were in 1940 to have that kind of help; and there is very little difference in the situation to-day with Israel as with us in 1940. I can well understand Israel's sense of injury and injustice that we should, at this particular time, deprive her of ammunition and components for her Centurion tanks.
There are only two other things I wish to say. Israel is the only democratic State in the Middle East. Israel is the only State in the Middle East that approximates to our way of life, holding dearly the kind of things that we hold dear in this country. A caring people, Israel cares for her people and it is a society that we ought to be prepared to do everything to support. There is no other democratic society out there. What freedom have the vast majority of the Arabs got? What rights have they to determine their own future? By and large their way of life could not be more foreign to us than it is, and I think that the future peace of the world needs Israel to be a free democratic State, as she is at the present moment.
I do not know whether your Lordships know that some days ago there was a national opinion poll in this country, conducted by N.O.P. on precisely the same lines as any other opinion poll, and people interviewed were asked where they stood and whom they supported in this present struggle between Arabs and Jews. Five per cent. of the people said that they supported the Arab countries; 45·5 per cent. said that they supported Israel. The rest—quite a substantial number, I agree—either would not give an opinion or said that they did not have an opinion. But nine times as many people in this country support Israel as against the Arabs; and I would say to the noble Baroness that I do not think that this Government can afford to ignore public opinion any more than it can afford to ignore the views of many people on all sides of this House and also in the House of Commons.
8.45 p.m.
LORD STAMP: My Lords, I very much regret that I have not been able to be present for the greater part of this debate. It is always a great disadvantage when one has not heard all that has gone before, and never have I felt this more than now, but a longstanding engagement
484
has prevented me from doing so. I feel I should intervene, though, as I was one of an Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation that visited Egypt at the beginning of this year and was, in fact, the only Member of your Lordships' House on that delegation. Perhaps, therefore, some of the impressions of my visit extracted from my diary may be of interest to your Lordships.
We arrived in Cairo at a critical time—a day before the shooting down of a Libyan plane by the Israelis—and left a short time after the Khartoum incident. From the beginning it was clear that the invitation to the delegation to visit Egypt was part of a diplomatic offensive to obtain support for the Arab cause. On one morning we had meetings with the Speaker of the People's Assembly, followed by one with the Prime Minister and then the Foreign Minister—all in the space of three and a half gruelling hours. In each of them the pattern of questions was the same: did we still believe in Resolution 242 that we had sponsored in the United Nations? Had the Egyptian Government, in our view, done anything contrary to the spirit of that Resolution in the intervening years? Thirdly, in view of the fact that the Israeli occupation of territory, contrary to that Resolution, was being accepted more and more as permanent, what should the Egyptian Government do about it?
The Israelis were prepared for talks, but only on the understanding that certain vital aspects were not negotiable, and, furthermore, that there should be direct talks, to all intents and purposes between victor and vanquished and with no outside interference. This was quite unacceptable to the Egyptian Government, who were prepared for discussions only if there were no strings attached and in the presence of mediators to ensure that the spirit and meaning of Resolution 242 were adhered to. This, in spite of its ambiguity, clearly implied relinquishing the occupied territories, rather than "occupied territories", a phrase which to them was completely meaningless. This did not mean, though, that certain strategic areas might not be put under international control to ensure the security of Israel: that was an essential part of Resolution 242, which they supported. In insisting on the implementation of this

485
Resolution they were, of course, supporting the claims of all Arabs dispossessed in the six-day war and not just those of their own country, though the emphasis naturally was on these.
In reply to these questions it was suggested that with the increasing sympathy which was being shown for the Arab cause throughout the world, particularly at that time following the shooting down of the Libyan plane, they stood to gain far more by a policy of moderation and continued diplomacy, rather than by undertaking a war they had little hope of winning and which in the end could only intensify the problem. To this the reply was, "We have waited long enough. There seems to be no. alternative. You fought in 1940 against apparently insuperable odds for what you believed to be right, and we shall do the same." At the time, it seemed that this might be bluff, to impress even more on the world the seriousness of the situation, but we now know, sadly, that that was not the case. They meant what they said, and President Sadat only a day or so ago has reaffirmed the basic policy outlined to us.
Of course such an attitude is a far cry from that preceding the six-day war, with their blood-curdling threats that they would drive the Israelis into the sea. That did incalculable harm to the Arab cause, and indeed to that of world peace. Nevertheless, the Egyptians were insistent that they would agree to any system of international supervision that would make such a happening impossible, and I firmly believe that the only hope for a lasting peace lies in accepting this assurance and acting on it. A categorical statement by the great Powers, including not only the United States and the Soviet Union but also Britain and France, that they would not tolerate for one moment any encroachment on the pre-1967 Israeli frontiers, and the spelling out in detail of the ways in which such cast-iron external guarantees would ensure this, is essential.
I believe also that, with the recent atmosphere of détente between the United States and the Soviet Union, provided that this is not dissipated by the increasing stresses and strains of the present conflict, such a united guarantee for the first time really would be possible. It has been suggested that the security of Israel
486
should be primarily a matter for the United Nations. In theory, of course, this should be so, but this completely ignores —however much one may deplore it—the reputation that the United Nations has gained for utter ineffectiveness in critical situations. Many have lost faith in it completely and to them the very name is nothing but an irritant. Furthermore, I feel that Israel's security cannot be left to that country alone, however much she may demand this. The implications of such a policy involve very largely the retention of the occupied lards and, should she win the present conflict outright, it might involve the acquisition of even more territory. There is also the prospect of Israel as an island in a sea of perpetual enmity, with enemies within and without. Both of these consequences are alike quite unacceptable and unthinkable.
My Lords, I believe our country is in a position to play an outstanding part, not so much in terms of military support for a peace-keeping force when the time comes (although in this we must participate), but primarily as a mediator. I know it will be said that the Arabs will say what they think you would like to hear, but many do look upon Britain as their best friend, with their intense dislike of the United States, and the disillusionment with the Soviet Union that I believe still exists in spite of the exigencies of the moment. The wheel is turning full circle and, if nothing else, there is a feeling of "Better the devil you know".
At the same time, our relationship with Israel should speak for itself. The Balfour Declaration and our continued support for an independent Jewish State, so far as is consistent with the rights of others, are facts. In this connection, I feel that the embargo on arms to Israel, involving as it has done the breaking of contracts, has been a mistake, even though the motive of wanting to appear impartial is very understandable. There is something even more important, and that is good faith. It may be wishful thinking, but I feel that perhaps some Arabs might understand this, even though the immediate result of a reversal of policy would be contrary to their own interests provided that we show equal good faith with them by continuing to insist by every means in our power that Resolution 242 should be fully implemented.

487
My Lords, in the midst of all this ghastly fighting there may seem little that we can do at the moment. The time will come, perhaps, after both sides have become completely exhausted, when we must make yet another attempt to bring about a permanent peace in the Middle East, which must be based on justice for Arab and Jew alike—the only sure and lasting foundation.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether, while he was in Egypt, he was able to ascertain —and I ask this question very sincerely—why Egypt and Syria over the past six years have refused consistently to meet the Israelis round the table and discuss the situation?
LORD STAMP: My Lords, I think I went into that point in some detail.
8.55 p.m.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I have sat through 90 per cent. of the debate although I did not put my name down to speak. I have noticed a number of names that have been missed out. Following the noble Lord, Lord Stamp, I must say that whether one agrees or not with what he has said, he has given a marvellous example of brevity with cogency and an example of a speech that was prudent, if I may say so without sounding condescending, and I hope that I shall learn from him. Too many speeches to-day have shot off like a rocket and illuminated nothing.
My Lords, there are two certain factors which have been completely omitted. This country is being called upon to solve most of the world's problems. We cannot settle the Irish problem. We have battalions to protect the Germans from the Russians. We are offering to put troops all over the world, and we could not mount enough troops now to carry on a battle with Switzerland! These are the facts of existence. Where are we going to pick our battle grounds? How do we get over this terrible problem? I wish to point out that, together with every noble Lord in this Chamber, I support the Jewish appeal for a national home and for many years, when they suffered under Hitler, I went to Germany and with the great and noble Lord. Lord Wedgwood, helped to work with the underground movement to give comfort
488
and succour to Jews who, in intolerable circumstances and misery, came to this country. We had to guarantee that they would not be on what in those days we used to call the parish relief, and with whatever small salary we had then, we did it because we believed they had a right. But we must not make the assumption that the Arab civilisation has done nothing for the world. In astronomy, mathematics and architecture the Arab world has made a contribution; even our cathedrals have copied the Moorish style of architecture. I am neither on the side of God nor Allah; I am on the side of mankind learning that they can only solve their own problems; God and Allah help those who help themselves. The assumption to-night has been that the United States and Britain and perhaps Russia, alone can solve this problem. If any of your Lordships listen to the monitoring of the Chinese news as I do, you will know that this Middle East problem is not going to be solved without the Chinese having a say in the matter, and if one now sees the direction in which their philosophy in the Middle East is going, they are entering into world trade and are a great civilisation who, like the Arabs, have never had a pogrom against the Jews.
LORD JANNER: That is not true.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: They have never had a progrom against the Jews in the sense of Hitler or the Germans.
LORD JANNER: That is not true. If my noble friend will allow me to explain, that is not true. I was in Aden myself when a pogrom took place against the Jews, when some hundreds were killed, and their properties destroyed. I went there myself. Before that there are many instances of attacks on Jews of the Yemen and everywhere else. My noble friend does not know his history.
LORD DAVIES or LEEK: I said the Chinese.
LORD JANNER: I am sorry; I misunderstood.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I should like my noble friend Lord Janner at least to listen to my case, because I want to support him. The debate is on the Question:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a further statement on what

489
steps they have taken, or propose to take, towards the achievement of a durable peace in the Middle East."
When a nation buys a set of tools, that nation, if a contract has been made, is entitled to the spare parts for those tools, and I think that is one of the things that will go down as a blot on our escutcheon. Nevertheless, I do not want it to appear that one side is all white and the other side is all black. If Britain and the Foreign Office had had more courage in the days of Foster Dulles we would have jumped in to support the building of the Aswan Dam. Instead it was through the McCarthy period in America and the lack of courage on the part of the Foreign Office here that seemed to control Foreign Secretaries in the Labour Government in not working out a foreign policy which, with its knowledge of the Arab world, would have made a much more peaceful Arab world than the xenophobia built up against them after the war through cutting them off. We therefore brought in Russia. We were responsible, and the United States for giving Russia a landing place in the Middle East by offering to build, and helping to build, the Aswan Dam. I will give way to the noble Lord who is so knowledgeable on this.
LORD GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, I do not wish to enter into a substantial discussion, but I just wish, as a senior official in the Foreign Office, modestly to disclaim any control over the Labour Government which I served.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, let us be frank. The trouble with Foreign Secretaries on both sides of the House, whether redbrick university or Oxbridge, is that they seem to be overawed by the stolid attitude of the Foreign Office and the Treasury. So far as Vietnam is concerned, that was a bad job, and I know something about it. I believe that we have a duty to ask the British Government to see that the Israelis have a chance of not being annihilated. Mankind cannot allow that to happen. Nevertheless, I agree that Resolution 242 should be used as the basis of our next discussions. The moral issue is the one which I agreed with 100 per cent. in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Soper. The crackpot realism that we have heard over these last twenty years has landed us in the mess we are in to-day. I cannot
490
follow up the speech of the noble Lord who spoke about talking from strength, bless his dear old solid tough heart! Ernie Bevin used to tell us, "Give me another twenty million tons of coal, give me more armaments, and we can talk to the Russians through strength". Maybe we ought to talk through honesty and a belief that through these things we can achieve peace.
In this transition period we are facing an Israel in anguish at the present moment. I am saying that under this even-handedness—this horrible term that has grown up like the umbrella in the Czech crisis—the tools and spare parts should go there. The first thing that we should be trying to do is to work for a cease-fire. Then I accept the Foreign Secretary's Statement, now followed up by the profound knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, who gave us an insight and interpretation which was worth while, if I may say so with humility. I believe the suggestion that was most constructive and which should be listened to was when the noble Lord said that this time we should put in troops on both sides of the line and not let them be moved by the Egyptians or the Israelis in the discussion period. My eight minutes are up, and if I spoke longer now, without going into my pet theory about how China can help in this crisis, with the Soviet Union, I should only reiterate some of the excellent suggestions already made. But the noble Baroness should realise that most of us on this side of the House are dismayed at this attitude with regard to the tools and spare parts.
9.4 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, my noble friend who has just spoken illustrates clearly why the Opposition put down this Question, and if my noble friend Lord Willis is here, after his criticisms, I should like to say that it is clear from this debate that there are a great variety of views on both sides of the House. I did attempt an analysis of those who have spoken. There were 13 speakers who, in furtherance of their pro-Israeli views, have advocated the lifting of the arms embargo; there were 10 who are either neutral or to some extent pro-Arab; and there were 3 who were against any further export of arms.

491
The reason we put down this Question—and we decided to put it down before the House even met last week—was to ensure that there would be an opportunity for the House of Lords to express their views and do so as freely as I believe has been done in another place, where I may say if there is a Division (and we hope there will not be) my Party will be allowed a free vote. I would say to my noble friend, having spent quite a lot of time in consultation, and knowing the opinions of my senior colleagues at the other end as well as here, that there was general agreement that in all the circumstances the Question which we put down in anticipation several days ago best fitted the needs of the moment. It would allow this House to express views. Above all, as my noble friends Lord Kennet and Lord Brockway and others made clear, it is a durable peace we want, not just victory by one side or the other.
I would propose to attempt a brief account of how I view the situation, but before I discuss the, present position I think I must say a word in defence of the Foreign Office. I remember the Suez invasion, in which the Labour Party was highly critical of the Conservative Government, as indeed were many Conservatives; and those young members of the Foreign Office, 60 of them or more, who tried to resign did not do so on grounds of pro-Arahism but on grounds that they disapproved of aggression. Having spent some time, as my noble friend Lord Beswick has done, in South Arabia, I would not have said that the Foreign Office were at that time particularly sympathetic to the Arab point of view; indeed rather the reverse, though there were a number who did understand, as my noble friend Lord Greenwood would know, the demands for Arab nationalism and freedom represented by socialist views.
I have detected a touch of arrogance in one or two of my colleagues who have said that their way of life is not the same as ours, when in fact it is, because they do aspire, with a long history of scholarship and tolerance, as well as some of the intolerance we have seen, to things we also believe in. One of the things that has developed since 1967 is the old antagonism which was so marked between Egypt and this country. We owe
492
a lot to my noble friend Lord George-Brown that it has greatly diminished. I want to say this not because I wish to pursue a pro-Arab line.
I would say to the noble Earl. Lord Onslow, that he made one of the finest speeches I have heard in this House, and one that was greatly appreciated, as my noble friend Lord Donaldson said, even by those who do not share his point of view. There have been a number of striking speeches. The purpose of the Question that we put down was to focus attention on the need for an enduring peace. That is why we have supported the Government in their efforts in this direction. If I disagree with the Government in an important respect, it is none the less with a consciousness of the extremely critical and difficult nature of the decisions that they have to take.
I think that we are all agreed that there are three main areas that have to be borne in mind: first, to stop the fighting; secondly, to achieve a lasting peace; and thirdly, and this has been the pressing message in this debate, to ensure that Israel is not destroyed in the meanwhile, because we would all be agreed that this would be the greatest disaster of all, as well as a tragedy to a people for whom we all have the greatest admiration for their courage and many other qualities. There are prospects that the parties may be brought to the conference table. I do not propose to go into the particular discussions as to who refused to come to the conference table, or who was responsible (although I think I know to whom I would attach this blame), but none the less this may be an opportunity to bring them to the conference table. If it is to be an enduring peace we cannot, as my noble friend Lord Brockway indicated, rely on the sort of arrangements that have existed in the past. Even in this day there is an opportunity for a U.N. force, and we are glad that the Government are prepared to contribute in a demilitarised zone. It would be fatal, as on a previous occasion, to have them in one country only. Although this is not perhaps the time to discuss this matter in detail, this seems to me to be the best solution.
I want to touch very briefly on the subject of the arms embargo. I would agree with my noble friend Lord Brockway and others that while it may not be the most

493
important of the matters we have discussed, it may be the most urgent of the matters we have discussed. We are anxious to help the Government. They have said that they have sought to be even-handed, but, like George Orwell said with regard to equality, some are more even-handed than others. The pursuit of even-handedness, if it is to achieve justice, depends on the particular circumstances of those who are being treated in this even-handed way. If, as we understand —and the Government have the figures and the information—Israel at this moment is in real need of tank spares and ammunition, then I would urge the Government to raise the embargo. I would urge them to raise it not just to Israel but to all the Arab countries.
It has been emphasised by a number of noble Lords that we ought to honour our contractual obligations. It may well be that this may be more advantageous to Israel in the present circumstances, but I think that the embargo is more disadvantageous in the present version of evenhandedness. That is the view of probably the majority of my colleagues, although not all of them.
I should like to stress that I strongly support the argument that we do not wish to start another arms race. This will need to be controlled; it will need to be limited it probably ought to be limited to particular contracts. In these difficult decisions this would be a view which, listening to the debate to-day, would command the support of the majority of your Lordships. It is perhaps fortunate that we can contrive to have debates without voting, when it is possible to collect the voices of those like the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, many noble friends, the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and others; and I have no doubt that this would be the general message from the House of Lords. I suspect, too, that though there will be dissentients there will be a similar message in the thoughts, though perhaps not in the case of a majority of the Members, of another place.
In these difficult times, when such horrible and tragic events are taking place, I think we almost incline to avert our eyes from the suffering, the misery, the tragedies and the bereavements, though some of my noble friends with relations and close associations in Israel must feel it very deeply indeed; and the
494
House has been very sympathetic to those who, like my noble friend Lord Janner, have given so much and have been so genuinely and bravely devoted to the cause in which they believe. But, like the Government, we must face the situation and we must make our own minds up, even allowing for the emotions, as to what is best for Israel and what is best for the peace of the world. Therefore, I hope we shall see some sort of further initiative on the part of the United States, and indeed of the Soviet Union, and that we shall certainly be willing to give a lead. I do not overrate that lead, despite the rather brave and optimistic speech about the role of Britain by my noble friend Lord Brockway; but certainly we have got to do the best we can. In the meanwhile, however, I would advise the Government on this particular point that the time has come to raise the embargo on both Israel and the Arabs.
9.16 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR BELHELVIE: My Lords, I should like to join with all those who have congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for having put this Question to us, which enables us in this House to express our views absolutely freely and which gives the Government a chance to test the temperature in this House and to understand the very deep feelings, and the reasons for them, which have been expressed from ail quarters of this House. This is how it is possible for any Member, speaking on a debate like this, to influence the Government in what is without doubt a most difficult decision. I should also like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, that surely it must be a record that on an Unstarred Question he has had no fewer than 26 speakers. I should like to join with him and with the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, in saying how sorry we are indeed that yet another British subject, Mr. Totnalin, has lost his life in Syria; and, of course, one hardly knows how to express one's feelings about the immense casualties of so many brilliant young people, and older people, too, in this terrible contest.
The Question asks the Government
"whether they will make a further statement on what steps they have taken, or propose to take, towards the achievement of a durable peace in the Middle East".

495
I should like not only to describe the Government's policy towards this most difficult conflict but to explain the reasoning behind it. Firstly, we have refused, as did the previous Administration in 1967, to apportion blame, believing that to do so would only make it far more difficult to bring the two sides together. Secondly, we have made very strenuous diplomatic efforts in the United Nations Security Council, and of course in private contacts with all the Governments concerned, to search for a means to end the fighting and to bring about an urgent and permanent settlement of the whole Arab-Israel conflict. Thirdly, we have placed an embargo on the supply of arms to the battlefield. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said that he felt perhaps the arms embargo had received almost too much attention in the context of the enormous question of how we are to achieve a durable peace, but because it has been something which has exercised noble Lords very closely I should like to deal with it in some detail.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Baroness, I only want to say that I said I did not think in the long run it was the most important, but I thought it was the most urgent.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: Yes, my Lords, the noble Lord is quite right; he did use the words "most urgent". It is urgent, because there are, of course, very deep differences of opinion as to whether this arms embargo is right. The Government have been accused of a lack of judgment and also of a breach of contract; and, of course, as my right honourable friend has said in another place, this is an immensely difficult judgment. I would ask the House to remember that both sides are asking us for arms and ammunition, and our refusal to supply will not, I am afraid, have a major effect in bringing either of the two sides to end the fighting, for each, of course, gets the bulk of its armaments from one or the other of the super-Powers. What we felt was that surely it would have been unprincipled to examine what was available for each side and then to make a selective decision which could only have been to the advantage of one side or the
496
other. That was rather the point put by the noble Lord, Lord Soper. Surely it would also have been impossibly difficult to try to balance what we allowed and did not allow to each side so that each would be capable of doing equal damage to the other with our weapons. If we are determined, above all, to work for peace, it seemed to us that it would put this country in a stronger position if we did not supply weapons of war.
The noble Lord, Lord Byers, who rose to the occasion to ask this Question, and my noble friend Lord Gridley who, alas! has had to leave us because of a family bereavement, both thought that this country would have less influence than if we had ill fact continued to supply the armaments. What I could not quite find out from this debate—and many noble Lords, if they read the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow, will see it has not been made clear in what they said—was what was meant when they said, "Lift the arms embargo!" There was no one except the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, who was absolutely clear when saying, "Lift the embargo! "that he meant lift the embargo from both sides.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, the noble Baroness will forgive me, but I did make it absolutely clear in my speech that the only thing that Israel was interested in was her own position. She did not mind any belligerent having arms from us. It is her own position which is her concern. I made that very clear indeed.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I am sorry if in any way I misinterpreted the noble Lord. I should like to come on to the question about Israel; because there were several noble Lords who said that it is important to lift the embargo from Israel because she is the smaller country. The noble Lord, Lord Janner, with the very deep feeling that he always brings to this question, said that he felt that it was entirely one-sided not to supply the arms to a small nation. I would suggest to him that it is not true that our embargo is anti-Israel. Both sides have British equipment that they have paid for. The embargo applies equally to arms going to the battlefield on both sides. If we had wanted to show favour to the

497
Arab countries we should have cut off the arms to Israel alone. In this context I did not find so many pro-Arab speeches as Lord Shackleton found; and I agree with him in this tribute to my noble friend Lord Onslow.
My Lords, I should like to address myself to the problem which has very much exercised the House to-day, the question of whether the arms embargo is even-banded. There were spares and ammunition for Jordan as well as for Israel, ready for delivery over the next few weeks. They were roughly about the same order of magnitude. As the House knows, we never give detailed descriptions of the various orders; but the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, whom I should like to congratulate on being 89 to-day—he said he had to go—the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, the noble Lords, Lord Willis, Lord Wells-Pestell, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge and my noble friend Lord Ballantrae felt that, even so, the fact that Israel was a smaller country surely made it more difficult for her than it would be for the Arab countries as a whole.
LORD BALLANTRAE: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend to say that I was not among the half-dozen that she counted.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR of BELHELVIE: Well, my Lords, I am very interested and I am glad to hear it, because, if I may say so, it was not quite clear at the time. I took a careful note of what the speakers said. Perhaps it will reassure the House if I tell noble Lords that the overall orders that are outstanding for the Arab countries as a whole far exceed those for Israel. I can also say that none of the ammunition or spares ordered by Israel has in fact been loaded. The noble Lord, Lord Bernstein, asked that question. On October 6 a small part of the ammunition ordered was waiting, it is perfectly true, for delivery in the dock.
The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, asked me a question, and although he is not present I must answer it because he said he thought it was an impish question—though that had of course not crossed my mind. He asked, was it intended to restore the contracts after all this was over? My brief answer to him is,
498
"Yes". Because what we are doing, and what I tried to explain on Tuesday after the Statement, is to suspend shipments by revoking outstanding valid licences while the fighting lasts. When people say that there has been a breach of contract, I should like to bring this to the attention of the House: there is no question of the British Government giving an unconditional guarantee for the fulfilment of contracts. The Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939 gives the Government power to regulate exports, and those powers are clearly set out in the Export of Goods Control Order of 1970 and its predecessors. Even when a contract has been signed, the Government have freedom to refuse an export licence. The ammunition and spares contracts of both Jordan and also Israel were covered by licences. Each licence stipulates:
"This licence may be modified or revoked at any time by the Department of Trade and Industry without mason given."
Therefore I suggest to the House that all those who buy British equipment are well aware from their licences that delivery could be suspended. I think that what has worried many noble Lords is that they feel that, particularly so far as the Centurion tanks are concerned, there will not be sufficient ammunition available to supply them. And as I said the other day—
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, will the noble Baroness give way? I apologise for interrupting her, but is this phrase she has quoted in all the armament deals of all the advanced countries of the world—this Catch 22"?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: It is always there in the case of any goods which are exported and which need a licence, not necessarily armaments. There could be all kinds of domestic things as well. The United States manufactures ammunition suitable for the Centurions, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Bernstein, recognised. I understand that the United States does not manufacture spares for the Centurions although they could certainly do so under licence. However, over the years Israel has made very good use of the contract to accumulate spares, and some of these also she manufactures.

499
Those who wish to raise the embargo must surely accept that it would have to be raised for both sides, as was also said by the noble Lords, Lord Vernon and Lord Shackleton. Spares and ammunition for the Israel Centurion tanks must be matched with spares and ammunition for Jordan, and in due course with other supplies for Egypt. There are some noble Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord MacLeod of Fuinary, who feel that there should be no armaments at all at any time, and I respect their feelings. There are those, too, who asked, it we are applying this embargo, what is happening to our partners in Europe? I cannot speak exactly for other Governments, but I understand that virtually no arms of any importance are being sent by any Western European Government; and, of course, it is well known that France and Germany have a standing embargo.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Baroness, may I say that it is this question of arms that is of importance. Those of us who wish the embargo to be lifted are not talking about a new arms race. We are seeking in the present situation to redress what we believe to be an unfair balance in the application of the embargo—
LORD JANNER: That is the whole point.
LORD SHACKLETON: —and I fully accept that the noble Baroness no doubt anticipated only the speeches and did not make it clear. But I think there is no doubt that a majority of those who are asking that the embargo should be lifted believe that it should apply to both sides. We are not talking about a massive increase or a new arms race; we are talking about topping up and meeting needs which may be desperate at the moment.
LORD BERNSTEIN: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but I never suggested that armaments should be sent to any other country. I suggested a contractual obligation, including supplying spares, and indeed shells. If the noble Baroness says that that is not in the licence, I should be obliged if she would say that
500
that has never been deleted from any licence. I have reason for asking the question, and perhaps we shall have the answer in due course. On the question of Jordan getting supplies, Jordan has about half the number of tanks that Israel has, and therefore there would be a difference in the quantity used and the quantity supplied.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I have read out in detail what is in the D.T.I. contract, and I do not think I need repeat it. On the difference between Jordan and Israel, it is true that Israel has more tanks, but Jordan is entirely dependent on the Centurions, whereas, as one noble Lord said, Israel is not. This is where the difference comes. It is also true to say that if you take the total amount which was required and was on order in this country, whether it was for Jordan or for Israel, there were relatively more for Jordan. I recognise, my Lords—and I recognise it from the murmurings that are going on throughout the House—that there are serious anxieties, and that is why I have tried to give some time to this point and tried to meet some of the questions that have been raised. But I would say this quite clearly: that neither militarily nor politically do we believe that there is a threat to the existence of the State of Israel. Nevertheless, on behalf of my right honourable friend, I should like to assure your Lordships that if at any stage there were thought to be such a risk, then the Goverhment would review their policy urgently and in time. If I may quote what my right honourable friend has said in another place to-day, it is:
"I will review the policy from day to day and, as necessary, try to advise the House to the best of my judgment and ability."
LORD BYERS: My Lord, perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me one point. Time is of the essence. Does the noble Baroness mean that these arms and supplies will go by ship, or will the Government take into consideration the need to airlift them if Israel is desperate?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord is anticipating a change of policy which may not take place. I have tried with great care to say—and I repeat it—that we do not

501
believe that either militarily or politically there is a threat at the moment to the existence of the State of Israel. I sought to quote what my right honourable friend has said in another place, and I should like to repeat it because it is most important. He said:
I will review the policy from day to day"—
and he actually added "from hour to hour"; and then went on to say—
LORD JANNER: My Lords, if I may interrupt—
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I should like the House, if your Lordships do not mind, to listen to this, because it really is the burden of what everybody is worried about. My right honourable friend said further:
"and I will try to advise the House to the best of my judgment and ability."
LORD JANNER: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Baroness, and I am sorry to interrupt, but a question was raised by my right honourable friend with regard to the matter of the balance of arms, which we have always considered to be the principle on which we are working. In view of the very heavy amount of armaments that are going to the other side, does not the noble Baroness consider that the armaments for which we are asking for Israel should be supplied at once?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: No, my Lords. I am afraid I cannot accept that for the reasons I have tried to give. It has been an immensely difficult judgment, but my right honourable friend has felt that it had to be altogether or to neither side, and that it was better, if we are to try to use our influence to get a peaceful and, as the right honourable gentleman said, a durable peace, that we must at any rate be seen not to be supplying arms to the main combatants in the area.
The noble Lord, Lord Segal, asked whether charitable remittances to Israel were allowed. My answer to that is, "Yes". The noble Lord, Lord WellsPestell, asked why we had not, if we were having an arms embargo, also decided to revoke arms to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. We have not revoked our supplies of arms to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf because the security of that area,
502
particularly the security of our oil supplies, is a major British interest. I can, however, inform the House that there are at present no major items due to be shipped to Saudi Arabia for at least a month, and, furthermore, all our sales to Saudi Arabia are related either to training or to the integrated defence schemes of that country.
Several noble Lords referred to the very difficult question of oil and, as the House knows, it was announced in Kuwait last night that the Arab oil Ministers had decided to start immediately reducing oil supplies by 5 per cent. a month, the value of that percentage to be calculated each month in relation to the previous month's production, until Israel has withdrawn to its 1967 borders and the rights of the Palestinians are restored. The announcement went on to say that the reduction is not intended to harm any friendly State and such countries would receive their share as they did before the reduction. I think noble Lords will agree that in many respects this is an obscure position. The exact nature and method of the measures to be taken have not yet been worked out, and the machinery of the international oil industry is so complex that we really shall have to wait until we get the exact details of these decisions and study them with considerable care before we can arrive at any new policy decision. But I would assure the noble Lord, Lord Segal, and the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, and my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood, that there is no question of the Government's being diverted by what I think they call blackmail from policies they believe in by threats to our oil supplies. I would agree with my noble friend Lady Elliot that the Arab nations need Western supplies, both technology and development. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, that we are doing our very best to have a policy of diversifying our energy resources.
My Lords, lastly I should like to deal with the whole question of the prospects of a settlement, because, as has been said in this debate, this is an old and bitter dispute. I suggest to the House that there are two fundamental questions: security for Israel and the recovery of territory for the Arabs. There are, of course, other problems but I think it would be easier to solve them once we

503
got an answer to the two main questions. We understand very well the acute anxieties of Israel. Nevertheless there is no getting away from the fact that Israel has really only two choices: first, to accept that she has to live almost indefinitely in a kind of fortified camp surrounded by enemies, relying on her own strength, with no real assurance that the events of the last ten days will not recur over and over again; or to negotiate a peace settlement on terms which maybe will not be ideal for her but terms which can be backed by international guarantees as firm and as binding as human ingenuity can make them. This, I think, was the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stamp. It is a very hard choice; we all recognise this.
The second basic issue is the restoration of Arab territory occupied in 1967. This is the quid pro quo which the Arabs are seeking in return for their agreement to recognise Israel and to conclude a permanent settlement with them. As the House knows, President Sadat has said on October 16 that he seeks an Israeli withdrawal to the boundaries of June 5 1967, and not the destruction of the State of Israel. But security for Israel and the recovery of territory for the Arabs are covered in Resolution 242 of the Security Council and that is why we are working for as speedy an end to the fighting as is possible combined with every diplomatic effort which will lead to the carrying out of that resolution in all its parts.
My right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has already put forward some suggestions on how that programme might be achieved, and of course there have been many suggestions to-day. The noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, spoke in particular about how, if we were to have guarantees, we could ensure that it would be explicitly provided that any international force could not be withdrawn except by the Security Council—and of course the House will recall that the United Nations force which was established in 1967 was in fact established by a Resolution of the General Assembly. That meant it had only the force of a recommendation and therefore that the permission of the country concerned was necessary for it to remain there. Therefore the only way
504
in which we could have an international force which could remain in the territory and which could not be removed is by a decision of the Security Council. That would need the concurrence of the permanent members of the Security Council, including the Soviet Union and the United States; and then it would also benecessary for the Council again, in some manner, to come to the conclusion that the force was no longer necessary. I need hardly stress to the House the enormous difficulties involved.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, spoke about the Palestinian refugees. I would quite agree with her that that matter must also be part of the settlement; indeed, it was included in the speech at Harrogate of my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. Then there is the whole wider question of détente as a whole. My noble friend Lord Vernon spoke about how this was in grave danger. My right honourable friend asked the Soviet Ambassador to visit him this week and pointed out that it was vital that the Soviet Union should use her influence to bring about peace, because otherwise obviously East-West relations were bound to suffer. The noble Lord, Lord Soper, asked us also to remember what is at the bottom of any possible settlement—the three great religions in the Middle East: Muslim, Jew and Christian—and how moderation and common sense are what will count in the end.
Therefore, my Lords, I would only say that I think there have been some encouraging reports to-day, which may be signs of better things before long. The Israeli Foreign Minister has indicated a willingness to make substantial comnromises, provided that Israel's security is not endangered. It also appears that the United States and the Soviet Union, conscious as they must be of the grave dangers that the situation poses for them and the world at large, are now at last searching for common ground. We would earnestly hope that their efforts are properly founded. I would say to the House that we are in constant touch with all those concerned. Above all, we wish to keep this position from which we can work, and work not only for an end to the fighting but also for a lasting settlement—as this Motion says, for a

505
durable peace. We are determined to work for that peace as hard and as urgently as we can.

  MENTAL PATIENTS' DISCHARGE APPLICATIONS
  MENTAL PATIENTS' DISCHARGE APPLICATIONS
  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE AND JUSTICES COURTS
  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE AND JUSTICES COURTS