We have had Questions in the House on this subject, but I think, although I have not searched the records, that this is the first full debate that we have had on the subject of the United Nations finances. Whether or not this is so, there will certainly be many more debates on this matter in the years to come.

I have selected this subject with another object in mind. I thought that the Foreign Office would welcome an opportunity to say something about the immediate crisis in the financial circumstances of the United Nations. It also gives me, as a back bencher, an opportunity to speak on some of the longer-term problems involved; and if the debate can serve those two purposes—giving both the Government and back benchers this opportunity—it will be an unusual coincidence.

I will not spend a great deal of time on the factual, statistical background. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State will say something about that when he replies to the debate. I can summarise the position by making three statements: first, that about 112 million dollars is now owed by the member States; secondly, that those member States which are up to date in their contributions are most reluctant to pay anything more; and, thirdly, that 10 member States face the loss of their voting rights this year if they continue in arrears. The Soviet Union faces the loss of its voting rights next year and France the loss of its rights the year after that.

If all these things came to pass, three of the five permanent members of the Security Council would be without voting rights. That is a short, handy summary of where the financial crisis has led us. I suppose that one policy would be simply to let the member States concerned get away with their arrears and for those who have paid up to pay more. The other approach is to say that we should suspend their voting rights, whatever the consequences to the United Nations, even though that would not bring in their subscriptions which are in arrears. In that case the member States which have subscribed would still have to pay more.

Thus it seems that, either way, those who have paid up fully will probably have to pay more. Either way, there is a real political dilemma to be faced. I have expressed the matter in this way to show how the financial crisis contains within it a political crisis; and at the centre of that crisis, which has caused the immediate financial crisis, is the question of the rôle of the existing peacekeeping forces, such as those in the Congo and Gaza, and the future finance to support them.

I have studied the many formulas which are current on how the extra contributions can be found and I have concluded that, at the end of the day, we will simply have to pay more. The various formulas put forward may help to spread the burden more equitably here or there, but it seems likely that the major member States will have to pay more.

The question of voting rights is a diplomatic matter rather than a financial one. It does not affect the financial problem, certainly not in the long term, so I will pass no view on that aspect because I am not well enough informed or instructed on the full diplomatic consequences of deciding to suspend the voting rights of certain member States. For this reason, I turn to the long-term financial dilemma which the immediate financial problem has presented.

As a result of our experiences in past years with the peace-keeping forces we know that, if we decide to launch any more of them to meet a crisis, they will almost certainly face opposition from one or more of the member States. If that position arises, and we must accept it, then, automatically, there will be some form of financial crisis as to how to finance the cost of those peace-keeping forces which are not fully approved of by all the member States. I have seen that situation referred to—and I think that it is a very good phrase—as a politically motivated deficit. That is what we now have and it is what we will get in the future no matter where the crisis arises, or where the peace-keeping forces may have to go.

If our experience tells us that this is likely to happen and if, at the same time, member States none the less go ahead with another peace-keeping force to meet a crisis, they will have been put on notice that probably they will have to pay more than their standard contribution, so to speak, and that at the end of the day, as now, they will probably have to bale out the United Nations when it comes to contributions.

I find myself driven on quite inexorably by the logic of that to the fact that in the long term the United Nations must obtain a source of finance of its own which will give it some independence and, to put it in the opposite sense, not be within national control. Unless that happens, the crisis which we have now will always occur again whenever a duty is put before the General Assembly to do something about a minor outbreak of war somewhere in the world. In the long term, we have the problem of how to achieve the financial independence of the United Nations.

First—and there is a Motion on the Order Paper on this subject and I hope that other hon. Members will speak on this matter—we have a voluntary approach, voluntary peace-keeping funds, voluntary security taxes which could be instituted because they would have a persuasive value and be of an educative value and because they would simply set an example of things which might yet evolve in decades to come.

On that, I concede two points in advance. I concede that the voluntary approach to this problem can never hope in the near future to raise the amount of money required, and I concede, also, that in the near future voluntary contributions would not alter or ease the nature of the political problem which lies behind this financial problem.

Secondly, it is suggested that the United Nations should find revenue resources by forms of surcharges or charges, such as postal surcharges or charges on items of international travel interest, such as passports. This is clearly getting nearer to the point and nearer to major sources of revenue. But it has the drawback that it is a source of revenue which is still wholly within national revenue. There is nothing distinctive about it and it gives no permanent independence to the United Nations, unless some variation can be found of which I do not know and which would leap over that difficulty.

Last, I come to the thing which interests me most, and I stress again that this is long-term thinking. It is the possibility of assigning to the United Nations exploitable natural resources which could be held to be outside national boundaries. This, I stress again, is long-term but I hope that hon. Members will not think that it is far-fetched. There is something of a distinct possibility here that in time important sources of revenue could be found by this approach. I will take one example and leave it at that.

The example which I should like to mention concerns what happened in July, 1962, in the Gulf of Mexico, where geological domes were discovered which were exactly similar in character to those to be found in the coastal waters of Texas and Louisana. These have already been subject to commercial exploration by petroleum companies and already judged to be accessible in the technological sense of the word, despite the fact that these domes, of which there are about 21, lie at least 400 miles from the coasts of both Mexico and America and at a depth of at least 2,000 fathoms. We have something which, prima facie, is not national in the sense in which the man in the street or on the top of the Clapham bus would regard it. We have something here which might be regarded as being of international or United Nations interest.

This possibility should be explored. We would have to settle first the somewhat ambiguous legal status which still exists concerning any such natural resources which lie at such a distance from national boundaries. In the example I have mentioned, the United Nations would have to negotiate with America and Mexico and they would have to give up any claims which they might make on the Convention on the Continental Shelf. I was fascinated by the constitutional thinking which lies behind this Convention—that sovereignty claims to the Continental Shelf can occur in proportion to advances in technology.

This is a proposition which medieval philosophers would have enjoyed. It is part of Article I of the Convention, which is described as the "elastic clause" and national States would obviously have to consent to give up whatever rights they thought that that Article and clause gave them. Following that, however, the General Assembly would be free to pass a resolution saying, for example, that seabed resources beyond a given distance ceased to be within national jurisdiction. Once we have reached that legal position, we are in the field of commercial possibilities.

My last point on this matter is that I am not arguing that the United Nations should go into business. I am only arguing that if these things are assigned to the United Nations it could then handle them in the way in which many national States handle such things, for example, by auctioning leases, or leases of rights, and by negotiating royalty payments. The commercial implications would then be handled in the normal way of any other natural resources within a national boundary.

I have argued the case a little hastily because I am aware that other hon. Members wish to speak in this short debate. It seems to me that this is a distinct possibility and not totally farfetched. It is, admittedly, a matter which stretches far into the future, but if anything came of it there would be a clear and major break-through in the evolution of the financial independence of the United Nations.

I have to admit that I have argued as though no one could question either the premise or the conclusion that the United Nations ought to have some financial independence. I know only too well that that point of view would be questioned by many people. They would say that the United Nations should not be independent, that it should not have an endowment fund, as it were, that it should not be in any different position from a national Government, and that all its revenue should come from member States and that it should be answerable to them and within their control in that they should vote the revenue and the money.

Those are weighty and respectable points of view which go right to the root of this matter. Either one can conceive of the United Nations having some financial independence, or one cannot conceive that it was ever intended or should ever come about or that the United Nations should not always be within the control of and totally dependent on the nations who constitute it. I reject that point of view. Already, in the constitution of the United Nations there is a political veto exercisable in the Security Council. I am sure that what has arisen was never intended—a financial veto exercisable in the General Assembly. if we do nothing about the financial veto—and something can be done about it if my arguments and their logic are accepted—then the two together, the political veto in the Security Council and the financial veto exercisable in the General Assembly, between them, in time, will cause all of this wonderful surge forward in peacekeeping forces simply to fade away and peter out, and we will be right back to where we were before 1945.

I hope that the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Woollam) will forgive me if on this occasion I refer to him as my hon. Friend, because I feel that the subject which he has raised and the way he has raised it transcends not only normal party politicis but normal national politics. I congratulate my hon. Friend both on introducing the subject and also on the way he has dealt with it, which I hope I may be allowed to describe, without giving the impression of being patronising, as an admirable combination of imagination and realism.

The reality of the crisis facing the United Nations at present is serious and grave. I thought that the hon. Member demonstrated clearly that, although this present crisis may be resolved and some way may be found of overcoming the present difficulty over the deficit arising out of the Congo and Middle East operations, nevertheless this problem will arise again and again in future if the United Nations is to develop in the way we all want to see it developed as the supreme peace-making authority in the world.

This, in the perspective of history, is perhaps the supreme crisis in the transition of the United Nations from an intergovernmental association dominated by the great Powers into a genuine world authority capable of ensuring peace and developing prosperity for mankind. I want to deal solely with one way in which it should now become possible to supply the United Nations with that independent source of funds, independent of national control, to which the hon. Member referred, by an agreement of the General Assembly which could be made in the current meetings of the Assembly.

The proposal for a voluntary United Nations peace-keeping fund, to which contributions could be made by individuals and non-governmental associations throughout the world, is one which is actually before the General Assembly at present—presented to the Assembly by seven members of the Working Party on United Nations Finance which has recommended that:

"..in order to institutionalise and encourage voluntary contributions towards the costs of peace-keeping operations, a voluntary peacekeeping fund should be created towards which contributions would be welcome."

presumably from everybody throughout the world.

This was supported by three members of the British Commonwealth, India, Nigeria and Pakistan. It was also supported by the Argentine, Brazil, the Cameroons, the United Arab Republic, and indirectly by Sweden and Japan. I am glad to see now that in the ten-nation Committee set up to try to find a solution of this problem no fewer than six of these countries are represented, the others being the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada and the Netherlands. I feel sure that Canada will be sympathetic to this idea. I feel sure that the Netherlands will be, and therefore a great responsibility rests upon Her Majesty's Government at this moment to take the initiative in turning this imaginative proposal into a reality.

This is not to say—and I stress this in anticipation of criticism which I know has come from certain quarters—that this proposed fund is to be a means by which national Governments can avoid their responsibilities to the United Nations. The national Governments have their responsibilities, and they must be called upon to make them good. I am very glad that the Government of this country, despite the fact that it showed its clear dislike of some aspects of the United Nations operations in the Congo, nevertheless has shown itself prepared to pay up in full for those operations. I am glad to see that it is now said that even Belgium, which disliked the operations in some respects even more than did Her Majesty's Government, will be willing to pay its share. I hope that the example of Belgium will be followed by France, Spain, Portugal and other members of the Western bloc.

I hope also that it will be followed by members of the Eastern bloc. The Soviet Union, which voted for the Security Council Resolution which authorised these Congo operations, has a major responsibility to pay its share for them. I hope that it will be shamed into doing so by the actions of those countries which recognise their responsibility to the United Nations.

Nevertheless, we have to recognise that all national Governments have a conflict of loyalties. It is their duty to defend the interests of their own countries as well as the interests of the people of the world, and this divided loyalty of the representatives of national Governments means that we are liable to have this kind of problem arising again and again unless we can call upon people who do not have divided loyalties. Unless, in other words, a nation can call upon individual members of the world community to make their contributions towards sustaining those activities of the United Nations which are for their protection and for their health and happiness.

This is what this fund would do. It would make it possible to call upon that individual loyalty which alone can, and has the right and duty to, transcend national loyalties and show a higher loyalty towards the world authority. I hope that the British Government will help to make this possible, as it can now be made possible within the next month or two.

I am prepared on this matter to give a personal pledge. I cannot speak for my colleagues who joined me in the Motion on the Order Paper to which the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby referred, but I have a feeling that they would be willing to support me in this If the General Assembly of the United Nations will establish a voluntary peace-keeping fund open to contributions from individuals and non-Governmental associations throughout the world, I am prepared to give a pledge to wage a campaign to persuade individuals in this country to make their contributions to that fund.

I am prepared to go further and say that I would carry this campaign into other countries which today are both within the Western camp and within the Eastern camp. I believe that through this it would be possible to make a break-through across the frontiers of the world, across the ideological barriers and, as it were, to get under the skin of the national Governments and, in the course of time, to exercise so much pressure through this collective desire of individuals to display their loyalty to the world community that no national Government would be able to bar its citizens from showing their loyalty to the world community.

I should like to see the General Assembly in this current Session make it possible for the peoples of the world to contribute Is. a year per head for peace; 3,000 million shillings would raise a sum of £150 million a year, five times the ordinary budget of the United Nations, which would enable it to lay the foundations of a solid and firm peace-keeping force capable of dealing, as and when the situation arises, with those many troublesome problems which we know are looming ahead in various parts of the world.

I hope that this will now be made possible. I urge as strongly as I can the British Government in the United Nations General Assembly at this moment to give their support to this proposal and to make it possible for people to pay 1s. a head for peace.

May I. too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Woollam)—I hope I do not have to ask his permission to call him my hon. Friend—on having raised this subject today. He is quite right in claiming that this is the first time we have debated this very important matter, although for a long time it has been the cause of the greatest possible anxiety to everyone who cares for the United Nations, and particularly to the Secretary-General.

I hope my hon. Friend is being pessimistic when he says that this is the first of many such debates which will stretch over the years. I am glad, too, that there is general all-party concurrence with my hon. Friend's proposal, as the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) said, and I am sure we are all very sympathetic to his proposals, too.

The total expenditure of the United Nations is ridiculously small. Its regular budget for the current year is about £30 million, although, the peace-keeping operations add to that sum quite considerably; and yet the United Nations is in the red because so many of its members are in arrears with their assessed contributions. I asked a Question yesterday and received the reply that on 30th April last 34 States were in arrear with their contributions to the regular budget, 66 to the cost of the Congo operations and 57 to the cost of the U.N.E.F., although it is true that so far only one State, Haiti, is more than two years in arrears.

Now all members of the United Nations have subscribed to Article 17 (2) of the Charter, which provides that

"the expenses of the Organisation shall be borne by the members as apportioned by the General Assembly"

and the General Assembly apportions the shares of its members on a percentage basis in accordance with their capacity to pay.

There was, however, a legitimate doubt whether the expenses of these ad hoc forces, which had not been approved—and whose setting up had even been opposed by some members—should properly be considered as expenses of the organisation within that Article, and therefore whether there was an obligatory debt to be shared by the members. I think it was right to ask the International Court of Justice to resolve that doubt. On 20th July last, the Court delivered its advisory opinion to the effect that the expenses of U.N.E.F. and O.N.U.C. were to be regarded as expenses of the Organisation and, therefore, that all members must bear their duly apportioned share.

There is no time in this debate to outline the arguments which moved the Court. They seem to me to be conclusive, but the judgment was given by a majority of nine members, including the United Arab Republic, to five, including the Soviet Union, Poland and France; the Mexican Judge being absent.

The next step was that, on 20th December last, the General Assembly adopted two resolutions, both of which were sponsored inter alia by this country. The first accepted the advisory opinion of the International Court that the expenses of these forces were expenses of the Organisation and had to be shared by members; and the second recommended the General Assembly to set up a 21-member working group, to which the hon. Member for Ashfield referred, precisely to study, inter alia, the situation arising from the arrears of certain members with their contributions towards the peace-keeping operations. It was to report towards the end of March.

It should be clearly noted that the resolution of the General Assembly accepting the International Court's opinion was passed by the requisite two-thirds majority; 76 were in favour, including 17 African, 10 Asian and 14 Commonwealth countries, and all the Organisation of American States; and 17 were against, including the Soviet Union and the 10 satellites, and France, Belgium abstained. Yet I am sorry to say that the working group finished its labours at the end of March without reaching any generally agreed recommendations. Instead there were five different methods suggested, including one by this country.

The United States took the opportunity of making it clear that she is no longer prepared to "carry the can" in excess of her normal regular scale percentage, which is 32 per cent., and I do not blame her. Our percentage by comparison is just under 8 per cent., and that is the third highest among all members. Remember that the total contributions of more than half the members of the United Nations put together do not amount to as much as ours alone.

What I regret—and it is the main reason for my intervention in this debate—is that apparently none of the members of the working group looks like being prepared to face up to Article 19 of the Charter, which lays down that if a member's arrears equal or exceed two years' contributions that member shall lose its vote. It is true there is an escape clause for those members whose failure to pay is due to "causes beyond their control", but that cannot be prayed in aid by the countries which will in a few months be two years in arrear.

The last step in this story is that a fortnight ago at the first meeting of the Administrative and Budgetary Committee of the Fourth Special Session of the General Assembly, summoned specifically to discuss this question, the Soviet delegate declared that the so-called financial crisis of the United Nations was only the result of systematic and flagrant violations of the Charter which had given the Security Council sole competence in the maintenance of peace. He added that it was just and fair, therefore, for the entire financial responsibility to be placed on those powers which, he said, were guilty of aggression in the Middle East and the Congo.

I say to Her Majesty's Government that, if that is to be the attitude, no matter what country adopts it—some of our friends, too, are adopting it at the moment—I believe the rules should be applied. I have no objection whatever to the voluntary peace-keeping fund which was outlined by the hon. Member for Ashfield—of course not—but. as he himself said, members must also honour their agreements.

I conclude by saying that I profoundly agree with what was written to The Times on 21st May last by the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker) who said:

"I believe the sanction provided by the charter for those in default should be upheld, and that they should be deprived of their voting rights when the two-year period expires. It would be dangerous to compromise this principle by failing to apply it in the first cases which arise."

I, too, wish to congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Woollam) on raising this subject today. I think that we need to discuss this matter with perhaps an even greater sense of urgency than has been shown.

One matter that has worried me about the debates in the Committee of Ten, in the General Assembly, and so on, is that these counter-theories and counter-propositions are being argued at some length while the financial crisis deepens and the United Nations is being rendered more and more impotent in relation to possible peace-keeping operations which it might be called upon to undertake at short notice.

I do not think that any hon. Member would deny that the situation in the Middle East would have been chaotic but for the United Nations Force being there in recent years. I do not think many people would contest the proposition that the situation in the Congo would have proved disastrous but for United Nations co-operation. There would have been mass starvation and tribal warfare. The great Powers might have been drawn in and it could have been the sparking-off point for a third world war. At any time some other crisis in another part of the world may require that this kind of operation be carried out. Therefore, this is a matter of very great urgency.

I wish to make three points to the Under-Secretary. It seems to me that this country, and countries which share our point of view on this subject, should engage in a frank and vigorous propaganda campaign throughout the world against the attitude of the Soviet Union. We should attack them in the General Assembly and use every opportunity open to us to oppose the attitude of the Soviet Union, in particular, and of other countreis which have also adopted it. This attitude is one of old-fashioned nationalism and imperialism which is thoroughly out-of-date.

I should have thought that from the Soviet point of view it was a very foolish attitude. From the standpoint of Soviet Communism it is foolish thinking. If it is desired to spread Communist ideas throughout the world and influence the thinking in the uncommitted countries, most of whom put a lot of faith in the United Nations, this would appear to be the most stupid thing that the Soviet Government could do in relation to the United Nations finances. The Soviet Union should be challenged on this in the General Assembly and on every other possible platform in the hope that it may appreciate the point in its own interests, as well as world interests, and take a different attitude. If the Soviet Union did that its attitude would be followed by the satellite countries and the attitude of other countries not in the Soviet bloc might be influenced.

I support what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) about the proposal of India and other countries regarding a special peace-keeping fund. We can waste too much time arguing about the merits of one type of finance or another. I think that the nations should meet their commitments. Part of the process of handing over part of our sovereignty to a world organisation is the handing over of part of the proceeds of taxation to that organisation, and what we pay to the United Nations is pitifully small. What the richer nations pay cannot be a great burden upon them. We should support any constructive proposal for more money and this is a constructive proposal. It would give a chance to people throughout the world to demonstrate in a practical fashion in the way which has been suggested.

In the last analysis, if nothing else is available—and it may well be that nothing else will be available—Governments of good will will have to keep this organisation afloat. The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Longden) said he sympathised with the United States' attitude that it was not prepared to pay more than its share, and I sympathise, too. But it seems to me that the United States, Britain and other friendly countries may have to be prepared to pay more than their share rather than see the financial crisis deepen.

This is all wrong, and we ought not to have to do it. We should attack those countries who do not pay their share. But, above everything else, this organisation must be kept afloat and if the funds with which to launch peacekeeping operations of the type which have been launched in recent years are not available we cannot let it collapse in financial chaos. This is a real danger.

I hope that Her Majesty's Government will, if necessary, face the fact that we may have to pay more than our share, and ask others to do so as well, rather than see this organisation become impotent.

I am delighted that there has been this debate and that, as has been said, we are all friends together. My first plea to the Government is that they should take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Woollam) and ensure that nothing is done in any way to compromise the oil rights and other mineral rights below the sea and prevent potential world property from being purloined either for individual or even national property. Such potential world wealth could be a most important factor in the long term finance of a world peace-keeping organisation.

Disarmament has clearly proved a failure, because it has gone in inverse order to what is needed. The world has never been more insecure, and therefore people are absolutely determined that they shall see an effective world security organisation set up and effectively operating before jettisoning their present national security organisations. It is clear that to emphasise disarmament first and to postpone the idea of the alternative security is the wrong order. To indicate that we will talk later about what kind of security we shall then enjoy has been a procedure which has not got us anywhere, and never will. The reverse approach, the idea of what alternative security organisation we might first build up so that national Governments might then disarm, is the only approach which will ever work.

Our constituents, as we all know, regard the peace-keeping functions of United Nations as the real purpose for which the United Nations was set up. That purpose is the important one, rather than that of an inter-governmental debating chamber in which aspirations may be aired and pious resolutions passed, resolutions for the implementation of which there is no responsible executive and no effective government. The peace-keeping organisation is thus what really matters. I hope that the Gov- ernment will do everything possible to see that such an organisation is set up and given the financial sinews with which to carry out its beneficial purpose. It is important that such an organisation should be set up because at present it does not exist. At the present time it is the peace-keeping organisations of national Governments, not of the United Nations, which are being used and which, like those of the old feudal lords help the United Nations to perform a function for which it itself has no facilities of its own.

It is highly desirable that there should be a separation between such a law enforcement organisation which is to be the world's peace-keeping organisation and the other section of the United Nations, the body which makes the laws or conducts political debates. There needs to be that same separation in the enforcement of laws within a nation. When history comes to be written it will be thought that the Congo incident represented a error on the part of the United Nations which set back the development of the peace-keeping organisation of the United Nations. It was absolutely right that national troops at the request of the United Nations should go into the Congo in order to stop international disorder which might have disrupted world peace. But we shall never get anywhere with a world peace-keeping organisation if it is used also for only national disorders in which only the national peace is disturbed. It was thus quite right that such United Nations troops should have gone into the Congo at the time when world peace was threatened by potential international disorders. It would have been even more right had they left once the international disorder leading to a threat to world peace had passed. National order should be kept by national Governments, and not by a world peace-keeping organisation. Misemployment of world forces for national purposes compromises their efficacy in their proper function. The principle that was operated in the Congo would justify a world peace-keeping organisation performing similar functions in Alabama. If we have national Governments it is their job to keep the national peace and not the job of a very important organisation like a world peace-keeping organisation.

Sooner or later we must have direct taxation. After all, let us face it, when parts o: this country was divided into the Kingdoms of Wessex and Mercia—in all there were seven kingdoms in this country—the essential peace-keeping function was a charge on the citizens of Mercia and Wessex. Now that we have one kingdom the costs of the army is borne by taxes direct on all of us and not through, say, Wessex. Sooner or later we shall have to have direct world taxation instead of preception of national taxation, and it will be a good financial bargain because we shall obtain our security much more certainly and more cheaply. All these things begin by private enterprise. It is always private enterprise which starts these things. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will encourage private contributions. For myself would give a contribution to such fund if what the hon. Gentleman said were to come about and would support his campaign.

I hope that Her Majesty's Government will do everything that they can to foster what, I believe, is probably the most important issue facing mankind today: how to organise and set effectively acting a world security authority. We shall get one sooner or later either in this way or by the complete victory of one of the two sides, which will then immediately have to organise it to ensure that world war does not break out—if there were indeed anything then left to organise.

The hon. Member for Bath (Sir J. Pitman) threw a large pebble into a calm pond by referring to the Congo, but I think that the debate has shown that there is a great measure of agreement in the House about the United Nations' finances. I hope that we all agree that, in relation to the issues involved, the sums we are discussing are absurdly small. On my calculation, the total expenditure of the United Nations is equal to one-fifth of 1 per cent. of the world's defence expenditure.

I do not know whether the Joint Under-Secretary of State has some comparable calculations, but this matter is worth checking, because it shows a striking fact. On my calculation, the total expenditure of the United Nations equals about half the cost of Britain's independent nuclear deterrent. We should bear these facts in mind, because this is essentially a political and not an economic problem with which we are faced.

On the surface, there are some cheering signs from the economic point of view. For example, U Thant is reported as having said on 15th May that there was a

"definite improvements as far as collection of arrear costs is concerned".

Earlier, he had said that the cost of the Congo operation would be down from 10 million dollars a month to 51 million dollars a month during the last six months of this year and that it was

"not unreasonable to anticipate complete military disengagement by the end of this year."

My feeling is that if this were a purely economic question it would not be the great crisis for the United Nations which it is. It is true that certain countries find their contribution a considerable strain economically. There are absurd anomalies, such as that concerning China's assessment due to the fact that the People's Republic is not a member of the United Nations, as it should be. But this hardship on individual countries is recognised already in the assessments, as the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Longden) said. It is also recognised, I think, in a number of the recommendations put forward at the United Nations recently for overcoming this problem.

It is the political side which is so difficult, and here the United Nations is presented with a very serious crisis indeed. Of course, the political reasons are not all the same. The reasons which prompted the Arab countries to abstain from making a contribution to the U.N.E.F. are different from those which prompted the French Government to abstain. My personal feeling is that these political problems can be circumvented in a number of cases. The Belgians, for instance, have now paid up their contribution for the Congo operation. Because the great majority of the members of the United Nations do not want to challenge the basic principle of collective financial responsibility, there is the prospect of progress in overcoming some of these political objections.

It seems to me that the real crisis comes from the denial by the Communist countries of the Assembly's right to raise money for peace-keeping activities. Here I agree very strongly with my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice). I think that this is the major stumbling block with which we are faced. The absolutely uncompromising statements of the Soviet delegate, to which the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West referred, are discouraging and disturbing.

For example, Mr. Federenko has said that any decision aimed at placing on members of the United Nations a mandatory requirement for payment to the expenses of the operations in the Middle East and Congo incurred in a way that was contrary to the Charter and in circumvention of the Security Council was unacceptable and could have no binding legal force; that the Soviet Union could not pay that part of its assessment for the regular budget which would go for interest and writing off the cost of the bond issue; and that the financing of the United Nations Force should be decided in each case by the Security Council. In my view, this is the most important and difficult problem facing us.

We on this side of the House have always welcomed the increasing powers of the Assembly. We supported the Action for Peace concept. We regard the flood of new members into the United Nations and a very great increase in the influence and size of the Assembly as, on the whole, a great and hopeful new development. We hope that that is true of the Government, although it is not the impression we got from a famous and unfortunate speech by the Foreign Secretary on this subject. We say—and I am sure that this is right—that the essential thing is not to prejudice the powers of the Assembly peace-keeping activities. I hope that the Government will regard the preservation of the powers of the Assembly as the most important factor of all in this crisis and as something on which we should not yield.

There are other things which we can do. I hope that the Government will say that they will consider very carefully the conception of a voluntary peace-keeping fund. Hon. Members will have appreciated the sincerity of my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North on this subject. I also hope that the Government will give us an assurance about a somewhat larger subscription by our country to the United Nations bond issue. It is hard to haul Britain over the coals for its contribution to the finances of the United Nations. If all countries made half the contribution which we make, there would be no crisis. Nevertheless, when we consider the practical results, it seems to me that this is something which would not really cost this country a great deal, but which would strengthen the United Nations at this very critical point.

I hope that, diplomatically, we shall try to reach a formula with all those who do not challenge the principle of the powers of the Assembly. Surely it is possible to find wide agreement among countries which, for instance, opposed the troika principle at the United Nations, because, essentially, this is a similar thing to the troika demand of the Soviet Union. It is a demand that the peace-keeping activities should, in practice, be subject to the Soviet veto at some stage.

I therefore hope that there will be wide support for an attempt by those who oppose the troika principle to find a new formula which takes into account the economic difficulties of certain countries but which maintains the principle of collective financial responsibility and the power of the Assembly in peace-keeping activities. I hope that the Government will regard this as their major task. Even if we reached such a formula on a wide basis, it would, perhaps, leave out the Communist countries and the issue might arise of the voting rights of the small number of countries in default on the new formula. Personally, I see no reason for rushing into a decision on this question now.

It could be argued that, rather than face the deprivation of its voting rights, the Soviet Union might leave the United Nations. On the other hand, it could be argued that no great Power would be willing to leave the United Nations on an issue such as that unless it had widespread sympathy. It is of the greatest importance that Article 19 and the principles embodied in it should be upheld.

Therefore, I should not at this stage make any clear pronouncement on this issue, but merely try to reach a formula with the maximum support at the United Nations of those who believe in the powers of the Assembly and the principle of collective financial responsibility. I hope that that, in general, will be the approach of Her Majesty's Government to this problem.

I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Woollam) for giving us the opportunity to have this most valuable debate. If I may say so with due respect to those who have taken part in it, it has been a debate from which the United Nations itself could well take a lesson, for we have heard six excellent speeches in rather less than an hour. Anyone who has attended the United Nations as a delegate, as I have on a number of occasions, will know how refreshing an experience that would be there.

My hon. Friends have made my task a good deal easier because out of their wealth of learning and experience of this matter they have already covered a very large part of the background of this complex subject. I shall content myself by, first, sketching very briefly what the latest position is in these budgetary matters, and then try to pose the political dilemma with which we are confronted —I agree very strongly with the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) that this is a political rather than a financial issue when we come to analyse it—and then say something about the present position.

As to the regular budget, up to 30th April the unpaid sums owing from member States were 7 million dollars. There were 34 States in default for 1962 and 17 in default for 1961. I want to pause here to say a word about what I think is a popular misconception on the subject of being in default on the regular budget. Because the accounting practices of the United Nations and the different member States do not entirely correspond, it often happens that a State is technically in default on its regular contribution, but with a perfectly honour-able explanation. Sometimes I think that member States of the United Nations get an undeservedly bad name for being in default when the default on the regular budget is often only a technical matter.

So far as the U.N.E.F. account is concerned, the assessments made up to 30th June are unpaid to the extent of 27 million dollars. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Longden) has given some of the further figures, so I need not repeat them. It is, however, worth saying that there are unassessed costs in respect of U.N.E.F. running at about 20 million dollars a year. In the case of O.N.U.C., the assessments unpaid up to the same period amount to 72 million dollars. And here it is worth noting that the unassessed costs are running at the rate of 11½ million dollars per month. So this is a very serious and substantial matter.

The United Nations as a whole at present is owed 106 millon dollars by member States, and the present expenditures are being met out of the bond issue. I agree with hon. Members that a very serious position indeed will arise during the summer, and I am sure that it is correct to say, as the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) did, that the vital question is that of keeping the organisation going—and it is to that that our efforts are bent at the present time.

Under Article 19, at present, no member State forfeits its vote, although one member State has had a rather narrow escape. But it is the case that the Soviet Union would forfeit its vote, in our view, on 1st January, 1964, and France on 1st January, 1965. The more one looks at this problem, the more one is driven to the conclusion that, although it is extremely complicated in financial detail—and I, as a member of the Fifth Committee during one session, found myself hard put to it to follow the intricacies of United Nations finance in all their ramifications—the essence of the matter is simple. There is no question here, on the whole, of difficulties arising due to inability to pay.

There are two kinds, broadly speaking, of non-payment: one is non-payment by member States which have no political objections to paying but which doubted their obligation to pay their assessments to the peace-keeping funds. Here I am pleased to say that since the decision of the International Court in this matter, some of these doubts seem to have been resolved, and there is a perceptible improvement in payment, which is very gratifying, although the amount, unfortunately, is not very large.

Of course, the big problem is of those States which refuse to pay as a matter of political objection. This is an objection I think, generally speaking, although not invariably, in principle rather than on any particular issue. It is. in fact, as the hon. Member for Woolwich, East pointed out, a difference over the concept of the purpose and methods of the United Nations. This is the real problem.

I want to diverge for a moment from this theme to say to my hon. Friends who have been putting forward various interesting suggestions for voluntary funds and other such devices for raising money in ways other than by means of Government contributions assessed by the Assembly, that, although, of course, these suggestions are worth while examining, and some of them, indeed, may be found to have merit, they do not go to the root of the problem.

The root of the problem is the profound difference in political purpose. Her Majesty's Government's attitude here is. I think, quite clear. Article 17 states that the expenses of the organisation shall be borne by the members as apportioned by the General Assembly. Although I see the attractions which, for example, a voluntary fund, or some kind of source of revenue independent of Governments may have, I believe that there is an idea deeply rooted in our institutions in Britain—and I think that it is a sound one—that responsibility for policy and finance are closely connected, and that if, in a political institution, people expect to exercise political power. they must be prepared to shoulder the financial burden of doing so. One cannot very easily divorce the one from the other.

Therefore, we were very glad when the General Assembly accepted by a large majority the view of the International Court that the peace-keeping expenses of the United Nations are expenses of the organisation in the sense of Article 17, and, in our view, the Soviet Union will, in fact, forfeit its voting right if it continues to ignore the ruling of the Court as accepted by the Assembly. The political dilemma which will then arise has been well put by my hon. Friend the Member for West Derby, and is, I think, well understood.

We cannot, however, allow the organs of the United Nations such as the International Court and the General Assembly itself to be flouted with impunity. To do so would be to inflict a serious setback on the development of the United Nations and to deal a blow at our hopes of establishing it as a powerful instrument to bring about a more orderly world.

The Soviet attitude differs radically from that of the United Kingdom and it is worth considering seriously what the Soviet argument is. As we see it. the United Nations should play an increasingly important part in world affairs and should exercise a degree of power commensurate with the importance of the task and with its ability to carry out its duties justly and effectively.

The Soviet Union, however, takes a restrictive view of the purposes of the United Nations. It has already been pointed out in the debate that the attempt to impose a troika upon the United Nations Secretariat is parallel with the present controversy as to the provision of finance. It would, in fact, impose a veto upon executive actions by the United Nations and would, therefore, be restrictive in its operation. The Soviet Union takes a precisely similar view as to the relationship between the Security Council and the General Assembly and regards the peace-keeping operations as the exclusive prerogative of the Security Council.

It follows from this, therefore, that in the Soviet view the financing of the peacekeeping operations by means of a General Assembly Resolution is ultra vires the Charter and that those expenses are not expenses of the organisation. Therefore, the Soviet Union would argue that it does not lose its vote because no debt is owing and, as has been said to the House, it does not accept the opinion of the International Court or its endorsement by the General Assembly.

There is, therefore, a fundamental difference of purpose between us, and in present circumstances Her Majesty's Government feel that there is, unfortunately, little hope of resolving the long-term political difference in the immediate negotiations. In the Fifth Committee, we have frequently put forward suggestions and argued in the direction of coming to some kind of agreement as to general purpose. When the Fifth Committee meets again in the autumn, in the regular session of the General Assembly, this debate will be resumed and pursued by us with vigour. Meanwhile, I shall take the opportunity to bring the views expressed by hon. Members today concerning the long-term problems to the attention of our delegation in New York so that it may study and take account of them in advance.

Meanwhile, however, in face of a Soviet attitude which seems, as hon. Members have said, entirely inflexible, we think it right to concentrate all our efforts on getting as wide a measure of agreement as possible amongst as many States as possible as to the nature of a resolution which can now come before the General Assembly.

Therefore, intensive and complex negotiations are taking place between the various States represented, and interested particularly in this matter, to bring that about. The Fifth Committee has been in session most of this week. No resolution is yet before it, but there has beer a great deal of activity in the corridors designed mainly to reconcile the interests of those wealthier States which inevitably have had to carry, and are carrying, the major part of the financial burden, and some of whom are, naturally, getting rather weary at carrying such a disproportionate share, and those States who are only with difficulty able to bear the contributions which they are called upon to pay.

We hope that there will be a successful outcome of these delicate negotiations and that a suitable resolution which will receive the support of the vast majority of States will shortly come before the Assembly.

Can the hon. Gentleman give just a little further information on that? Is the delicacy of the negotiations really due to the difference of wealth between certain delegations? Does it not also involve political objections apart from the Communist political objections?

I think that the political objections are of relatively minor importance, I am glad to say, in present circumstances. Other than the great division between East and West, there seems to be a remarkable consensus of opinion and a general desire to see the Assembly playing its proper part. It is mainly a discussion as to the distribution of the burden rather than the political issues which is at present involved.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the proper role of the Assembly under the Charter is not in any way concerned with the peace-keeping function and that that is, indeed, solely the responsibility of the Security Council, and that the "Uniting for Peace" resolution, to which, I am afraid, we lent our name, was a gross breach of the Charter?

My hon. Friend's views would not be acceptable to the great majority of members of the Assembly, although he might find a good deal of support amongst some of the Marxist-Leninist States.

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but as he appears to be making a kind of policy statement, would he go so far as to give an assurance that if any resolution is promoted during the current session of the General Assembly, the British Government will do nothing to obstruct the inclusion of a reference to the desirability of a voluntary peace-keeping fund?

I wanted merely to say this to the House about the hon. Member's speech, to which I was just coming.

The suggestion of a voluntary fund has been put forward by a body of opinion in the United Nations and here and we shall, of course, give it serious consideration. These voluntary funds, however, have serious limitations. They tend to encourage people to think that they may be relieved of part of the burden. It is all too easy to raise hopes in that way.

One must be somewhat sceptical about the amount of money which is likely to be raised by that method. However, I gladly accept the hon. Member's offer to go on a crusade if such a fund should be set up. I am sure that his support would be welcomed. I do not think that there is anything to prevent the hon. Member, or, indeed, any other person, making a contribution to United Nations funds, and I therefore suggest that he should pay his shilling right away.

The matter which I wish to raise today is one which affects an as yet undefined number of people. It is undefined because I understand, as the result of an Answer to a Question a week ago, that the Ministry has no statistics about it. My interest in the subject has been made keener by the fact that I am concerned primarily about a particular case and it is the circumstances of that case which raise the wider question of the situation of many other people who may be in similar circumstances.

The Minister knows that the case to which I am referring is that of Mr. William Loeber, now aged 71 and living in the Borough of Hornsey, who has been a railwayman all his working life since 1912, except for the period of the 1914–18 war, when, with his father and three brothers, he volunteered for service in the forces. In 1918, he suffered severe wounds which necessitated the amputation of his right leg at the thigh and a number of serious wounds in the back, which involved a number of operations which have not completely relieved the pain and inconvenience of those wounds. He was at the time an acting quartermaster-sergeant in one of the Irish regiments.

Then, despite these very severe wounds, Mr. Loeber continued to work on the railway, on the Hornsey sidings, until the date of his retirement. He has also, in spite of his disabilities, and in spite of the pain he has constantly suffered, for thirty-five years been the chairman of the Wood Green Branch of the National Union of Railwaymen, and a member of the national executive and finance committees of the National Union of Railwaymen, and he has served for a number of years as one of its national trustees. For these reasons, in particular, I have a special interest in his case, having known him personally for a large part of that time.

Although during this period Mr. Loeber was working, as one suffering these pains and disabilities over all these years he did not, of course, obtain the kind of promotion which a railwayman of his capacity and experience might have expected on the railways.

On top of his war disabilities, and, it may be, though I do not know—I do not think this has ever been tested—partly as the result of his war service, at the age of 40 he developed peptic ulcers from which he has suffered during the last twenty years, and in 1950 he had to undergo an operation for partial gastrectomy, which not only left him in further constant pain but destroyed his appetite for and enjoyment of food. He subsequently developed severe bronchitis, which has persisted, and resulted in his going into hospital in January of this year with a severe attack followed by pneumonia. He is still in hospital.

Mr. Loeber has had special tests at Roehampton concerning the possibility of fitting his artificial limb and I gather that there is not much prospect of that being done satisfactorily now. In the meantime, his other leg has deteriorated. In fact, since before he went into hospital, and during the last two years, it has been deteriorating because of the additional strain placed on it by his attempting to walk to continue his many activities, most of them in the public interest. The result has been hardening of the arteries in his so-called sound limb. His circulation has also been affected and this has been aggravated by the period he has spent in hospital, until now he cannot, in fact, walk.

This is not a unique story of a man who served in the 1914–18 war and has suffered this kind of disability. There may be few cases where a man in Mr. Loeber's situation could have shown such a creditable record thereafter in spite of his pain and suffering and disabilities, but it is not an entirely unknown situation.

The most serious part of it is the fact that although Mr. Loeber's parents have been living in Hornsey since 1894, and he has lived in the flat which he presently occupies in Hornsey since 1940, this fiat is very small, up some very narrow wooden stairs, and when one reaches the top one finds there are further steps to the living room and further steps to the bedroom. It has been almost impossible for him to negotiate them in the last few years, and now they are impossible for him to negotiate.

The difficulty about the situation has been made worse because of the fact that Mr. and Mrs. Loeber failed to make application earlier for admission to the housing list of Hornsey Borough Council —because, naturally, they did not foresee their present predicament, and he is not the type to complain, and was quite prepared to put up with it and go up those stairs, and so on.

Hornsey Borough Council has been approached—it has been approached by the hon. Lady the Member for Hornsey (Lady Gammans) and by others—to see whether it could assist Mr. Loeber in obtaining a ground floor flat. The answer has been that the Hornsey housing department is tied to a strict points system, that Mr. Loeber has the maximum points applicable to his case, and that there is no possible hope of his being placed on the housing list, let alone being provided with a ground floor flat, either through the housing list or otherwise, as I was told in a letter from the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance himself.

I raised this question on 20th May in the House to see whether the Ministry could do more to assist Mr. Loeber and his wife to obtain ground floor accommodation. As a result of the representations which I made then the Ministry agreed to increase his pension, adding 60 per cent. to 100 per cent., to provide him with the constant attendance allowance and the comforts allowances which are available under the Ministry of Pensions scheme. In the last letter I obtained from the Minister he made a great point of this, as he did in reply to my Parliamentary Question.

I acknowledge the fact that these allowances have been granted, but, after all, they are not a concession. They are the right of all ex-Service pensioners suffering the disabilities from which Mr. Loeber suffers, and there is no concession, there is no magnanimity, in giving these allowances.

Indeed, the fact that the Ministry has been able to give these allowances and to increase the pension to 100 per cent. over and above what he was obtaining before his latest illness, before the latest difficulties with his limbs, the fact that the Ministry has been able to give him the constant attendance and comforts allowances, merely underlines the drastic, dramatic change which has taken place in his position.

In other words, it underlines the fact that his position has now so far deteriorated from what it was before—otherwise, some of these allowances would have been granted before—that the situation must be placed on an entirely different basis.

When I wrote to the Minister about the case I received a reply from him dated 2nd May, 1963, in which he referred to the allowances which had been granted and said:

"So far as his housing difficulties are concerned, my welfare people have known of these for some time and have been doing what they could to help. But the housing situation in Hornsey, it seems, is so acute that, despite our welfare officer's representations, it was not even possible to get Mr. Loeber's name added to their waiting list."

He went on:

"We shall continue to keep Mr. Loeber's housing problems in mind".

This, apparently, is the end of the Minister's responsibility.

I do not know much about the Hornsey Borough Council, or how it operates, but I must say that I was astounded to find that a local authority covering an area of the kind which that local authority covers is tied to a strict points system without any loopholes at all. I know that the housing department of my own City of Sheffield and many others have a points system or a date system, whatever it may be, for the allocation of council houses, but they have a committee to deal with any special cases.

In other words, the points system and the other system is the basis on which all cases are first considered, and, if there are any special circumstances, then there is the possibility of dealing with those. Apparently, that is not the case in Hornsey, and it really is hardly enough for the Minister to shelve this by saying that after all it is the responsibility of the local housing authority.

The terms of the Question which raised on 20th May this year were to ask the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance

"how many limbless and paraplegic ex-Service pensioners have sought his help in obtaining ground floor accommodation; and what assistance he has afforded in such cases."

The Minister's reply was that he had no such statistics, so he was not able to answer how many there might be. He repeated the fact that his welfare officers do all they can to help in these matters, and then he informed me that in 1962 he had referred no fewer than 1,200 cases of the kind to local housing authorities.

Then the right hon. Gentleman said:

"it is local housing authorities who have the responsibility, under my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government…"

If that is so, and as one of my hon. Friends intervened to say, what is the Minister of Housing and Local Government doing about it? Has the Ministry of Pensions applied any pressure on that Ministry to ensure that such cases are given the attention they merit?

In reply to the supplementary question which I have just mentioned, the Minister said:

"…a great deal is…done by local authorities as well as by voluntary organisations to find accommodation in these cases. One of the points involved is that not every limbless man wants ground floor accommodation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th May, 1963; Vol. 678, c. 18–19.]

I do not know why the Minister put that in his reply. It has nothing to do with the case. There may well be limbless men who do not want ground floor accommodation. There may, for instance, be houses with lifts in them. We are concerned about men who do want ground floor accommodation. I do not see the relevance of that addition to the Minister's reply.

The Minister replied further to another supplementary question and reminded us that the fact is that it is the responsibility of the local authorities. This is entirely unsatisfactory. Here we have a man who voluntarily went into the forces in a war in order to serve his country, has suffered very serious disabilities, has nevertheless, without complaint, carried on his public duties throughout his life, and now because of the deterioration in his condition he finds himself in an impossible situation simply because no one can tell him where there is a ground-floor flat which he can afford, and he is prepared to pay any reasonable rent.

Nobody can assist him. The local housing department is not interested, because he is not on its list. The Ministry of Pensions is not interested, except through its welfare officers, who have done what they can but have apparently failed. Apparently the Ministry of Housing and Local Government has been unable to do anything with the Hornsey Borough Council. Therefore, the man is to be left to his own resources, and there is apparently no one who can do anything about it.

The Parliamentary Secretary will probably point out that Mr. Loeber is not a limbless man, but still has one leg, even though it is practically useless and likely to remain useless, and that he can wear an artificial limb of a kind although he is 71 years old and his stump is now worn to a piece of bone and a piece of skin. The latest information that I have is that he has been to Roehampton on two occasions and that they have made a temporary leg for him which is not to be used except when absolutely necessary in his own home. It is not to be used on hospital floors, either. They are trying to devise a pylon leg, which is some modern equivalent of the peg leg devised for lightness and comfort, but it is suitable only for short distances, and Mr. Loeber has been told not to use it for stairs.

This is not likely to be very much comfort for him or his wife in trying to carry on their lives. The technical point of whether or not Mr. Loeber is technically limbless because he has a limb and some kind of artificial attachment where the other limb ought to be, should not be made. The fact is that, effectively, he is a limbless person and will not be able to negotiate the stairs between the ground floor and his apartment.

What does the Minister propose to do about it? Some years ago the Ministry of Pensions was merged with the Ministry of National Insurance, but I am sure that that was not intended to mean—because I knew something about it at the time—that no further special interest was to be taken in war pensioners. I hope that there is within the Ministry a section which pays special attention to war pensioners. I have often maintained, and still do, that there should be an equalisation between the treatment of the war pensioner and of the industrially injured person. They ought to be on the same basis.

However, there should be a special responsibility towards the man who was injured not because he voluntarily accepted a job for which he earnt money and an accident happened in the normal run of things, and the man who volunteered in the moment of the nation's crisis for the most dangerous job of all and suffered disability. While I am not pleading for any great distinction between industrial and war pensioners, within the Ministry there should be someone who is paying special attention to these people, particularly the very old men of the 1914–18 war, who are becoming fewer and fewer and cannot be a very big burden to us, whatever we do.

This is a great nation, and we have vast national resources. We have just recently heard in the House and on television the Minister of Housing and Local Government speaking about the vast schemes which the Government are now envisaging for dealing with the national housing problem by setting up a £100 million fund of Government money to provide more and more homes for the people. But what about these cases? In view of the great resources at the disposal of the Government and the country, is it not possible—we are not asking for free or subsidised homes to be provided—with the machinery at our disposal, and as a result of the pressure that we can apply through the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, or by laying aside a small sum of money, to assist such cases by finding houses which can be made available? Mr. Loeber is not in a condition to walk round London looking for a home. Surely there are national resources available which could be used for this purpose?

I hope that the House will appreciate that this matter is our responsibility as the House of Commons, as Parliament, and as a nation. I hope that today, after all the correspondence that we have had and all the activity that has gone on in connection with this case and other cases of the same kind, the Minister will be able to tell us that he sees some possibility of something being done. I do not mean that he will say that he hopes that somebody else will do it.

Furthermore, and what is probably even more important in the wider context, I hope that he will tell us that the Ministry will try to discover how many people there are in this condition —war disabled people, particularly those of the First World War who are now reaching the age when nobody else is interested in them—what is being done about it and whether the Government themselves are doing sufficient about it.

I hope that we shall have some reassurance from the Minister on all these matters.

I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I dealt first with the general terms of this subject and then towards the end turned to the particular case which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) has in mind.

I should like to begin by correcting a misunderstanding which the hon. Gentleman undoubtedly has as a result of the answers he received from my right hon. Friend to a Parliamentary Question and supplementary questions on 20th May. The hon. Gentleman made reference to my right hon. Friend's answer about the 1,200 cases in 1962. Let me reassure him that these were not necessarily cases similar to that of Mr. Loeber. Many of them were cases of minor disability, but they were all cases where housing accommodation was involved. That explains why in a further answer to a supplementary question my right hon. Friend said that not all these men wanted ground floor accommodation. Quite naturally, ground floor accommodation would not be necessary for those who were not so severely disabled.

What the right hon Gentleman said was:

"One of the points involved is that not every limbless man wants ground floor accommodation.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th May, 1963; 678. c. 19.]

That may well be so. There are limbless men who are still able and perfectly willing to negotiate stairs.

I turn now to the general provisions for unfortunate people in this situation. Under the Housing Acts, local authorities have power to build dwellings for sale or to let. In allocating this accommodation, it is normal for them to use a points system, each application being allotted points to determine some sort of priority list. Each authority has its own system of this kind, but three elements are common to all of them: the degree of housing need of the applicant, that is, in terms of the space already occupied, whether there is a separate home or shared accommodation; the number and ages of the family, that is, the degree of overcrowding in the existing accommodation; and medical considerations. In varying degrees, the length of residence in the area and age are factors also taken into account with any other special factors relating to the case.

Within this framework, local authorities can make special provision for particular groups. Most local authorities take into account special circumstances attached to any case. These groups comprise such categories as the old and the disabled for whom special allocation is desirable.

The disabled person is thus competing with other applicants whose needs may be reckoned greater than his according to how the points system works. For this and other reasons, his chances of securing priority in housing from a local authority rest almost entirely upon the size of the existing waiting list, coupled with the degree of attention given by the local authority to the special needs groups.

In the last five years or so, we have found that local authorities have been very willing to help house our pensioners who have a real need for special accommodation. Some of the solutions adopted are the allocation of ground floor flats in general purpose blocks, exchanges of tenancies, the allocation of specially designed dwellings, for instance, old people's bungalows. and the building or adaptation of dwellings to meet special needs, which is quite frequently done for paraplegics.

A number of authorities have taken a pride in helping with this problem.

Has Hornsey?

Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that there remain some disabled pensioners, such as the pensioner spoken of by the hon. Gentleman, for whom an immediate solution through the local authorities is not possible. It is, naturally much more difficult for local authorities to give an overriding priority to the disabled in areas where there are already long waiting lists of families with housing needs. Indeed, in some cases a disabled applicant may not be on a housing list at all and so may have a very long wait if he relies on the housing authority to meet his requirements. For these and for other local reasons, it is not always possible to find an immediate solution by approaching the local authority.

There are, however, voluntary organisations which provide special housing for disabled ex-Service men. There is the older type of memorial cottage, although this is not always very suitable for men with disabilities of the kind the hon. Gentleman has mentioned; some have not been properly modernised to the standards needed and expected today. The post-war settlements developed since 1945 generally offer accommodation within reach of social and industrial centres or in the form of village settlements where employment is provided.

The principal bodies housing disabled ex-Servicemen include the following. There are the Douglas Haig Memorial Homes, although there are waiting lists for 800 or so dwellings provided by this organisation. There is the Joint Committee of the Order of St. John and the British Red Cross Society. I recently visited the fine Kytes Estate at Watford, where about forty bungalows have been provided for paraplegics who are able to get about and work. There is the Lyme Green Estate at Macclesfield. There is the Barrowmore Village Settlement in Lancashire. There is the settlement for the disabled in Norwich. In the London area, there is the Sir Oswald Stoll Foundation at Fulham. The Forces Help Society has responsibility for managing a number of regimental association cottages scattered about the country, and it also has a centre at Knaphill near Woking. There is the British Legion village at Preston Hall near Maidstone. There is the Enham-Alamein Village Settlement, the Pap-worth Village Settlement and the Thistle Foundation at Edinburgh.

That list is not complete by any means; there are others I have not mentioned. However, it is a fairly extensive list demonstrating the wide variety of excellent provision which is made by voluntary bodies. Welfare officers of the Ministry use their knowledge of these facilities to advise pensioners and to help them in applications to the various bodies. Unfortunately, they all have waiting lists. Each organisation tends to cater for a specific group of disabled people, which means that the range of choice in a particular case may not be large.

The other means available to the pensioner is house purchase or the adaptation of existing premises. Pensioners who have some capital and who wish to purchase or build their own homes can obtain advice on design and amenities. Some ex-Servicemen's organisations, notably the British Legion, B.L.E.S.M.A., the Joint Committee of the Order of St. John and the Red Cross Society and the R.A.F. Benevolent Fund will consider giving limited financial help where an applicant has capital but cannot defray the full expenses of house purchase.

If adaptation of existing property is required, the local welfare authorities can help. They have powers under Section 29 of the National Assistance Act to arrange help of this kind in adapting buildings, fitting handrails and the like, and even sometimes fitting lifts.

But not in Hornsey?

As regards paraplegics only, the Ministry of Health has power to make a grant for adaptations up to a total of £150 when disablement is due to war service.

Turning now to the case of Mr. Loeber, we are fully aware of his degree of disablement. His need for housing has only comparatively recently arisen. He is living in controlled premises and there is no question of his being turned out. It is purely a question whether the premises are unsuitable for him now that, unfortunately, his disabilities have worsened. Our welfare people are aware of this and inquiries have been made in a number of directions. So far those inquiries have been without success, but they are continuing and we have not given up hope of finding more suitable accommodation for Mr. and Mrs. Loeber.

As, I think, the hon. Member already knows, an approach has been made to British Railways, who have promised that if suitable accommodation becomes available and if there is no need for it for working railwaymen with a prior claim they certainly will consider Mr. Loeber's case. It would probably entail Mr. Loeber having to move from his present area. But if he feels that he wants to remain living in Hornsey it will restrict the scope of possibilities very much indeed and delay any chance of getting him more suitable accommodation.

We ought to have no misunderstanding about this. There is no quetion of Mr. Loeber insisting on staying in Hornsey.

I am very glad to have that reassurance, because that will make our task much easier.

The hon. Member asked what we do about this. As he knows, we operate an extensive welfare service as part of the functions of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. Unfortunate people with problems are frequently visited by our welfare officers. Naturally, if the need on the particular problem is not made known to the welfare officers remedial action cannot possibly take place. It is the responsibility of the pensioner or his friends, or the organisation representing him, to draw the attention of the Ministry to changes in situations of this nature. Then we can bring into operation all the resources of our welfare service to help.

I do not think any useful purpose would be served by trying to make a list of cases of this nature. What we want to do is to find these cases when they arise and to act as quickly as possible to remedy them. Going back to the past and making a list of how many people, because of their disabilities require special accommodation, would fulfil no useful purpose whatever.

I was certainly not suggesting that we should go back and make a list of past cases. I am rather surprised that the Parliamentary Secretary has taken this line. I am suggesting that the Ministry should try to find how many such cases there are now. It is not unusual for that to be done. It has been done in the past. The Ministry of Pensions and the National Assistance Board frequently try to find cases of special situations and to get the details.

The answer to that is perfectly simple. When the cases arise they are brought to our notice. We have known of this case for some time and we have had time to put in train the inquiries which our welfare officers have made. The fact that they have not so far been successful only emphasises the general housing difficulty in the London area. As the hon. Member well knows—I gave him some details in my reply—many such cases have been quite successfully solved.

To make a special survey would be a great waste of effort, because these cases do come to light as they arise. They are usually brought to our notice by our welfare officers who hear of them when making their tours of the districts in which they are working. If they do not come to us direct from our welfare officers, they will undoubtedly come to us through the ex-Service voluntary societies and associations. I am quite convinced that no useful purpose would be served by setting up a special and complicated survey to try to search for cases which normally come to our notice during the course of our day to day welfare work.

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the problem of relations between the United Kingdom and the Republic of South Africa, with particular emphasis on industrial relations. I say that because during the last six months or so we have heard of suggestions of economic sanctions or arms embargoes, both of which, in my view, are bound to load to some form of retaliation upon the industrial relations with this country. It is on that side of the problem that I want to dwell at the start.

To put the picture into perspective, I think that I ought to reiterate that there are vast areas of South Africa which, 150 years ago, were not supporting, and could not support, human life. Now many millions of people live there, mainly and basically because of the vast industrial expansion which has taken place in the Transvaal and the Orange Free State. This industry upon which many millions of people of both African and European stock exist has been built up over the last eighty years, basically by British industry and British brains.

The industry which is now operating there is of a highly complicated and skilled nature. Much of it has been financed by and much of the experience has come from this country. Admittedly, in recent years there has been the great development of the nationalised industries which have been controlled by the Afrikaans-speaking South African, such as the steel industry and the railways industry. This is a development which may extend. Since the war there has been an influx of competitive firms from other industrial countries such as America, Japan, Germany, and Italy, all anxious and willing to take away the British business which is being done there and, under competition, capable of doing it.

I believe it to be very important that we should sustain the good will of British industry and British manufacture out there, much of which is owned in this country. I do not believe that we could afford what one might call wild and woolly threats about embargoes and sanctions, which can lead only to retaliations upon the business done between these two countries. I emphasise the size of industrial investment which the United Kingdom has in South Africa.

Since the war the total investment of the United Kingdom throughout the world has been assessed in the Overseas Development Institute as about £4,000 million. Others think that it may be higher. Mr. A. R. Conan thinks that it may be higher, but as an estimate of our total world investment £4,000 million is about right. In South Africa, the British investment is over £1,000 million, which means that out of the whole world overseas investment of this country 25 per cent. is invested in South Africa. This is a very high proportion, and it may not be generally known in this country.

There is a very substantial export trade from this country into South Africa, and this export trade has been increasing. From the figures which I have obtained from the Trade and Navigation Accounts, our exports to South Africa about ten years ago were running about £80 million a year. The latest figure, for 1962–63, shows that the rate was £140 million a year of exports from this country and imports into South Africa. I am sure that the Minister of State will appreciate that this is an example of the efforts of British exporters to increase their exports into South Africa during those ten years.

On top of this, there must be an investment return by way of dividends and interest of about £50 million a year. One may say that there is a potential trade of exports and return of interests with South Africa of about £200 million a year. I believe that to prejudice trade of this size by talk of sanctions and embargoes, implying retaliation upon us, is something which we cannot afford to do. Above all, we have a favourable balance of payments to South Africa of about £40 million a year.

This sets the size of the problem which we are discussing. I should like to make a particular point about employment in the United Kingdom. Exports from this country mean jobs at home, and jobs at home mean money in the wage packet. A great part of the exports to South Africa which I have mentioned have steel as a content in one form or another. I represent the Heeley division of Sheffield, and my particular interest in respect of my constituents is to keep up employment in Sheffield's industry, and to keep up the sale of steel and the sale of components into which steel might go.

I am prepared to attack any policy which may prejudice the livelihood and employment of my constituents. It should be realised that steel is used in aeroplanes and vehicles, and that the export of those two commodities to South Africa was worth £21 million last year. At present 35 per cent. of the motor cars running on the roads in South Africa are British.

The question also arises of armaments, and I will say something about this later. As long as armaments are, unfortunately, used in the world, steel is used in them, and that means jobs for the people in Sheffield. Exactly the same comment applies to shipbuilding. Machinery and machinery goods form a vital export for Sheffield—and steel goes into them. Over £34 million of machinery goods were exported to South Africa according to the figures which I have for last year. These exports mean jobs and wages, and they are at risk when we invite mutual boycotts for political and other reasons.

In South Africa, there are plenty of firms from other countries who are only too willing to take this business away from us and only too anxious, in competition, to take away from my constituents in Sheffield the jobs which are represented by these exports. To express a desire for economic sanctions or an arms embargo to be imposed upon South Africa can lead only to retaliation and to unemployment here at home.

I appreciate that there are two separate problems. One is the suggestion of a general economic boycott against South African goods and the other is an arms embargo—and it is only the latter which is Labour Party policy. Can the hon. Member visualise no circumstances in which he would be prepared to refuse to supply arms to anyone who wanted them? Would he be prepared, for example, to have the same philosophy in relation to the supply of arms to the Soviet Union and the Eastern bloc?

I am prepared to go into this matter in some detail later in my speech, for I want to refer specifically to a statement made by the Leader of the Opposition in Trafalgar Square.

I feel that no British Government and no British Opposition should incite trade retaliation between the United Kingdom and South Africa. What we need is good will. I was delighted to observe that the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber), on 19th December, when asked by an hon. Member opposite whether the Government would work out economic sanctions against South Africa, replied that we do not think that sanctions are right. I fully support the Government in this approach, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State to the Board of Trade will reiterate that policy this afternoon.

I come to 17th March when, in Trafalgar Square, the Leader of the Opposition made another call for an arms embargo. I have here a report from The Times of 18th March, the following day, in which it is reported that the right hon. Gentleman said that the British people could not tolerate the help that Western countries—which, presumably, includes the United Kingdom—were giving to the South African Government which by its actions had put itself beyond the pale of human civilisation.

I shall have something to say in a moment about the extravagance of those terms, but, first, I should point out that he was referring specifically to the question of an arms embargo. I was in South Africa at the time that this statement was made—and that is one of the reasons that I asked to raise the matter in the House today. The result of that speech in South Africa on the industrial relations to which I have referred was disastrous. I met no section of the industrial community—Africaans-speaking or English-speaking, supporter of the Government or supporter of the Opposition—which did not condemn this type of political pressure which used the question of armaments and of exports from this country as a political weapon. This immediately led to talk of retaliation and trade difficulties.

To answer the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh), I believe that we should not use the question of an arms embargo or arms supply as a political weapon. I say this because there are plenty of other firms and other countries which are prepared to supply these weapons. So long as we have to have them—I make that proviso—as long as people are prepared to use conventional or unconventional weapons, and so long as there is a friendly country which is prepared to supply them, I do not see why my constituents should be deprived of their jobs for political reasons of this kind.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will join with me in repudiating the statements made by the Leader of the Opposition in Trafalgar Square on 17th March. There was an interesting article in the Daily Express on Wednesday of this week, interesting in view of the statement made in Trafalgar Square when the Leader of the Opposition said that the British people could not tolerate the help which the Western countries were giving to the South African Government.

According to the Gallup poll which appeared in last Wednesday's Daily Express—I think that the experience is that these Daily Express Gallup polls are reasonably accurate—45 per cent. of the Labour supporters questioned were not in favour of sanctions against South Africa and only 27 per cent. were in favour of them. The majority of the country as a whole was against sanctions of this kind. The Leader of the Opposition's statement that he is speaking on behalf of the British people in these matters is an exaggeration. I hope that today my hon. Friend will be able to put the point of view of the Government.

I appreciate that the attack which those people make who wish to impose sanctions or an arms embargo is a political attack. It is necessary to face up to this in a debate of this kind. There have been political advances in South Africa. It is necessary that the Leader of the Opposition and others should be more familiar with the advances which have been made in recent years.

There have been great steps forward in the modernisation of housing in what might be called the urbanised areas. Vast new estates have been built. As to employment, there is now a system whereby there is no known unemployment in the vast urbanised areas which depend on industry. Much has been done with regard to health. I saw a clinic where European doctors and nurses spend their whole time looking after the sick from these urbanised areas.

On the political side, when I was in South Africa I attended the House of Assembly. They were discussing a Bill dealing with the problem of the Transkei, where they are proposing to try the experiment of setting up vast areas where the Bantu will be able to work out their own problems inside those areas. Many of the European settlers were complaining that they were having to be turned out. However, some form of advancement is taking place. I say this with a mixture of pride and of commiseration in view of the taxes which about 900,000 South African taxpayers have to bear to cover this.

Accepting that there has been a move foward in the last four years, let us now look at the whole question of the political democracy in Africa, and particularly in South Africa. It is very important to realise, when considering this problem, that there is a vast difference of politcal thinking in different areas of the African Continent. I do not believe that any hard and fast rule or hard and fast timetable could be laid down for political development in all areas of Africa.

There must be a distinction between areas such as Ghana and Nigeria, which are basically African areas; areas such as Kenya and Southern Rhodesia, where there is a proportion of European technicians; and an area like South Africa which is entirely supported by a European industrial community. These differences must be taken into account when considering the problem of democracy in Africa.

We must try to find a principle. I think that the principle is that the advancement of the full democratic way of life as we understand it is much more easily accomplished in an area producing merely food and raw materials and where there is not a greatly complicated industrial complex In fact, where life is simpler I believe that politics are simpler. In a highly industrialised State where a high proportion of the people are of European stock, I believe that the problem is much more complicated. Where the economy cannot operate without European control, where without industry the country would die, I believe that the problem needs care unless there is to be a catastrophe one way or the other.

This point is proved by the experience in the Congo, where in the areas towards the Atlantic seaboard which were essentially what I call the raw material areas the problem was simpler, but in the areas of Katanga there were some industrial problems of which the whole world is now aware.

We must be very careful to appreciate the difference between the type of political advancement in one area and in another. I am frightened that the desire to thrust what we properly call democracy —a highly complex system—too quickly, will defeat the objects which we desire. It can produce what one African described to me as the one-time vote. In other words; there is a Constitution; then there is an election; but that is the only vote the voter gets, because after that a dictatorship appears. The opposition leaders are put into gaol, and the electorate has no opportunity of casting another vote. We do not desire that.

I am certain that some of the happenings we have experienced in Ghana and the sort of democracy there is at the moment in Ghana are not quite what we had hoped to see. Therefore, we must avoid anything which would lead to the concept of the one-time vote which eventually leads to dictatorship.

Would the hon. Gentleman equate the kind of democracy which he regrets exists in Ghana—with some justification—with the state of democracy in Britain at a comparable period of our development?

I would equate it, in that at our comparable period of development we had a large number of slaves in this country and had been ruled by the Romans. However, I take the point. I am merely saying that there is a different rate of development in different areas and in different circumstances. If we go too fast, we can run the risk of murder and riot. I do not believe that world opinion will allow any country to go too slowly.

I will sum up the argument I am trying to present to the House. South Africa has its problems, and it acknowledges that it has its problems. The South African Government acknowledge it. The South African Opposition parties acknowledge it. They have to live with the problems. Any too hasty moves can lead to possible disasters. For people from the United Kingdom—for instance, the Leader of the Opposition, who, I believe, has never been to South Africa —to thrust ill-timed and dangerous emotional solutions on the South African Government is irresponsible and damaging to those who want to help. South Africa needs time in which to be left alone to find her own solution to her own problem. All South Africans wish to find a proper and lasting solution, but they should be allowed to work out their own destiny in their own way.

Boycotts, and talk of boycotts, sanctions, and talk of sanctions, can do no good in the long run, particularly when goods can be got elsewhere. Such talk is damaging to our interests at home, and to our influence in South Africa. It encourages hatred and it dismays our friends. In no other foreign country—and, alas, one must now refer to South Africa as a "foreign country"—do so many people look upon the United Kingdom as representing their home background. We still have much good will there; but irresponsible and uninformed statements such as that made by the Leader of the Opposition in Trafalgar Square can do nothing but harm.

My first criticism of the remarks of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Sir P. Roberts) is that he has attempted to deal with a vastly important subject on a ridiculously narrow front. One cannot begin to analyse this problem properly by merely discussing it from the angle of whether or not the application of certain policies would have a deleterious effect on a very narrow type of British production.

The hon. Member quoted from the speech of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in Trafalgar Square on 17th March. I fully agreed with that speech, and in it my right hon. Friend suggested that if after twelve years of Tory Governments we can ensure full employment only by exporting arms to South Africa, that is just about the crowning indictment of Tory economic policy; and I fully subscribe to my right hon. Friend's point of view.

In his speech the hon. Member for Heeley was rightly concerned with the employment position of his constituents. He mentioned that we export a certain amount of steel to South Africa. I have tried to obtain the figures for these exports, and, from my investigations, I do not agree that our exports to South Africa are rising. The figures for the past few years seem to reveal that they are falling. In 1960 we exported £154 million worth of goods, in 1961 the figure had reduced to £146,900,000, and in 1962 the figure was £146,300,000. It does not look, from the figures of the last three or four years, that our trade has been increasing.

It is astounding to note how, since I7th March, the question of our trade in arms with one country has suddenly become a cardinal factor in our consideration of the preservation of a high level of employment in Britain. I wish to make it abundantly clear that the subject matter of my right hon. Friend's speech on that occasion—indeed, that of a number of speeches made by my hon. Friends—was not concerned with general exports to South Africa. Despite this, the hon. Member for Heeley spoke at some length about general exports. We have made no suggestion that we would in any way curtail our ordinary commercial exports to South Africa. We have made that point time and again and have said that it is purely a matter of the export of arms to that country.

The main point I was endeavouring to make today was that it is the fear of retaliation with which we must be concerned when considering the whole range of exports.

I will come to that matter. I am now saying, because I do not want there to be any confusion in the public mind about exactly what we mean on this point, that when the hon. Member broadens the issue and includes the global figure of exports he gives the impression that it is a question of an embargo on our general exports. From the point of view of a Labour Government, that would not be the case. As to the possibility of reprisals, that is a matter for the South African Government, but for my part I insist that today we are talking only in terms of arms.

We have been told from time to time —and the hon. Member for Heeley said this—that we must not condition our trading policies by whether or not we like the nature or colour of a Government and considerations of that sort. The hon. Member gave the impression, therefore, that this is the first time that anyone has suggested doing anything of that sort. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) intervened and referred to the strategic list. In other words, for many years there has been an embargo on the export of arms conditioned by the colour of the Governments of the Communist countries. No one can say at this stage what that embargo has cost us. The hon. Member couched his speech purely in economic terms, but it should be considered on a much wider front and he was mainly concerned with the effect of the embargo on employment in Britain. I do not know what the effect has been as a result of the embargo on the Communist countries, but it is abundantly clear that, whatever the total figure of the export of arms to South Africa might be, it would be infinitesimal to what could have been obtained had the strategic list not existed.

I would like the Minister to say what this figure would be. It could then be analysed and we could discuss the subject of the export of arms to South Africa with the full facts available. I cannot discover the figure. Perhaps the Minister will not be able to supply it. I will willingly give way now if I can be told the figure, but if the Minister wants time in which to find it I hope that he will make inquiries so that we can know about what we are arguing. At the moment we do not. We know the global figure, but that is all. I have with me the figures for steel exports which shows a rise in the last few years. Is this steel being used to produce arms in South Africa by that country's own factories?

Not only has there been a ban on the export of arms to Communist countries, but for many years this ban has applied to our exports to Israel and Egypt, and we had such a ban on the Batista régime in Cuba. This shows that we are not talking about new principles but about an extension, for certain political considerations, some of which the hon. Member mentioned, of something that has existed.

Apart from this important matter, we must consider that the South African Government may have the ability to oppose attempts to implement international decisions which are likely to arise over South-West Africa. This may depend on the strength of her Army and Air Force. This is a matter in which Britain is heavily involved towards South-West Africa, and it would indeed be ironical if we were supplying arms to South Africa with which her Government could oppose the implementation of international decisions in that part of the world.

My hon. Friend will agree that there would not he anything particularly novel in British troops being shot down with British weapons.

My hon. Friend is quite right. There are many instances of that kind.

On the argument that a Labour Government would be acting in isolation on this issue, let us consider the policies of some other Western Governments. By means of export licences, the United States Government are enforcing a policy of forbidding the sale of

"any arms which could be used by the South African Government to enforce apartheid".

Is the United States Government a sort of extreme Socialist administration which is concerned only with keeping arms from Governments whose colours it does not like very much?

The German Government has now said that it is the policy of the Federal Government not to deliver arms to any zone of tension, and South Africa is included. The Federal Government controls the export of arms and all kinds of strategic material to the Republic of South Africa, and permission for the export of offensive weapons is being refused.

I promise the hon. Gentleman that this is a factual question. Is he saying that the Labour Party's policy towards the export of arms to South Africa is now confined to a ban on those arms which might be used internally for repressive purposes?

I have not come to that yet. I will ask the hon. Gentleman a question on the same subject. I have seen replies by the Minister of Defence purporting to show that the arms now being sent to South Africa are of a type which could be used only in external warfare—motor boats and so on. If that is the case, will the hon. Gentleman say on behalf of the Government that they will ban arms of a kind which could be used in an internal struggle? Perhaps he would like to consider his answer to that.

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman feels like answering my question. It does not matter whether he does, but in fact he has not answered it.

I am saying that, in their replies to Questions in the last week or two, Government spokesmen have been emphasising that these arms have been of a kind which could not be used internally. I am very pleased to hear it if that is the case, but I want to know why they will not line up with the Governments of the United States and Western Germany and ban arms which could be used in an internal conflict. I would ban all types of arms for South Africa on the general possibility that arms which are first intended for external use can be adapted to internal use. The Buccaneer aircraft design has changed from what it was when it was first laid down. It is now a naval aircraft, although it was not intended to be. There is a whole series of arms which, while they could be used in external warfare, would be equally effective, and perhaps more effective, against a population antagonised by the kind of government which, it is felt, is abusing it disgracefully.

Will the hon. Gentleman tell us, in view of the rather comprehensive nature of the ban which he is envisaging, whether he would also ban the export of materials from this country which might be used by the armaments industry in South Africa?

No, I have not said that. I pointed out that exports of steel from this country have risen quite a lot over a period of years. Some of the steel may be used for arms, but it is the case that as a nation becomes industrialised supplies of steel for commercial needs become more and more necessary. I am not saying that we would ban exports of that kind at all.

I started by saying that the hon. Member for Heeley had taken the debate on too narrow a front. He must know that there has recently been a conference of Heads of State of the independent African countries at Addis Ababa. The decisions there made it perfectly clear that those nations are pledging themselves to support African populations in their struggle against white supremacy. This is a terrifically important issue. They made it clear in those decisions that South Africa was particularly in mind.

If instead of trying to get a solution to problems of this kind at the United Nations, we are now to be a partner of the South African Government in building up its powers on a military scale, it is obvious that the South African Government will become even mare arrogant towards the population than at present, if that is possible. The Continent of Africa is now rapidly emerging into a number of independent States, some of them with ideas which might not suit us, but nevertheless independent. With what kind of Western nation will they prefer to trade—those which refuse to permit the export of arms to the South African Government, or those which connive at it?

This is not even a nice balance. The question is obviously answered by saying that as these nations develop and become manufacturing nations they will consider, all things being equal, trading with nations which have taken the attitude which the United States and Germany have taken.

I mention these things, especially the conference at Addis Ababa, because the South African issue can be a far greater flashpoint in world affairs than has been suggested in this debate. I have read reports from and listened to people who have visited South Africa recently, many of them knowledgeable people. They have come to the conclusion that such is the position there that it is rapidly reaching the point at which no peaceful settlement will be possible. I profoundly hope that they are wrong, but when to that is allied what was said at the Addis Ababa conference, we should think again before we continue with the type of policy which my right hon. Friend criticised.

On the straight issue of unemployment, my right hon. Friend prophesied in Trafalgar Square that the Conservatives would do just what the hon. Member for Heeley has done today. He was right. There have been suggestions in the Tory Press and in the House and in speeches in the constituencies which have been based entirely on employment prospects. I have replied to those suggestions to some degree by what I have said about the possibility of trade with the emerging independent States of Africa, but my right hon. Friend and I have answered in another way as well. We have given a pledge that a Labour Government would take up any contracts which were cancelled for use by our own Forces, by our friends in N.A.T.O. and by other Commonwealth countries. We have given that pledge and we will adhere to it.

It is remarkable that the hon. Member should choose to initiate this kind of discussion today, because at the moment the Minister of Economic and Defence Co-ordination in the Indian Government is in this country. He has visited Washington and has arrived at certain agreements with the American Government. Now he is here to secure the agreement of the Prime Minister and the Government for the supply of arms to India. Some of us have been concerned over this for some time. I look after aircraft problems on this side of the House, and I know that the Indian Government require a considerable number of aircraft since the Chinese invasion took place and that they are in trouble over credits.

The Daily Telegraph said this morning that the present requirements of the Indian Government are for

"a bigger medium-term plan for equipment which will enable India to double her army and increase her air force by nearly three-quarters over three years.…It has been pointed out in London and Washington that the full Indian requirements, variously put at between £500 million and £800 million, are beyond the capacity of the two countries."

Where, therefore, will this unemployment in Sheffield come from?

That is a perfectly ridiculous argument.

The hon. Member's argument is ridiculous too.

I do not know the figures relating to arms for South Africa. I have invited the hon. Member to tell us, but I am saying, in pursuance of what my right hon. Friend and I have said on this subject, that there is ample scope for other Commonwealth countries to take their requirements of arms from us, and I am quoting the position of India as one country alone to show that anything we lose from South Africa would be infinitesimal against the potential which India alone requires.

Is the hon. Member saying that the Indian Government are offering to purchase £800 million worth of arms for cash or gold for the same sort of payment that we are getting from South Africa? If we are talking about employment there must be some payment.

Let us talk about employment. I do not remember the hon. Member opposing American methods of financing credit in Europe after the war. I do not say that the Indian Government are in a position now to obtain these things for cash, otherwise their Minister would not be here negotiating credit terms. I say, on the straight issue of employment, that there is not the slightest reason why there should be unemployment in Sheffield or anywhere else because of this, and I quote again from the Daily Telegraph that one of the problems put to the Indian Government, both in London and Washington, is that the full Indian requirements are beyond the capacity of both countries, the United States and Britain, to meet with all their great industrial potential.

I should have thought, therefore, that on that issue alone any idea that there need be unemployment because of our attitude towards South Africa in any part of Britain where arms are made disappears at once. I add for good measure the point which my right hon. Friend and I have made about what the Labour Government would do in these conditions. But I do not particularly like the idea that we have to depend on the export of arms to achieve a balance in our economic forces.

The South African Defence Minister was saying in the South African Parliament two days ago:

"The country is working in the direction of training every available young man for military service. South Africa has to prepare against the threat made by African States in the recent Addis Ababa conference. Our aim is to train every young man for military service, whether he is flat-footed or not."

This represents something which I had hoped would be never seen or heard of again. The whole conception of the policy which we now see pursued in South Africa gets nearer and nearer the things which we heard with horror when Hitler put them across in Berlin. The hon. Member for Heeley may say that I am exaggerating. He said that certain political progress had been made in South Africa in the last four years. I wish that he could tell me where it comes politically.

I could recite to the hon. Member a string of legislation never seen or heard of in any country other than Fascist countries, as far as I can remember. There are the Job Reservation Act, the Group Areas Act, the General Law Amendment Act and, more recently, the Publications and Entertainments Act, which has meant that no vestige of freedom remains in South Africa. When the hon. Member said that he had talked with Government people and Opposition supporters there, the only people whom he excluded were three-quarters of the population of South Africa.

This is a far bigger issue than we can debate comparatively briefly now. It is an issue which I feel could lead to the sort of conditions which we saw in prewar days. We see a great continent emerging from hundreds of years of thraldom, determined that what the Prime Minister called the "wind of change" shall not be stopped by any type of Government. I should hate to think of this being accomplished by violent methods, but I believe that it is now essential for nations like ours to play a far greater part in organisations like the United Nations to ensure that the progress which is bound to come can come by international agreement and not by the kind of violence which may well come if wiser counsels do not prevail.

I have referred to some of the Acts passed in South Africa recently. There have been attacks on the freedom of the Press and the freedom of speech. We have seen a ruthless carving up of the country into racial kraals of white and non-white and land being dismembered into Bantustans with only 13 per cent. of the land for the Africans who comprise 75 per cent. of the population. This nation, with all its great background, cannot possibly agree to these things.

While I appreciate that the hon. Member for Heeley says that the party opposite is as opposed to apartheid as we on this side of the House are, when the Government supply weapons of war on which apartheid depends, I am entitled to say that their enthusiasm against apartheid is not what I should like to see from any Government in this country

I saw a statement from Chief Luthuli which hon. Members may say is exaggerated because of his position there, but when a Nobel prize-winner tells us of the mounting force of violence and turmoil because of the outraged feelings of the people there we must take notice of it. In any event, the International Commission of Jurists, in a report published on 14th May, said that South Africa was

"copying many of the worst features of the Communist Stalinist regime."

The statement went on:

"South Africa is now more than ever a police State. Liberty has gone. Justice is blinded and maimed despite the efforts of the Bench and the Bar to save such remnants as still remain in that unfortunate country. The measures introduced by the South African Government call for strong condemnation by all the civilised world…

Let us remember that the Commission of Jurists has consultative status with the United Nations. It analysed the new Act to which I have just referred, and it states that that Act is aimed to crush

"subversive activity, including sabotage and Communism."

The Commission says:

"Under die South African laws, 'Communism' means virtually anything that is opposed to the policy of the Government, particularly with regard to apartheid."

I could go on to quote the manner in which this Commission of International Jurists condemned in violent language everything which is now happening in South Africa.

Looking at apartheid in action, as I have stated, they are dividing the country in a disgraceful way. Well over 100,000 people have already been forcibly removed from one area to another or from the towns to the stagnant, workless native reserves. Another 500,000 are under notice of removal. By the time the process of creating Bantustans is completed, well over 5 million people will have been uprooted under the plans already announced.

Colin Legum wrote in the Observer on 28th April:

"Not since Stalin moved the Volga Germans and Hitler moved Europe's Jews has there been such a calculated effort to transport populations solely for the purpose of serving the interests of a ruling oligarchy."

This is the kind of thing that we ought to be opposing with everything in our power.

The hon. Member said—and I am sure he is right—that many people in the white population of South Africa still look to this country as something which is worth having. I am certain that they cannot possibly feel that the support of our Government for this kind of activity is a good thing from the point of view of the ultimate outcome in South Africa.

Turning to the key to this question, the arms build-up which is taking place in South Africa, the South African Government are committed to rule by the machine gun and the armoured car. A quarter of a million white people are trained and equipped for defence. South Africa has a police force 30,000 strong, armed with modern weapons, mobile and decentralised; voluntary rifle commandos organised on military lines; an air force equipped with jet fighters, turbo-jet transport, long-range maritime Shackletons and a helicopter squadron; and a small navy equipped with an extensive coastal radar system. There is now a vast expansion in the size of the standing army. This is planned to consist of 60,000 trained men by 1966. Defence expenditure has nearly doubled between 1961 and 1962. As I have painted out, the army is backed with jet fighters and so on.

The South African Government publicly claim that this great army build-up is to enable South Africa to face external aggression. They claim to be

"the main bulwark against Communist penetration."

I wonder where we heard that one before. I do not think Hitler ever made a speech without telling us that. A certain fear comes into one's mind when one looks back.

I have tried to show that an unclean régime exists in South Africa. I have suggested that it is not enough merely to confine ourselves to the narrow point of whether we should or should not send a small quantity of arms—for that is what it is—to South Africa. I believe that the repercussions in the great struggle which is emerging in Africa are so intense, vital and important to the development of the world that we cannot fail to line up with those Western nations which I believe are taking the right and proper attitude towards this kind of thing.

I mentioned Chief Luthuli. He has made a plea. He has said that many other countries which now supply arms to South Africa have

"known the travail of war, of conflict against ruthless oppression; have known the bitterness of race hatred and the wounds of armed conflict.

Yet these countries today, and Britain foremost among them, are guilty of arming the savage Nationalist Party regime. The Saracens built in Britain have already left an indelible blot on the history of my country; now it seems that your Buccaneers and your tanks must leave their foul imprint. Perhaps it is futile to appeal to those who put profits before justice and human lives. Nevertheless, in all sincerity, I appeal to them to pause and re-think their sense of values which puts material values before human lives. For this is the meaning of their making available their murderous wares to the South African Government."

Luthuli is a man of great eminence. He has been honoured for his attempts to ensure world peace, and we should line up with Luthuli.

I have tried to show that there is no truth in the suggestion that the action which we propose would mean unemployment in any part of Britain. But there is a wider moral question upon which we take our stand. Our belief is that once it is clearly understood, the British people will back us wholeheartedly.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Sir P. Roberts) has raised the question of industrial relations with South Africa, and I suppose, somewhat inevitably, other points have come into this debate. I must make it perfectly clear that many of the points raised are not within my own direct ministerial responsibility and I do not imagine that on those matters I am asked to reply on behalf of somebody else.

Quite plainly, the Government condemn the racial policies of the South African Government. We have made this clear on many occasions, even if the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) does not appear to have noticed the fact.

:I have.

I am glad. In that case, a lot of his diatribe was without application across the Floor of the House.

We trade with many countries with whose political systems we disagree. Indeed, my hon. Friend made that point. My responsibility today is to give the House, as best I can, the facts of our trade relationships with South Africa. In each of the last three years we have sold to South Africa about £150 million worth of our products, or about 4 per cent. of our total exports. In addition, we have had valuable invisible earnings of more than half as much again from shipping, insurance, banking and the like.

The hon. Member for Newton, in view of what he said earlier, may be interested to know that in the first quarter of this year our exports have risen substantially. It is not a question of a decline in trade in any way. It is not a question of a stagnant trade. It is a question of an increasing trade. These exports, plus the invisibles, obviously make a valuable contribution to Britain's prosperity. It is the Government's policy, with which I know hon. Members on both sides of the House agree, to expand further our overseas earnings, because on this depends the growth of our economy. The hon. Gentleman will notice that I used the words "our overseas earnings"—not necessarily the same in all cases as a plain export. We sell our goods in a competitive world and we must find and exploit markets wherever we can.

In South Africa, we have long-established trading links and our goods are well known. Therefore, we have a small advantage there. The growth of our exports to the whole world, visible and invisible, is important, and not only for the well-being of the British people. Without it we could not possibly afford to give aid to less developed countries on the scale that we should like to provide. Indeed, without securing overseas earnings on our present scale, we could not even support the overseas aid on our present scale. So there is more in this—if I may say so with respect to the hon. Member for Newton—than he suggested.

I was struck by the fact that the hon. Member began by accusing my hon. Friend of taking the issue too narrowly, and then himself sought to narrow it down solely to the matter of arms ex- ports to South Africa. That really will not do.

Is the hon. Gentleman disputing the fact that we have said that we would ban only arms exports to South Africa?

Of course net. It would be useful if occasionally the hon. Member would listen to what is being said instead of picking up words wholly wrongly. I said that having accused my hon. Friend of narrowing the issue too far, namely, to the total of our exports, it is a little strange that the hon. Gentleman should seek to narrow it so much further, to arms exports. That is all I said and I think that tomorrow's HANSARD will show that that is not an inappropriate pick-up of what the hon. Gentleman said.

I agree with my hon. Friend that trade means employment. I should not endorse some of the extravagant estimates which I have heard made of the numbers of jobs dependent on our trade with South Africa. Nevertheless, quite a number of jobs depend on this. There are some firms, such as shipping lines, which specialise in South African trade. They and their employees could be seriously affected by any substantial drop in trade with South Africa and it is not easy to see how an exact substitution could be made for that sort of thing. One may like to do it. But to be able to do it is a very different matter.

South Africa provides a useful market for some British industries which, for various reasons, are short of orders at the present time. This is well known by hon. Members who represent constituencies in Lancashire. For example, in 1962 we sold £4½ million worth of cotton yarn and fabrics to South Africa; over £5 million of iron and steel and £2½ million worth of railway vehicles. South Africa is our second largest export market for cotton textiles. My hon. Friend spoke of his constituency interest in steel. I have an area interest in cotton textiles.

South Africa is an important market for many other British industries. Last year, we sent her machinery of many kinds to the value of over £50 million; road vehicles were over £18 million; metal manufactures were £12 million; and chemicals worth £l1¼million. There are other useful British export trades to South Africa and they range widely —hand 00ls, cutlery, glass and glassware, and so on. Some of this trade is spread over a broad range of engineering and other manufactures. Some of it may rot have a direct effect on the number of jobs provided by the manufacturers concerned. But sales of this order must have some effect on the prosperity of many factories where the goods are made and on the security of employment and earnings of those who work there. So, of course, I must agree with the statement made by my hon. Friend.

Our trade with South Africa provides jobs in South Africa, too. In fact, we are her biggest overseas market, taking almost one-third of her exports, leaving out the major items like gold, diamonds and uranium, which are not included in trade figures. The loss of this trade would no doubt have a more serious proportionate effect on employment in South Africa than the loss of our exports to South Africa could have on employment here. There are many side effects which have to be carefully considered before one starts flinging words round wildly on these matters.

In addition, we have a direct responsibility for the inhabitants of the three High Commission Territories, Swaziland, Bechuanaland and Basutoland, which are under British rule. Large numbers of Africans—well over 100,000 from Basutoland alone—from these territories are employed in the Republic of South Africa. Their livelihood would be affected by a reduction in South Africa's export. I agree that one should not narrow these questions down too far. One should look all round them with the greatest care.

The produce of the territories finds its main outlet in or through the Republic and depends on South African marketing organisation. They, too, would be damaged in any decline in the South African economy.

I turn now to the question of arms exports. The Government have repeatedly made it clear that the military equipment sold to South Africa is intended, first and foremost, for defence against external attack. This is the attitude taken by our partners in the Western world, particularly—

Will the hon. Gentleman repeat that?

I will repeat the sentence if the hon. Gentleman would like me to. I do not think that he always hears things right the first time.

The Government have repeatedly made it clear that the military equipment sold to South Africa is intended first and foremost for defence against external attack and particularly for the joint defence of the sea routes round the Cape, in which our two Governments—and other Governments of the free world—have a long-standing common interest. The equipment is not, for the most part, of a type which is suitable for measures of internal repression.

For example, the House will recall the decision, which attracted some attention last year, to supply some Buccaneer aircraft to South Africa. The hon. Gentleman mentioned it again today. These are long-range naval aircraft now coming into service with the Royal Navy. Their performance and role makes them quite unsuitable for use in suppressing civilian disturbances. We believe that South Africa, like other foreign countries with whom we are in normal relations, is entitled to buy arms for external defence. But we examine all requests from the strategic, economic and political points of view before they are authorised. The possibility that a particular supply of arms may be used for measures of internal repression is taken into account. The South African authorities know this.

In the light of what I have just said, it would be unfortunate if statements by hon. Members opposite caused the South Africans to divert orders from Britain. It should not be assumed that we could find a ready alternative market for equipment likely to be ordered by the South Africans, or that the productive capacity likely to be employed in this work could readily be applied to other purposes.

I am not going to get drawn into debates about the defence attitude towards India, and particularly am I not going to do so without consideration of the whole of Asia, because it would be very foolish to do that. What is quite clear is that the intervention of my hon. Friend has some merit. There is clearly a difference in the capacity of this country to give arms away as compared with our capacity to sell arms overseas. The amount which could be given is very much more limited than the amount which could be sold. It is this part of the equation which the hon. Member for Newton should take into account before he gives pledges in public with his right hon. Friends, without having stopped to work out the practical application of them.

My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation told the House on 6th May that orders from South Africa for aircraft and aircraft equipment alone are currently providing the equivalent of a year's employment for 25,000 people in the United Kingdom. A sudden switch of that in itself would take time to achieve. It is linked with employment. The only point I am making is that it is linked with employment, and it would be very wrong to pretend that it is not.

What reason is there to think that the South African Government would not be able to obtain from other sources the sort of equipment which they buy from us? Recent reports that there has already been a substantial diversion to others have, however, to the best of our knowledge, not been well founded, but the danger undoubtedly exists.

I have dwelt on the importance of trade between Britain and South Africa to both sides. We should like to see it grow, and I am glad to say, as I have already pointed out, that it has been growing. In the first four months of 1963, total exports from this country to South Africa amounted to £71 million compared with £49 million in the same period last year. So the growth this year is really substantial.

I cannot believe that either South Africa or Britain would be so misguided, because we abhor apartheid or because South Africa dislikes some of the public statements made by right hon. Members opposite, as to disturb trading relations which bring great advantages—I repeat, great advantages—to the peoples on both sides of this partnership.

The matter which I wish to raise is, in my view, of growing national importance. If I illustrate what I have to say with examples from my own constituency, it is not because I take a parochial attitude, but because I am choosing as examples places which I know best. I have chosen to speak on the subject of pedestrian crossings cm trunk roads. I must, however, explain that I am using the trunk road in a slightly technical sense and I mean anything which might be called a main road.

It seems to me that as the full impact of the motor revolution hits us—literally, as well as metaphorically—we find ourselves grappling with a problem which we have not considered as fully as perhaps we should have done. We have the matter of new roads, but not nearly enough consideration has been given nationally to the effects of this revolution and these changes on the old roads or villages and towns through which they run.

My constituency is traversed by three main roads: the A.22, which is the London to Eastbourne road; the A.23, which is the London to Brighton road; and the A.25, which runs from Guildford to Westerham and is not actually a trunk road but is a classified road which is the responsibility of the county council. We all hope that sooner or later there will be a south orbital road which will relieve this last mentioned road of some of the traffic which now flows down it, although the county council and the Ministry often point out that the A.25 must be widened to cope wtih the increase in local traffic. I want to state categorically as a matter of policy, to which I hope my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will lend a sympathetic ear, that all towns and villages should be by-passed. That, alas, is not the present policy of the county council in all cases.

We are faced with the growing problem of crossing the road. This is a problem for the pedestrian and particularly for the aged and infirm. It varies slightly from place to place. I take as an example the villages of Godstone and South Godstone, but what I propose to say applies equally to the villages of Blindley Heath, Felbridge, Bletchingley and Nut-field, in my constituency, all of which lie astride these main roads. I am dealing with one constituency, but one can parallel it with 20 constituencies around London.

This problem also exists in the towns, such as Redhill and Reigate, but these towns usually enjoy the privilege of having a few zebra crossings, although they are so few and far between that they have little relevance to reality. But usually there are no zebra crossings in the villages and smaller towns. I appreciate that the Minister's policy is to keep zebras as rare animals, so to speak, but I think that he rather overdoes it. He has refused at least one very reasonable application in Redhill of which I know.

My concern today, however, is much more with the villages and with the two which I have mentioned. Both Godstone and South Godstone are on the A.22. Godstone is also on the A.25. As far as I can ascertain, the accident record for these two villages over the last two years comprises three fatal accidents and 75 non-fatal accidents. Not all of these. of course, affected pedestrians. The God-stone Parish Council has been very active in raising this issue. It is supported in its attitude by all the organisations in the village and, indeed, by the whole population of about 3,000 people. They demand that some action should be taken to make it possible for the citizens to cross the road in safety.

Let me outline the circumstances for my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. Godstone is at the crossroads of the A.22 and A.25 roads. But the matter is not as simple as that. The A.25 comes into the village and joins the A.22 for about 400 yards—I speak from memory—-before it branches off again eastwards. Thus, Godstone, which is a straggling village about three-quarters of a mile long, bears the A.22 traffic, which is very considerable, and for a short way the traffic of the A.25 as well. This also happens to be the heart of the village. There is at the north end a roundabout which slows the traffic down slightly, but only the southward bound traffic.

There is another point in the middle of the village where it is proposed to introduce one-way working round an island site, but many people hazard the guess that, although this will make it safer in theory, it may make matters worse, because in one direction the traffic will be one-way and able to go much faster.

I do not suggest that the Ministry has been idle in this matter. It has been active, but so far obdurate. It turned down a proposal for two pedestrian crossings on the ground of inadequate use. A census of pedestrians was taken which showed that the volume was not sufficient to keep a crossing in regular use throughout the day. It showed that 14 people an hour were crossing at one point and 52 an hour at another, and on this ground the proposals were rejected. I understand that the police are not on the Ministry's side and that they would support a signal-operated crossing. However, the Ministry will not agree to this.

This census was, I think, unofficial. It covered one day only instead of seven days and, to make the matter slightly ridiculous, it was taken on a Monday, and I would hazard a guess that it was a wet Monday into the bargain, when traffic is normally at its lowest level anyway. Nor was it taken at the point where the crossing is most difficult, because over a stretch like this one must add not only those crossing at these particular points but those crossing at other points, pedestrian traffic which should be canalised into one or more crossings along the main road. I have stood there myself and noticed that the pedestrians tend to cross at several different points.

There is a faint ray of hope. First, there seems to be a likelihood that the county council may agree to a traffic island at one point. It has also been suggested —I should like confirmation of this—that when the Minister has made up his mind about the panda crossings he might consider putting one here; but this I must say is only rumour. But all this takes a very long time, and, meanwhile feeling is bitter, and rightly so. Opinion thinks that "they" are not doing enough, and "they", in this context, means the authorities—the Ministry, the county council, police—all lumped together, probably unjustly but it is a matter which causes intense feeling. If it is of any relevance, I may say that my file on this subject, and on the other village of South Godstone, weighs 1 lb. 2oz.

I should like to turn to the other village of South Godstone. I do not know whether by hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary ever goes to Lingfield Races. Apparently not. If he did, as he drove southward after passing Godstone—where I hope that in due course he will be held up by a panda crossing—he would find himself on a very fast stretch of open road on his way to Lingfield. Two miles to the south, he would come to a 40 m.p.h. sign. Being, of course, a considerate and careful driver, he would slow down. If he did, he would find himself passed by every other car on the road. That 40 m.p.h. sign indicates the village of South Godstone, which, I must explain, in parenthesis, is an entirely separate entity to Godstone. It is a comparatively new community which has, unfortunately, developed on both sides of this very fast road.

But the problem is the same as in Godstone, and, I think, the same as in dozens of other villages in the country, with this difference. There are fewer residents, the road is straighter and the traffic is much faster. The battle on this issue of the speed limit began between the village and myself, on the one side, and the Ministry, on the other, in 1958, when it first proposed to raise the speed limit from 30 to 40 m.p.h. This proposal was for a time abandoned on a procedural point. The Ministry had failed to comply with the not unreasonable requirement that a proposal to increase the speed limit should be advertised locally.

Such was the ignorance displayed of local conditions, that it elected to advertise this proposal, not in the Surrey Mirror, which circulates everywhere round about, but in a Kent newspaper—a newspaper from the next county—and defended this on the ground that this newspaper happened to be on sale in Godstone, on the relevant day. Godstone is a separate village and Surrey is a separate county, and such a defence could only be paralleled by publishing the London Gazette in the New York Times on the ground that it could be bought at W. H. Smith's.

Fortunately, as a result of this slightly ridiculous incident this proposal was abandoned, but, eventually, officialdom had its way, and the speed limit was raised to 40 m.p.h. Even this is academic, because the 40 m.p.h. limit is exceeded as the 30 m.p.h. was also. A few days ago, I was approaching the village at 40 m.p.h. and I found myself passed. by a coach going at about 50 m.p.h.—so much is heed paid to the sign! The proposal that I have referred to to increase the speed limit was approved by the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee without it, incidentally, ever inspecting the site as a committee, but relying on the fact that some of its members had driven along the Eastbourne road.

After the London Government Bill becomes law, we shall be able to deal with our own county council, and not with such a remote body. I wish that the Minister would instruct his representatives when these issues are put forward always to place themselves at the disposal of the local residents' association, or the parish council, or whoever it may be, to hear their views, and, if they disagree, to try to explain to them the reasons for the Minister's decision. Members of Parliament have to spend far too much of their time doing that job for the Ministry.

The problem of South Godstone is not dissimilar to that of Godstone. I have no doubt that many other hon. Members have similar problems in their constituencies. What I want the Minister to do is this: first, I think that he ought to look again at his policy of zebra crossings and relax it somewhat; not necessarily in built-up areas, but in the smaller villages and towns where the vehicle traffic is in excess of a certain amount.

We do not want a census only of pedestrians, but also of vehicles. This is a two-way problem. One may have only a few pedestrians an hour crossing, but if there is a lot of traffic it is almost impossible for them to cross. I could take my hon. Friend to many places where he would have to wait anything up to 10 minutes or a quarter of an hour to cross in reasonable safety, even if he is reasonably young, nimble and athletic. I do not want to seem to be exaggerating, but I doubt whether the Ministry understands the nature of the problem from the pedestrians' point of view. Zebras are as rare as diamonds—and about as useful.

My second point is that if he will not do what I have asked he might hurry up his review of the panda crossings. These might easily be the answer for the smaller communities. The third point is that I want him to instruct, as I have said, his officers that it is their job to make contact with those who are dissatisfied and hear their problems at first hand, bringing in the county councils and police where necessary.

People are not unreasonable, but they get angry and annoyed with authorities which are remote, impersonal and inaccessible. The Minister cannot cope with it all, and he cannot inspect and solve every problem. Not long ago I was asked to ask him to intervene. and the request was accompanied by an invitation to him to lunch of which he could not avail himself. But his staff might do more, even perhaps accepting an invitation to lunch.

Lastly, and perhaps the most important point of all. I should like to see an entirely new approach to the whole question of roads through villages. I know that where the classified roads are involved this is a matter for the county council as the county planning authority, and not the direct responsibility, or even the indirect responsibility, of the Ministry of Transport. But it ought to be Ministry policy, in conjunction, if necessary, with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, that all these communities lying on these important roads should be by-passed. whatever the cost may be.

It is no good tinkering with the problem, turning villages into speed tracks, dividing them into two with a flow of traffic, as Berlin is divided by a wall. Eventually, they will have to be bypassed, and the longer we delay, the greater the cost. Why not start now?

Perhaps I might be allowed to intervene, in what has been up to now really a constituency discussion, to mention the whole question of pedestrian crossings on trunk roads and through roads.

I believe that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us—I think I am right in believing that this is the policy of his right hon. Friend—that, first, where trunk and main through routes go through built-up communities, by-passing should be the final objective. I hope that until by-passing takes place he will seriously consider the fencing off of parts of roads used a great deal by pedestrians and insist on bridges and subways being erected or driven under. In this connection, I hope that the Minister will remember how important it is that these should

all have slopes rather than steps to enable people with perambulators, bath chairs and shopping baskets to make the journey over or under the road more easily.

A third plan, one of which I personally have seen a good deal, is that to be found on the roads passing through the trading estate in Slough, which has timed traffic lights. In that respect, again, I feel that if there is fencing, pedestrian crossings combined with timed traffic lights at the road intersections produce both an efficient answer to a problem and a comparatively cheap one. One could imagine that where there are a number of intersections one could have even a 50 m.p.h. timed traffic lights system, with the pedestrian being able to cross when the lights went red at the crossing. That is the ideal plan.

The Minister is causing a certain amount of concern in the constituencies by his very tough attitude towards the installation of new zebra crossings. In Pinner, opposite the library, and elsewhere in Harrow, we have been taking a census of the vehicles arid of the people crossing the roads, and we cannot get acceptance by the Minister of pedestrian crossings there.

This brings me to a point mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan)—panda crossings. I apologise to my right hon. Friend for not having been present when he began to speak, but it was because I was carrying out an on-the-spot investigation of the panda crossing outside Waterloo Station. I feel that the Minister would like to know about this investigation, which took place at 2.10 this afternoon, and I hope he will realise the utter bewilderment caused to both pedestrians and drivers using that stretch of road.

Frankly, I do not know what the rules are about those panda crossings. I believe that the drivers are encouraged to go across the crossing when the amber light is blinking. My previous experience with the police in connection with amber lights is that if they see one accelerating across a junction when the amber light comes on, either before the red or before the green, they take a very dim view of it. But in the case of the pandas it seems that the driver may go over the crossing when the amber light is blinking.

I would also draw the Minister's attention to the fact that at the Waterloo crossing not only does the amber light blink, but the red light and the "cross now" light are both throbbing all the time. Therefore, one has a red light going dim and strong and also a "cross now" light going dim and strong, which, I believe, adds to the confusion of all concerned. Also, if the panda experiment at Waterloo is to go on much longer, the panda zigzag must be repainted, because at the moment it is a mass of ordinary zebra stripes and panda dog tooth, which is very confusing.

I believe that the panda is a most undesirable new animal to have on the roads. I am sure that motorists are now used to the green, amber and red lights, and I cannot see at all the advantage of the panda crossing over the ordinary hand-operated pedestrian traffic light. With the ordinary crossing light one can have the light on green, and one can give warning beforehand that traffic lights are to come, and the motorist and the pedestrian are fully aware of the responsibilities which the signals place on them.

Also, I believe that it is unwise that hand-operated lights, either panda or otherwise, should be operated merely by means of one press on the button on the standard. The individual who wishes to cross should have to keep his finger firmly on the button until the light changes. Otherwise—this has constantly been the experience in Slough—a pedestrian presses the button, sees a gap in the traffic and dodges across the road, and then, after the light has changed, the traffic is held up, but no pedestrians are crossing.

I hope that the Minister will go ahead with his splendid by-passing plan. I should like to tell him that because of the Maidenhead and Slough by-pass it now takes me 10 to 15 minutes less time to get from my home to the House. I congratulate him on that excellent, well-laid-out and attractive road. I hope that my right hon. Friend will continue with this by-passing of major towns.

I also hope that my right hon. Friend will consider the fencing of the roads and the provision of over or under crossings, and timed traffic lights, and if he feels that hand-operated pedestrian lights are an advantage, I hope he will go for them and make an announcement soon that the panda will be discontinued, because I believe that many decisions are being held up in regard to the erection of traffic lights and the provision of traffic crossings while the Minister is thinking about the panda. I hope that my right hon. Friend will forget about the panda altogether.

Although my right hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir I. Vaughan-Morgan) spoke mainly about pedestrian crossings and other matters in his own constituency, he raised some general points on which I should like to support him most warmly.

One, in particular, was his suggestion that the approach of the Ministry towards the installation of pedestrian crossings needs looking at and that consideration should be given to the amount of traffic on the roads as well as the number of pedestrians who wish to cross it. Surely my right hon. Friend would agree that even if there are only two or three pedestrians who wish to cross, but there is a stream of traffic, the only way in which they can enforce their authority is to take the risk of stepping out into the road —and that is a risk to take sometimes, for they do not know whether the driver is going to stop or not. Consequently, I ask my right hon. Friend to bear in mind the number of vehicles using the roads, particularly during peak hours, because it makes it very difficult.

There is a place in Harrow Road, Sudbury, in my constituency, where there has been a desire to have a pedestrian crossing. It is opposite the entrance to the station. It has been refused on the ground that the number of people who would use it is not adequate. But the traffic there is very bad, certainly during the peak hours, and that is when people want to cross the road to go to the station.

I support what my right hon. Friend said about the speed limit in general. He said that he was passed not only by a coach but, I think, by a lorry. I myself have been passed in 30 m.p.h. areas by lorries exceeding that limit. Frankly, I think that the worst offenders against the speed limits are the drivers of minicars, who go all over the place without worrying about any speed limit. In the London area in recent months the

speed limit, whether 30 m.p.h. or 40 m.p.h., has been abused more than at any time I can remember. The Ministry will have to make up its mind whether it will try to enforce the speed limit, or what is to be done about it.

Would my hon. Friend really say that the drivers of minicars are the worst offenders? Does he put them above gravel lorry drivers? I think that they are an absolute menace, and always feel that they should have special treatment.

I have not noticed particularly whether they were gravel lorries or not, but I agree that plenty of lorry drivers do abuse the speed limits, even the 30 m.p.h. limit.

To come back to pedestrian crossings, the last thing I want to say, although it is not quite within the Minister's responsibility, is that there are no crossings in the Royal Parks in London. I have often wondered why. I know that the parks come within the responsibility of the Minister of Public Building and Works, but as traffic regulations are the prerogative of the Minister of Transport, I should have thought that he would have some control over the regulation of traffic in the Royal Parks.

I think that we have had an interesting debate on this problem of pedestrians crossing busy roads. My right hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan), in introducing it, as well as making particular points regarding his own constituency, made some general remarks on the subject, and I think that it may be helpful to the House if I preface my reply with some observations on the broad principles which guide my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport in the decisions that he has to make. That may also help my hon. Friends the Members for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) and Wembley, South (Mr. Russell), who have intervened in the debate.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Reigate said, the situation on the roads has, of course, changed dramatically in recent years. Not long ago it used to be possible for people to cross the roads more or less whenever they wanted and wherever they wanted. Now it is becoming increasingly difficult with the rapid growth of motor traffic.

Because of this some restrictions on what we can do on the roads and when we can do it are inevitable, for the motor vehicle has become a fact of life which has to be lived with; and to live with it easily what is wanted is understanding by the pedestrian and courtesy by the driver. The pedestrian must realise that he can no longer expect to cross busy roads whenever he wants to, and the driver must learn to respect the pedestrian and give way whenever facilities for the pedestrian require him to do this. The need for both these attitudes is obvious.

The figures for accidents show that last year 2,681 pedestrians were killed and nearly 69,560 more were injured. Although these figures are about the same as they were in 1961, casualties to pedestrians have increased by an average rate of about 3 per cent. a year over the last ten years. These increasing totals of pedestrian casualties show the very great need to secure better safety regulations for pedestrians, and I can assure the House that, in spite of the apparent opinion of my hon. Friends, this matter is of the very greatest concern to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.

There are two ways in which, I think, he. as Minister of Transport, can help to secure greater safety, first, by physical methods, and secondly, by organisational methods. By physical methods I mean the building of by-passes, subways, footbridges—which were referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West—and refuges. As my right hon. Friend said in opening the debate, bypasses are one of the best solutions for villages and small towns which have busy roads going through them. A good many of these have been built and others are in course of building, and still more are being planned, but by-passes are expensive, and, unfortunately, we cannot concentrate ail our funds on this solution when new motorways and urban traffic congestion make increasingly heavy demands on our finances. I am sure that the House will understand that.

Another effective measure—

I do not think that my hon. Friend has seized my point.

It may be that a by-pass is expensive now, but if the volume of traffic increases we shall have to have by-passes eventually and what I was asking was that he should instruct county councils that they should consider the provision of by-passes before widening roads through villages.

I am coming on to something which may go some way to meet my right hon. Friend—to a suggestion which may help.

I was saying that another effective measure is the construction of subways and bridges, but these require a considerable amount of space because of ramps, so they are really impracticable in crowded shopping centres. Where complete segregation like this is not possible, a refuge in the centre of the road is a help since it permits pedestrians to cross the road in two stages. Refuges are also of assistance to motorists when they are turning against oncoming traffic. A great many of these refuges have been provided throughout the country, but sometimes the condition of the road makes even this solution impossible, if the road is too narrow to allow it.

I am coming later on to the points raised by my right hon. Friend about his constituency. So much, in general terms, for the physical means which are available. I should now like to turn to the organisational methods of helping pedestrians. These comprise alterations of traffic flow, signal-controlled pedestrian crossings, zebra crossings and panda crossings. One method of traffic control is to make streets one-way. This halves the volume of traffic, and, since pedestrians have only to look in one direction, this, I think, is a help to them. I quite agree with my right hon. Friend that there may be certain places where it is not a help, but there are places where obviously it does help.

As for the pedestrian crossings, these take four forms, depending on the volume of motor and pedestrian traffic. Where these are very great, police-controlled crossings are the answer. Next come signal-controlled crossings. These are of two types, the pedestrian-operated traffic lights and automatic signals with an all-red period for pedestrians to cross in.

Lastly, there are the uncontrolled zebra crossings, which I must discuss in some detail because, obviously, there is a good deal of pressure from local people for these, as my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friends have shown this afternoon. Indeed, I was a little hurt when my right hon. Friend said that he thought our policy had little relevance to reality. I hope that I shall be able to show him that it has great relevance to reality. The assumption seems to be that my right hon. Friend the Minister refuses permission to erect zebra crossings because he is not sufficiently concerned with the safety of pedestrians. I cannot emphasise too strongly that this belief is utterly wrong, and I shall try to convince my hon. Friends of this.

Zebra crossings were first introduced in 1935. They spread rapidly, and everyone thought they were a panacea for all pedestrian troubles, but by the late 1940s there were so many of them that drivers scarcely paid any attention to them and they became a danger instead of a help. Because of this, in 1951 the number was cut deliberately by two-thirds, and since then observance of them has been good. This shows that too many zebra crossings actually endanger safety. It is this fact which has made my right hon. Friend the Minister examine most carefully all sites proposed for zebra crossings to make sure that they are provided only where they are really justified, because if they are provided where they are not really justified they tend to devalue the currency—the value of them.

That completes the picture of measures at present operating to help pedestrians, but, as the House knows, we are not stopping there. Other possibilities are under examination. There is the panda experiment. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West for the facts which he produced and his personal interest in the matter. The results of the panda experiments which were carried out on 50 sites in the United Kingdom are being analysed now, and the conclusions of this analysis will be reported to my right hon. Friend later in the summer. I must decline the invitation of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West. I do not want to say anything now in advance that might prejudice the decision about them. It is much better to wait until the experiment has been fully analysed.

I can, however, say something to my hon. Friend which he may be pleased to know. That is, that we hope to start a new experiment to help pedestrians before the end of the year. This will necessitate the regulation of both motorists and pedestrians in the interests of safety. On three busy shopping streets in London, crossing places with traffic lights will be provided about every ND yards. The traffic lights will ensure complete safety, but pedestrians will be required to cross only at the established crossing place and only when the pedestrian signal is in their favour. This, however, is clearly a system that is workable only where there is the heaviest flow of both traffic and pedestrians and I do not regard it as suitable for areas such as those to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Reigate referred.

So much for the general picture. I turn now to some of the particular problems raised by my right hon. Friend concerning his constituency and I will try to answer them. I have not weighed the minutes in the Department, but I am sure that they are at least as heavy as the papers which my right hon. Friend has. His main concern, as he explained persuasively, is with the difficulties in crossing the High Street in Godstone. My right hon. Friend has been in fairly constant touch with the Department on this problem and, as a result, traffic conditions have been thoroughly investigated, both by our traffic engineers and by the highway authority, which is the Surrey County Council.

I agree that there is a lot of traffic on the A.22 in the High Street, especially where it also carries traffic from the A.25. It may well be, as my right hon. Friend suggested, that the long-term solution for Godstone lies in a by-pass, but, for the reasons which I have explained earlier, any such solution must inevitably be some way ahead. I am sure that if my right hon. Friend adds up the number of all the villages which are in much the same position as his own, he will agree to that.

Neither a subway nor a footbridge is a practical solution, nor, indeed, do the numbers of pedestrians wishing to cross the High Street justify either of these measures. The county engineer has, however, been looking into other possible solutions. One of these is the widening of A.22 near the "Old Surrey Hounds" public house to accommodate a central refuge. Another possibility is a realignment of the A.25 on the Western side of A.22 so that it crosses straight over the A.22. This would Dot exactly be a by-pass, but it would take a great deal of the traffic off the A.22. Because of its cost, however, even this, if practicable, is bound to be a fairly long-term project. So much for the physical methods of helping Godstone.

I turn now to the organisational methods. As my right hon. Friend knows, we are introducing one-way working on Godstone Green when the road has been widened. I understand that the county council expects to start work on this next week. The one-way system will, we believe, mean that there will be less traffic on this part of the High Street and this should make things easier for pedestrians. At least, we can see what happens after the one-way working starts to operate.

I am sorry to say that I do not think that pedestrian-operated signals would be suitable in the High Street. As my right hon. Friend has said, the Chief Constable of Surrey favours this solution, but in our view there is too much vehicular traffic and too little pedestrian traffic for this form of crossing. In spite of this difference of opinion on the matter, however, both the police and our engineers agree on one thing, and that is that a zebra crossing should not be provided.

The results of a pedestrian census taken last September showed that the number of people wishing to cross the High Street is not sufficient to keep a pedestrian crossing in regular use throughout the day. Counts were taken at what we regarded as the most popular crossing points. If my right hon. Friend suggests that this was unofficial—which I cannot understand, since it was carried out by the Surrey County Council—f would be quite willing to arrange for a similar inquiry to be carried out again to make certain that our figures are accurate.

I am grateful for that suggestion from my hon. Friend. The point is that, to be relevant, the census must be taken over a week.

The census is normally done on single days, but I will look into my right hon. Friend's suggestion. I cannot bind myself any more than that.

The census was carried out in September. It is curious how, whenever a census is taken and produces the wrong answer, it is said to have been done at the wrong time. Near the "Old Surrey Hounds" public house, the maximum number of pedestrians crossing the road was 94 per hour, and at Salisbury Road 24 per hour. At other times of the day the numbers were considerably less, reducing to a minimum of 23 at the "Old Surrey Hounds" and five at Salisbury Road. This was in the middle of the day.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend, who has been very fair in this matter, will agree that those are fairly low figures. They indicate that a pedestrian crossing at this site would be used only very little; and although little-used crossings might bring benefit to a few pedestrians locally they are bound ultimately to reduce the safety value of better-used crossings elsewhere. in the same way as they did before 1951. That is why my right hon. Friend the Minister has to be so strict before authorising zebra crossings.

Indeed, even when there are a good many more pedestrians than there are in Godstone, my right hon. Friend has had to refuse permission—for example, in the High Road at Chadwell Heath. where in peak periods 250 people an hour cross the road, with an average of 122 per hour during the day. This is a busy road with traffic volumes of about 1,500 vehicles per hour. But, even so, my right hon. Friend was not able to agree to a pedestrian crossing being provided. I hope that it may be some consolation to the constituents of my right hon. Friend to learn that they have not been singled out for particularly harsh treatment and that other towns are in a worse position than Godstone.

We have not yet completed our examination of the results of the panda experiment, to which both my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West referred. All I can say at this stage, therefore. is that I will undertake to consider the possibility of, perhaps, introducing one later, but I certainly cannot give any sort of promise or undertaking.

My right hon. Friend spoke also about South Godstone. The county council is widening the road here and it intends to provide a central refuge at the northern end of the village. If the speed limit is being exceeded, this, it seems to me, is really a matter for enforcement by the police, not something for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.

In passing, my right hon. Friend mentioned Bletchingley. Perhaps I should say a few words about this. The question is: what should be done with the A.25 here? At present, the county council is considering improving the road. Originally, the council proposed to make it a three-lane carriageway, but it is now having second thoughts. The key question really is: what effect will the South Orbital Road have when it is built? I emphasise the word "when" because, as my right hon. Friend knows, this is still in the planning stage.

Also, even if it were built tomorrow, this would not of itself turn the A.25 into a pleasant country road. I do not think that the road could be left as it is. Whatever happened to the South Orbital Road, it would have to be improved. The only question is to what standard, and this is a question which the Surrey County Council as highway authority and the Ministry of Transport are trying to determine together.

I emphasise the word "together", because my right hon. Friend made the very interesting suggestion that the Department should play a rather more active part in helping to solve local road problems. I was interested in this, because the line usually taken is that local people know best and that, if anything, the Minister interferes too much. Indeed, I thought that, at an earlier stage in his speech, my right hon. Friend was suggesting that we were not, perhaps, paying sufficient attention to local matters.

I am sorry if my words were not quite clear. I was speaking of two different things. There are the trunk roads and there is the A.25, which is a classified road. I realise that the county council is the town planning authority and the highway authority in this connection, and I certainly did not wish to give any impression to the contrary.

Yes. Perhaps I began by misunderstanding my right hon. Friend, but I think that I got on the same wavelength later on. I shall certainly consider what he has said, but we must be careful to preserve the proper relationship between central and local government, ensuring that the gentleman from Whitehall does not interfere too much.

As it is, the Minister's divisional road engineers, who are his eyes and ears, have a close, harmonious and, I believe, fruitful relationship with their counterparts in the local authorities. I believe that the relationship is probably the right one. However, as I have said, I shall consider carefully what my right hon. Friend has said and discuss it with the Minister of Transport.

I think that I have covered most of the points raised by my right hon. Friend and my two hon. Friends. I hope that this short review of the principles which guide the Minister of Transport and of their interpretation in regard to the two particular roads in my right hon. Friend's constituency of Reigate will show the House that we in the Department are by no means complacent and that, all the time, we strive to find new solutions which will secure greater safety for the pedestrian and also steady progress along the road for the motorist.

There are special circumstances now, and, in them, I am prepared to call the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice), provided that the leave of the House be given.

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I seek to speak again, having spoken in an earlier debate.

Perhaps it is worth recalling that the earlier debate was a wide one relating to the future financing of the United Nations. The subject I am now raising concerns one individual in my constituency. It is, I think, typical of the way the House ranges over a number of subjects on a day such as this that two such widely different matters should come be fore it. It is part of the strength of our Parliamentary institutions that we have debates here about individuals, and the House traditionally has been very concerned about injustice, or apparent injustice. to one person. This is right because we should have regard to the fact that, if one man is treated unfairly, this is not only an injustice to him but it contains a potential threat to others as well.

My submission is that Mr. Ernest Sadler, a 47-year-old ex-Service man living in my constituency, has been treated very unfairly as regards his war disability pension. Mr. Sadler joined the Army about thirty years ago as a very young man. He joined in 1933 and he served until he was discharged unfit for service in 1944. He was a very fit young man when he joined in 1933 and was still fit, graded as Al, when he was posted to India in 1938. It was while he was in India that he contracted bronchitis, bronchial asthma and emphysema, from which he has suffered ever since. He remained in the Army until 1944. He was in Egypt for a while, and his condition was complicated by the fact that he suffered from sandfly fever. He was finally discharged in 1944, grade E, suffering from bronchitis and the other associated complaints.

He applied for a war disability pension in 1944, and this was rejected. Later in the summer his Member of Parliament wrote to the Minister of Pensions. The matter was reviewed again, but the rejection was again upheld. In November, 1950, the British Legion made an approach to the Ministry of Pensions, as a result of which the evidence was again considered, but again his claim to a war disability pension was rejected. It was the view of the Ministry's medical division then, as it had been in 1944, that his complaint was neither attributable to his war service, nor aggravated by his war service.

In August last, Mr. Sadler wrote to Her Majesty the Queen referring to the matter again. As a result of that letter, the Ministry again investigated the matter and there was a further medical examination by the Ministry's doctors, and then a different view of the case was taken. The Minister then made an award based on what was then the view of his medical advisers. This view was that the disability was not attributable to service, but that it had been and remained aggravated by service. On that basis Mr. Sadler was awarded a 30 per cent. disability pension.

The question at issue is whether that pension should have been back-dated to 1944. The House will recognise that I am talking now of a period of 18 years, from 1944 to 1962. In my submission, in all fairness and justice, it should be back-dated to 1944. There is one point on which I am bound to carry the Joint Parliamentary Secretary with me. The Ministry's doctors in 1962 having decided that in their view then the balance of medical evidence favoured the claim, we must assume—and Mr. Sadler was entitled to the assumption—that from 1944 onwards his condition was aggravated by war service. As I understand the Royal Warrant, this must be the case if he is entitled to a pension now. The basic decision was that his condition was aggravated when he left the Forces, and has been aggravated ever since.

Although the doctors who considered this took a different view, it is the most recent medical view which prevails, and we must all make the assumption that since 1944 this man's disability has been aggravated by war service. If the doctors in 1944 had come to the same conclusion as the other doctors in 1962 came to, he would have been in receipt of a war disability pension during the intervening period. I think that most fair-minded people would assume that this would entitle him to back payment for the intervening years.

I want to examine the reasons given to me by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary why this cannot be allowed. The hon. and gallant Gentleman wrote to me on 28th February, and I quote this extract from his letter:

"This was in accordance with the provisions of the War Pensions Instruments which lay down that pensions shall not normally be awarded for any period before the date of application or appeal as a result of which an award is made. We could exercise discretion only if the claimant were prevented by very exceptional circumstances, such as serious or prolonged illness, from claiming or appealing earlier."

Looking further into that, I consulted the Royal Warrant of May, 1949, which governs these cases. Paragraph 61 of the Royal Warrant deals with arrears and says:

"Except in so far as the Minister may otherwise direct with respect to any particular case or class of case, payment of a pension shall not be made in respect of any period preceding the date of the application or appeal as a result of which the claim to the award of the pension, or as the case may be, to the continuance or resumption of the payment of the pension, is accepted."

The words which I wish to emphasise are "except in so far as the Minister may otherwise direct". The Royal Warrant does not set out precisely the rules and the cases in which there shall be back-dating or shall not be backdating. There are no precise rules in legislation or regulations. I appreciate that rules have grown up as a custom within a Ministry to distinguish between one case and another, but there is nothing which precludes the Minister from awarding back payment in this case. There is no legislation on which he can rely in telling the House that he is unable to make a back payment in this case. He has discretion, and it is discretion which he uses in thousands of cases. Certain rules have come to be followed. If in Mr. Sadler's case the Minister has followed rules similar to those used in other cases, then I suggest that the rules are too harsh, and if anything said about this matter will benefit future cases, that will be a very good thing indeed.

I have told the hon. and gallant Gentleman that I intended to refer to a similar case which was reported in the Press about the same time as Mr. Sadler wrote to me. Indeed, he drew my attention to it. It is related to a man in Romford, Essex, Mr. Alderson, who was 51 years old and who also in 1962 was awarded a disability pension arising from his service in the Royal Navy—a pension which had previously, I understand, been rejected. Mr. Alderson was given back-dating. He received a back payment of fl,200. The report reads,

"A Ministry of Pensions spokesman said: `Back-dating of pension awards is very unusual, but this was a really exceptional case'. Mr. Niall Macpherson, the Minister of Pensions, admitted in his letter to Alderson that he had broken a rule. 'In this case I feel the award is appropriate', he said."

I do not know the details of the case, and I appreciate that some circumstances may be different, but I quote it to indicate that there are cases in which the Minister awards back payment. I submit that this should be done in the case before us. I suggest that the rule against general backdating is reasonable in cases in which a man has not bothered to apply. It seems to me that the fact that the Royal Warrant allows men to apply for a pension at any time, no matter how long afterwards, means that there must be some safeguard against excessive backdating to men who never bothered to make an application at all.

If Mr. Sadler had made his first application for pension in 1962, no one would quarrel with the decision that he was not entitled to have it back-dated, but he applied to 1944, and the British Legion took the matter up on his behalf again in 1950; and the medical facts were the same in 1944, 1950 and 1962. It is simply a question that the doctors who looked at the facts interpreted them in a different way in 1962 from those doctors who had considered them previously. Therefore, this is a man who had not neglected to make application. He had applied. I think that he had a clear case for having his pension back-dated.

But what seems to be the point against him—as far as I can make out, the only point against him—is that in 1951, on the second occasion that he was told that his case had failed, he was notified of his right to appeal, and he did not appeal. That seems to me to be the case against him—that he neglected to use his right to appeal to the pensions appeal tribunal. Naturally, I have taken this matter up with Mr. Sadler. and he tells me that he has been unaware all along of his right of appeal. When I raised the matter with the Ministry I was informed that he was notified of his rights of appeal, and I have been sent a photostat copy of a notice sent to him on 4th August, 1951. This is a fairly small piece of paper, and towards the bottom of it are two paragraphs in very small print, measuring in depth less than I inch, which tell him that appeal lies under Section 1(1) of the Pension Appeals Tribunals Act, 1943.

I remind the Parliamentary Secretary that it must be in his experience, as it is in mine, that, though there may be a formal notification of this kind on forms sent to applicants for pensions, it is not unusual for people in these circumstances not to understand their rights. Before I entered the House I was in charge of the advice and service bureau of my trade union, and I handled a large number of war pension appeals, many of which I argued before the pensions appeal tribunal. I found it to be very common indeed that people receiving that kind of notification did not really know where they stood and did not really understand what the procedure was. Having had the notification, they would say afterwards that they were not aware that they had had it.

This may be their fault. It may be said against Mr. Sadler or against someone else that he should have known, that people are assumed to understand official documents, and that people are assumed anyway to know what legal rights they have. I can only say that if Mr. Sadler's case falls on that ground it is a very legalistic and very harsh ruling indeed. After all, if he did understand his right to appeal, surely it is a right and not a duty to appeal. It is entirely wrong to penalise a man and deprive him of something to which any reasonable person would say he is entitled, merely because he failed to exercise a right. It is something which is voluntary.

People whose applications for pensions are turned down are offered the right of appeal if they wish, but they have no obligation to appeal. If a man has been told twice that he has no right to a pension, he might assume—this is not applicable in this case, but it might be in some cases —that there was no point in proceeding to a pensions appeal tribunal. That is a decision on which a man will have his own opinions. I do not think that he should be penalised one way or the other.

In fact, Mr. Sadler has been quite persistent about this. He has taken up the matter through several different channels over the years and I feel fairly sure that, if he had fully understood his right of appeal, he would have exercised it. The fact is that he did not. This is far too narrow a reason for depriving him of a pension to which he has a right.

I have raised this matter before in correspondence with the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. I have raised it at Question Time. The hon. Gentleman has been quite inflexible on the point. I put to him now one further argument which I have not put to him before but which has occurred to me on a further study of

the papers. When Mr. Sadler applied in 1944 there was at that moment, as I understand it, no automatic right of appeal. The case against him is that he failed to appeal in 1951. If he bad not had his case taken up by the British Legion in 1950, and if the only approaches to the Ministry had been the approach in 1944 and then the approach in 1962, it could not be said against him that he had been told of a right of appeal but had not used that right.

Then, if I interpret the Ministry's communications correctly, he might well have had this eighteen years back-dated pension. If I am wrong, perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will tell me that I am wrong. If I am right in my submission, it means that Mr. Sadler has been penalised simply because the British Legion happened to make an approach on his behalf in 1950 and all that flowed from that.

indicated dissent.

The Parliamentary Secretary shakes his head. Perhaps he will tell me where I am wrong.

It seems to me that this whole case hinges on a very narrow point. This man has served his country well. He served in the Forces for eleven years, having joined at a very early age. He has been awarded the George Medal for loyal service to the country. Since 1944 he has been plagued by this serious illness. All the time this illness, we must now assume, is an illness which was aggravated by his war service. For some years now he has been largely dependent on his wife, who has been running for him and for the children a small second-hand furniture business in my constituency. She herself has been in bad health recently. I need hardly remind the Parliamentary Secretary what this backdating would mean to this family in human terms. I should have thought that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister considering this case would have said, "Can we possibly find a way of making this back payment?" instead of which it seems that they would rather consider the matter the other way round and see an excuse for not making it. This is mean, and if that meanness is according to precedent, the Ministry has been mean in the past; and it is about time that it was stopped.

There is nothing in legislation or the Royal Warrant which precludes the Minister from awarding a back payment in this case. I urge the Ministry, even at this late stage, to look at this case again to see whether the matter cannot be interpreted in favour of this applicant. I am sure that any fair-minded person would say that a man who has been disabled all these years by his service to the nation and who has suffered accordingly should have his pension backdated.

The last thing we set out to do is to be mean. In fact, we always lean over backwards to try to find ways of helping pensioners where the way is not immediately obvious. On the other hand, we must be fair to the generality of pensioners—and to make exceptions in special cases would make for unfairness to pensioners in general.

Before outlining the case and giving the reasons why we are unable to do what the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) has asked us to do, I will answer some of the points he has made and tell him why I think he is wrong in them. Early in his speech he said that Mr. Sadler had applied in 1944. This is not so. He was invalided out of the service before the war had ended. He did not claim then, but the Ministry, on its own initiative, treated a letter from Mr. Sadler to his hon. Member at that time, which was concerned solely with raising funds to carry on business on his own account, as a claim for pension for any disablement incurred during his Service.

We treated that letter as a claim and that was the first occasion on which Mr. Sadler was notified that we could not accept the claim, and that even at that early date he had rights of appeal. These rights of appeal date from the Pensions Appeal Tribunals Act, 1943, a year before this happened. On the form which Mr. Sadler was sent in 1944 there was a notification that he had rights of appeal under Section 1(1) of that Act.

The hon. Member for East Ham, North then referred to another case. I can assure him that the two cases are not comparable. The difference, briefly, is this. In the other case the pensioner, through what was accepted to be a mental disease, was not aware of his rights. On two separate occasions he failed to appear before a tribunal, either because he had forgotten or, perhaps, because he did not appreciate that he had been asked to do so. In reviewing the case we accepted the fact that he was so mentally afflicted as to be incapable of acting in his own best interests, and we were able to back date his claim for a number of years. In the case of Mr. Sadler, there is no question of any form of mental disease which would make such a course of action possible.

The hon. Member then referred to the documents which we send to pensioners and, in particular, to the Ministry of Pensions form stating that the claim had been turned down, Form MPB203F. He said that towards the bottom of the page there were two small paragraphs stating the details of how an appeal could be made. That is perfectly true. They are the two last paragraphs on the page above the signature. I would have thought that they were in a fairly conspicuous position on the page, but they are not the only references to the rights of appeal.

If the form is turned over, on the other side in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5, it will be seen that there are references to rights of appeal and to how the applicant, if he wishes to seek assistance, should get that assistance in drawing up his application for appeal. I do not think that anybody who can read normally can possibly argue that the receipt of such a form would not convey to him that he had very considerable rights of appeal.

Would not the hon. and gallant Gentleman agree from his own experience as a Member of Parliament, which is similar to that of all of us, that many people who are very intelligent and literate are nevertheless baffled by the requirements to use certain procedures notified to them in forms of this kind, whether Inland Revenue or pensions administration or other forms of administration? Do we not constantly have that sort of experience? Does not this, therefore, amount to a very narrow reason for preventing a man from getting the backdating to which he would otherwise be entitled?

I quite agree. I find myself that official forms are exceedingly confusing and I agree that members of the public are frequently confused by them. On the other hand, we went out of our way with this form to say to the applicant:

"Should you wish to seek assistance or advice in connection with an appeal to the tribunal it can be obtained…"

and then there are given details of those from whom assistance and advice can be obtained. I do not think that we could go further than that.

I think that I have covered the hon. Member's question about the appeal of 1944 in my earlier remarks.

I have tried to explain the rules which we have to follow in these cases of back-dating. We have to lay down these rules in order to be fair between one pensioner and another. There are three main rules in this connection. If a man is suffering from physical or mental incapacity to such a degree that it makes him incapable of pursuing a claim, or making an appeal, then we take that into account and allow arrears to be paid. Secondly, if there are exceptional geographical reasons, for instance, that a claimant has had to be away in Australia or South America or somewhere else and was thereby unable to claim, we would make allowances for that. Thirdly, if some action or omission on our part had clearly misled the claimant, or if there had been some wrong procedure, obviously we would allow arrears to be paid. Obviously, if there had been some clerical error or error in the interpretation of medical evidence, or something of that nature, we would allow arrears to be paid. In this case there is none of these three and, therefore, we have had to turn the claim down.

I should like to give a brief summary of what has happened. Mr. Sadler was invalided out of the Army in 1944, when the war was still on. The Ministry at that time found on the evidence available that his disability, which was bronchitis with severe bronchial attacks, was not due to or aggravated by his service. He himself did not claim at that time. but on our own initiative we treated a letter which had been received by his Member of Parliaments as a claim, as I have already mentioned. Formal notifications of the rejection of this claim were sent to Mr. Sadler on three occasions in 1944, but on each occasion the form was returned, as apparently he had changed his address and the postal authorities were unable to trace him.

Mr. Sadler, however, allowed six years to pass before coming forward again, in 1950. His case was considered again and a formal notice of rejection was sent to him in 1951 setting out his rights of appeal to the pensions appeal tribunal. He later claimed that he had not received this notification, but it was not returned to us by the postal authorities, as earlier notifications had been. Moreover, he was told on the form of this 1951 notification that his case was being referred to the Royal Hospital, Chelsea, for consideration in connection with a pension claim for service between the wars, for which the Ministry of Pensions is not responsible. He mentioned this reference in a subsequent petition to the Queen, and this seems to imply that he must have received the notification, otherwise he would have had no knowledge of the reference of his claim to the Royal Hospital, Chelsea.

Mr. Sadler then allowed eleven years to pass before he came forward again, in July last year. We, in July, 1962, gave further consideration to his representations and a different medical opinion was sought. We were still unable to accept that his condition was attributable to his war service, because there was a long history of chest trouble before his war service and he admitted that this dated from an attack of pneumonia at the age of approximately seven years.

As to the question of aggravation of his complaint, the records show that Mr. Sadler's war service had not been strenouous but, bearing in mind that he had been invalided during the war, and taking the most sympathetic view, we were able to give him the benefit of the doubt and accept that his disability had been aggravated by war service. We were then able to award him a pension at the 30 per cent. rate.

A disability of 30 per cent. is not a remarkable thing in a man of nearly forty years of age with a long history of chest trouble going back to childhood. There was very real doubt whether his disablement, from this constitutional and progressive condition, would have been any less if Mr. Sadler had not served in the Army. On this history there are no grounds on which the Minister would be justified in exercising his discretion to pay arrears back to 1944.

Mr. Sadler has allowed two periods, one of six years and another of eleven years, to pass without coming forward. There is no evidence, nor does he claim it, that he was prevented by illness, mental incapacity or any other special reason from pursuing his case with the Ministry or taking it to a pensions appeal tribunal like any other disappointed claimant would do. Even if, despite indications to the contrary, it is maintained that he did not receive our notification of 1951, surely, hearing nothing from the Ministry all that time, he could have inquired in his own interests. Nor is there any evidence that he was misled by the Ministry by way of wrong advice in connection with his claim. Nor, finally, has it been established that the earlier Ministry decisions were clearly wrong by the standards of the time.

Surely it is now the assumption—it must be—that this complaint was aggravated by war service from 1944 onwards, and therefore the earlier Ministry decisions, although they may have been reasonable decisions on the evidence, have been overruled. We are talking about a condition which has been aggravated throughout this period. I would hope that this is common ground between us.

I am afraid it is not common ground that in July, 1962, when we accepted that the condition was aggravated by war service, necessarily means that on the evidence it must have been aggravated by war service some years previously. This is a clear-cut case, because bronchitis, as we all know, is a progressive disease. It can get worse; and it can get better. I do not think there is any evidence to show that the previous decision by the Ministry's doctors was erroneous. If there were any evidence to show that, we would be allowed by our rules to accept Lint we had given an erroneous decision and we would pay arrears, but there is no evidence that that has happened.

I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for giving way to me again. I have one of the Ministry's forms and the wording is:

"…that the disability has been and remains aggravated by war service."

Therefore, there must be this assumption, now that the decision has been made in his favour, that the condition was aggravated in 1944.

No. At any point of time one can say that a condition has been aggravated by something that happened in the past, by his war service, but to say that does not necessarily mean that six months before that point in time, or 11 years—as it would be in this case—before that point in time, the condition was then aggravated by something that had happened in the past. I think we can be quite clear on that point. It is an interpretation of the two words "has been". It is the condition which "has been" aggravated; it is not the aggravation going back over a number of years.

Whether an appeal to the pensions appeal tribunal, had it been made at any time in the past, would have succeeded must be a matter for speculation, but it would be very unfair to the generality of pensioners who follow the procedure correctly—sometimes without advice but, of course, more often with advice—and who appeal to the tribunal and have to be turned down by the tribunal. But to put Mr. Sadler in a position where we say hypothetically that had he appealed to a tribunal it is very likely that his appeal would not have been turned down, and to pay him the arrears of pension assuming that the hypothetical had happened some years previously, would be very unfair to the generality of pensioners who follow the procedure quite correctly.

In what way unfair?

Because they have followed the procedure and have been turned down by a previous pensions appeal tribunal. To give a man advantage because he did not follow the procedure and to make a guess and say that had he done so perhaps the pensions appeal tribunal would have upheld his appeal would be grossly unfair to all those whose appeals had been turned down by tribunals.

I am afraid that we must keep to the rules in this case. We are always willing to reopen and re-examine these disability cases. We have done so as sympathetically as we possibly could in this case, and we can see no fair grounds for granting Mr. Sadler the arrears of pension.