I rise to draw attention to the case of Mr. Robert Dirk Smith, a South African citizen aged 23. In so doing I must declare an interest, as is appropriate in the House. It is well known that I have been associated for a number of years with the David Brown Corporation, and I am proud so to be. If other people's export records had been as good as ours this country would be in a very different situation.

I want to refer to the problem of Mr. Dirk Smith as briefly as I can, and I shall try to deal with it in the most factual fashion possible and to make it clear to the Government that I am not trying to push them into a corner. There will be plenty of other days when we can try to push them into a corner. This is not the day. Today is the day to deal with this problem. The problem is complicated to the extent that Mr. Robert Dirk Smith is the stepson of Mr. Ian Smith, of Rhodesian fame. He was born a South African citizen of a South African father, and has only adopted the name of Smith.

The situation is as follows. Mr. Robert Dirk Smith came to this country on 5th April as a visitor. Some time in the middle of April he was walking along Piccadilly when he saw the David Brown Corporation offices. He went in and asked for a job as a graduate trainee. I should explain that he is 23, and was educated in Rhodesia and at the University of Cape Town, where he has a B.Sc. in mechanical engineering. He held various student jobs in vacation employment in mining and engineering and in other engineering plants in Europe.

Mr. Smith was visiting this country and, I understand, came to like it and felt that he would like to stay here and have an opportunity to study some of our technological skill. When he walked into the David Brown offices, I do not think that anyone there had the slightest idea that he had anything to do with his stepfather or with Rhodesia. It was only later that we learned this.

When the application was made through the normal channels the Manager of Training and Management Development in the David Brown Corporation, Mr. J. S. Hudson, consulted both the local office of the Department of Employment and Productivity and the Home Office. He consulted Mr. Anderson on extension 236 in the Home Office. Mr. Hudson was informed that it was possible for an application to be made, was given guidance as to how it should be made, and was informed by both the Home Office and the Department of Employment and Productivity—he has given me this assurance himself—that it was not necessary for Mr. Smith to leave the country to make an application, that the form of entry by which he had entered this country could be transferred if it was done under a suitable form. The only form under which it can be done is form AR 1 (ST)—the " ST " stands for student trainee.

The application was submitted, and on 21st April a reply was received from the Home Office. The application was made to the Home Office because in normal circumstances it takes about three weeks for it to be dealt with, and Mr. Hudson was advised by the Home Office that if the application was made to it directly the whole affair could be expedited, as Mr. Smith was here for only a month and was due to leave on 4th May. On 27th April the David Brown Corporation received a reply from the Home Office saying:

" Dear Sir,

Thank you for sending the passport relating to Robert Dirk Smith…

We are dealing with the matter and the documents mentioned above will be returned as soon as possible.

Meanwhile this letter may be regarded as authority for the holder to remain in the United Kingdom pending a decision on any application made for an extension to his stay."

That was the last the David Brown Corporation heard of the matter until some strange things happened in the middle of May. On 15th May a gentleman alleging that he was a South African who had arrived from Paris telephoned Mr. Hudson and spoke about wanting to get in touch with Mr. Smith, whom the David Brown Corporation was employing. Mr. Hudson explained that it was not employing him at that moment. Mr. Hudson made subsequent inquiries of Mr. Smith, who had no knowledge of this South African. On 16th May, a local reporter appeared at the David Brown Corporation offices seeking information about Mr. Smith on behalf of theSunday MirrorOn 17th May. an article appeared in theSunday Mirror. Where did the leak come from?

I have here a copy of a letter sent from the Home Office on 18th May, Home Office reference 5306056, saying:

" Dear Sir,

I am replying to your letter of 21 April 1970 about Mr. R. D. Smith.

A foreigner wishing to come here for employment or as a student trainee is expected to obtain a work permit issued by the Department of Employment and Productivity in respect of a specific post before coming to the United Kingdom.

This was explained to Mr. Smith by the immigration officer who interviewed when he arrived in this country on 5 April 1970. Mr. Smith said that he fully understood that he could not take a job in this country and, the immigration officer being satisfied that this was the case, he was admitted for a visit of one month.

In the circumstances I am afraid that we cannot agree to Mr. Smith extending his stay here for the purpose of employment or training…"

and the " employment and training " was to be employed as a graduate trainee for 12 months‖

" Mr. Smith called at this office this morning and the decision was conveyed to him. His passport was handed to him."

There are certain other factors involved. There is, first, the very strange point as to how the newspaperman came to make his inquiries, because very few people knew the background. I should be very interested to know the source of the inquiries. Was it the Home Office? If not, what could it have been? That is a minor point, but it is disturbing.

Secondly, the notes on the back of form AR 1 (ST) say that

" the student employee shall be surplus to the necessary labour requirements of the employer; "

That is absolutely the case in this instance.

" permits are normally granted for periods of up to twelve months on the expiry of which the foreigner is expected to return to his or her country."

There is no problem about that, either.

The Department of Employment and Productivity guidance leaflet, "Employment of foreigners in Great Britain ", AR 100, says, in paragraph 8:

"Permits are issued to enable foreign student employees (as distinct from students coming for educational courses only) to accept short-term employment with British employers in the industrial and commercial field in order to improve their English and to widen their experience."—

It is the second reason in this case—

" There are special arrangements for the issue of permits for student employment in agriculture, horticulture…."

with which we are not concerned here. The leaflet repeats some of the things said in form AR l(ST). At the beginning, it says:

" A foreign worker who wishes to take a job in Great Britain must have a permit issued by the Department of Employment and Productivity."

We all accept that.

" The permit is not issued direct to the foreign worker, but to his employer, who has to apply to the Department of Employment and Productivity for it."

So this is not an issue to Mr. Smith specifically in technical terms; it is a question whether the permit is issued to the David Brown Corporation.

It has long been the practice of successive Governments to encourage as many foreign students as possible to come here, for the obvious reasons. It is certainly the case that the David Brown Corporation has encouraged them because it has found them an extended arm of our export effort. It makes it much easier to employ foreign nationals to run our export business; every large engineering corporation will confirm that sort of practice.

Secondly, in the case of the David Brown Corporation there is a general policy made clear in a letter written by it to Mr. G. R. Denman, of the Board of Trade, on 1st January, 1969, in response to a letter asking about the company's policy regarding the training of overseas nationals. I shall not go into the details, but it was made clear that it had long been the practice of the corporation to encourage this for the reasons I have said. In 1966, there were 1,110 foreign nationals employed by the corporation in 1967, 770; and in 1968, 1,020. On average, it employs about 1,000 foreign students of one kind or another every year.

Then there is the question of form AR 1(ST), the only form to support an application for an alien to receive training in a United Kingdom company irrespective of whether he is in this country or overseas at the time of application. Clauses 2(g) and 4 of the form support this statement. In this case it was made clear to Mr. Hudson by both the D.E.P. and the Home Office that it was not necessary for Mr. Smith to leave the country. I wish to emphasise that. Further, when aliens wish to work in this country there are two forms—one when the alien is in the country at the time of application and one when he is not.

The Home Office reason for rejection ignored the fact that Mr. Smith was already in this country and that it is common practice to resubmit a passport for endorsement so that the conditions may be varied to cover student employment. That is common practice with the David Brown Corporation. They have an almost exact parallel with an Italian student, Mr. Paul Delbosco, who sought a transfer in the form of his visa to remain here in student employment. The Home Office reference is D.64777. Mr. Delbosco was in this country at the time of the application by the David Brown Corporation and his permit to stay was varied and given.

I want to know how many of these permits are constantly given by the Home Office, because it is common practice. The company has made many applications under the Aliens Order, 1953, for permission to engage foreigners as student trainees. These applications have covered individuals in this country at the time of the application as well as individuals not in this counrty at the time of application. All have been successful until now. If there has been any omission or error in David Brown's applications they have not been made aware of it, and they have all been made in consultation with the Department of Employment and Productivity and the Home Office.

The problem which arises, therefore, is extremely serious. Has this been done because he happened to be Mr. Ian Smith's stepson? That is central to the question.

That is not true.

Let us get it clear. Let us have the denial made clear and placed on the record.

Is it, then, because he is seeking a transfer from one form of entry to another? Is that it? If that is the case —and it is the employer who is making the application; I emphasise that the permit is given to the employer—may we have an assurance from the Government that if Mr. Smith moves from Fishguard to Cork and the corporation applies from there, he will be given a re-entry permit to this country and that the application will be granted? That seems to me to overcome the Home Office difficulty.

Or if he applies from Calais or Boulogne, does that overcome the difficulty? Because if it is not a question of Mr. Ian Smith being involved, that suggestion must overcome the difficulty. How does the Home Office explain the fact that there have been transfers in the past in parallel cases of this nature? That is the whole issue.

In whichever part of the House we sit, we have certain duties to preserve the standards and traditions of freedom and parliamentary democracy. I recall an occasion on which many hon. Members on the other side of the House—and I was sitting on that side of the House at the time—joined together in fighting for Chief Enahoro so that he might be allowed to stay in the country. We do not all agree with all that he has done since then, but the principle was that of the individual, regardless of his views.

I remember another occasion on which the late Sydney Silverman had been denied a visa to go to the United States. At the time this country was being visited by two gentlemen, Mr. Cohn and Mr. Schine, who, so we were told by the newspapers, were investigating Communist activities within the B.B.C. on behalf of the late Senator Joseph McCarthy. Mr. Silverman rose from the corner seat opposite and asked the Government to give an assurance that visas would be granted to these men although he himself had just been refused a visa for the United States.He asked for the assurance so that these two gentlemen would have the opportunity to come here and to see how a tolerant and free society worked. If there is today, therefore, any argument about Rhodesia on the case which I have raised, that is the answer.

If I am told that it is only a question of a technicality—whether Mr. Smith leaves the country or another application is made—I must ask, how bureaucratic do we get? And if he leaves the country, may we have an assurance that he can come back—or will it be as in the case in which the Attorney-General for Ghana gave an assurance in respect of Mr. Christopher Shawcross and then had to go back on it on a certain memorable occasion? If the unfortunate Home Office Minister is to reply from that untenable position, I advise him to study the Gospel according to St. Matthew, Chapter 26, verses 38 to 46.

I am sure that the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly), the leader of the Donnelly Party, will forgive me if I do not follow him in his effort on behalf of—I am not sure whether it was David Brown or Robert Smith. Probably it may have been more on behalf of David Brown.

I want to raise a number of issues which are contained in the Consolidated Fund Bill. First, I notice that the Foreign Office are asking for money to be contributed to international organisations. There is an organisation connected with the sponsoring of, and the attempt to persuade Members during the election to support, Britain's entry into the Common Market. None of the political parties have come out clearly on the issue of the Common Market. We do not seem to be able to get from any of the political parties what are their views. No doubt the issue of the Common Market will be debated during the coming election.

Some hon. Members may already have received—and if not, no doubt they will receive them if they are standing for reelection—circulars issued by an organisation which is trying to push Britain into the Common Market. I have read in the Press comments on the subject. I hope that the Foreign Office can assure other hon. Members and myself and the country that none of the contributions and subscriptions being made by the Foreign Office is going in any way to support what I term this illegal activity by this body.

Another question arises on the same page of the Consolidated Fund Bill, relating to the Ministry for Overseas Development. I refer to the Report of the Commonwealth Development Corporation. I see that an extra grant is needed. The Commonwealth Development Corporation, I agree, does an excellent job, but I draw attention to some details of expenditure given on page 24 of the corporation's Financial Report and Accounts for 1969. In 1968, the chairman received a salary of £6,642. In 1969, during the period of severe restraint, when everyone was told to be careful about giving salary increases, that figure was raised to £7,042.

The Press always seem to be correct in their leaks—I do not know how that is—and I read some weeks back that a certain right hon. Gentleman was to be appointed chairman of this corporation. I put a Question down on the subject and the Answer was as evasive as I had expected. I asked whether there was any truth in that statement, but no answer was forthcoming at that time. During the recent Whitsun Recess an announcement was made that the present Minister of Housing and Local Government was to be appointed to this post and that the salary was to be £10,000 a year—plus or minus £100 or so, but we like to talk in round figures. Why is it that a salary which was increased so substantially last year has been increased by a further £3,000 this year?

Some other figures in this document are even more illuminating. For example, we read that in 1968 only one of the organisation's employees in the United Kingdom had a salary within the £15.000 to £17,500 a year range, while in 1969 there was not even one with such a salary. However, we learn that while in 1968 there was not one employee in the salary range £17,500 to £20,000 a year, there was one in that category in 1969. In other words, this unspecified person who was receiving between £15,000 and £17,500 a year in 1968 had received a salary increase to bring him or her within the salary range £17,500 to £20,000 in 1969.

This means that somebody received a wage increase of between £2,500 and £5,000 in one year. Unfortunately, the accounts are not broken down to reveal the precise increase. I also notice that the auditors and accountants fees went up drastically.

I am at a loss to understand how we can hear daily of restrictions being placed on the wages and salaries of the majority, and particularly of the lower paid, when there is no complaint whatever about the sort of salary increases I have described. The Tories never complain about increases given to people in the £10,000 to £20,000 a year bracket, but when it comes to the nurses and doctors they complain regularly. We rarely get an opportunity to debate the merits, if any, of the enormous wage increases that are given to the higher echelons.

This brings me to the part of the Bill which is designed to provide further money

" For the salaries and expenses of the…First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity… salaries and expenses of the National Board for Prices and Incomes… the Monopolies Commission and certain other Tribunals and Committees ".

I understand that Mr. Aubrey Jones has had several pay increases and that his present salary of £15,000 a year, about which we have never heard a murmur from the Tories—no doubt because he is an ex-Tory Minister—is to be increased by 33⅔ per cent., giving him a salary of £18,000 a year.

How can a Labour Government and I support at the hustings restrictions on the lower-paid when people like Aubrey Jones can have increases of this magnitude? As soon as a Press leak about his salary appeared, we heard that Mr. Jones was to make a tour of Hungary, Bulgaria and other Iron Curtain countries. Has he been given leave of absence to make that tour, and is this extra money to be used towards his expenses for that purpose?

I cannot see any point in Mr. Jones touring Iron Curtain countries if his job is to look after prices and incomes here in Britain. I only wish that Mr. Jones had been as efficient, restrictive and obstructive with his own salary increases as he has been with those of the lower paid. If he had been, I probably would not be objecting in the way I am today.

Apparently this extra money will help the P.I.B. to do its job. On many occasions I have sent my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity not one or a few dozen, but literally hundreds of cases of very wealthy company directors receiving salary increases of between 20 per cent. and 30 per cent. a year, but not one of these cases has been referred by my right hon. Friend to the P.I.B.

I have been in favour of what I call a fair prices and incomes policy that applies to all sections of the population. Bearing this in mind, I am puzzled by the Vote which proposes to increase the salaries and expenses of the House of Lords. The peers have had their expenses increased to 6½ guineas, tax free, per day. Some time ago I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to break down into categories the number of peers receiving between say, £3,000 and £4,000 a year and £10,000 and £20,000 a year as company directors and to equate that 6½ guineas with their salaries, grossed up and taxed.

I was told that in some instances the 6½ guineas represented as much as £18 a day. It is a bit thick when people complain about the dock and Post Office workers asking for more when certain noble Ladies and Gentlemen in another place can pick up the equivalent of £18 a day for just showing their faces in that establishment and immediately walking out. That is going a little too far.

We have never debated that subject nor had an opportunity to pass our opinion on it. I can tell my constituents that I have never supported it. I have never been given the opportunity either to support it or vote against it. So now I am taking this opportunity to tell my constituents that I do not believe that noble Lords, who probably have 20 or 30 directorships, should get the equivalent of £18 a day.

The noble Lord, Lord Shawcross, has attacked the workers for asking for too much money. It is surprising to hear people who are getting thousands of pounds from dozens of different jobs telling the workers to be careful not to ask for too much, " So long as I can draw my 6½ guineas tax-free expenses ".

Turning from the other place for a moment, would the hon. Member say whether he would support a rise in salary for Members of this House?

The Government have already announced, with the acquiescence of the Opposition, that they cannot do anything for Members of this House—I do not know why. They will refer the question to the Prices and Incomes Board after the General Election. I do not want to debate that question now, but having been asked my view I can say that if that action is fair for the Commons it might also have been fair for the House of Lords, instead of their Lordships being given this 6½ guineas a day tax free.

Looking again at the Bill, I see that the Post Office is to have extra money in order to provide grants to the B.B.C. The B.B.C. is a very efficient, well run and reputable organisation and I say no word against it. It happens to have as chairman one who, again, is an ex-Tory Minister. It is amazing how this Government love to appoint ex-Tory Ministers to these jobs. The chairman recently had an increase in his salary. Parliamentary Questions are not always answered as I like, but after having the benefit of our admirable Library service—and it is a most magnificent service—I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Hill, is the only man I know of who is holding down what is the equivalent of the chairmanship of a State board whilst taking full-time salaries from public companies of anything, and here I speak from memory, from £15,000 upwards a year in addition to his full-time salary of £6,000 a year at the B.B.C., I must assume that if he attends the House of Lords, he, too, claims the equivalent of £18 a day—

£18?

My right hon. Friend could not have heard what I said earlier. He should have listened. I must repeat it.

I asked by Parliamentary Questions what would be the equivalent of the 6½ guinea tax free daily allowance if one had an income of, say, £15,000 or £20,000 a year. The Treasury said that it would be about £18 a day. My right hon. Friend's agile mind can easily do the mental arithmetic necessary to realise that these noble Lords, whether it be the noble Lord, Lord Hill, or the noble Lord, Lord Shawcross, and others of their Lordships, are receiving an allowance equivalent to £18 a day, or, to put it the other way, an allowance of 6½ guineas a day tax free.

I do not care which calculation is preferred. If I went to my dock worker, my engineer, my bricklayer, or my carpenter and said, Look, old boy, would you like a job for which, provided you could show that you had attended—walked in and walked out—you would be given either £18 a day or 6½ guineas a day tax free? ", he would probably take the 6½ guineas tax free, but I would let him choose. We would then probably debate whether or not it was right and proper and fair.

This has never been debated or discussed, or referred to the Prices and Incomes Board. I am all in favour of the board having plenty of references. Only in the week before the Whitsun Recess I asked that these continually soaring food prices should be referred to it. Unfortunately, my right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity refused. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State declined my invitation. Nevertheless, I am pleased to see that, for a reason I do not understand, there has been a Press leak saying that she intends to do that very thing. I do not know what has made her change her mind in the interim, but I am pleased that it is so. I should like to see more of that kind of thing happening.

I am sorry that the Minister of Housing and Local Government has left the Chamber, because I have dealt with his future job, and its salary and expenses, and I now want to deal with his present job and the extra sum shown in page 34 of the Bill. That sum is for various things, including grants to local authorities, loans, and so on. In this case, I want to know why the amount is not larger. Speaking advisedly, and with all the emphasis of which I am capable, I must say, and I have given my right hon. Friend notice, that he has been very dilatory, very backward, very weak, and very unkind to my constituents.

As Minister of Housing and Local Government he has been responsible for increasing my constituents' cost of living by increasing their rents and rates by refusing to fight the Treasury to ensure the reimbursement of those who suffered from the Ronan Point disaster. It is shocking to realise that though we can provide all the thousands of pounds that I have mentioned, when a block of flats collapses through no fault of the occupants, and there has been loss of life, the Minister—and I am glad to see him back in his place—should originally have said that he could not grant more than 40 per cent. I have battled with him consistently on every conceivable occasion, and now I find that he has raised the grant to 50 per cent.

Incidentally, we have never had a debate on that disaster.

The result of the Minister's decision is that West Ham now has to find 50 per cent. of the cost of strengthening and rehabilitating those flats. I do not think that that is fair, right or proper.

We have always accepted in the House that if there is a national disaster the Treasury should foot the bill. My local ratepayers will have their rates increased or both their rates and rents increased because they have to find nearly £1 million. It is true that they will be able to borrow the money, but that will be at rather high rates of interest even with the advantages which the Government give by means of the Public Works Loan Board. They will be saddled with this debt.

My local people have been saddled with debts for the last 25 years. Ours was one of the first areas to be blitzed; it suffered during the whole of the blitz. We lost over one-third of our habitable accommodation and we are still paying for that. The country has never met its full obligation. Perhaps after 25 years one may forget these things, but one should not forget that in this instance West Ham ratepayers are saddled with a 50 per cent. debt for something which was not caused by them.

We have a very serious and difficult housing problem. We have a marvellous council which has done an excellent job in rebuilding, but because of the Ronan Point disaster, as a result of which blocks of flats still remain empty, we are losing rent and rate income and still suffering from the niggardliness of the Treasury. It is a pity that there is no Treasury Minister present now. However, it is the job of the Minister of Housing and Local Government to fight for his Department. I accuse this Minister for not standing up to the Treasury and fighting the Treasury as he should have done. I hope that when he takes on his new job if he finds any difficulty he will fight the Treasury a little more.

The Association of Municipal Corporations, an all-party organisation, has supported me, as have most if not all local authorities, even those which are not concerned in this problem.

What about the bookies?

Another matter with which I am concerned relates to the county courts, the judiciary and the legal system. Money is to be given to meet the extra cost of Law Officers of the Crown, the Director of Public Prosecutions Prosecution's department, and so forth. I hope that this means that for extra money we might get some productivity and perhaps some improvement in the judiciary system. It is a crying shame that in, as Mr. Speaker said, this greatest democracy in the world—we accept that —in London today men can be keptincommunicadounder arrest for three months or six months by this system by which they are taken to court and then put back on remand.

It is terrible that we have a situation in which people have been in prison for six months awaiting trial although they are still innocent until they are found guilty. We had the case recently of a former colleague. I shall not go into that in detail. He was kept in prison for three months and there was the continual question of remand. I shall not go into the details, because that would be out of order, but I believe in justice and in fighting for what I believe to be right whether that is popular or unpopular and whether my own Front Bench likes it or not. I do not think that we should have an hon. Member of the House kept for two years " on ice " without being brought to trial. His parliamentary career can be ruined because of the lack of—

Order. I think that the hon. Member is referring to a case which is at present sub judice

No, Mr. Speaker I was not referring to any case. I was saying that I do not think it right that such a thing can happen. I was not going into detail in the case to which I referred and which has been settled, that of Mr. Will Owen, who was kept in for three months and then found not guilty.

Anyone who knows the working of the judiciary system knows that it is a shocking situation when cases can go on—I am speaking in general and not in particular —for year after year without a person having the chance to prove himself not guilty. As more money is to be spent in the county courts and the Director of Public Prosecution's department and the judiciary system, I hope that an attempt will be made to improve the whole legal system.

It may or may not be known that £5 million of fines go year after year unpaid. It is the job of the judiciary to see that fines are paid, yet no one worries about this. If a person goes to court and refuses to pay his fine, no one worries; and he can keep on refusing. Eventually, he might get a suspended prison sentence but he laughs at that because it means nothing at all. Hence, I ask that the whole judiciary system should be looked at and this money should be used to improve it. It should be used to expedite dealings in the courts and to see that so far as possible the Department of Employment and Productivity may make an investigation into productivity.

I referred in the House 18 months ago to a case which is notsub judice. It is still being investigated. When I put a Question to the Attorney-General he gave evasive replies. [HON. MEMBERS: " 0h."] Oh yes, I say this because constituents ask me, " What has happened to the matter you referred to 18 months ago?" The Attorney-General knows the case, because he is affected. I refer to cube cutting. There has still been no positive action taken one way or another on that. It is still being investigated to find whether action can be taken.

Of my last two points the first is a small one and the second concerns my hobby-horse. The first is the question of a reference in the Bill to the Home Office being granted extra money for fire-fighting purposes. When the Home Office gets this extra money will it see that there is fire drill and such activities because, to the best of my knowledge, none of he Government Departments has any fire drill. None of the Home Office staff has fire drill. If the Government want to save the hundreds of millions of pounds which are lost through fires they should see that their own Departments actively pursue a system of regular fire drills. This should be done in schools, too, where it is not being done at present.

I come, lastly, to my hobby-horse. I am glad that extra money is to be given to the Ministry of Transport to deal with the enforcement of road fund licensing. This is an improvement. But will a genuine attempt be made to seek to enforce road fund licensing? A recent G.L.C. survey in three roads in the North of London showed that 15 per cent. of vehicles there were unlicensed. This is wrong. Everyone affected by a tax should pay it. If, as it now suggested, the tax is virtually unenforceable, it should be dropped; and the 85 per cent. should not have to pay the extra money to carry the 15 per cent. who refuse to pay the licence fees.

The Ministry of Transport, the Home Office, the police, the Greater London Council enforcement department, all say that the offence is so prevalent and widespread that they can do nothing about it. They can. If this Government want to be returned at the next election, let them announce that, as this tax is unenforceable, it is to be dropped. This would be, not a gimmick, but an election proposition. Let them announce that, as they cannot enforce it on 15 per cent., they will waive it for the other 85 per cent. This would be good, fair and right, and would ensure the Government's return at the election.

I have raised a number of issues which, over the years, I have tried to raise on the Floor of the House. As this is virtually the last day before breaking up, I now express the hope—God willing and my constituents permitting—that I shall be back in the next Parliament to see how far the Labour Government, when they come back, progress on these issues.

The reference by the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) to getting on the Floor took my mind back to the time when he lay on the ground outside the Savoy Hotel. The hon. Gentleman's speech was so kaleidoscopic that I shall not follow him, beyond saying that he was much more impressive when talking about the interests of his constituents after the appalling tragedy of the collapse of the multi-storey block at Ronan Point than when he was being abusive to certain former Members of this House who are now in another place.

I wish to raise a question which is of direct concern to the Leader of the House, because in his capacity as Lord President of the Council he prefaced a recent White Paper dealing with the whole question of the oceanology side of the natural environment. This afternoon the Government have published a White Paper—Cmnd. 4373—entitled " The Protection of the Environment. The Fight Against Pollution ".

The House knows that in two respects I have a deep interest in this question. The first is because I have been Chairman of the Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Science and Technology which dealt with coastal pollution problems in the light of the " Torrey Canyon " disaster. Secondly, I was Chairman of another Sub-Committee which reported to the House on 24th July, 1969, in Paper 400, as the Third Report from the Select Committee on Science and Technology—the Natural Environment Research Council.

On more than one occasion during Business Questions I have asked the Leader of the House when we shall have a White Paper commenting on the Select Committee's report. The right hon. Gentleman has made soothing and hopeful noises, but that is as far as we have got. The Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning, when giving evidence recently to the Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Science and Technology dealing with population problems, volunteered the information that the Government regretted that there had been so much delay in producing the White Paper commenting on the Report on the Natural Environment Research Council's work, but that the report was expected at an early date.

It now appears that in the long chain of deathbed repentances which are taking place in the last few days before this Parliament expires the Government will not find time to include a White Paper dealing with the Select Committee's report. I deeply regret this, because the fact that the Government have decided to publish their new White Paper this afternoon indicates their awareness, which I assure hon. Gentlemen opposite is entirely shared on this side, that there is an intensive interest and deep concern amongst the public in the threats to our environment, and not least the threats which taken the form of atmospheric and water pollution.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Chataway), whom my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has very propertly appointed to pay special attention to this aspect of the nation's affairs on behalf of the Opposition, is deeply concerned to ensure that appropriate action is taken as soon as possible.

The White Paper published this afternoon makes no mention of the work done by hon. Members on both sides—I pay tribute to the help which hon. Members gave me in my capacity as Chairman of the Sub-Committee—in studying the work done by the National Environment Research Council. Yet many of the matters discussed in the White Paper are cognate to the report from my Sub-Committee.

One of the things we especially mentioned in our report was the whole question of atmospheric pollution, which is of increasing concern. We said in paragraph 124 on page XXXV:

" We are concerned at N.E.R.C's. lack of involvement in the field of atmospheric pollution. Professor Wynne-Edwards told us that ' We are not at present interesting ourselves in atmospheric pollution. We have done nothing about it.' Research on such pollution is left to M.R.C."—

that is, the Medical Research Council—

"but the Professor admitted that the field was ' fragmented' and would be difficult to bring together. We would have liked to have had time to consider atmospheric pollution, not least to establish whether M.R.C. by itself is capable of ensuring effective action."

Since we reported last July there has been, not only the Government's decision to appoint the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) as Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning with special responsibility for pollution, but also the establishment of a Royal Commission.

All of us welcome the Royal Commission. Our one misgiving—it arises from long experience—is that Royal Commissions tend to take several years before anything emerges from their deliberations upon which action can be taken by a Government. All of us recognise that, however dedicated to its duties the Royal Commission may be, inevitably the implementation of its thinking and its recommendations will be a matter of years rather than of months, still less of weeks. Yet we know all the time that the threat to the environment is increasing day by day.

This is made all the more difficult by the continual rise in the population of this country, and many of our pollution problems are closely allied with population policy. It is, indeed, a tragedy that the work of the Select Committee dealing with population problems was not completed by today and that, therefore, we shall not have a report from the Select Committee on that subject; but at least, it has been established beyond doubt from the evidence already published and made available to the House that this is a problem with which one cannot deal in isolation. It is a complex problem involving population and sociological policies and problems, as well as policies designed to ensure that the proper conservation takes place of our natural environment that we all love so much.

What worries me a little about the publication of this White Paper is this. We have, of course, got to fight against pollution wherever it appears, but there seems to me very little recognition in this White Paper, so far as I have been able to digest it in the short time available since it was published, of the need to exploit sensibly and rationally many of the resources within our environment. One cannot merely say that one is going to fight for conservation—just like that. It is not a black and white issue as between total conservation and total pollution. It is a grey situation in which the most scientific and capable thought available to the Government and, indeed, to individuals and industries must be brought to bear to ensure that there is a proper and sensible balance to enable the country not unnecessarily to deprive itself of essential raw materials and essential conditions for the furtherance of the strength of our economy, but also to ensure that in pursuing those aims, at the same time, we pay regard to the love of our countryside and the need to preserve all the natural amenities that we can.

My constituents living as they do in the Fens, no one can possibly be more conscious of the pollution that is involved in the scenery as a result of the electrification of this country. If a pylon is erected it can be seen for miles. There is nothing to hide it. These areas are becoming all to reminiscent of bird cages, there are so many wires in the air. Yet one knows that the provision of electricity to various areas throughout the country has made an improvement in the standard of living almost uncontemplated 20 years ago. All these things have enriched the lives of those who live in the more isolated villages. The extension of electricity supplies has brought not only light and heat but the benefits of television. These things matter enormously. Yet we must ensure that we have the right balance.

What I find so distressing—and this is why I am speaking this afternoon—is that a Select Committee of this House has spent many hours taking the highest quality of evidence available and trying to digest it, that it submitted a report to the House as long ago as last July, and we still await a single comment from the Government on that report. It was the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Social Services who, as Leader of the House, put into practical form recommendations which had repeatedly been put to the Government over the years before by the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee that there should be a Select Committee on Science and Technology. We all welcomed the creation of that Committee. Yet we find increasing delay in receiving Government comments upon the report, and still longer delay in ever getting a debate on the Government's White Paper and the report.

I should like to say a word about the other report to which I referred earlier, the Report on Coastal Pollution. I recognise that the Government were not entirely happy about some of the criticisms we made of what happened over the " Torrey Canyon " disaster. I can only say that those criticisms would have been much more severe than they were had we been as free as we would have liked to have been, and had it not been for the court case which was pending in Singapore. Nevertheless there are one or two things embodied in the latest White Paper which I welcome very much indeed. The Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation, known as I.M.C.O., has taken some further strides forward on the international front over the question of not only discouraging but also dealing with pollution from oil at sea. I believe that much that has happened since the report of the Select Committee is consistent with what we recommended, and for that reason I welcome it.

However, reading rapidly through what the latest White Paper has said, I sensed some lack of awareness in the minds of the Government about the importance of considering the insurance aspects of the matter. In our Report on Coastal Pollution we went out of our way to point out how important it is that a full review should take place of the insurance aspect, because up till now the main insurance risk covered has been the hull of the ship. One of the conclusions that we inevitably had to draw in our Report on Coastal Pollution was that in future it may sometimes be more important to ensure that the cargo of oil inside a tanker does not reach the nearest coast, than it is to save the ship herself. The moment one moves into a field of that sort the more one becomes involved with the whole question of insurance policy.

The right hon. Gentleman—indeed the Government, and, not least of all, the Board of Trade—must know that in the City of London there is a wealth of absolutely supreme world authoritative opinion available to the Government on the question of insuring ships and their cargoes. Therefore, I am extremely disappointed to notice that in the latest White Paper there is no mention of this aspect of the matter. Nevertheless, that does not in any way diminish the welcome which I give the progress which has been made by the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation and the Government's support of what that organisation is seeking to do. Indeed, if there be any justification for the existence of the United Nations at all, I would have said that probably in no field is it more significant and marked than it is in the matter of co-ordination of international efforts to prevent pollution at sea.

I recognise that my raising this matter this afternoon has given the right hon. Gentleman little time in which to brief himself to reply adequately to my remarks. Nevertheless, I stress that the Government have had plenty of time to consider the report of the Select Committee and the right hon. Gentleman has had ample warning that I was anxious to know what are the Government's comments. He himself is personally involved in one particular aspect of the matter, namely oceanography. The National Institute of Oceanography plays a vital part not only in preserving the environment of the seas around us but also in ensuring the proper exploitation of the ocean which, if it were to be used properly and scientifically, could be of immense value to our country's prosperity.

Not very much is said in the White Paper indicating that the Government fully comprehend the enormous potential which lies in the waters around us to enrich our economy and the life of our people. I hope that, in these few observations today, I have been able to convey to the Government that, whichever party forms Her Majesty's Government hereafter, the House of Commons will be 100 per cent. united on one thing, that is, the need to ensure that our environment is not changed more than is absolutely necessary to make sensible and constructive use of the natural resources which we enjoy.

Before coming to the two matters which I wish to raise, Mr. Speaker, may I respectfully remind you that, when you were thanking various people for what they have done, you omitted one name, that of Mr. Speaker himself. I suppose that you could not mention that name, but I know that I have all right hon. and hon. Members with me in expressing our grateful thanks for the wonderful and patient way in which you have guided the deliberations of the House. When I say the two words. " Thank you ", I assure you, Sir, that they do not in any way adequately convey our appreciation of the service which you have rendered.

I come now to the matters to which I shall direct attention, the first of which concerns the old-age pensioner. I was very worried—I know that the hon. Lady the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) was, too, so it is not a party matter—when I found that an extra £4 telephone charge was to be imposed on old-age pensioners, among others. Occupants of the Front Bench and many other right hon. and hon. Members may feel that £4 a year is no great sum and they may be able to bear it. We have broad shoulders. But the old-age pensioner cannot bear this charge, and it may mean that he or she will have to give up the telephone. In many cases, the telephone represents the only link between an old-age pensioner and the outside world, sometimes, indeed, a very life-line when the doctor is needed.

I put this matter to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications on the day before the increased Post Office charges were debated—I forget the date for the moment, but it was only a short time ago—and he informed the House that if old-age pensioners wanted benefits they could apply to the Supplementary Benefits Commission. I asked my right hon. Friend whether he would institute a scheme so that old-age pensioners would be exempt from the £4 increased telephone charge. In his speech the next day, he said that he would do everything in his power and lie would consult his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to ensure —he used the word " ensure "—that people who were entitled to supplementary benefits were aware of their entitlement.

I waited a week. Then I asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what had happened to the publicity campaign on which he was about to embark. I had the reply that there was no publicity campaign at all.

Many of these old-age pensioners know nothing of their right to receive from the Supplementary Benefits Commission, if necessary, the amounts which they would otherwise not be able to find. I urge the Government either to devise a scheme to exempt such people from these extra telephone charges which they cannot afford or to make absolutely sure, through the Press, television and any other way they can think of, that these people know that they can receive the extra £4 from the Commission so that they will not be deprived of their telephone. I make that earnest appeal to the Government.

I come now to the question of the North Orbital Road in Watford. Some time ago, when my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State was Minister of Transport, I asked her to come and sit with me on the Rickmansworth Road in Watford. I said that she would be able to sit there because the traffic grinds absolutely to a halt, taking half to three-quarters of an hour to cover half to three-quarters of a mile. The only solution is an extension to the North Orbital Road. Ultimately, there was a meeting presided over by the late Mr. Stephen Swingler, when he was Minister of State at the Ministry of Transport. He assured me, he gave me a solemn pledge, that the North Orbital extension would go through.

Since then, there has been a public inquiry, there have been objections raised, and the matter is still, so to speak, in the pipeline. I ask the Minister of Transport to expedite matters so that traffic will no longer grind to a halt on the Rickmansworth Road in Watford and cause such confusion. I beg him to do it quickly. Watford now has a development plan which it is carrying forward in three stages. When the third stage is reached, we shall have a really good transport system, but it cannot work unless the North Orbital Road is extended. I urge the Minister of Transport to expedite the matter as much as he possibly can.

I endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck) when he thanked you, Mr. Speaker, for your kindness to us all, not only collectively as Members of Parliament, but, perhaps more important, individually. We are all—I know that I speak here for all my hon. and right hon. Friends—deeply grateful to you.

I made up my mind to try to intervene in this debate only just before it started.

As hon. Members on the back benches have the right to speak on the Consolidated Fund Bill and put their constituents' views or other views, I felt that it was only right for me to bring to the attention of the House the situation in the smallest and one of the poorest Commonwealth countries of Africa, from which I returned only a few days ago. I refer to Lesotho.

I begin by assuring the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, who is to reply to the debate, that I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Lady the Minister of Overseas Development for allowing me, yesterday, immediately after my return, to speak to her officials and for meeting me personally today. I shall not, in the circumstances, expect a long reply from the right hon. Gentleman. None the less, I think it right to put these matters to the House of Commons before Prorogation and the end of this Parliament.

The background to the matter is that there was a general election in Lesotho last January. There was some doubt about which party won, and there was considerable intimidation on both sides. The Government of the day in Lesotho decided to suspend the Constitution and arrest the Opposition. Perhaps the Leader of the House may feel some sympathy for them when 18th June comes, but, be that as it may, it was an unconstitutional act, and admitted to be such.

As a result, Her Majesty's Government did not accord recognition to the new Government of Lesotho, and they also suspended aid. They were perfectly right in not according recognition if they felt that that was the correct attitude to take, but I believe that they made a grave mistake in suspending aid, for this inevitably means interference in the internal affairs of Lesotho. By suspending aid they have obviously come down on the side of one party or the other—in this case, the Congress Party—and one must accept the opposite argument that, if they restore aid quickly, they will be regarded as coming down on the side of the other party, the Nationalist Party. That is the inherent difficulty created by the action which they took.

I come now to the present political position in Lesotho. I know the Leader of the Opposition there, and I met him; he was released from detention to speak to me privately. I know the Prime Minister. Also, I met the Queen, who is acting as Regent, and many political leaders on both sides. I believe that the political situation is improving. The leaders of all political parties have met twice to discuss the future, and I understand that they are to meet again soon.

I took it upon myself to say to the Prime Minister that, if he wanted the restoration of aid, he should, I felt, have the report of the Electoral Commission published as soon as possible, he must release the Leader of the Opposition and his parliamentary supporters from detention, and that these steps would show Her Majesty's Government that the situation in Lesotho was returning to normal. There has been no disturbance in the country for the past six weeks, since the bomb plot was discovered in April. I think that one can take it, therefore, that on the political level the situation is improving.

The point of concern which I put to the House now is that this part of Africa is suffering from intense drought. Lesotho is a mountainous unproductive country with precious little agriculture. Most people have to go to the Rand mines to earn money to support their families in their home country. The present position is disastrous. The crop has failed because of the drought. The winter crop has to be sown within the next two or three weeks, and for this fertilisers and seed will be needed. The fertiliser and seed subsidy is part of the aid which has been suspended by Her Majesty's Government, so if the crop is planted at all, it will be only a very small portion. This means that the present serious food conditions are likely to continue to the end of the winter season and the country may then be facing starvation conditions.

In addition, the teachers, who are mainly mission teachers, have been told that Government subsidies cannot be continued after the end of June, and 1,000 teachers have been given notice towards the end of that month. These teachers administer assistance such as the Aid to Children Fund and other children's relief schemes, and there will be very serious repercussions on the children if these acts are carried out.

Many development projects, such as the conservation of soil and agriculture and fisheries—about which the right hon. Gentleman would have some particular knowledge and I believe, sympathy—are gradually running down and will have to be ended unless aid is restored quickly. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, once these schemes are run down, it is difficult to get them started again, and it will take a lot of time and money before they can be as productive as they were when aid was suspended.

One minor matter, which is of some importance, is that the pensions of the Basutoland Pioneer Corps which fought so gallantly in the war are the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government for whom the Lesotho Government acts as agent. I understand that no money for these pensions or for the administration of the pensions has been paid since January this year, when aid was suspended. The Lesotho Government are continuing to pay the pensions in the hope that the money will be forthcoming from Her Majesty's Government in the near future. I add that to my catalogue of woes because I do not think that Her Majesty's Government intended this to happen when they took this action which was based purely on the question of recognition.

Lesotho depends for its higher technical advice on expatriots and some of more junior ex-patriots are not signing further contracts. It is now difficult to recruit the doctors and senior technical assistants which are needed because of the suspension of aid.

By next month the situation in Lesotho will be most serious and there will be some starvation amongst the children. I am sure that Her Majesty's Government do not want this and I appeal to them to think again. The new British Government, of whatever party they are, would have to reassess the position and by that time it may be too late to do anything to prevent a crisis. By August Civil Service will have run down seriously, and their could be a situation amounting to anarchy by September if nothing is done.

I appeal to Her Majesty's Government on humanitarian grounds. The right hon. Lady obviously could not express to me a view one way or the other although she listened with great sympathy. A large number of people may starve within the next few months, which I do not believe is what the Government intended. I hope that they will take action at least to restore some of the subsidies, for example, for seed, fertilisers and education, even if they cannot see their way to give recognition or, as yet, to undertake the whole aid programme as it was agreed some months ago.

I hope that the Leader of the House will forgive me for raising this matter without giving notice, but it is of such importance that I hope he will pass on to his right hon. colleagues in the Cabinet the request that some action humanitarian should be taken well before the date of the General Election.

I desire to support my hon. Friends who have objected to the expenditure of public money on the document called " Britain and the Common Market " which is, apparently, published by Europe House. During the past year many hon. Members have drawn attention to the way in which this organisation spends public money, and the view has been expressed that this has been an improper use of public money. If that be so, the spending of public money when a General Election is upon us is even more improper.

The document purports to set out the arguments why this country should enter the European Economic Community. Many candidates in the General Election, including myself, have grave reservations about our entry, and it would therefore appear that the document might be of direct advantage to those candidates who wish to advocate our entry into the Community. As even those of us on this side of the House who favour such a procedure are far more cautious than hon. Gentlemen opposite, the publication of the document might be thought to give an advantage to certain hon. Gentlemen opposite. I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will ponder this matter seriously when he comes to reply.

Is any of the money concerned to be used to persuade the building societies to reduce the mortgage interest rate? It is several weeks since Bank Rate came down by another½per cent., making a fall of 1 per cent. in recent months. As yet we have heard nothing from the building societies, although I understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government is in constant touch with them.

The figures show that money is flowing in great spate into the building society coffers. Whenever Bank Rate goes up, the building societies race ahead to put up their mortgage interest rate. Why has there been no reduction? Is it because the building societies feel that if the rate were reduced they would be intervening in the General Election on the side of the Labour Party?

Will my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government give an assurance that during the next few days he will enter into further negotiations with the building societies, produce the books and demand in strong terms that they immediately reduce the mortgage interest rate? My right hon. Friend has been a most successful Minister of Housing and Local Government, faced as he has been with sabotage by many of the associates of the Conservative Party. It would be the crowning glory of his career if he could bring about a fall in mortgage interest rates during the next few days.

I wonder whether, during the next few days, any money will be spent by the Department of Employment and Productivity on drawing aside the veil which the Leader of the Opposition and the Conservative Party have drawn upon their proposals for a value added tax. If that iniquitous tax were to be introduced—

Order. On the Consolidated Fund we can discuss administration, but not taxation or legislation.

With respect, Mr. Speaker, I was not seeking to discuss that, but the administrative arrangements of my right hon. Friend the First Secretary and Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity. With the utmost respect, it is not unknown for Ministers to cost the proposals of the Opposition, and I was wondering what administrative arrangements had been made for such costing.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already made an offer to hon. Gentlemen opposite to place at their dis- posal the whole facilities of the Government to cost their programme. Are there any plans to inquire into the proposals of hon. Gentlemen opposite to introduce a value-added tax, a matter of important national interest?

The Conservatives have said during the past few weeks that one of the great debates which must take place in the country is the whole question of the cost of living. It is, therefore, important that we see that the money which Parliament votes is properly spent; and it would be properly spent on inquiring into what the Conservative proposals would cost and by how much they would increase the cost of living.

I want an assurance that the negotiations into which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health is entering with the doctors will not be affected by certain views which have been expressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite. For example. in the Budget debates the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) bitterly attacked what he described as recent wages increases.

It is obvious that wages increases given to those who are not productive workers are inflationary, in economic terms if in no other. The right hon. Gentleman attacked recent pay increases, and these have related to teachers, police officers and various other public servants. We need a strong assurance that the Minister will not be influenced by what has been said by certain hon. Gentlemen opposite, the logic of whose argument is that the Conservatives do not want doctors to receive pay increases.

What other efforts are being proposed, as a result of this expenditure, to keep down the cost of living, particularly in the Greater London area? I am concerned, as are my constituents, about the proposals of London Transport, supported by the Conservative-dominated G.L.C., to increase fares. This will have a serious effect on those I represent as on many others in the Greater London Area.

I invite the Government seriously to consider referring these proposed fares increases to the P.I.B. There is no doubt that since powers relating to London Transport have been transferred to the Conservative-controlled G.L.C., there has been a constant threat of greater increases. At one time the excuse of decimalisation was given. When that was shot down in flames by my hon. Friends, hon. Gentlemen opposite thought of another excuse. I hope, therefore, that the Government will consider referring this matter to the P.I.B.

Is my hon. Friend suggesting that the extra money which it is proposed to give to the P.I.B. under the Bill should be used to enable the Tory-controlled G.L.C. to implement the Labour promise of allowing the aged, the sick and the blind to have free travel on the public transport services of London?

That is another matter to which the attention of the P.I.B. should be drawn.

In almost every area advantage has been taken of legislation, initiated by Labour, to allow our more unfortunate citizens to have concessionary fares. But the G.L.C., dominated by the Conservative Party—dominated by gentlemen who are not noted for their compassion; they are noted perhaps even less for their compassion than for their brain power—has refused to take advantage of this legislation. This, too, has an effect on the cost of living, and in considering my request that certain matters should be referred to the P.I.B. perhaps the Government will consider including this question of concessionary fares in such a reference.

I wish at the outset, as Leader of the House, to associate myself with your remarks, Mr. Speaker, about the staff and all employees of the House. I also wish to associate myself with the tribute that was paid to you by my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck).

The hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) appreciated that some of the questions which he asked—this applies to a number of other points that have been made by hon. Members—might not be answered by me in reply. If I miss answering any specific points, I assure the hon. Members concerned that I will bear them in mind and make the necessary representations to the Ministers concerned.

But not next week?

No. I shall be busy next week on other matters, as will all hon. Members. I have also been busy this week. It will be realised, therefore, that if I miss answering any points, I am not being discourteous.

The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) raised the case of Mr. Robert Smith. I see the hon. Gentleman sitting on the Opposition Front Bench. I was not aware that he had progressed to that position in Opposition. Nevertheless, he has high hopes of being an Opposition hon. Member.

I make no complaint about the hon. Gentleman's raising of this case, of which I was given notice. He was right to raise it and I have taken advice from the Home Office. If, in my remarks, the hon. Gentleman feels that I have not dealt with certain matters, perhaps we can discuss the issue later, when it might be possible for me to pursue the subject.

I wish to make it clear that the way in which the Department has treated Mr. Smith's case has in no way been influenced by his relationship with Ian Smith. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that.

I, too, pay tribute to the David Brown Company. When I was Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food I always recognised the work of this great company. I accept what the hon. Gentleman said about its export success and I pay tribute to it.

I wish to put it on record that the right hon. Gentleman has been a very good friend indeed of the export drive of this particular corporation. I pay tribute to the work he did in furthering this work when he was Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

I made those remarks to ensure that there would be no question arising of prejudice about either Mr. Smith or this company.

Any other foreigner making the same application in the same circumstances would be treated in exactly the same way. Mr. Smith arrived in this country on 5th April with a South African passport. He told the immigration officer at the port that he would like to stay here for three months. He had recently, as the hon. Gentleman said, qualified as a mechanical engineer at the University of Cape Town and was anxious to obtain practical experience in this field.

The immigration officer explained to him the need to obtain a work permit in advance of his admission into this country if he wished to work here. Mr. Smith indicated that he was mainly interested in working in the United States and said that he had written to two or three oil companies there asking them to reply to him care of South Africa House.

Mr. Smith told the immigration officer —I emphasise this because it is particularly important—that he fully understood that he could not take a job in the United Kingdom, and he said that he would pursue his inquiries about employment in the United States. On this basis he was granted leave to land for one month, on condition that he did not enter any employment, paid, or unpaid.

A little over a fortnight after his arrival a firm applied to engage him as a student employee for 12 months. I have the details of the allowance which was proposed, but I need not go into that. A foreigner who wishes to come to this country for employment as a student is required to have previously obtained a work permit, just as a foreigner must do if he wishes to come here for ordinary employment. The work permit procedure is, of course, the main method by which the influx of foreign labour is controlled in the interests of British workers.

This procedure would be undermined seriously if we allowed foreigners to come here as visitors and then take employment, even if we restricted permission to those cases in which the Department of Employment and Productivity was prepared to approve the proposed jobs. This would mean letting any foreigner come here to look for work, and the situation would get out of control.

That was the main view. The practice on this is rigid. There arebona fidecases in which foreigners come here as visitors without thought of employment or any type of engagement for which the issue of a work permit before arrival is necessary and who then unexpectedly are offered jobs for which they and no available British labour are qualified. In such cases, the Home Office raises no objection to their staying and taking the jobs, if the Department of Employment and Productivity is prepared to approve them.

When the Home Office received the application for permission to engage Mr. Smith as a student employee, it carefully considered whether the case could properly be regarded as one of the kind to which I have just referred. It came to the conclusion that it was not such a case. It took into account the basis on which Mr. Smith was admitted to this country, when he was given clearly to understand that he would not be allowed to take employment here, a position which he fully accepted.

The firm which wished to take him on was told on 18th May that the Home Office could not agree to his engagement, and the decision was conveyed to Mr. Smith when he called at the immigration and nationality department of the Home Office on the same day. He was given an extension of his stay to 4th June to enable him to regularise his position.

I think that anyone hearing those facts could not think that the decision was unreasonable. The case cannot he compared with the granting of a visa to an hon. Member of this House by the United States Government. The cases are not comparable.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman two quick questions? First, is he aware that the proposed employment of Mr. Smith is as a graduate trainee? He is supernumerary to the requirements of the David Brown Corporation. It is quite normal for anyone with an engineering, medical or any other degree to seek experience for a time before proceeding with his normal career. This is so in the case of Mr. Smith.

As for the American point, the right hon. Gentleman knows that I have had personal experience of the fact that there is a great deal more difficulty in going to the United States and seeking a work permit, in view of the present American recession. That is why Mr. Smith did not go to the United States. He likes this country. I want merely to sort out the position. If Mr. Smith goes to Ireland or France, and then David Brown apply in the normal way, given that Mr. Smith will be here as a trainee, will that regularise the position?

I cannot give a categorical assurance on the point, but I will look into it.

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

No. I do not want to be delayed. My hon. Friend made a lengthy speech, and I am coming to his points. I am now speaking to the Shadow Opposition.

rose—

No, I will not give way to my hon. Friend.

I mentioned just now that a little over a fortnight ago the firm concerned applied for permission to engage Mr. Smith as a student employee. I understand that he was to be paid an allowance of £1,125 a year. However, I will look into the hon. Gentleman's second point. I repeat my assurance that there the decision was not influenced by Mr. Smith's relationship with Mr. Ian Smith.

Perhaps I might refer my right hon. Friend to the almost identical case of a constituent of mine who is a Cypriot. I hope that he will be treated in exactly the same way as Mr. Smith. We must have fair shares for all.

I am always available in the House and would be delighted to see my hon. Friend. If he gives me details of the case, I will pass them to the Home Office. However, my hon. Friend is an assiduous Member of Parliament, and I am surprised that he has not made his own representations to the Home Office.

I come now to the lengthy speech of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis). It was quite atour de force. He emphasised a number of points. He referred, first, to the Foreign Office contributions to international organisations. We have to be sensible about these matters. The Foreign Office makes several grants to various international bodies. One has been mentioned specifically in the Press, and I think it is to that that my hon. Friend has referred.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) spoke about the grant to the British Council of the European Movement. Grants of this kind are not unusual. We make grants to the East Europe Centre, to the Royal Commonwealth Society to finance its Commonwealth Interchange Study Group operation, to the Commonwealth Press Union, and to many other bodies. In the case to which my hon. Friend referred, the grant was first made in 1963 following an approach from the Britain-in-Europe movement to the then Lord Privy Seal, who is now Leader of the Opposition. It has been continued ever since.

Fears have been expressed that there would be a danger of intervention into the affairs of our General Election and that the funds would be used to sponsor activities of this kind. I think that all hon. Members agree that this would not be proper, and I accept that. However, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is in touch with the organisation concerned, and discussions will continue. I cannot go beyond that.

In these discussions, will my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster ask why this document was sent to hon. Members this morning? It is clearly designed to influence the General Election in one way or another. The fact that it is a load of old rubbish and will probably assist those who are against the Common Market, is not precisely relevant. I hope that, in his discussions with these people, my right hon. Friend will inquire why the document has been sent out at this time.

I cannot go beyond what I have said. I think that what I have said is sensible and satisfactory. My hon. Friend has made his point.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North chided the Government about the salaries of the chairmen of various bodies, and referred specifically to the Commonwealth Development Corporation. However, for a highly responsible position of that kind, I would not have thought that the sum in question was large. It is an important body, after all, and I would resent any attack on an individual who is at the head of such a body.

Mention was also made of the chairman of the National Board for Prices and Incomes. Again, I do not think that we should attack individuals.

My hon. Friend then referred to some of our colleagues in the House of Lords. I think that the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) answered that effectively. My hon. Friend laid stress on the tax-free allowance. I am not against it. I do not think that my hon. Friend was against the earlier allowance, which was increased to 6½guineas.

Yes, I was.

I thought that my hon. Friend acquiesced in it. After all, he may receive it one day. One never knows.

I do.

I am sure that if my hon. Friend was there, he would support it. However, it would be wrong for me to pursue this point. People in the other place are not paid salaries, and I think that the allowance is reasonable.

My hon. Friend then referred to Ronan Point and asked for better treatment for his constituents. I understand that Newham Borough Council recently submitted proposals for strengthening six blocks of flats, including Ronan Point, at a cost of nearly £1 million. It applied for loan consent for £553,000 which it anticipated that it would have to meet after grant.

I gather than the council has not yet made a formal application for grant, so it is not possible to say. how much it will receive. I have noted my hon. Friend's arguments about the original 40 per cent., which he stressed, and that the increase to 50 per cent. is not in his view sufficient. I cannot go beyond what has happened. I think that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has acted reasonably in this case.

My hon. Friend went on to discuss many other matters, of which I will take note. He talked about improvement being needed in the judiciary system and of people being held on remand for long periods. Again, I cannot comment on this generally. If my hon. Friend has in mind any individual cases I suggest that he should take them up with the Ministers concerned. If he will give me the details I will proceed as I said I would concerning an earlier case which he mentioned.

My hon. Friend mentioned his old hobby-horse about grants for fire purposes and the need for fire drill in the Home Office and other Government Departments. I note that as well. I have been asked about fire drill in this House. I believe that our arrangements are adequate. I should hate to burden hon. Members with fire drill every week. It might be salutary for some. I will take up my hon. Friend's point about road fund licence enforcement.

The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely raised an interesting topic which I should have liked to follow in greater detail. The hon. Gentleman referred to my interest in a White Paper on oceanography and marine science and technology. I thank him. I also thank him for the work that he has done on the Select Committee on Science and Technology. Whilst I may disagree with the hon. Gentleman on one matter, I pay him that tribute most sincerely. He has worked very hard and has also inspired many of our colleagues to work hard.

The hon. Gentleman raised questions arising from the new White Paper, " The Protection of the Environment, The Fight Against Pollution." He then dealt, quite properly—I make no complaint—with his Select Committee's Report on the Natural Environment Research Council. In a way, I thought that he repeated criticisms which he has raised on previous occasions. He asked why we had not had any debate and whether the Government had really taken notice of the Select Committee's work.

Concerning debate, as I have often said, we have so many very good Select Committee Reports that the question has been purely one of time available in the House. I really mean that. I have to balance priorities. I am pressed every Thursday by hon. Members to debate many matters. We still have an important Select Committee Report on Parliamentary Privilege which I should like to debate. We also have an important Report on Members' Interests (Declaration). I give those two as examples which affect this House. There is now a new Report on the Bank of England from another Select Committee. We have had some reports debated. But, even if a report is not debated, the Government take note of it.

I have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's view that probably the Government should have responded more quickly to the report that I have mentioned. I accept that criticism. I will convey these views to the Ministers concerned. But I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has welcomed our earnest desire to fight against pollution and that he broadly supports the main aims and decisions in the new White Paper, Cmnd. 4373. I hope that all hon. Members will read it carefully.

I think that the right hon. Gentleman may have been slightly confused. I was trying to put emphasis on the length of time which has elapsed since the Report of my sub-Committee came out and publication by the Government of the White Paper commenting upon it. I fully support the right hon. Gentleman's view that it ought not to be automatic that every report from every Select Committee should be debated on the Floor of the House. However, we are entitled to have the Government's comments on the reports.

I thought that I had accepted that criticism.

I am also grateful for the hon. Gentleman's tribute to I.M.C.O. The Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation has done some wonderful work, and we must follow it up. I make no complaint about the hon. Gentleman raising this matter. I was not aware that the hon. Gentleman intended to raise it, but just before he spoke he indicated to me that he would be mentioning it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Watford, who is not present, mentioned telephone charges. Again, I will make representations to my right hon. Friend on the points that he raised about publicity for supplementary benefits.

My hon. Friend also stressed the north orbital extension and asked me to prod the Minister of Transport to speed up road development. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend made a major announcement about road development. However, I will note and convey my hon. Friend's views about Watford to the Minister.

The hon. Member for Haltemprice dealt with the problems of Lesotho. He said that he had spoken to officials and to the Minister. I am sure that the Department will take careful note of what the hon. Gentleman said, as he has just returned from Lesotho. I agree that if there is a drought and crops are harmed, action must be taken quickly. It takes time to prepare plans and to do something practical. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that I regard the matter as urgent. The hon. Gentleman said that he wanted action. He said that we must not wait until July because it will be too late.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East, whose point about the document from and publicity by the British Council of the European Movement I answered earlier, mentioned building societies. Incidentally, one of the better manifestos in the General Election contains the views of the Labour Party on this point. My hon. Friend asked about—

rose—

My hon. Friend should not anticipate me. I was about to suggest that he should read the document. I have read it.

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

No. My hon. Friend must wait.

Reduction of mortgage interest rates is an important matter. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government is present and he has noted what my hon. Friend said. We are aware of its importance.

I should be out of order if I went deeply into the question of a value-added tax. It is not covered by the Consolidated Fund Bill, but it is an important matter. If it were implemented, it would lead to considerable increases in the cost of living, as we have seen in other countries.

I was asked about discussions with the doctors. I take note of what was said about inflationary wage increases, which has been stressed by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. lain Macleod). I also carefully note what my hon. Friend said about fare increases by the London Transport authority.

In view of the replies that I have given, I hope that we can now get our legislation.

On a point of order. I seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You were not here, so this places you in a difficult position. But, as far as I recollect, at the beginning of public business no one moved the Consolidated Fund Bill. Where does this leave us?

I understand that the Bill was moved.

Further to that point of order. I was watching very carefully. It may be that we are all getting stiff-necked in our old age, but I did not see anybody nod. The right hon. Gentleman formally moves it now, does he?

indicated dissent

I beg to move,

That the Elections (Welsh Forms) (No. 5) Regulations 1970, dated 1st May, 1970, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th May, be approved.

I shall be brief, but I should like to make two principal points. First, these Regulations follow the Representation of the People Act 1969 and prescribe versions, partly in the English language and partly in the Welsh language, of forms prescribed by regulations under that Act. Those regulations needed an affirmative Resolution of the House before coming into force, and so, therefore, do these.

Secondly, this is in the nature of a minor corrective operation. Welsh versions of the predecessors of these forms were prescribed in 1964 and will be available for use as necessary at the forthcoming Election, and, therefore, they will be available from this time onwards.

In the case of the poll-cards, the polling hours will simply need to be amended to read 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. In the case of Forms A, which is the canvass form, a Welsh version has been prescribed previously, and was used last year, and forms based on the Regulations now before the House will shortly be printed for use in Wales this year.

As I am sure the House is aware, these translations form only part of a substantial bulk of translations of forms into the Welsh language which have been prepared over the last few years. Other Home Office official forms include 86 forms in use in the courts, and five forms in use for purposes of Sunday polls under the Licensing Act. Other Departments, too, have been responsible for the translation of forms, notably, of course, the Welsh Office, which, at the moment, has about 250 forms translated into the Welsh language in current use, more than 200 of these having ben translated since the coming into force of the Welsh Language Act, 1967.

I trust that the maximum use will be made of these forms. Not only are they of benefit to the persons whose first and natural language is Welsh, but the Government believe that they create an atmosphere which is favourable to the preservation of the Welsh language, and that is something upon which the Government set great importance.

Does my hon. Friend know why the representative of the Welsh Nationalist Party is not here for these important deliberations? Has my hon. Friend had a note from the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans) to explain why he is absent?

I do not think that I would want to make a party point on that. I understand that the hon. Gentleman has been in hospital for a week or two, but I believe that he is now recuperating.

These forms can create a background which will make it possible for support to be given to the Welsh language, which is not only an important facet of Welsh nationhood, but is, at the same time, one of the great cultural institutions of Britain.

I beg to move,

That the Apple and Pear Development Council (Amendment) Order, 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 28th April, be approved.

This Amendment Order is presented for approval in accordance with the requirements of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1947, under which the principal Order was made in December, 1966. The Amendment now before the House will have the effect of increasing from 30s. to 60s. per acre the maximum rate of annual charge which may be levied on registered growers of apples and pears by the Apple and Pear Development Council.

The Apple and Pear Development Council Order was made in 1966 after my right hon. Friend the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food had satisfied himself that substantial numbers of growers within the apple and pear growing industry wanted a Development Council and that it had the full support of representative organisations.

The Council set up under that Order has now completed the first three years of its life and my right hon. Friend in accordance with the requirements of the Act of 1947 has consulted the Council and organisations representative of persons in business and employment in the industry as to whether it should continue in being, and if so, whether the Order of 1966 should be amended in any respect.

My right hon. Friend, having noted the views of the Council and the support expressed by the National Farmers' Union, the Transport and General Workers' Union and the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers, together with the views of other people and organisations, has concluded that it is desirable that the Council should continue in being.

He has also concluded that he should agree to the Council's proposal that the maximum rate of annual charge should be increased from 30s. to 60s. per acre. Hon. Members may share my surprise to learn from a consumer survey carried out by the Council that the majority of housewives interviewed were unaware that apples and pears were grown commercially in this country. It is against this background that the Council's main function of promoting this sale of homegrown apples and pears can be assessed.

The Council has mounted full-scale campaigns in 1968 and 1969, concentrating its main advertising efforts in the retail shops where the housewife buys her fruit. No doubt hon. Members have seen some of the Council's eyecatching and attractive publicity material, and if they have missed the point of sale material they will perhaps have seen posters on hoardings exhorting the public to buy Worcester Pearmain, Cox's orange pippin apples and Conference pears.

In the North of England the Council has also undertaken television advertising and presented demonstrations in local department stores in order to boost the sale of home-grown apples and pears. Retailers in these areas have reported increases in sales of up to 300 per cent during the campaigns.

The Council's publicity campaigns are welcomed by producers and distributors and research has determined that most retailers carrying out special promotions have achieved increases in the volume of their sales of between 50 per cent. and 100 per cent., directly attributable to the Council's activities. Nevertheless, the awareness of the public of the qualities and availability of our apples and pears remains less than it should be and the Council is very conscious that if it is to extend consumption and compete successfully for an increased share of the apple and pear market its activities must be expanded.

The Council has collected a levy at the maximum rate of 30s. per acre over the past three years, but after low expenditure in 1967 because of the light home crop it has been spending at a level in 1968 and 1969, which represents a rate of 40s. per acre, using up reserves accumulated in 1967. If the Council is to be able to continue to expand its promotional activities, guard against possible increases in costs and have room for some flexibility in fixing each rate of annual charge—which is subject to Ministerial approval—a greater maximum than is now current is necessary. An increase in the maximum to 60s. per acre, within which the Council will determine year by year what is required, will reasonably meet the needs of the situation.

This Measure has been generally supported by the industry and I take pleasure in commending it to the House

I am delighted that the Minister has brought this Order before us on the concluding day of this Parliament, because apple growers form the one section of British horticulture that may have a rawish time if we enter the European Common Market. It is therefore imperative that the House does all that it can to support and assist growers. The work done by the Apple and Pear Development Council has been extremely good. The Minister has rightly reminded us of the 300 per cent. increase success story in the North of England. I believe that in Glasgow there have also been great successes as a result of the Council's promotional activities.

Another aspect of the Council's work that should be praised before we part with the Order is the careful, wise and efficient management of the Council and its staff. The Council has not engaged too many staff. It is run absolutely on a shoe string. The chairman and his senior executives should he warmly congratulated for the way in which they have conducted themselves. These levy-based boards can be a bit of a drag on an industry, but this one, as the Parliamentary Secretary has indicated, is well respected throughout the industry. There are one or two dissentients even now, but the bulk of growers and fruiterers welcome the activities of the Council. I believe that other sectors of horticulture may copy this example in the future, although they may not adopt the levy-based aspects of it. The general activities and the spirit of the Council have been extremely good.

I hope that the House will think of this not in isolation but as a forerunner of other schemes—not identical but similar—because the more Sir Richard Boughey and his team get on with the work the better respected they will be. I hope that in increasing the levy from 30s. to 60s. we are taking a step in the right direction. One could make the side point that it is perhaps the devaluation of cash in the last three years since the Measure was first introduced—[Interruption] If hon. Members want to buy themselves an apple they can go to the cafeteria and get one. There will not be an English apple there at this time of the year, unfortunately.

I suggest that this is a valuable Measure, and hope that we shall see its similar children in the future.

That the Apple and Pear Development Council is perhaps the least criticised of all the boards and councils that exist in agriculture is one of the best tributes that can be paid to it. Perhaps we could make an exception in the case of the Central Council for Agricultrural and Horticultural Co-operation, but that has the happy task of simply giving money away. It is a tribute to the chairman of the Council and to its members for what they have done for so long, on a shoe string, that praise is due to the Council.

It has a task ahead of it. My hon. Friend has said that it is the one branch of the horticultural industry that would have a rawish time in the Common Market. I am less optimistic than my hon. Friend I think that it would spell almost the death of a large part of our historical industry, quite apart from apples and pears. That is one of the several reasons why I agree with the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) and the hon. Member for West Ham. North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) Undoubtedly, if we go into the Common Market we shall have far more Golden Delicious apples coming in—apples that can be grown more cheaply abroad, with a higher yield—

Order. We are not debating the Common Market. We are debating whether the charges should be increased. It is rather a limited debate.

I hope that I am not deviating too far, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I understand it, the purpose of the Development Council is to get this branch of horticulture equipped and able to compete with the challenges of tomorrow.

But on this Order we are not debating the general functions of the Council; we are debating only the question of the increase in the charges.

My point is that it will need even more money than this if the Council is to meet the challenge. That would be too tall an order to expect, and I do not expect it on this occasion. I am saying that I do not grudge the extra levy because it will be needed to enable the industry to do sufficient research and to carry out publicity to overcome the dangers which may be quite close at hand, though I hope those dangers will not materialise. I will do my utmost to oppose our entry into the Common Market.

Is the hon. Member saying to the House that in view of the contingency—and I use the word advisedly—of our entering the E.E.C. the amount proposed in the Order is grossly inadequate?

Indeed. I have said time and again that the whole horticultural industry will be in real danger if we go into the Common Market.

I should like to mention one of the recent decisions made by the Council. The decision concerns a constituent of mine who only last week was prosecuted and fined £250 for failing to register with the Development Council.

Order. The hon. Member is going wide of the terms of the Order. He must restrict himself to the charges in the Order.

But we are concerned with the funds of the Development Council, funds which can be raised only by growers registering and paying the levy. On this occasion a grower was going to give up growing apples—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is trying very ingeniously to circumvent Standing Orders but he must relate his remarks directly to whether or not the Order should be approved, stating the reasons why the increase is not enough or is too much.

I will not try again, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will make my representations elsewhere about this particular prosecution of a man who had decided to abandon growing apples and, despite that, was prosecuted, some would say unfairly prosecuted, for the offence of not registering when he had not been told how to register.

The hon. Gentleman must abide by my Ruling which I have already given twice.

I should like to lend the support and approval of hon. Members on this side of the House to the work of the Apple and Pear Development Council. The words used by the right hon. Gentleman in expressing his support and the support of the Ministry for the work of Sir Richard Boughey and his men are reciprocated by hon. Members on this side of the House.

There is one aspect of the publicity which the right hon. Gentleman did not mention. From time to time certain examples of it are fixed to the windows of my motor car and they have found their way into New Palace Yard. These are excellent little notices which, once removed, still leave their imprint on the windscreen, so that one cannot get rid of them even if one wants to.

My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) referred to the excellent way in which the Council is run. He will recall that he took the chair of the sub-committee of the Select Committee on Agriculture which dealt with horticulture and that Sir Richard Boughey and others gave evidence before him. They then said that they were running the organisation with only four people, which is a commendably small number of people with which to manage an organisation of this sort. The Council deserves the greatest congratulations for the fact that only 10 per cent. of its total income is spent on administration. This is an example which might well be followed by other organisations in regard to other crops.

It is essential in horticulture to have both good marketing and good publicity. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Order was designed to deal with possible increases in costs. A letter was sent out by Sir Richard to growers stating that one of the reasons that the Order was being asked for was that costs are rising all the time. It was not merely a question of possible increases in costs, but that costs had in fact risen. This among other reasons had led the Council to go to the Minister for an additional levy.

The levy was negotiated in 1964–65, which is now some time ago. There are a number of precedents involving people who, having had their remuneration set at that time, have since received increases. Sir Richard in a note to his letter went on to say that if the present maximum rate was maintained the purchasing power of the rate would be reduced to only 21s., or half the level at which it at present stands. This was at a time when there was increased competition, which would mean difficulties for the Council and for growers.

The other point Sir Richard made was that the average spent on advertising is 2·5 per cent. of the retail value of goods sold. The present rate spent by the Council amounts to 0·3 per cent. of gross values paid to growers. Therefore, even if we pass the Order, this will mean that the total rate will go up to only 0·6 per cent. which, compared with a national average of 2·5 per cent., is very small indeed. Sir Richard went on to say that the rate which was paid in other countries is as follows: United States, 6d. per bushel; New Zealand, 5d.; Denmark, 3½d: and the United Kingdom, 2d.

So that, whatever criterion is used, the Council is being most efficiently run and when one remembers that a bushel of dessert apples is 40 lbs., culinary apples 44 lbs., and pears 48 lbs., the total amount spent of Id. or 2d. is very small indeed. The total amount spent on publicity by the Council is remarkably small. In 1968–69 it was £110,000 and in 1969–70 £109,000. This is another reason for sending our good wishes to the Council so that this Order may help it on its way.

I suspect that it would be out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for me to mention that this may be the last occasion on which we shall have the privilege of seeing the right hon. Gentleman the Joint Parliamentary Secretary at the Dispatch Box. In the circumstances perhaps you will allow me to remain in order by saying that we on this side of the House have greatly appreciated the diligence, courtesy and assistance shown to us by him over a large number of years.

I shall be very brief. I too wanted to add to what was said by the hon. Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine), and hope that I may be allowed to remain in order. We on this side of the House wish to be associated with the kind of remarks of the hon. Gentleman about my right hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, who has been both a good Minister and a good Member of Parliament. We wish to associate ourselves very much with what has been said.

May I first of all say how grateful I am for the kind way in which this Order has been received and for the very kind remarks which have been made about me. This will be the last occasion on which I shall have the privilege of addressing the House, not only from this Box indeed from any other part of the House. I have enjoyed my time here very much and I am most grateful to all hon. Members for the kindness shown to me in my 25 years in this place.

I am grateful to hon. Members foi the tributes which they have paid to Sir Richard Boughey, his Vice-Chairman and the members of the Council for the magnificent job they have done. They have done a supremely important job on a shoestring. When one considers how little money it has cost the industry and the return the industry has had for the money, great credit is reflected on those who form the Development Council.

The hon. Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine) said that the only things which had entered the House were bills for display purposes. In fact things even better than bills have come into the House, and we have all enjoyed the fruits of them. We are grateful to the Council.

The Order places the limit at £3, although that does not mean that the figure will immediately go up to £3. It relates to a further period with a £3 maximum.

I hope that the Council will continue to do its job—and, indeed, will do an even better job in the future. The results which the Council has already shown give all in this House the greatest confidence in the work it will do in the future.

I beg to move,

That the Rate Rebates (Limits of Income) Order 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 15th May, be approved.

The purpose of this draft Order, which I commend to the House, is to maintain broadly the coverage of the rent rebate scheme which was first introduced in the Rating Act, 1966, in provisions now consolidated in the General Rate Act, 1967. The House has already approved in February this year the corresponding Order for Scotland. This Order is being debated in another place today.

As the House knows, the object of the rate rebate scheme is to cushion the impact of domestic rates on those householders with low incomes who are not already being fully helped with their rate bills by way of supplementary benefits. I know that the whole House will agree with me that the rate rebate scheme is of the very greatest social importance. For example, in the financial year 1968–69 the number of rate rebate recipients in Herne Bay as a proportion of the domestic ratepayers in the area was 15·9 per cent. with an average rebate of nearly £19; in Morecambe and Heysham, it was 14·9 per cent., with an average rebate of £26; in Thornton Cleveleys, it was 13·4 per cent., with an average rebate of £18; in Margate, it was 1·.6 per cent., with an average rebate of £20; and in Chepstow, it was 13·7 per cent., with an average rebate of nearly £16. In all, in 1968–69 nearly 850,000 ratepayers benefited and the average rate rebate was just over £16.

The scheme provides for rebate of two-thirds of the amount by which the applicant's half-yearly rates exceed £3 15s., provided that the ratepayer's income is within certain limits. It is with the income limits that we are concerned in this Order.

At present the income within which the rebate is payable is £11 a week for a married couple and £9 a week for a single person, with additions of £2 a week for each dependent child in the household.The Order proposes that the qualifying limits should be raised to £12 5s. a week for a married couple and £10 for a single person. There is no change in the addition for a child. In the Order the revised income limits are expressed in terms of the six-monthly rebate period.

The reasons for raising the income limits are that over the last two years money incomes have been rising and, in particular, last November the State retirement pensions were increased. About 80 per cent. of those who are entitled to rebate are pensioners. Although the income limits of the scheme are well above the amount of pension, more and more people who are retiring will have a little income in addition to the State pension—perhaps as a result of savings, perhaps as a result of a pension from their previous job.

It is these people, who may be on or near the present qualifying limits, who would stand to lose part of the benefit of the increase in pensions if the limits were not raised. Two years ago, after the 1967 increase in retirement pensions, we took steps to increase the qualifying limits for rate rebates. We think it right to increase them again.

The increases will also benefit some householders with low earnings which may have risen so that they have found themselves temporarily above the qualifying limits and also a few householders whose incomes have hitherto been just a little above the limits and who will benefit for the first time.

When the new limits come into effect it will mean that a married couple with, say, three children will still he eligible for full rebate if their income, including family allowances, is around £18 5s. a week, or £20 5s. a week if they have four children. Benefit does not, of course, cease suddenly at these limits. Some rebate is payable even if income is a little above the limit, but it is on a reducing scale.

The Order, if approved, will come into effect in time for the next rebate period which begins on 1st October. The date from which applications may be made for that period is 1st August. That explains why the Order is to come into operation on that date.

It is very difficult to estimate exactly how many people are likely to have the particular combinations of income, family circumstances and rate bills which entitle them to benefit. Almost 900,000 households in England and Wales benefited from rebate in the first full year in which the scheme operated—1966–67. The numbers fell in the following year, but rose again to a figure just short of 850,000 after the income limits were raised in October, 1968.

For the last year, 1969–70, the returns are only now being received, but they suggest that the number in the second half of the year was about 800,000. If the Order is approved, the effect, by and large, will be to restore the number of recipients of rebate in England and Wales to round about the 850,000 mark.

In financial terms, rebates have totalled £12 million to £14 million a year. I expect this sum to increase slightly in the coming year, not so much because of increased numbers of recipients—since the purpose of the Order, as I said, is to maintain the coverage of the Scheme—but because of somewhat higher rate bills. A total of 75 per cent. of the cost to the local authorities is met by Government grant.

In asking the House to approve the Order, I hope that I may be allowed to say how much I appreciated the kind references which were made to me by the hon. Members for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) and Poole (Mr. Murton), two days ago. In saying goodbye to the House, for which I have great affection and respect, it is only right that I should place on record the sense of privilege which I have that I should have been a member for so a long a period and should say, too, how greatly I value the many friendships which I have enjoyed—and which, I hope, I shall continue to enjoy—with hon. Members on both sides of the House.

The rate rebate scheme was intended as a temporary measure pending the reform of the whole system of local government finance which was suggested in the Labour election manifesto in 1964. After waiting for six years, we are as far from seeing the end of this horrid system of rates as ever we have been.

This scheme, although intended as temporary, seems to have become a per- manent fixture. It is a notable example of a means test—a means test introduced by a Labour Government who say that they do not like means tests. But I congratulate them on this scheme because it has selectively benefited a large number of people. The Minister told us about the cases particularly at seaside towns where there is a serious rate problem because of the number of elderly people who live there. My hon. Friends support the scheme and are glad that it is operating as well as it is. I remind the Minister that when it was originally introduced it was said that it would benefit about 2 million people. We learn that it is benefiting only 800,000 people this year.

The Minister claimed that the reason for this change is rising money incomes. It was right for him to use the phrase " money incomes ", because this is a relative matter. The true reason for this change is, of course, rising prices. The £ in one's pocket is being constantly devalued. Under Labour we have found the poor getting poorer; and this Order is one means of helping those who are in considerable distress.

The retirement pension buys less now than it did five years ago and once again we have before us a chance of giving those concerned a little help. The rates burden is particularly heavy on those with small incomes. Indeed, a great objection to rates is that it is a regressive form of taxation which bears most heavily on those who can least afford to pay, who are those just above the supplementary benefit level.

The Minister mentioned that those at the supplementary benefit level had had their rates taken care of, so that the rates were not a serious matter for them. But rising rates represent an extremely serious problem for those on small incomes and particularly for those on small fixed incomes.

Hear, hear.

When this scheme was introduced the average sum paid by a householder in rates was £36. I should be interested to know what it is today. Two years ago it was just on £42 and I suspect that today it is £44, which means that the average sum paid in rates continues to rise.

I pay tribute to the other schemes which the Minister has introduced and which have had some effect in helping to stabilise to some extent the appalling increases in rates which householders have had to bear. This burden cannot be measured by the ordinary cost of living index, because it falls particularly heavily on those with small incomes. These are the people who need special generosity.

Let us consider the generosity of this scheme by comparing it with the position relative to the cost of living. When the scheme was first introduced in 1966, the cost of living index stood at one figure. Today it is up by 20 per cent. on that figure. It is 10 per cent. higher than it was in October, 1968, when the current figures of the scheme were made known. We are not really interested in the cost of living index figure today but rather in the figure at which it will stand on 1st October of this year; and here we want to know what price rises are likely to take place in the next few months.

The cost of living index increased by 1½ per cent. in the last month. We hope that that was just a flash in the pan, but we fear that the cost of living will go up this year by at least 7 per cent., which means that if we calculate the remainder of the months of this year until October at that 7 per cent. figure, we see that the cost of living will be 25 per cent. higher than it was in April, 1966, or 14 per cent. higher than it was in October, 1968.

Let us consider the benefits of the scheme, remembering that the cost of living figure is 25 per cent. higher than what it was when the scheme was introduced. For the married couple the figure is 22½per cent. better and for the single person it is 25 per cent. better, so that there is certainly no improvement in the scheme compared with when it was first introduced.

What is the improvement over October, 1968, when the figures relating to the scheme were last increased? In this event the single person must look at the figures with a jaundiced eye because on the basis that the cost of living will have risen by 14 per cent. since October, 1968, the single man will, under this Order, receive an increase of only 11 per cent. He will not feel particularly generously treated. The married man is slightly better treated, but not sufficiently to corn- pensate for the likely increase in the cost of living between October, 1968, and the time when this increase comes into force.

We must then consider the child allowance, and here some surprising facts are revealed. There is no increase at all on the October, 1968, figures, although these are the very children who need help; the under-privileged quarter-of-amillion children whose families are living at below the supplementary benefit level. In consequence, these children are below the poverty line. The children comprising this group should be helped.

The House appreciates the concern of the hon. Gentleman for these children. Has he any statistics to indicate what proportion of children in poverty whom he is describing are the children of persons who own their own houses and pay their own rates?

One does not need to own a house to pay rates. Indeed, virtually everybody pays rates. Many people pay rent with a rate element. I cannot think of anybody who can escape paying rates, except perhaps those who live in institutions. I am not aware of the precise position in their cases.

I was thinking of those who are tenants of private landlords, in respect of whom there are all sorts of formulae for working out the weekly rental payments.

Rates are, nevertheless, paid, even if it is the landlord who signs the cheque for the rates. In the end, the rates are paid by the tenants and there is no escaping rates.

The vast majority of these quarter-ofa-million children are, by definition, within this scheme. The Government have been searching for methods to help these children, but they have not succeeded. They tried by increasing family allowances and drawbacks. By these means they succeeded in dealing with a substantial number of children in difficulty, but this quarter-of-a-million were left. I find it surprising that this opportunity is not being taken to help these children through this scheme.

We must then consider the question whether the scheme reaches the proper beneficiaries. The total income of the householder is calculated and there is no system of disregards, particularly for the disabled, and this seems extremely harsh.

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot, in discussing this Order, go into the merits of the rebate scheme. He may only discuss the increases proposed in the Order.

It would have been possible for the Government to have made this scheme variable.

Yes. The Government could have done anything they wished, as long as the House approved, but we are discussing only what is in the Order, and not what might have been in the Order.

Surely we must be able to criticise the Order for what it omits as well as for what it contains.

When an Order such as this is before the House one can only discuss that which is in the Order, because the Order cannot be amended.

I agree, with respect, but on the last occasion, when this very question arose, the Government spokesman undertook to look into the case. We have not heard what he did about it. It would be most valuable if we could be told why the Government did not go ahead with a variable scheme, which is perfectly feasible.

It would not be in order even for the Minister to discuss that which is not in the Order. We can only discuss the increases recommended in the Order. We cannot discuss the general rebate scheme at all.

Then, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am grateful to you for allowing me the latitude to refer to the children who have been omitted from the Order.

I should like to pay a tribute from this Front Bench to the constant courtesy and good humour displayed by the Minister. Over the years during which he has been Minister of Housing we on this side have had a very great deal to complain of, and we have complained, but he has always put an extraordinarily cheerful face on things, even though it must have been very galling for him to see so many of his hopes fail. We wish him a very well earned retirement as Minister and great enjoyment in his new post as Chairman of the Commonwealth Development Corporation. We hope that we shall see a good deal of him in that position, as we have done over the years when he has been a Minister.

I warmly welcome the Order, which raises the income limits governing entitlement from £11 a week to £12½5 for married couples and from £9 to £10 for single persons. This further increase in the entitlement levels is part of the Government's plans to cushion those of our citizens who, because of their low incomes, face a heavy rate burden unless something is done for them.

I thought it very odd that the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) should have spoken as he did. He first of all assailed my right hon. Friend on the whole rating system. He complained bitterly that it had not been reorganised. But it was my right hon. Friends who set up a Royal Commission to investigate the whole subject. That Commission has since reported. We have recently had right hon. and hon. Members opposite complaining about the speed of government. Only the other day the Leader of the Opposition was complaining that the Government were proceeding at too fast a pace.

On the other hand, we have had the Report of the Royal Commission for only a few months, yet now we have the hon. Gentleman pressing for immediate action—

Order. I have given the hon. Gentleman a fair amount of latitude, but he seems to be starting to stray very wide of the Order.

We great respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead was given enough rope to hang himself. All I ask is enough time to pull the lever to hang him. I am dealing with the precise points he raised. I certainly would not dream of introducing anything that was outside the rules of order, or reply to anything that had not already been said in the debate. I believe that what I am saying is very relevant.

As I understood him, the hon. Gentleman's reason for opposing these increases was that something should be done about the rating system. All I ask is that he be patient and wait until we are returned after the General Election, when we shall certainly reform the rating system.

The hon. Gentleman did not listen sufficiently carefully to what I said. I did not oppose the increases, but welcomed them as far as they went. As to the Royal Commission he mentioned, the reform of local government taxation was outside its terms of reference.

I am delighted to know that the hon. Gentleman supports my right hon. Friend's proposals. It is astonishing to note how the ice of indifference which is among hon. Members opposite about the old, the sick and the pensioners is broken at election time. They have suddenly discovered compassion. The hon. Member speaking for his party, has suddenly discovered compassion. I suspect that after 18th June he will quickly forget all about it again.

Do I understand that the hon. Gentleman has been converted like Saul on the Road to Tarsus, and is in favour of selective capital punishment? He has already said that he wished to use the rope to hang my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason).

The hon. Gentleman is historically inaccurate. The form of capital punishment at the time of the conversion of Saul was crucifixion. I appreciate that it may have been some time since the hon. Gentleman consulted the proper work on the subject, but if he will care to join a little class that I should like to start I am prepared to give him instruction on the matter.

What is the alternative to supporting these present proposals? The alternative is to go back to the system introduced by the party opposite, which resulted in the citizens of the Borough of Harrow getting not one brass farthing out of that rebate scheme. My right hon. Friend gave us a catalogue of areas which had benefited considerably from the different Measures he had introduced, and quite clearly those areas will benefit from this Order. My right hon. Friend did not mention the London Borough of Harrow — he is very modest—but perhaps he will write to me to let me know how many citizens of the London Borough of Harrow, and particularly how many of my East Harrow constituents, have benefited so far, with an estimate of how much better they will be as a result of the Order.

The hon. Member made all sorts of comparisons, but it is quite clear that the only people who benefited under a system which he must clearly have supported were those in Worthing, and such places; not those in Harrow, in Paddington, in East Ham, or West Ham, or Bebington—only a few people in a few selected areas which always return Conservative Members. That system was nothing more nor less than an extramural donation from the Conservative Central Office. In contrast, the Order will benefit all sections of the community equally, and that is a good reason for supporting it.

My right hon. Friend gave a number of reasons for the change. One reason is the increase in pensions and in supplementary benefits. This is a continuing thing. The hon. Member said a good deal about pensions and the cost of living, and indicated that the pension was now worth less than it was in 1964. That is nonsense. In real terms, the pension is worth 20 per cent. more now than when this adventurous Government took office—

I spoke of five years ago. I do wish that hon. Gentleman would be accurate.

I do not see that that makes any difference at all to my argument. I understood him to say 1964, when we came into office. Since then, taking account of the increase in the cost of living, the pension has gone up in real terms by 20 per cent. That is one reason for bringing in the Order.

I observe that the Order does not come into force until 1st August, and the hon. Gentleman was quite rightly concerned about what is to happen between now and then, and possibly during the rest of 1970. He is worried, as he ought to be, about the cost of living. Quite clearly, whether or not we support that Order depends on various possibilities, which are very important. For instance, I have heard a story, I do not know whether it is true, that hon. Members opposite want to introduce a value-added tax. If that were to come about, the effect on the pensioner, on the sort of person who is benefiting under the Order, would be absolutely disastrous. That would increase the cost of living straight away by 7 per cent. Then clearly this Order would be inadequate.

I wonder whether we could have some indication from hon. Members opposite whether, should there be some aberration through the happening of a thunder-clap which caused sensible people to stay at home on 18th June and hon. Members opposite got back to office, they would increase the provision made in this Order by 7 per cent.? That is a question which my hon. Friends may wish to put in other places, but if the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead would like to give an answer now, I will give way. He will not do so, however, because V.A.T. is under wraps and hon. Members opposite are afraid to reveal their plans. We cannot therefore come to a proper appreciation and determination on this issue.

Another factor to be taken into consideration when considering this Order, is the possibility of entry into the European Economic Community, talks on which I understand are likely to go on within the next few days. I do not know whether when compiling this Order my right hon. Friend gave any attention to that possibility. He told us that he took into account various factors when drawing up the Order, but he did not tell us whether he had taken into account the possibility of V.A.T. He perhaps thinks that not worth considering, because hon. Members opposite will not be returned to office, but he also did not tell us about the effect of entry to the Common Market. Some of us may think it a little otiose to enter into the negotiations, because it is a foregone conclusion that the terms will not be acceptable.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What has the Common Market to do with a rating Order?

Order. The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) is, I hope, making only an incidental reference. I am just about on the point of pulling him up.

I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your perception, which, as always, is much more acute than that of the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover). I was about to draw to the end of that parenthesis. If the hon. Member thinks that I have not explained the point to his satisfaction, I am prepared to go over it again. The point was that, whereas my hon. Friends possibly want to negotiate very toughly on this matter, hon. Members opposite would not negotiate so toughly but, as they are not likely to be returned, there is a reasonable excuse for my right hon. Friend not to take that matter into his consideration.

I turn to a point raised in an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington (Mr. Brooks) with reference to tenants. It is true that tenants are as entitled to claim rate rebate as are owner-occupiers, but this fact is not sufficiently well known. I have come across many cases in my constituency in which people have been in rather tough circumstances and I have said to them, " Have you applied for a rate rebate? " They say, " We cannot do so because we are tenants and do not own a house." It takes some time to explain that although they are now owner-occupiers they are still entitled to the rebate. One also finds council tenants who do not understand that they pay rates. On this matter great responsibility must rest with hon. Members opposite and their friends who are Conservative councillors.

The hon. Member's right hon. Friend would be out of order to answer that query.

With respect, I am seeking to know what my right hon. Friend is prepared to do to give appropriate publicity to the terms of this Order.

The Minister would be out of order to answer the hon. Member's query.

It may be out of order, but I hope that my right hon. Friend has taken appropriate note of the question.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) could explain to my right hon. Friend a number of points in the Order which are not clear to him and ask my right hon. Friend to write to him to explain so that he can explain them to tenants in his constituency.

As always, my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) is most helpful and I am grateful to him.

For all these reasons I reject entirely the unworthy and unfounded criticisms made by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead, who clearly is in an electioneering mood this evening. I entirely support the terms of this Order, by which my right hon. Friend has done one more great service to the people of this country.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

This Bill, which passed through another place in a comparatively short time, is uncontroversial, short and important. It amends Section 5 of the Indecent Advertisements Act, 1889, which, to say the least, was passed some time ago. That Section reads:

" Any advertisement relating to any venereal disease shall be deemed to be printed or written matter of an indecent nature, if the advertisement is affixed to or inscribed on any house, building, wall, hoarding, gate, fence, pillar, post, board, tree, or any other thing whatsoever, so as to be visible to a person being in or passing along any street, public highway or footpath, or is affixed to or inscribed on any public urinal or is delivered or attempted to be delivered to any person being in or passing along any street, public highway or footpath."

The effect of this enactment is to put at risk any local authority or public body such, for example, as the Health Education Council, a body which was sponsored by the Government and established in 1968, if it seeks to advise and advertise the treatment of venereal disease. There is the necessity at present to put in a cautionary note such as the Health Edu- cation Council, is compelled to place in its publication on the various types of venereal disease and their cure, which reads as follows:

" Caution. If this leaflet is displayed where it would be visible to someone passing along a street, public highway, or footpath, or if it is handed to anyone in these places, there is a risk of prosecution under Section 5 of the Indecent Advertisements Act, 1889."

This, I am advised, has a gravely limiting effect in these days when much improved methods of cure of venereal disease are available. This is a matter of considerable concern.

The only object of the Bill is to add a proviso to Section 5 of the 1889 Act saying that advertisements relating to venereal disease are not deemed to be indecent if they are published for a local or public authority or otherwise with the approval of the Secretary of State. So the position, if this Bill goes through, will be that a local or public authority will have the opportunity without any risk of prosecution to publish intimations as to venereal disease and its cure with the approval of the Secretary of State so that the exemption proposed by the Bill should be used.

The closing moments of this Parliament deserve their place in the history books, for on the very eve of dissolution we have enacted a Measure which will bring the hope and promise of a better life to Britain's chronically sick and disabled citizens.

On such a day, for which we owe so much to the patient and constructive work of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) it gives me particular pleasure that Mr. Speaker should have given us this opportunity to debate the educational problems of one such group of disabled persons, those suffering from spina bifida and hydrocephalus.

Spina bifida, which means literally " split spine ", is the defect which results when the bones of the spine, and the spinal cord which they protect, are not properly formed during a baby's development in the womb. Until recent years, the vast majority of these children died in early infancy, particularly as many—though not all—of them were affected by hydrocephalus. This condition arises when an obstruction occurs to the normal circulation of the so-called cerebrospinal fluid, which is a clear water-like fluid produced in the ventricles of the brain and which functions as a protective cushion to safeguard both the brain and the spinal cord from injury.

Should obstruction prevent this normal circulation, the fluid is, in effect, dammed up, producing commonly an accumulation in the brain ventricles and subsequent distension and enlargement of the baby's head. About, 80 per cent. of babies born with spina bifida have some degree of hydrocephalus, but it can also arise without the overt symptoms of split spine, or because of such ailments as meningitis in infancy.

Time precludes me from discussing the numerous and sometimes grave problems which are associated with spina bifida and hydrocephalus, at least in any detail, but the excessively high infant mortality rate until recently bears testimony to the hazards such children face from birth.

There have, however, been major advances in the past decade which have revolutionised the expectation of life, and of even a relatively normal life, for such children. There have been various developments and advances upon the original Holier valve, first used in 1958 for reducing the abnormally high pressure within the head of the hydrocephalic infant; and if treatment is applied early enough, a virtually normal childhood becomes possible even in cases of quite severe initial hydrocephalus.

During these same years of the 1960s, major advances have occurred in surgery and medicine for the treatment of the spina bifida child, and today, given proper care, well over half of those born alive can survive the critical first year, and subsequently grow up to adolescence and adulthood. Such children are now surviving in numbers which even ten years ago would have seemed a miracle; and the skill and dedication of those who have contributed to this medical advance deserve the highest praise.

But problems remain, and it should not be forgotten that the parents of spina bifida children have major responsibilities and worries now thrust upon them which the community must do its best to relieve.

During the past four years, I have been approached from time to time by such parents in my constituency, and I have deep admiration for the determined way in which so many of them have striven to overcome the handicaps which an accident of birth has placed upon their youngsters. Their children are generally paralysed below the waist, to a greater or lesser degree, which produces obvious problems of incontinence and failure properly to use muscles. These problems require, not only special toilet facilities, say, but also an understanding by both adults and other normal children of the strains such a difficulty presents to the spina bifida child.

Despite these problems, most of the surviving spina bifida children are mentally well within the range of normality, and since they have full use of their bodies above the waist, including their arms, they have considerable potential, both in terms of work and play.

For society, through its medical expertise, to ensure the survival of many of these children, and then not to apply its skills and energy to ensuring the fullest possible life for such survivors, would be unforgivable; and I wish to suggest several urgent priorities in this respect with reference to my local area.

The Wirral peninsula, which is administered by two county boroughs—Birkenhead and Wallasey—and a further two municipal boroughs and three urban districts within the Cheshire County Council area, has a population of about half a million. However, calculations of the incidence of spina bifida in terms of mean national percentages of live births, must be qualified by the higher incidence of the affliction in the Celtic western areas of Europe.

Figures of the rate to be expected are often complicated, too, by the incidence of still births, but according to the Liverpool Association for Spina Bifida, as many as nearly five per thousand babies are affected in that city.

This may reflect the high Celtic contribution to the Merseyside population, but whatever the reason for this curious genetic variation, the Association claims that spina bifida is

" the most prevalent congenital condition in the Liverpool area."

Even accepting, as I think we must, that the rate in Wirral is rather lower—I am told that it is between two and three per thousand live births—the fact that today most of these children are surviving presents quite new problems for both the health and education services within the peninsula.

In an effort to quantify the demand for school places during the next 10 years, I obtained in 1968 figures from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science which showed that 72 children were at that time assessed as suffering from spina bifida within the seven local authority areas of Wirral; 28 were of school age, in other words over 5 years old, and 18 were receiving special education.

In the autumn of 1969, a year later, I sought to bring the figures up to date; and in a letter dated 15th October I was told by my right hon. Friend that the total had risen to 79, with a rather larger proportionate increase in the number of school age to a total of 38. Of these, 29 were listed as receiving special education.

However, in Circular 11/69 of 28th May, 1969, the Department of Education and Science stated that

" where possible it is desirable that children "

that is, spina bifida children—

" should start their education at the nursery stage, for example, by attending part-time or whole-time the nursery units which are increasingly to be found at special schools for the physically handicapped."

The Circular was at pains to stress the advantages for both children and parents of such nursery provision, and I think it follows that the statistics I have just given of children of school age minimise the scale of the demand for educational facilities which should properly be met.

Some of the children may be able to attend a normal school, but with all the qualifications necessary, my evidence would suggest that there will be about 120 children in Wirral suffering from spina bifida who will require special school places during the second half of the 'seventies, when the infant survivors of the 'sixties will have reached the top school forms. We shall have children in the other forms correspondingly.

Bearing in mind that there are many other categories of handicap, such as cerebral palsy or muscular dystrophy, we are clearly facing a problem of some magnitude, for which remedial planning cannot start too soon. Circular 11/69 showed itself fully aware of the scale of this growing need, and sought both statistics of spina bifida from local authorities, and also their proposals for increasing or improving special school provision. I do not want to suggest for one moment that this is a problem peculiar to my area of the country, but I would contend that Wirral has one or two special peculiarities which do need to be stressed.

The regional variation in incidence, for example—that is, the higher proportion in the western areas of the country—shows that nationally derived statistics would produce an unduly complacent forecast of local need in Wirral during the 1970s. Furthermore the peninsula is at present relying, in its treatment of spina bifida, upon facilities which were either not purpose-built to deal with such children, or which were designed especially with the needs of quite different ailments in mind.

The most notable example of this is the Cerebral Palsy Unit at Clatterbridge Hospital, in my constituency, which was constructed on the initiative of the Spastics Society and is now the responsibility of the regional hospital board. This unit has for some years been accepting spina bifida patients—and I stress that the word is " patient " rather than " pupil " at such a unit—and at this moment there are five children from Birkenhead alone at this unit. The pressure for accommodation at Clatterbridge is now severe, coming from as far away as Chester, and I understand that further classrooms would be needed as a short-term palliative.

However, I would not regard such a palliative as in the best long-term interests of the children. It is surely not desirable for children to be educated constantly within a hospital environment. These children need a school, just like other children, where their special requirements can be met with skilled and sympathetic help, and where they are given the status of pupils in pursuit of learning and skill.

Ideally—and I know this is the Government's policy—special schools for the handicapped need to be purpose built, in order to respond to the very different requirements of different types of handicap; equally they need to be outside, but not too far away from, the district hospitals where specialist medical help can be provided whenever necessary.

Against this background, I have been watching with some interest and concern the efforts by Birkenhead education authority to gain Ministry approval for a day special school for physically handicapped pupils at Woodchurch, in that part of my constituency which falls within Birkenhead. This is planned to offer 100 places for pupils aged five to 16, including those with spina bifida.

Furthermore, and essentially as a short-term measure, the authority proposes to open a nursery class for up to 10 preschool children in October, 1971, attached to a normal infants' school. This, it is stressed, will only be an interim measure designed to cover the period prior to the opening of the day special school, where the authority tells me that it is hoped to take children of nursery age initially. On 24th January the authority submitted its application for the day school to the Ministry again, and I see that a forecast of some 33 school places for spina bifida children in Birkenhead alone has been made for mid-1974. This figure, incidentally, excludes nursery places.

I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend, in her reply, would clarify what is now happening to this request, particularly as time is marching on and the Department has several times indicated that a reply could be expected in the near future. The authority's case will, of course, have to be judged on its merits, but on that score I would feel a good case has already been made.

However, I would like to clarify the future rôole of such a day school in relation to neighbouring local authorities in Wirral. The present pattern is kaleidoscopic, with children crossing administrative boundaries in all directions, en route to Clatterbridge, or to the Day Special School at Elleray Park, Wallasey, the Children's Convalescent Home and School, West Kirby, the Royal Liverpool Children's Hospital, Heswall, and the Children's Hospital, Birkenhead.

Furthermore, they are transported in all sorts of different and more or less unsatisfactory ways, often via ambulances which have other, sometimes urgent, calls upon them, resulting in erratic journey times for the handicapped children going in and out daily.

In a few years time, if the Maud recommendatons are broadily implemented, the existing pattern of divided responsibility for education in Wirral will in any case have vanished—although I personally trust that it will remain firmly bedded in the peninsula as Maud urged. This is surely, therefore, a time to plan for Wirral as a whole, not least in this matter of providing specialist facilities for a small minority of youngsters who are thinly scattered across the homes of the peninsula. In my maiden speech in this Parliament I urged the case for a more rational structure of local government, and it is no less urgent a plea four years later as this Parliament—but not, of course, its Members—draws to its end.

My concern then is to seek some clarification from the Department of the sub-regional provision required for the education of the physically handicapped during the first half of the 1970s—a period when the school leaving age is to be raised, and when ever more adolescents, including handicapped adolescents, will wish to pursue studies after the age of 16.

In the case of spina bifida children, as with other categories of handicap—such as autism—for which society is now accepting much wider responsibility, it is inevitable that there will be need for flexibility and experimentation, for in this field, more than most, it is true that no two children are entirely alike.

But flexibility within a broad strategy is one thing; what we cannot permit is the sort of erratic and arbitrary situation in which the chain of responsibility is tangled up in administrative red tape. One particular example of this deserves mention, because I think it raises a general point about the definition of capital grant.

I mentioned a moment ago the inadequate transport facilities available to children being taken to and from hospitals as day patients. Recently, I was told that the new Birkenhead Social Services Centre was severely restricted at first by a lack of specialised transport, particularly for the elderly and frail. My general question, therefore, is to what extent, when projects for the handicapped are considered by the Department—and, indeed, by any Department—explicit attention is given to this aspect of equipment. Clearly, it is self-defeating to have a purpose-built centre, with all the sophisticated fitting and specialist staff, if the handicapped people for whom it caters have difficulty in getting there at all, or at least getting there and away on time.

I assume that certain items of equipment, such as special toilets, are normally included in the initial planning of a handicapped persons' building, but I do not know whether it is Departmental policy to leave the responsibility for supplying transport equipment to the local education or the local health authority to meet out of recurrent grant, via the rates, or what have you.

In this particular case of the Day Special School at Woodchurch, Birkenhead, can we be told what plans have been made for this priority of transport? It seems to me that there should at least be an effective nucleus of transport laid on, with the bricks and mortar as it were, to avoid the present situation where the regular daily transport of handicapped children, and others, seems to be the residual legatee of the local ambulance service.

I have here an account written by a local parent to me recently, which surely makes the point clearly. He refers to one example of

"a young, handicapped child getting up early to be ready for the ambulance at 8.10 a.m. and arriving home at 5·15 p.m. exhausted, falling asleep over tea…. Another day the transport arrives at 10·15 a.m. In these erratic conditions, child patients are tearful, tired and bored—and it is a daily routine. The wide variations complicate parents' lives and arrangements with other children. At the school, with time out for treatment, valuable hours are lost by late arrival and early departure, planned treatment schedules are upset."

There are many other support facilities, as well as transport, which time alone forbids me raising now, although I am tempted to mention the need to encourage further research into specialist appliances, such as tricycles designed for these children. which can help spina bifida children enormously.

But my final point is on behalf of the parents, as much as the children. Those who have not their experience of having a handicapped child in their family can only marvel at the patience and loving kindness which so many parents provide. But they have enough anxieties without having to worry incessantly about their children's educational future. As one parent said to me:

" I believe that it is important that physically handicapped children should be educated and not miss out on education, giving them another handicap."

Another stated:

" Parents whose children are settled in schools feel tremendous relief both for the child and themselves. Some mothers talk of being released from a prison."

I hope that my right hon. Friend, whose long record in Parliament is testimony to her compassion and concern for these human dilemmas, will feel that the problem I have raised is worthy of her final speech in the House to which she has for so long brought so much distinction and grace.

I am always grateful when hon. Members draw attention to the needs of handicapped children, and I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington (Mr. Brooks) has given me an opportunity to speak on the needs of children suffering from spina bifida, and of those in the Wirral in particular. He has raised many matters, and he will realise that some of the points which he made could more properly be put to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Comparatively speaking, this is a new problem, though one to which both my Department and local education authorities have already given a good deal of attention. We must all welcome the recent great advances in surgery for the newborn. Many children who, even a few years ago, would have died in infancy, or lived as helpless cripples, now survive to school age and beyond. Where the handicap is less severe, they can even take their place, with suitable care, in ordinary schools. Others will need places in special schools for physically handicapped children, and some may need to remain in hospital and be educated in hospital special schools.

Generally, school is preferable to education in hospitals if the child's physical condition permits. But there is no denying that the rapid developments now taking place present us with problems with which the existing special schools provision is not adequate to cope.

As my hon. Friend realises, this is not a problem peculiar to the Wirral, although that is the area under discussion now. The most recent estimate of incidence made by the General Register Office is that per thousand live births there are 1·73 children affected by spina bifida, with or without hydrocephalus. This would mean 1,500 children annually so afflicted in England and Wales, of whom in future about 600 a year are expected to survive to school age. However, as my hon. Friend has said, the incidence is not uniform throughout the country. As yet, little is known of the extent of the regional variation.

My Department recognises the need for special action to meet this growing call upon us and has taken the following steps. First, in a Circular issued towards the end of 1968 we drew the attention of local authorities to the need to include in their building programmes for 1971–72 and onwards schemes of school building which would benefit children suffering from spina bifida as a matter of priority. Many local authorities have already submitted proposals, and these are at present being considered.

The funds available for building special schools are being increased year by year, from £5·6 million in 1969–70 to £7·7 million in 1973–74. Also, we have sent out to local authorities a Circular of general guidance on the incidence of spina bifida and on the educational problems which children suffering from this handicap present. This has been generally welcomed.

Fortunately, the severity of the handicap varies greatly, and it is not always necessary to provide education in a special school. At present, many authorities lack experience in treating such children, but, with increased numbers, experience should rapidly develop, and arrangements suited to the individual children's needs will be made.

I come now to the special problems of the Wirral, which my hon. Friend has so feelingly described. This is not the first time my attention has been drawn to them, and I fully accept that there is a need to be met as quickly as possible. I welcome the initiative of the Birkenhead local education authority in putting forward a proposal for a day school for physically handicapped children. This proposal is now in my Department. As my hon. Friend will realise, there are great pressures on our building programme for the year 1971–72, but the urgency of this proposal is clearly appreciated. I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that my Department will be writing in the near future to the local education authority with a favourable decision.

The present proposal from Birkenhead is for a school for 100 pupils aged 5 to 16. My Department has not yet discussed the schedule of accommodation with the authority, but as at present it includes no provision for a nursery unit, I shall draw the attention of the local authority to the need for one for about 20 children to be added.

There remains for me to say a few words about the provision made at Clatterbridge Hospital, whose exceptional work in caring for these children and providing space for a hospital special school is much appreciated. I understand and fully accept that at present the hospital is feeling the need for increased space for the school. This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, but I understand that at present funds are not available for building within the hospital precincts. In general, also—I believe that this is agreed between the hospital board and the local education authority—there is a lot to be said for making additional provision in schools rather than in hospitals, thus keeping the children, if their physical condition permits, in the main educational stream. This is another reason why we want to see the proposal adopted at Birkenhead.

My hon. Friend raised the question of transport for the children to the school. This is a matter for each of the local authorities which send children to the school, and I hope that they will make every effort to provide a satisfactory service. I must say that, in dealing with special schools, this is the first time I have had criticism of the provision made for transport. Most local authorities usually provide it satisfactorily.

I apologise for not making my original point clearly. I was referring specifically to the children being taken to Clatterbridge Hospital, not to the Elleray Park School, Wallasey.

In that case, it is a matter not for my Department but for my right hon. Friend. A local authority with special school services usually provides excellent transport facilities for taking the children to and from such schools.

I hope that, with the assurance I have given about the school at Birkenhead, my hon. Friend will feel that his efforts have not been in vain.

After 25 years in the House, this is the last speech that I shall make, and it seems that it will be the last speech in this Parliament.

I am not sure.

My maiden speech 25 years ago was on the Industrial Injuries Bill, and my swan-song is about children with spina bifida. I think it appropriate that the House should take time to consider these children in the closing stages of this Parliament. One of the great features of the British House of Commons is that, in addition to time devoted to debates on world affairs and great economic problems, there is always time to consider the less fortunate. I am pleased that it has fallen to me to make my last speech in the House on the care and provision which we make for this small group of less fortunate children who suffer from spina bifida.

rose—

The last speech was to have been a swan-song, but apparently there is another swan-song coming.

I apologise to the right hon. Lady the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science, for taking away from her the privilege of making the last speech in this Parliament, but it gives me the opportunity to pay a tribute to her. She has been a great Parliamentarian for 25 years. Although we have disagreed from time to time, she has graced the House with great ability and wisdom for a long time. The House will be a poorer place for her departure. I hope that she has many happy years in retirement.

My arrangements seem to have gone wrong. I wrote to you yesterday, Mr. Speaker, to say that I was proposing to raise the question of slavery and primitive peoples if the House finished its official business, and I notified the Foreign Office. I am surprised that the Foreign Office is not represented on the benches—

Order. I understand that the facts are as the hon. Gentleman has said. He notified the Foreign Office, and a Minister was to come, and probably will be coming. The business today has gone more swiftly than could be anticipated. In the ordinary course of event I would deprecate a speech being made on the adjournment without an opportunity for a Minister to reply. In the circumstances, the hon. Gentleman is free to speak.

What I am about to say is not controversial, and I would not in any way expect the Minister to be able to give me a concrete answer. Perhaps the right hon. Lady will convey to her colleagues in the Foreign Office that I do not feel insulted that the Minister is not here to reply.

As I am retiring from Parliament, I thought that this would be a suitable opportunity for me to make my last speech in the House on a non-party issue on which there is no controversy in the House although in the world at large there is a great deal of controversy.

The Sudan is a nation largely made up of Arabs in the north and negroid tribes in the south. The Arab people in the north have always dominated the southern Sudanese. Their word for the southern Sudanese is the Arabic word for " slave", and the southern Sudanese therefore come under the orbit of the Anti-Slavery Society of which I have the honour to be chairman. It is appalling to think that there are at least 250,000, if not 500,000, refugees from the southern Sudan who have had to flee from their territory because the dominant majority element of the population is carrying out a form of genocide.

I know that there is a limit to what we can do, but in recent weeks there has been a great controversy aboutapartheidand the cricket tour. It seems to me that our values are wrong when there is so much controversy about 11 men coming here to play cricket, yet nothing has been done by the Government, the United Nations or anyone else to highlight the deplorable situation in the Sudan which has existed for some years. If that were an isolated case it would be understandable, but it is not.

In Zanzibar the Vice-President of Tanzania, who is the head of the Zanzibari part of the government of that country, recently tried to force Persian girls of 16 into a form of morganatic marriage with him. Because they refused, their parents have been made non-acceptable residents and are to be expelled from the country. This is perhaps a minor issue, but it is important in terms of human rights. Where have we heard the voice of Britain speaking loud and clear against these appalling injustices? The voice has been very muted. Our grandfathers would have been far more vociferous.

One of the great Opposition back benchers is making a plea on a late Adjournment debate and it is incredible that until I entered the Chamber he should have been making it to an empty House. This is very unusual, but it is even more regrettable that there is no one on the Front Bench to answer this fine speech—

Order. This point was raised before the hon. Gentleman came in.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support, which I welcome—I also welcome his presence. It makes matters a little more realistic, even if the person to whom I am speaking is behind me. I have been speaking to Mr. Speaker, who always listens with such attention to all my speeches, a privilege which after today he will have to forgo.

I recently made a speech in the House about Brazil, when I said that the Government-organised body whose duty it was to look after the Amerindians in Brazil had been so perverted as to bomb the Amerindians from the air, shoot them with machine guns, lace their food with arsenic to poison them—

With respect, I know the hon. Gentleman's devotion to this subject, but he must link what he has to say in some way to Government responsibility, or say what he wants the Government to do.

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I am about to do that. Doctors are also injecting people with smallpox. I know that the British Government have no direct responsibility in this matter, but we were one of the founding fathers of the United Nations, which was given the responsibility of dealing with problems concerned with human rights and human dignity. I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, when have these problems been raised by Her Majesty's Government at the United Nations?

Nobody more regrets this than the right hon. Gentleman and myself, but we allow criticism of our activities in Rhodesia and of our trading arrangements with Africa to be debated in the United Nations. We are brought time after time into the dock of that great organisation, but the things for which we are hauled in front of the bar of history at the United Nations are minor misdemeanours compared with those I am speaking of tonight.

Why has not the United Kingdom Government raised these matters at the United Nations and demanded that it should take a more forceful attitude to deal with these problems? A large amount of slavery still exists in the Philippines and also in Indonesia.

I have a great affection for Australia, but the situation of the aborigines in that country is disturbing. We have an enormous amount of influence with the Australian Government. Although I would not like to see this matter raised at the United Nations, if the British Government were to say to the Australian Government, " If more speed is not shown in the rehabilitation of the aborigines, we shall at some stage be forced to raise the matter publicly ", it might have a great effect in speeding up progress for those people.

We have not today the same power that we possessed 100 years ago, but Britain still has enormous influence in the world. When I was a delegate at the United Nations what worried me was that we were not using that influence to try to remove some of the evils in the world today. We were so much on the defensive. I am speaking of about eight years ago, when we were in process of our retreat from Empire and countries were either battling for or receiving their independence. If it was not one country it was another at the United Nations demanding that Britain should do something about the matter. However, that time has passed and now there are not many matters on which the United Nations can haul the United Kingdom before the bar of international judgment.

The time is now ripe for the United Kingdom Government to take a much more positive line on the matter of human rights at the United Nations and to highlight the injustices over a large area of the world. If we were to take this course we should be developing a role for ourselves in the second half of the 20th century. Although we are no longer the great power we were, we are still, in my view, one of the most influential nations in the world and we should use that influence correctly.

I do not criticise the empty benches in the House, because hon. Members have gone to the hustings to receive a new mandate to return here to speak with further authority in future. However, I ask that the next Parliament should reassert its moral rôle in the world which, over the last 20 years or so, has happened too rarely. We all know the evils in the world, but we do not speak about them. If our own Parliament would take more time to deal with some of these problems it would have a much stronger feeling of moral probity and integrity. It should seek to deal with the problems which face the world and to protect the under-privileged elements of humanity who are unable to protect themselves. This is why I am raising the question of slavery this evening.

The oneblocof people who cannot send a delegate to the United Nations to plead for them are the slaves. They need somebody to speak on their behalf, and in my inadequate way I have tried to speak for them. Last week, a distinguished Egyptian, Dr. Awad, was in this country. He has been asked by the United Nations to produce a report on the machinery to deal with slavery. A previous report had estimated that there are at least 10 million slaves in the world today, which is the size of the population of Belgium or Holland.

The figure does not include the even worse forms of slavery, like the sham adoption, by which children in West Africa and in the Middle East are adopted officially, perhaps for £5 or £10 at the age of 5 or 6, then work as household drudges until they are 12 or 13, and are then probably sold into a brothel. That is a far worse form of slavery than chattel slavery. But that goes on in a massive way in the countries which spend their time criticising us for this or that misdemeanour.

We have a duty to highlight these matters and to see that action is taken to eradicate them from the face of the earth. We in this House have a bigger responsibility than we have so far taken upon ourselves in this respect. We led the world when my great predecessor as chairman of our society, Richard Wilberforce, headed the campaign 170 years ago to eradicate slavery. At that time an enormous change occurred in the whole thinking of the human race on this great problem. Then, during the remainder of the 19th century, there was a great process of eradication in East Africa, in Zanzibar, and in the Arab countries. But vestiges of it still remain. Perhaps an ever greater evil has now grown up. That is the ill-treatment and injustice to people in the developing countries of the world such as the bush-men in the Kalahari. the Amerindians in South America and other peoples. Their problem today is that they are treated worse than slaves. They pose a difficult problem which needs highlighting and bringing to the minds of the public, not only of this country but throughout the world.

I do not want to detain the House long at this time at the end of a Parliament, but I earnestly ask that when Parliament reassembles it will accept the challenge to bring these matters to light and see that they are dealt with by the world community at large so that a solution is found.

I wish that the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) had made the speech he has just made when he was a United Kingdom delegate to the United Nations about eight years ago.

I did.

If the hon. Member did, then I am sorry that his efforts were so fruitless.

In his compilation of the denial of human rights throughout the world, the hon. Member did not seem to lay very much emphasis on the denial of human rights in Rhodesia and South Africa. He did get near the fringe when he mentioned the Kalahari, but he did not make it clear that the Kalahari was part of the Union of South Africa. I mention these two points for the purpose of clarification, with which I have no doubt my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will find it possible to deal.

I did not hear the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) open this short, sharp but very important debate—

I have already said that I did not mind the right hon. Gentleman not being present.

I am not technically the Minister responsible. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the Minister concerned thought that this matter would be raised at about 8 o'clock. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that no discourtesy was intended.

I listened to the hon. Gentleman's speech. His subject is an important one. He has been a member of the United Kingdom delegation to the United Nations, and, obviously, he has a great interest in the matter and feels passionately about it. Indeed, that was obvious from his eloquent speech. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman was not heard by many hon. Members. Most of our colleagues are speeding to their constituencies to take part in a great debate which will continue during the coming weeks.

At times, the hon. Gentleman rather overstated his case. It is not for me to comment too much on areas where we have no direct responsibility. I know Australia. I visited that country when I was Minister of Agriculture, and I travelled extensively in the rural areas. The hon. Gentleman was a little hard on the Australian people when he spoke of their treatment of the aborigines in today's circumstances.

The hon. Gentleman then traversed other parts of the world. I do not dispute his facts. I have not come prepared with a brief, but I take note of what he said and I will make representations to my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will consider carefully what the hon. Gentleman has said. The hon. Gentleman asked that we should use our influence, and he stressed that we should take a more positive line at the United Nations on the subject of human rights. I think that successive Governments in the post-war period have all stressed the importance of this—the first Labour Government, even our predecessors, and the present Labour Government. It has been done by every British Minister representative and delegation at the United Nations and other assemblies.

I have in mind, for example, my own experience at the Council of Europe, where I was a delegate for a long time and where we continually stress the importance of human rights. Only recently, at the Council of Europe, there was a debate on Greece, when this matter was again raised.

I do not want to be controversial, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) that we have stressed over and over again the rights of individuals in Rhodesia and South Africa and the whole subject of racial prejudice and religious intolerance which mars human freedom and dignity in many parts of the world. I am proud to say that my Government have played their part in condemning these and in trying to create situations where we can move from the state of barbarism among many people who claim to be civilised.

We are not apathetic. I admire the way in which the hon. Gentleman has spoken, and I know that he feels strongly about these matters. He analysed the changing role of our country and pointed out that we are no longer the imperial power that we were. However, as he said, Britain still has a great influence. We have a strong economy. We are a gifted people and a mature democracy. Our attitudes in world affairs are taken note of by many people, and Britain has still a major rôle to play in international diplomacy. We have nothing to apologise for when we talk of the importance that we place upon human rights.

The hon. Gentleman asked us in the next Parliament to take on a more moral rôle in the world today. Without being priggish or pious, I think that I can say that we are already doing this. British influence in the world is strong, and it is backed by our common sense and history. I do not agree that we have done too little. We are anxious to extend human freedoms and, above all, to further human dignity. We oppose the racial and religious prejudice which mars these concepts.

Then there are the other ways in which we can help. British businessmen, experts, technical assistants, scientists and other qualified people, such as veterinary surgeons, are doing a great deal to raise the standards of living of men and women in parts of the world where people still live in terrible conditions. One of our great Foreign Secretaries, the late Ernest Bevin, said that it was impossible to build peace out of hunger. We have led the world in dealing with this problem. We are sometimes criticised, but we have created a Minister of Overseas Development. Whatever the criticisms, we should always be proud of our contribution in that respect.

I have noted carefully all that the hon. Gentleman has said. He was right to raise the subject, and I compliment him. But I hope that he will not be too pessimistic. I believe that we have a good record.