asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the countries to whom he has made representations with regard to the operation of sanctions against Rhodesia.

No, Sir. We make available to the United Nations Sanctions Supervisory Committee information about suspected breaches of sanctions. But our Notes are not proof of any offence and it would be misleading to list countries named. However, the annual reports of the committee record these Notes and the results of inquiries.

Does the Secretary of State accept that, as the administering Power still responsible for Rhodesia and the country which initiated the question of sanctions in the Security Council, we have a special responsibility in this matter? When there is a scandal such as the Boeings affair, is it not reasonable to expect the British Government to take the lead in asking for an inquiry into that sort of situation?

On the subject of the Boeings we have taken a lead, as I shall say in answer to another Question. All that I am saying now is that to name the countries would be misleading, but the hon. Member can find them, if he likes, in the reports of the committee.

Is it not the case that the Boeings were ordered through a South African consortium, in its name, and later transplanted into Rhodesia, all of which would have been a perfectly legal deal, since the South Africans have never lent support to our sanctions policy against Rhodesia?

No, Sir, I do not think that that was how it happened at all.

Does the Secretary of State agree that, given the present political situation in Rhodesia, this, perhaps, is particularly the time when, far from seeking to weaken sanctions, we should be trying to strengthen them? Is he prepared to consider the possibility, and later make a statement to the House about the effect of his consideration, by such ways as may be open to him—various suggestions have been made, which the Government have not as yet accepted—of strengthening sanctions?

I have not yet found a way. I think that the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) made a suggestion that the United Nations committee might employ an ombudsman. I am willing to consider that, but the committee's secretary is one of Dr. Waldheim's executives. I think that its machinery is adequate to find out. It is the political will of different countries that is missing.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make proposals to the United Nations Sanctions Supervisory Committee with a view to blocking the loophole that allowed the supply of Boeing airliners to Rhodesia.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the action taken by Her Majesty's Government to strengthen sanctions against Rhodesia following the successful purchase by the illegal regime of three Boeing aircraft.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs following the acquisition by Rhodesia of three Boeing aircraft, whether he will make a statement on the efficacy of United Nations sanctions and their continuation.

We have passed to the United Nations Sanctions Committee such fresh information about this sale as we have received. What is lacking is not new measures or machinery but the political will to make the present measures fully effective.

Can the Foreign Secretary give the House any more information as to the origin of the sale? Secondly, what steps are being taken by the United States Government to make sure that there is no follow-up in the supply of essential spares?

On the latter point, I have no reason to think that there is any supply of spares. I shall look into the matter. Concerning the origin of the Boeing sales, we do not publish what we send to the United Nations committee until it has had a look at it. It seems to me that it has been through firms in three countries, of which South Africa is not one—as far as we know. This is a complicated matter, which the United Nations must examine first.

Does not my right hon. Friend consider that after seven years it is time for us to realise that we are wrong, root and branch, about the whole business and drop these absurd sanctions, which are in any case wholly invalid under the Charter of the United Nations?

I have said that if I altered my view about sanctions I would tell the House. But as long as there are mandatory sanctions they had better be observed by other countries to the extent that we observe them.

In view of the rôle of Portugal in facilitating the routing of these Boeings to Rhodesia, has not the time come to call off the official jollifications with the Lisbon Government? How long are we expected to go on cheapening ourselves at Lisbon's behest? What is the Government's policy towards the forthcoming visit to Lisbon by the Duke of Edinburgh? Is he expected to congratulate the Portugese Government on their effective support for an illegal regime, in rebellion against the Crown?

There may be an implication in the hon. Gentleman's question that the Portuguese Government had something to do with the Boeings. As far as I know, there is no foundation for that. I had better make that clear. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Portuguese alliance with Britain is 600 years old. It is an alliance in which both countries have taken pride, and I think we ought to celebrate it.

Is not the application by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Dr. David Steel) of the word "loophole" to these ludicrous sanctions the understatement of the day?

It would take quite a loophole to get through 240 million dollars worth of export trade.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will estimate the annual cost to the United Kingdom of the maintenance of sanctions in respect of Rhodesia over the next five years.

It is very difficult to speculate on what the situation will be during the next five years, but I can say that from 1st April 1972 to 31st March 1973 the cost to public funds was approximately £3 million.

Will my right hon. Friend explain whether that is merely the direct cost of maintaining sanctions, rather than the consequential loss of trade? Further, will he say whether, in any calculations it has undertaken, his Department has taken into account the possible economic loss to this country which would arise by the reaction of other States if we were to drop sanctions?

I was talking about direct expenditure. Incidentally, a good deal, or part of that expenditure, has been due to payments which we have to make to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development in relation to the Kariba Dam—which is an old story. However, we are liable for those payments. These are direct calculations. Trade between southern Africa —that is, South Africa, Rhodesia and Portuguese Africa—and the rest of Africa —is about level.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is satisfied with the operation of the surveillance procedures of Her Majesty's Government regarding United Nations mandatory sanctions against Rhodesia.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement regarding investigations into the operation of sanctions against Rhodesia.

Yes, Sir. The United Kingdom has an exemplary record for sanctions enforcement. Eighteen British firms and individuals have been convicted and fines totalling over £200,000 have been imposed by the courts.

As the arrival of the three Boeing aircraft plainly indicates flaws in the surveillance procedures, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House a little more about Her Majesty's Government's plan by way of ex post facto operations in this matter? Does he regard these aircraft as registered Rhodesian aircraft, stateless aircraft, or anything else? Will he give an undertaking to the House that they will not be insured by or through British insurance? Will he say whether any loyal Rhodesian subjects who remove these aeroplanes from Rhodesia and bring them to Britain or to a British dependency will not be prosecuted under the Protection of Aircraft Bill, which is currently before the House?

I understand that these Rhodesian aircraft can fly only on routes on which Rhodesian aircraft already fly. I answered an earlier question about spares. There is no question of spares reaching these aircraft. The sort of thing which the hon. Gentleman suggests would be a breach of sanctions.

Yesterday the Prime Minister said that in his view the imposition of sanctions had had some effect on the bargaining position that Mr. Smith adopted. Arising from that, will my right hon. Friend say whether it is the Government's view that sanctions are doomed to failure, or that they will succeed? If it is their view that they will succeed, when will they succeed? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, clearly it is not a case of weeks or months?

That has been true, but it is clear that sanctions have had some effect. Rhodesia is desperately short of foreign exchange and some other goods—for example, rolling stock. However, to think that sanctions would have a decisive political effect on a short-term basis was a miscalulation.

Has the right hon. Gentleman made any attempt to persuade the United States to stop betraying the United Nations' sanctions policy by continuing to import vast quantites of chrome from Rhodesia? The principle of sanctions comes before the consideration of profit.

The United State advances the argument not of profit but of security. If the United States did not import chrome from Rhodesia it would have to get all its chrome from the Soviet Union.

In an earlier reply my right hon. Friend mentioned the illegal regime's need for rolling stock. Has he any evidence that the regime has purchased rolling stock, including locomotives, in recent months?

I should like notice of that question. At the moment I cannot remember whether there has been any evidence of such a purchase.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the change in the level of exports from Rhodesia between 1971 and 1972; and what has been the average annual increase in the Rhodesian gross domestic product at constant prices since UDI.

Figures published by the Rhodesian authorities, the accuracy of which Her Majesty's Government have no way of checking, suggest that Rhodesian exports may have risen by over £30 million and that the average annual increase in the Rhodesian gross domestic product since UDI was about 5 per cent.

I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for that information. Would it not be rather nice if we could find somebody to impose sanctions on us? Does he consider that it would be worth being described as a member of a regime in order to achieve something of this nature?

My hon. Friend must also take account of the fact that the Rhodesian authorities tend to paint a rosy picture of their economic affairs. They are very selective in their choice of statistics, and their statistics frequently have to be revised.

If he has not already done so, will the right hon. Gentleman consider raising this matter and also the control of imports into Rhodesia in the D'Avignon Committee? It appears that some of our new European friends are not quite ad idemwith us on the problem of sanctions. In particular, will he seek to develop a common foreign policy in Western Europe on the implementation of sanctions?

Questions concerning the implementation of sanctions are a matter for the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations. It is best that such matters are left in the committee's hands.

Is there not some merit in the proposition that hon. Members who take an oath of loyalty to the Crown should not glory in a rebellion against the Crown? Should they not at least join the rest of the civilised world community in trying to bring rebellion to an end, and to bring about a non-racial solution, which is the only alternative to bloodshed and civil war? Those are the inevitable consequences unless we can get a settlement.

The right hon. Gentleman is making a premise which would not be accepted in the House. I know of no hon. Member who glories in a rebellion—[HON. MEMBERS: "We do."] I believe that the great mass of hon. Members are anxious to reach a political solution in the interests of people living in Rhodesia, in accordance with the general principles which are widely accepted in the House.

Economics and sentiment apart, is not one of the difficulties about the imposition of sanctions —a difficulty that has been apparent throughout history and not merely in the case of Rhodesia—the fact that they have always served to strengthen the regime against which they are imposed? Is it not a fact that Mr. Smith's position— he is almost alone in being Prime Minister of Rhodesia for so long—has been immeasurably strengthened by sanctions? Is not that a matter to which the Foreign Office should give real attention?

My right hon. Friend has stated frequently in the House that if he had any reason for believing that sanctions had finally failed in their purpose he would explain the position to Parliament and make his decision. However, he has not reached that decision, and that is not the view of Her Majesty's Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will seek to pay an official visit to the Republic of Vietnam.

My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so at present.

I understand the reason for that negative reply and I thank my hon. Friend for it. Will he comment on the great danger to Indo-China which is posed by the investing of Cambodia? Does this not place in jeopardy the whole future of the peace of this part of South-East Asia?

We greatly regret that North Vietnam has continued to send troops and military supplies into South Vietnam, in blatant disregard of the provisions of the agreement, and that it has also continued its military activities in Laos and Cambodia, once again in clear breach of the agreement.

Will my hon. Friend comment on his recent talks with President Thieu, when he was in London?

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House that in his talks with President Thieu on 10th April he had had a first-hand account of the situation in the region. The Prime Minister assured the President of Her Majesty's Government's continued diplomatic support.

If we are talking about clear breaches in connection with Cambodia, does not the American air action also constitute a clear breach?

There is another Question on Cambodia on the Order Paper. The hon. Gentleman might like to ask his question then.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he has taken to reorganise the Foreign Service since the publication of the Duncan Report; and if he will make a statement.

Adjustments have been made in the scale and disposition of our overseas representation. This has contributed towards an 8 per cent. reduction in the size of the diplomatic service. The report did not propose a reorganisation but provided a set of guidelines for the more effective deployment and management of the service.

I thank my right hon Friend for that reply. Since he recognises the increasing importance of economic factors in foreign policy decisions, is he satisfied with the organisation of the export Department, does he consider that his Department has adequate statistics on economic matters, and will he publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT a chart showing how liaison on economic affairs is maintained between his Department and the Department of Trade and Industry?

The Government fully accept the conclusion of the Duncan and Plowden Committees that commercial work should be a first charge on the diplomatic service, and about 30 per cent. of the diplomatic service staff overseas are engaged on this work. The provision of statistics on economic affairs is certainly an important part of the work of our commercial attachées overseas. They have to make their own assessments and I have no reason to believe that the statistics available to use are inadequate. As to my hon. Friend's suggestion of a chart, there is, of course, constant liaison between the Foreign Office and the DTI, but perhaps I could explain it to him in detail.

Will the Minister consider publishing a progress report on the extent to which the main recommendations of these two reports have been implemented by his Department, particularly in this vital field of strengthening commercial and economic representation on post, so that we get more detail than is possible in an exchange of questions and answers across the Floor of the House?

I shall certainly consider the right hon. Gentleman's point. Perhaps we may discuss it to see how we can most effectively make information available to the House.

Is the Minister able to divulge the reactions and the feelings in our high commissions overseas about the Duncan Report? From per sonal experience, I have found shivers of dismay at the terms and the findings, and what has been happening following the Duncan Report.

If the hon. Gentleman will give me specific examples of these shivers of dismay, I can make inquiries about them. I know that parts of the report are not enthusiastically welcomed and I shall certainly consider them. Perhaps, again we can discuss this matter together.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Anglo-Russian relations, with particular reference to the balance of trade between the two countries.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry reported to the House on Monday on his recent visit to Moscow.—[Vol. 856, c. 4–5.]

I believe this visit will lead both to increased trade and also to a continued improvement in relations generally.

We hope that the mission will lead to increased trade, but would not one of the best ways to improve relations between the United Kingdom and the USSR be to lessen the gap between our exports to that country— running at only £90 million—and our imports from that country—running at over £227 million? There is a responsibility on firms and industries in this country to sell more in Russia, but surely there is also a need for removing many of the political snags which these firms face in trying to sell goods in that country.

Yes, indeed, and my right hon. Friend represented that particular discrepancy very forcefully.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that for 20 years we have been inhibited in our trade with Russia because of the American Battle Act? How much smaller is the strategic list of goods which our manufacturers may not supply than it was five years ago? If there is an embargo, it means that it is impossible for our manufacturers, with all the good will in the world, to do the trade that they would like.

No, Sir. I doubt the hon. Gentleman's premise, because several of our EEC partners, to whom the same inhibitions apply, have been increasing their trade very successfully, and so has Japan.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about his recent discussions with the South African Foreign Minister.

Dr. Muller called on me on 9th April. The principal topics were South West Africa, Rhodesia and, among various bilateral matters, the employment practices of British firms in South Africa.

In his talks with the South African Foreign Minister, did the right hon. Gentleman mention the subject of a possible visit to South Africa by a Select Committee of this House? As the official policy of Her Majesty's Government is, presumably, still against apartheid, and as many of us have seen with our own eyes the fact that British firms in South Africa, through the wages they pay and the employment conditions they operate for black Africans, are obviously propping up apartheid, is the right hon. Gentleman going to leave the whole matter to rest?

The matter of what the committee does or does not do is certainly not for me. It is for the committee to decide what it wishes to do. I cannot—and on second thoughts the hon. Gentleman would not wish me to do so—suggest to the committee what action it should take.

The Foreign Secretary was sufficiently broad-minded and internationalist to discuss with Dr. Muller the record of British firms operating in South Africa. Was Dr. Muller in return equally —in an internationalist sense—prepared to give an undertaking that he would do all that he could to see that the wages of those employed in those firms were correspondingly increased?

Dr. Muller said that the South African Government were interested in better pay for African workers. It was not his job to comment on the performance of British firms. But the Department of Trade and Industry has sent out a circular calling attention to the need for good employers.

Are not the wages paid by British firms in South Africa higher than those paid anywhere else in the African continent?

Rubbish.

Are not those countries which are receiving bounties from the British Exchequer in the form of aid paying the lowest wages?

Without notice I should find it difficult to give the necessary statistics. I understand that this is what the committee is to inquire into.

Will the Foreign Secretary tell us something about the discussions that took place on Namibia? As the South African Government have made it perfectly plain that they would not respond to any kind of plan which would meet the view of the Security Council about Namibia, is it not now time that we enforced the International Court's judgment in this respect if we want to enforce its judgment in respect of Iceland?

Dr. Waldheim has been trying to arrange with the South African Government visits to Namibia, and there have been two which have been successful and have shown some advance. It is our hope that Dr. Waldheim will continue this operation.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government to re-establish the International Control Commission in the Khmer Republic.

The political conditions do not yet exist in which the commission could function. Despite the provisions of the Paris Agreement for the withdrawal of foreign forces from Laos and Cambodia (Article 20) the North Vietnamese and their allies continue to promote hostilities.

Will my hon. Friend at least take the opportunity of making certain that the members of the Khmer Government are aware that many people in this House are sympathetic to and greatly appreciative of the work which the Khmer Government are doing in resisting aggression from North Vietnam?

I am sure that the Khmer Government would welcome the remarks of my hon. Friend.

Has the Under-Secretary reflected on the question that I put to him on Question No. 2?

The hon. Member asked whether or not the Government had any views on the American bombing in Cambodia. There is, as I have indicated, no agreement on a cease-fire in the Khmer Republic, although the Republic has offered one. The United States bombing is at the request of the Khmer Government and is a reaction to an upsurge of military activity by North Vietnamese and Viet Cong forces in direct contravention of Article 20 of the Paris Agreement. They have endeavoured to block supply routes to Phnom Penh.

Are we supporting the Americans?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the governors of the BBC and the directors of The Guardian concerning Mr. Peter Niesewand.

Officials of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have been in touch with both the BBC and The Guardian about this case.

I warmly welcome the fact that the Rhodesian authorities have now released Mr. Niesewand so that he has been able to come to this country.

I share the joy concerning Mr. Niesewand's release, but cannot my right hon. Friend take matters a little further by probing the whole of the background of this case in an effort to ascertain whether Mr. Niesewand's real fault, which was secreted by the Rhodesians, was that he transmitted information concerning sanction busting and the matter of the three Boeings illicitly smuggled into Rhodesia? What action does the Foreign Secretary, as initiator of sanctions against Rhodesia, propose to take in that matter?

None. The case of Mr. Niesewand has been examined by the courts in Rhodesia. Happily, he is free, and I should have thought it would be better to rest at that.

As it is clear that it has been the force of world opinion and public opinion in this country which has procured the release of Mr. Niesewand— [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] As it is clear that this was the only way in which it could be done, cannot the same force of opinion be brought to bear in connection with the Africans who are detained and about whom there has not been similar publicity, but who are just as innocent of the crimes similar to those of which Mr. Niesewand was convicted? Will the Foreign Secretary renew the representations he has made before and through him, may we ask the media whether they will give as much publicity to these other cases as they did to that of Mr. Niesewand?

The right hon. Gentleman's comments in the latter part of his question are very much to the point. I have made representations— and I shall continue to do so—that when people are detained they should be tried.

Does not the release of Mr. Niesewand illustrate the freedom and impartiality of Rhodesian courts— [Interruption.] Is it not strange that there has been such a furore about Mr. Niesewand, yet so little concern about the fate of Mr. Hawkesworth, who was captured by African guerrillas, who is a British subject and who, as far as we know, has been in their hands for several months? What is my right hon. Friend doing to secure his release?

We do not know exactly where Mr. Hawkesworth is. He is not in Rhodesia, but he is, we think, in some other African country. We are trying to obtain information as to his whereabouts.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the agreement he reached with Mr. Smith for the review of those in detention is wholly inadequate to the present situation, in that it provides for no active British participation whatever and relies upon a Rhodesian tribunal? Will he therefore take that part of his agreement with Mr. Smith off the negotiating table and insist that the review be carried out with the full participation of British judges?

The hon. Member is not quite right. If I remember rightly, under the 1971 terms there was a proposal that certain detainees —over 30 of them—should be released immediately and that the cases of the rest should be considered by a tribunal at which there would be a British observer.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will seek, in consultation with the Portuguese Government, to include in the celebration of the sixth centenary of the Anglo-Portuguese alliance a naval goodwill visit to Sagres, in view of its association with Prince Henry the Navigator.

No, Sir. However, during their recent visit to Lisbon the Royal Navy paid tribute to the achievements of the Portuguese navigators. A wreath was laid at the Discoverers' Monument at Belem, and retreat was beaten at the nearby abbey, which contains the tomb of Vasco da Gama.

I welcome what my hon. Friend has said. Is it not the case that this oldest alliance is today vital to the security of the Atlantic and the Cape route? Were not the disloyal and ignoble antics of a noble Lord in another place and the actions of pro-terrorist demonstrators utterly unrepresentative of the feelings of the British people, who hold Portugal in the highest esteem?

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made it clear in an earlier answer today that it is right and proper that we should celebrate the 600th anniversary of a very ancient alliance.

Is it not wholly out of place that the two navies should have relations of close contact when, because of the action of the Portuguese in allowing oil to pass through Lourenco Marques, the British Navy continues the Beira patrol without sufficient effectiveness? Is it not time the Government looked seriously at the practical possibility of extending the Beira patrol to cover Lourenco Marques and to stop oil going to Rhodesia through that port?

On reflection, no doubt the hon. Member will agree that Portugal's internal policies are not matters on which it would be appropriate for Her Majesty's Government to comment. He made the point that the British Navy is an ally of the Portuguese Navy. Indeed, it is. Portugal is our ally in NATO, and it is our policy, in that context, to develop businesslike and friendly relations with the Portuguese Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement regarding the London talks with the Icelandic Government upon the fisheries limits dispute.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what communications he has had with the German and Icelandic Governments on fisheries limits.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the Icelandic fishing dispute.

I have nothing to add to what I told the House on 7th May. We remain in close touch with the Federal German Government about our respective negotiations with Iceland.—[Vol. 856, c. 36–44.]

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that two days ago, in Hull, a joint action committee of owners, skippers and unions met and decided not to ask for naval intervention at this stage? Will he confirm that it is the policy of the Government to intervene if and when asked by the industry? Has he noted that since the talks finished there was one warp-cutting incident, but since that happened five days ago there have been no others? Does the Foreign Secretary consider this a happy augury for his possible meeting next week or the week after—I do not know—in Strasbourg, with Mr. Agustsson, and will he say that if he goes he will then talk about future meetings with Iceland on this matter?

I shall certainly have an opportunity of seeing the Icelandic Foreign Minister in Strasbourg. I had noticed that there had been no warp cutting. I hope that the hon Member's interpretation is correct, and I shall keep my fingers crossed.

Every time there have been negotiations there have been considerable British concessions and virtually none from Iceland. Will my right hon. Friend seek to redress that balance? Will he see that officers in charge of frigates off Iceland have orders to intervene in any attempt to capture a British trawler without having to refer to Whitehall and waste time?

Ministers of Her Majesty's Government must control the operations of Her Majesty's Navy, and so I hope we shall give the necessary orders. But we want a compromise which will give us the catch that the industry thinks is adequate. We keep in close touch with the industry, and I hope that the House will leave the matter there.

When replying to Questions earlier this week, the right hon. Gentleman said that the Icelandic Government had undertaken to study the latest batch of British proposals. Did they give any indication when they might be expected to reply, or are we merely waiting and hoping to work through intermediaries and chance meetings, at places where representatives of both Governments might happen to be, to arrive at a conclusion?

We said that we were willing to reopen negotiations at any time, but the Icelanders said that they could not yet give a date. I hope that they will take a decision very soon.

When the Icelandic Government made their 50-mile claim last September, did they not simultaneously make a claim to control pollution up to 100 miles from the coastline, which followed an early example set by Canada? Was that claim also discussed at the talks?

We have not discussed pollution.

I think that the House is ready to leave the matter where it is, as the right hon. Gentleman asked us, and we all hope that there will be a settlement. Nevertheless, in any further discussions with Iceland will he undertake to indicate to the Icelandic Government the strong view that some concessions must be made from their side, as well as from ours, if there is to be an agreement that will stand?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Portuguese Government concerning the detention of Mr. John Francis Rice, a British subject.

Mr. Rice was arrested in Lisbon on 20th February. No representations have been made to the Portuguese Government about his detention, but the British consul in Lisbon will continue to be in touch with the Portuguese authorities.

Although I am in no position to comment on what, if any, charges may be under consideration, may I remind my hon. Friend that Mr. Rice has been imprisoned in Lisbon since 20th February without any charges yet having been preferred? I draw my hon. Friend's attention, in particular, to Mr. Rice's state of health. I understand that he has been diagnosed to be in need of an internal operation in the near future, and that he is in a run-down condition and has lost a great deal of weight. May I ask that representations be made, so that the finest possible medical services available in Lisbon are put at Mr. Rice's disposal, and that he be put on a diet so that he can gain strength before his operation? In view of his indifferent state of health, can the Portuguese authorities please be asked to take a compassionate view and give priority to coming to a decision about what action to take?

I have noted my hon. Friend's request. It is contrary to international usage for there to be governmental intervention, whether in civil or criminal proceedings, while the cases are still sub judice. However, I take the point about Mr. Rice's physical condition. He has seen the prison doctor and has received attention at the prison hospital, and the consul has passed the medical history to the prison authorities.

Are the Government seriously saying, in relation to a British subject who has been in prison from 20th February to 9th May, and in respect of whom no charges have been brought, that they have not even seen fit to inquire as to the circumstances—to inquire of a country with whom, apparently, we are just about to celebrate 600 years of closeness and alliance?

It is quite possible to inquire as to the circumstances, but, according to international usage, to make formal representations is not possible until the subject is charged.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British citizens he estimates are in prison in the Soviet Union and other Communist satellite countries.

Three—two in Czechoslovakia and one in Bulgaria.

What representations have been made by the Government to try to secure the release of these people in Communist prisons? I hope that the House will always be fair, and that whether a British subject is in prison in Portugal or a Communist country the same representations will be made by the Government.

We have not made representations in these three cases because we have no standing to do so, in view of the nature of the charges.

Nevertheless, will the Government use their influence in these cases? When my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said that the case was sub judice, does not that denote the beginning of a judicial case? Do we understand that no case has been preferred against that British subject?

My hon. Friend must have misunderstood me. I did not say that the case was sub judice. All I said was that we had no grounds on which to intervene. We have had consular access, and we are satisfied that the courts in those countries acted according to the law prevailing there.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the use of British passports by Israeli Government agents in obtaining entry to the Lebanon.

We have conclusive evidence that three of the people involved in the Israeli raid on Beirut on 10th April used falsified British passports. We have protested to the Israeli Government and have sought both an explanation and an assurance that this kind of thing will not be repeated. We do not regard as satisfactory the Israeli explanation that no Israeli personnel were carrying British or any other passports.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. His remarks will be echoed by many hon. Members. If he knows, will he say exactly how the false British passports that were used in the raid were obtained? Will he institute inquiries to see what the general position is, and how easy it is to obtain a false British passport?

Falsification can easily be undertaken by forgery or various alterations to a passport, but I shall look into my hon. Friend's general point. The evidence was passed to us on a confidential basis, and I am not at liberty to reveal it. I can, however, assure the House that it is utterly convincing.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that espionage agents employed by the British Government will in future use only genuine United Kingdom passports on entering foreign countries? Will he acknowledge that the raid may have caused the Lebanese Government, who have for so long harboured terrorism in and near Beirut, to have second thoughts and thereby improve the prospects of peace in the Middle East?

I have no knowledge of any British personnel using the methods implied by the hon. Gentleman. What he must understand is the grave danger caused to British citizens abroad by such an incident, which could create an utterly false impression that the British were implicated in the incident. It is a very grave matter, which we take extremely seriously.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will revise the passport regulations to enable a joint passport holder, when his or her spouse dies, to obtain a single passport at a reduced rate for the period outstanding on the joint passport.

No, Sir. To introduce passports at reduced rates would not be fair. It would give persons in this category an unjustifiable advantage over those who, for other reasons, apply for replacement passports at the normal fee.

As the Minister rejects the suggestion I made, will he consider the possibility of deleting the deceased spouse's particulars officially from the joint passport, so that the surviving spouse may continue to use it without the distress of the continual reminder of the loss?

I think that there is some misunderstanding about the so-called joint passport. It is really a passport issued to a particular individual, but his wife and children are allowed to travel on it free. It is a concession made to the family; the passport is given to the husband, and the wife and children are allowed to travel free. It is not really a joint passport, but a passport issued to a particular man in accordance with an international convention.

Acting on the principle that constant dripping may wear away a stone, would my right hon. Friend be prepared to initiate the calling of an international conference to end the anomaly of the so-called joint passport and have it on a proper basis for each individual?

It is perfectly easy for everyone to have an individual passport, but about 20 per cent. of passports issued at present allow a man to take advantage of the concession for his wife and children. In parts of the country, particularly in the North, about 50 per cent. of passports issued take advantage of what is quite an important concession, under which an individual secures a passport for £5 on which his wife and children can also travel, instead of having two passports, which would cost them £10.

If a family passport is issued to a wife and she dies, can it be used equally by her husband and children?

Under the international convention the passport can be issued only to the man, to the husband. The United States has sought to breach that rule by making it possible for either a husband or a wife to have a passport issued in his or her name. I understand that not much advantage has been taken of that situation. That is because certain countries have not been prepared to accept a passport in the name of a wife, because it is contrary to the international convention.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is satisfied with the administration of the British Consulate General in San Francisco.

Yes, Sir.

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's reply. It is especially welcome in view of the recent incidents at this consulate which have underlined earlier complaints.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now make representations to the French Government in support of the Australian and New Zealand Governments' objections to proposed French nuclear tests in the Pacific Ocean.

I have nothing to add to what I told the House on 2nd May in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Salford East (Mr. Frank Allaun).—[Vol. 855, c. 1249–52.]

Although our general attitude to atomic tests has been made known to the French Government, have we not quite a special relationship and obligation to Australia and New Zealand which should make us zealous to espouse their cause whenever we can? Would it not be unfortunate if, after acceding to the European Economic Community, we seemed to subordinate the special interests of the British overseas for fear of offending the French?

I would not consider doing that. But I have often made clear to the French what my hon. and learned Friend describes as the general attitude to these tests in the atmosphere. I said the other day that we hoped these tests would not be held.

For the first time since 1st January, the Government now have a special opportunity, in view of the forthcoming visit by the Prime Minister to President Pompidou. Is it not now the duty of the Prune Minister to act as the spokesman of the Commonwealth countries which feel so very deeply about this matter? Would it not help generally if the right hon. Gentleman gave an assurance that the Prime Minister would act as a joint spokesman?

No doubt the Prime Minister and President Pompidou will talk about many questions, but I must remind the hon. Gentleman that Australia and New Zealand are independent Commonwealth countries. We do not speak for them.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the need for these tests would be obviated if France were treated as an equal ally of the United States on the same basis as we are, which could be done without any infringement of the non-proliferation agreement?

It would depend whether the French were willing to enter into a system of testing atomic weapons with the United States.

Although Australia and New Zealand are independent countries, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Samoans, the New Hebrideans and the Gilbertese are far more dependent on us than Australia and New Zealand can be, and that we have special obligations to them? Will the Government now discharge those obligations?

Yes. We monitor these tests in the interests of those places. They have not asked us to protest to the French.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek to pay an official visit to Indonesia.

My right hon. Friend paid an official visit to Indonesia in July 1972 and has no plans at present to pay a further visit. My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Defence visited Indonesia in February this year.

Did either the noble Lord or the right hon. Gentleman point out to the Indonesian Government the concern of people here, who would like to see closer relations with Indonesia, at her reputation of being a country with about 55,000 political prisoners, which is probably a greater number in relation to the size of population, than anywhere else in the world?

No, they did not. The Indonesian authorities are aware of the concern in this country, as indicated by the hon. and learned Gentleman. He may be interested to know, however, that as far as we are aware none of those detained in Indonesia for alleged association with the Communist Party is a British subject.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received during 1973 reflecting concern in Great Britain at the plight of political prisoners in Greece.

Ministers have received a number of written representations from Members of this House and the public.

Have the hon. Gentleman and the Foreign Secretary read the letter in The Times of 30th April, signed by a number of members of the Cambridge University Economics Faculty, protesting against the Greek Government's treatment of Professor John Pesmazoglou? There are reports that for the past fortnight or three weeks this distinguished international economist, himself a graduate of Cambridge, has been held incommunicado and has also been subjected to torture. Will the hon. Gentleman make clear to the Greek Government our official condemnation of this latest example of their policy of vicious political persecution, in flagrant violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and of the European Convention on Human Rights?

I share the regrets of the right hon. Gentleman when friends of Britain are in prison anywhere, but official representations to another Government about their citizens raise difficult issues of jurisdiction. I understand that Professor Pesmazoglou has now been charged with conspiracy. I think, therefore, that it would be wrong for me to comment in detail or make a statement at this time.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many political prisoners in Greece, most of whom are, I think, friends of this country, are being detained in solitary confinement in the notorious military police interrogation centre in Athens, and are denied access to their families and to lawyers? Will he give due weight to these matters when arrangements are being discussed for the adherence of the United Kingdom to the Treaty of Association between the EEC and Greece? Indeed, will Her Majesty's Government undertake that unless these abominable practices are remedied we shall carefully consider that adherence?

Naturally I have noted seriously the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement, but he knows that under the Treaty of Accession we are obliged to apply the provisions of the Community's agreements with third countries, including Greece, subject to any transitional arrangements or adaptations which may prove necessary. There can be no question of our saying—and I do not think that he will expect me to say—that we would seek to renege on our treaty obligations.

The hon. Gentleman says that there is difficulty in making representations. Is not Greece a member of NATO? Is there not a NATO code about peace and freedom? If a member country is violating that code, have we not a responsibility to raise the matter with that Government?

Greece is a member of NATO but we have no responsibility to inquire into the internal arrangements of independent countries—and Greece is a country which is perfectly responsible to run her own internal affairs.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has held in the context of the Aid to Pakistan consortium; and when he expects to announce the United Kingdom's position with regard to the servicing of existing liabilities and future aid commitments to Pakistan by Her Majesty's Government.

We took part in the Pakistan Consortium meeting on 22nd and 23rd March and, with some other donor countries, made offers of development assistance for the coming year, depending on satisfactory progress in resolving external debt questions. Discussions are continuing with the World Bank and other donors.

I am grateful for that reply and for the decision in principle by the consortium, made on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the consortium members decided that previous aid disbursed to Pakistan would be the responsibility of Bangladesh and Pakistan, according to which wing of the unitary State it was previously allocated? In that circumstance, will he take a positive view in the forthcoming negotiations?

My hon. Friend goes to the heart of the matter. This is the problem that has to be settled. It would be wrong for Her Majesty's Government to try to intervene in a matter which concerns Bangladesh and Pakistan, but we look to both countries to honour their external obligations.

Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to tell us—roughly, perhaps —how, as a result of the recent talks, the British aid contribution to Pakistan is likely to compare with our aid to Bangladesh and India?

I could certainly give the right hon. Lady the figures as far as they are available but, in relation to what I have just said to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson), a certain amount of the aid programme both to Pakistan and Bangladesh must depend on a satisfactory settlement of the question that he has brought to the House's notice.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the level of British technical aid to Samoa.

We have a capital aid programme of about £50,000 a year and also a small technical assistance programme.

The Foreign Secretary has continually referred to the quality of the scientific advice he gets on radiation hazards—in Samoa and elsewhere— of French nuclear tests. Is the right hon. Gentleman's advice more distinguished than that of the double Nobel Prize winner, Dr. Linus Pauling, who has said that there will be 1,700 deformed babies in Australia, 1,500 of whom will die, and that the results in Polynesia and Samoa will be even worse? What medical help will be sent from this country to Samoa if the tests take place?

The hon. Gentleman is making all kinds of propositions which I could not accept.

They are facts.

It is also a fact that Western Samoa is an independent nation.

Answer the question.

I think it would be wrong for us to anticipate or try to anticipate the effects of any nuclear tests.

Just wait until it happens.

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman wants to hear the answer. It would be even more wrong to anticipate the decision that the Western Samoan Government might reach on the basis of any effects that these tests had.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise at the United Nations, as a threat to world peace, the proposed supply of arms by France to the Government of Uganda.

No, Sir. We have been in touch with the French Government about Press reports on this subject and they have assured us these reports are without foundation.

That report is extremely welcome, if it is accurate. Will the Foreign Secretary take the opportunity of asking his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, when he confers with President Pompidou, to ask the French to ensure that no such supply takes place, because to supply arms in this context would be to drop a detonator into a powder keg?

I have myself made these representations to the French Government, and I have received this answer. I have no reason to believe that it is not accurate.

I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 5, line 36, leave out '£1·68' and insert '£100'.

It is right that before we conclude the Report stage we should at least spend some time examining the problem of the numerically smaller class of contributors, those who are self-employed and who under the terms of the Bill will pay flat-rate Class 2 contributions and also be liable for a 5 per cent. levy on income exceeding £1,150 a year on their Schedule D earnings up to a ceiling of £2,500.

The House should first bear in mind that large numbers of the self-employed have small incomes. It is against that background that we should examine the financial obligations placed upon this category of contributors. It is a regrettable fact, which is generally accepted, that successive Governments have found it impossible to bring self-employed earners into an earnings-related system. Because of the continuing dependence on flat-rate contributions substantial numbers of self-employed persons with small incomes suffer from the same disadvantages inherent in a system of flat-rate contributions as are suffered by lower-paid workers who pay Class 1 contributions.

It is worth noticing that under the terms of the Bill a self-employed earner liable for Class 2 contributions with a weekly income on the Schedule D returns of £20 a week will be making a percentage contribution to the national insurance fund not of 5·25 per cent., which is the percentage paid by the employer, but of 8 per cent. Another example is that of a woman paying Class 2 contributions. Even under the transitional arrangements, when she will be paying a weekly con- tribution of £1·40, she will be paying a flat-rate contribution equal to 10 per cent. of her total income.

I am not considering the fact that a self-employed earner has no employer to make a contribution. I am merely looking at the stark facts as they face such a person. Unlike a Class 1 contributor he is expected to make a percentage contribution much higher than that of employed persons even though a large number of self-employed persons have limited incomes. When such people take the option and make voluntary contributions to maintain a contribution record to obtain a full retirement pension they are required to pay what must to many be a near crushing burden.

As the Bill stands, whereas self-employed persons paying a Class 2 contribution will be required to pay £1·68 in the case of a man and £1·40 in the case of a woman, under the transitional proceedings those whose income is likely to be very small are required to make a payment of £1·33. This is not a party political point, it is part of the structure. This was inherited from the existing national insurance system. Since we are dealing with a major piece of principal legislation it is right that we should look at the problems arising for the self-employed person with a low income. We should also consider others, for example the single woman deprived of her job, looking after her elderly parents or sick members of her family.

The purpose of this amendment is to bring relief to those who have the option of making voluntary contributions and to attempt to give some assistance to self-employed persons, many of whom have limited incomes and who are, in overall terms, among the lower-paid. The effect of the amendment is not to bring in any additional resources from payments made by self-employed contributors.

The global effect of the amendment would mean that the whole body of self-employed persons would be making a global contribution at about the same level as now. There could be a debate about whether the proportion of contributions as between self-employed and employed persons is right. The Undersecretary pointed out in Committee that whereas the sum of the self-employed person's contribution relates to only 33 per cent. of the retirement pension, as a result of the Bill this group will find that they are contributing not 33 per cent. but 53 per cent. towards the cost of the pension.

We are not discussing that now. We are not discussing the overall basic amount of money to be raised by self-employed persons through their contributions. What I am trying to do is suggest a formula which will bring relief to self-employed earners and to those who find themselves in a position when it could be to their advantage to make voluntary contributions to maintain a contribution record even if their total income is very small.

4.0 p.m.

We are not tied to this precise formula. If the Government wanted to raise more money from self-employed contributors we would be prepared to listen to any propositions they might wish to put forward. If they said that we had the balance of the arithmetic wrong and that the figures should be amended, we are flexible on this matter and would be prepared to listen.

Against that background I will briefly describe the effect of the amendments. The effect of Amendment No. 7 would be to reduce the Class 2 contribution for the self-employed, of whom large numbers are on very small incomes, from £1·68 to £1. Similarly, those paying voluntary contributions—we must consider these people with a great deal of sympathy —would be required to pay not £1·33, as stipulated in the Bill, but £1.

In order to balance the revenue brought into the National Insurance Fund we propose in Amendment No. 9 that the percentage contribution from those with incomes ranging from £1,150 to £2,500 a year should be raised from 5 per cent. to 1½ per cent. and from those earning over £2,500 a year 10 per cent.

There are about 1½ million self-employed persons in the United Kingdom. On the most reliable figures that I have, I understand that about two-thirds of those 1½ million self-employed have earnings at or below £1,150 per year. Even those on £1,150 are expected to make an 8 per cent. date-rate payment.

The amendments would be particularly helpful to the self-employed with limited incomes. They would find themselves advantaged up to a sum of 68p.

There would be little or no additional cost imposed on the self-employed with incomes of between £1,150 and £2,500. For example, a self-employed person with an income of £2,500—the ceiling laid down in Clause 5—would be liable to a percentage levy of 5 per cent. on £1,350, the difference between £1,150 and £2,500, and there would be a total levy of £2·98 —£1·68 for the Class 2 contribution, plus £1·30 as the 5 per cent. contribution under Clause 5.

Under my revised formula the total payments made, assuming a drop in the Class 2 contribution from £168 to £1 and a 7½ per cent. levy rather than a 5 per cent. levy, would be £1·95 on the levy and £1 for the contribution. So, even at the ceiling, the £2,500-a-year man would be paying not £2·98, but £2·95. Therefore, we are not loading additional burdens on the self-employed whose incomes are modest or up to one-and-a-half times national average earnings. We are particularly anxious to do what we can to help the self-employed with modest incomes, but we suggest that a possible formula might be that which we are proposing. It would mean that even persons earning up to one-and-a-half times national average earnings would not find themselves loaded with additional payments.

I understand that the total resources coming into the National Insurance Fund, under the system laid down in the Bill, would be about £132 million a year. Under our proposals the figure would be about the same. I cannot put it any nearer. The Opposition do not have the advantage of the research facilities available to the Government within major Departments.

There is room for argument about what should be the proper percentage contribution for pensions return which the self-employed should receive. If the Government believe that there is any need for a further upward revision, having moved from 33 per cent. to 53 per cent., which is a helfy increase, we would be prepared to look at any proposal they may make. However, we believe that our proposals provide a formula which could help the self-employed person with a small income.

It is right that this House should look at the problems of the small shopkeeper —the lady with the little corner shop who is faced with competition by supermarkets, hypermarkets, and the great chain stores—and all the self-employed who find that there is no gold mine at the end of the day and that they are working for an extremely limited income. It seems reasonable to put forward these proposals in order to give some assistance to the poorer of this section of the community whose needs, because they number only 1½ million rather than many millions, are often overlooked when we discuss general matters in this House.

The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) said that it is never easy to fit the self-employed into the national insurance scheme and to see that, on the one hand, the burden of contributions is not too great for them, given their circumstances, and that, on the other hand, they bear a fair share of the cost of the basic scheme. This is an age-old problem which is not made any easier under the new arrangements.

I remind the House that we are speaking about 1½ million self-employed people who pay contributions, of whom about 1 million will be paying the Class 4 contribution in addition to the Class 2 contribution.

It is difficult to get a fair balance for the self-employed. First, there is only one contributor to the scheme—the self-employed person. Secondly, there is a great variety of earnings and profits levels among the self-employed. They range from the small shopkeeper, at one end of the scale, to, perhaps, lawyers, some of whom have substantial earnings, at the other.

Another factor which has to be taken into account is that if the total contribution coming from the self-employed into the scheme is substantially less than the total coming in from the employed— from the employer and the employee— there is a temptation for artificial self-employment to be created. Indeed, there can be a real incentive on the part not only of the employee but of the employer to create such artificial arrangements. We have seen this in a number of industries and over many years it has created serious problems. Therefore, we must try to balance this variety of factors in assessing what the self-employed should pay.

What we are proposing in the Bill for Class 2 contributions is something almost parallel with or similar to the arrangements which now exist. We are proposing that the level for the flat-rate contribution should be similar to that which applies now and that the ratio between what the self-employed and the employed pay should be broadly maintained.

That is the position from which we start. I freely admit that it is a matter of judgment whether this is correct, but we did not see any good reason for departing from, broadly, the position which exists at present.

The hon. Member very rightly drew attention to the difficulties which this can create, particularly for the self-employed person on a very low income. It is a difficulty which of course exists in the present scheme. One of the ways in which we tried to meet it, both under the existing arrangements and in Clause 3 of the Bill, is to provide a safeguard so that the self-employed will not have to pay a compulsory contribution when his earnings are below a certain level. In effect, we are making the Class 2 contribution voluntary where earnings are less than £9 a week. This means that the cover for the self-employed for pensions is not available when they are not making contributions, but we are continuing the arrangement which existed previously for those for whom paying the contribution would be a hardship.

We are continuing the flat-rate contribution—but not because we think that is desirable. In an ideal situation we would much have preferred to move over to an earnings-related position, but we have not yet been able—in view of the ways in which self-employed operate and the way in which their taxation arrangements are made—to devise a way in which they could pay the earnings-related contributions. So we have to maintain the system. I think it fair to say, having conceded the disadvantages which exist in a flat-rate system of contribution, that we have to be very careful that the self-employed are not bearing less than their fair share of the pay-as-you-go scheme because of the temptations which otherwise would arise.

To illustrate the inherent dangers, if we go back to the beginning of the present scheme in 1948 we find that from that time the self-employed has paid a steadily smaller share of the cost of pensions and other benefits. It was 69 per cent. of the maximum Class 1 contribution in 1948, but it was only 33 per cent. of such a contribution in 1972. There has been a very substantial drop in the proportionate share of the burden borne by the self-employed. For this reason we have tried to avoid, on the one hand, the low-paid self-employed having an unreasonable burden put on him while, at the same time, asking the higher-paid self-employed contributor to pay a larger share through the Class 4 contribution.

The hon. Gentleman says that the Government have tried to avoid a lower-paid self-employed earner bearing an intolerable burden as a result of the system of flat-rate contributions. Does he not think that in the example which I quoted of a self-employed woman receiving £15 a week and paying 10 per cent. of her income there is an intolerable burden?

Inevitably in a flat-rate contribution the lower the earnings the higher proportion does the contribution bear to those earnings. This is an inevitable part of the arrangement. We are deliberately not increasing the burden of the self-employed under the new arrangements in spite of the fact that their share of the cost of the scheme has reduced fairly substantially over the years. In order that the higher-paid self-employed shall bear an additional share of the cost of the basic scheme, we have introduced the concept of the Class 4 contribution.

I accept that, as the hon. Member said, it is a matter of judgment where to draw the balance between these two categories of contributors. If we take the combination of the Class 2 and the Class 4 contributions, we have aimed not to put too big an additional cost on to the self-employed who will be paying this new contribution for the first time. The new Class 4 contribution—which, incidentally, will apply only to profits and gains above £1,150—partly redresses the balance, but the maximum contribution paid by a self-employed person with profits and gains of £2,500 or more is still only 53 per cent. of the total Class 1 contribution on equivalent earnings.

The hon. Member may think that in giving those figures I am making a comment in favour of the proposals he has made. One has to recognise that this is a new contribution. It is a burden that the self-employed are not bearing at present and substantially to increase the contribution at the higher end, which is what the hon. Member's proposal amounts to, would bring them to the highest rate of tax, to 85 per cent. This is a substantial, almost a penal, rate to expect the self-employed to bear. I therefore suggest that we have got the right balance here between the flat-rate contribution and the earnings-related contribution which will be paid by those self-employed who have profits and gains above a certain level. But this is a matter of judgment and it is a factor which can always be changed in future if in the light of experience that seems appropriate.

I listened with very great care to what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said. As I think he knows, I have always taken a great interest in people engaged in self-employment in a small way. I am always anxious that we should be as fair as possible under the circumstances which have been so ably and fairly outlined by my hon. Friend.

It is obvious that this is a very difficult position. As my hon. Friend said, the decision taken by the Government is a matter of judgment. I certainly would not be in any position to contradict or even to add anything to what he said, but one thing he said has given me quite a lot of hope. When introducing an enormous Bill of this kind from which an immense number of situations can arise, one realises that it must take a considerable time before one can see whether matters of judgment have been exercised in the right direction. One cannot decide early whether the judgment is good, indifferent or bad. All I know is that on a matter of this kind my hon. Friend will have tried to make the very best judgment he can in the interests of the people whom he, just as other hon. Members on both sides of the House, is anxious to look after.

My hon. Friend gave me a little hope when he referred to the matter of judgment and whether it was correct. I have not received any representation from people in a small way of business whose position we are discussing. I am very close to my constituents, and as a rule they let me know whether they approve of what Governments are doing, but I have had no representations on this matter. Since it is so complicated, it will take them some time to understand all the decisions which are embodied in the Bill on their behalf and to see whether they will face too heavy a burden or whether their position is being properly protected.

What encouraged me in my hon. Friend's speech was that he said that, when everyone concerned has been able to assess this judgment, there will be an opportunity in future years to alter these decisions, if necessary. My experience in political life is that, when something is discovered to be wrong, it is the most difficult thing for any Government to find time to correct it. This is a very important matter, so I am grateful for the Minister's comment.

I cannot make any helpful observations because of my lack of knowledge of this subject, but I am glad that my hon. Friend's speech will be on the record. Whenever this matter is being re-examined, if it turns out that the judgment has not been right, I hope that my right hon. Friend will find Government time to readjust it. That is the best thing that we can do. If he says anything else, I hope that he will re-emphasise that, if there are difficulties for these people, there will be an early opportunity to readjust the position and to give them fairer treatment.

With leave of the House——

Perhaps I should remind the House that there is no need to ask for permission to reply. Any hon. Member in charge of an amendment, from whatever part of the House, has an absolute right of reply. The same applies to the Government in answering.

I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) accepted that the Government had made a judgment but were prepared to keep their minds open. What has happened is rather different. The Government have taken over part of the existing scheme, without fully considering the inherent disadvantages.

The Under-Secretary said that the Government did not want to provide incentives for artificial self-employment. That sounds a bit odd coming from this Government, with their history of the treatment of the "lump" in the building industry. When they came to office, they found a ready-defined solution waiting on a plate but chose to ignore it. A characteristic of their period in office has been the growth of bogus self-employment which this Department resolutely refused to do anything about in Committee.

The Under-Secretary says, in those courteous tones, that it is a matter of judgment and that the Government will consider all these things, but nothing ever happens. This is my fear about the Bill. I agree that we should not put too big a burden on Class 4 contributors. That is why one of our amendments would have provided that these contributors, up to earnings of £2,500 a year, would pay no more—in fact, marginally less—than under the Bill as drafted.

How can anyone defend a situation in which self-employed people are asked to bear contribution levels which are such high percentages of their income as I have described? If we were going to deal with this problem for the lower-paid employed people by the introduction of earnings-related contributions but could not introduce earnings-related contributions for the self-employed, we should have sought some formula to give the lower-paid self-employed these advantages in some other way.

Therefore, in the present economic circumstances and the general context of the Government's policies, with ail their hand-outs to the wealthiest sections of the community—

Rubbish.

The hon. Lady has obviously not been listening to our debates over the past 18 months, which show that money has been shovelled out by the bucketful to those at the top of the income ladder.

Therefore, in the circumstances, we on this side remain profoundly dissatisfied with the way in which the Government