asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions have been held with the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce and with the relevant trade association in the light of the unwillingness of many seed mechants to claim denaturing premia on seed wheat.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with other Common Market Agriculture Ministers concerning the availability of denaturing premia for seed wheat.

My Department's officials are in constant touch with the Intervention Board and interested trade associations on all aspects of denaturing. There have been no discussions in the Council of Ministers about the availability of denaturing premia for seed wheat, but I would refer my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) to the answer I gave him on 8th May.—[Vol. 856, c. 82.]

As other farmers in the Community are taking advantage of this extraordinary loophole in the common agricultural policy regulations, and as British taxpayers are contributing to the cost, surely either the British farmers should be enabled to participate or my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should take up the matter with the Council of Ministers to stop the loophole?

I am aware that some merchants have said—I think on ethical grounds—that they would prefer not to handle denatured wheat, but there is no reason why others should not do so and in that way give farmers the benefit of cheaper seed wheat.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that the denaturing premia on wheat was intended to render it suitable for non-human consumption rather than to provide a subsidy for seed wheat? Does not the common agricultural policy cost the taxpayers and consumers of Europe collectively quite enough without this piece of nonsense? Will not the Minister take an initiative at the Council of Ministers to secure an agreed arrangement whereby the denaturing premia will not apply to seed wheat?

This matter may well be discussed in future, but at the moment the regulation allows seed wheat to qualify for the premia. So long as that regulation is in existence it is right that the British farmer should be enabled to get the benefit of it. The British taxpayer also gets the benefit of it because denaturing premia payments come from EEC funds.

Are not denaturing premia simply a subsidy to reduce the price of feeding stuffs and seed wheat, which is what hon. Members on both sides of the House want?

I absolutely agree. I had that in my note on a later Question.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much has been paid by the United Kingdom Intervention Board for the denaturing of wheat since 1st February 1973.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much the Intervention Board has paid in subsidies for the denaturing of grain since February 1973.

By 20th June 1973 the Intervention Board had paid out approximately £4,043,000 in respect of the wheat denaturing subsidy.

Regardless of the trailer that the Minister has given of his answer to a supplementary question, does he not think that a system that involves us in the expenditure of large sums of money just to keep the price of food for human beings high is crazy? The Minister wants to keep the price of beef low, but has not the system been so unsuccessful that the price of beef is now higher than it was before?

After having exhausted himself on the study of the sex life of hops, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on turning to the study of the denaturing of wheat. There is nothing new about it. For years wheat has been used for animal feeding, and in this way it becomes a useful and cheaper product for human consumption at the end of the day.

How large is the wheat crop in the United Kingdom and how much of it is usually sold as feeding stuffs?

Knowing that the hon. wheat crop is about 4½ million tons, and about 2½ million tons is used for feed.

What is the point of denaturing wheat—which animals will eat anyway without its being denatured—unless the idea is to maintain an artificially high price for grain and to increase bread prices as a result?

Mr. Stodart: Knowing that the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) has an interest in the rolling acres and waving wheatfields of Brixton, I assure him that the object is to assist in a process on which I thought the Opposition were quite keen, namely in helping to produce a subsidy.

But as animals are willing to eat wheat that has not been denatured, is not the sole purpose of denaturing to keep up the price of wheat for home consumption?

No, Sir; it is to make wheat cheaper for animal feed.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what efforts his Department is making towards identifying and developing fishing grounds as an alternative to the Icelandic catch.

The identification and development of new fishing grounds is a regular part of fisheries research and development programmes. One of the Ministry's vessels recently completed a voyage to the west of the British Isles to establish the practicability of trawling in deep water. The results are being evaluated and plans for further investigations are being made.

Bearing in mind what happened in the last dispute with Iceland and the weight of international opinion towards fishery limits, does not my hon. Friend agree that it would be of more help to our fishermen if we were prepared to offer them effective and generous assistance now in adjusting to the changes in sea law that will come?

I would say firmly to my hon. Friend that the object of the explorations is not primarily to find alternatives to traditional grounds where we have the right to fish but to find additional resources which are not as yet exploited.

What hopes has my hon. Friend of the development of fish farming replacing the traditional fishing grounds in respect of all sorts of fish?

As my hon. Friend knows, experiments are taking place, which are showing signs of considerable success. Trout farming is already an established commercial proposition. The White Fish Authority is being successful in the commercial production of white fish, and successful experiments are also taking place with salmon.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the increase in food prices since the general election.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by what percentage the cost of food has increased since 18th June 1970.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by what percentage food prices have risen since June 1970.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the percentage increase in food prices from June 1970 to the latest available date.

Between 16th June 1970 and 22nd May 1973, the latest date for which information is available, the Food Index rose by 36·5 per cent.

Would the Minister agree that he has just made an appalling admission of the Tory Government's useless endeavours to try to redeem their election pledges? Is he aware that the Department of Employment figures now reveal that average household expenditure has risen three times as much as have average incomes? Is he further aware that the British people are fed up to the teeth with his lamentable excuses when trying to redeem the discreditable promises made by the Conservatives at the last election? Will he say something to ease the situation to which the present Government have exposed so many old people?

No, Sir, I do not accept the hon. Member's analysis. I accept that this is a serious matter, but as the House knows perfectly well, these increases are the result of an acute world shortage, which no Government of this country could have prevented. Attempts by members of the Labour Party to prove otherwise are useless, because the facts completely deny what they say.

Will my right hon. Friend say what proportion of the retirement pension is now spent on food compared with the situation three years ago?

If my hon. Friend is referring to the period when the Labour Party was in power—in the second quarter of 1970, slightly over 45 per cent. of the retirement pension was spent on food. At present the amount of retire- ment pension spent on food is 40 per cent. That figure is taken from the National Food Survey, which shows a distinct drop in the percentage of pension spent on food.

Has the Minister ever wondered why no Tory backbenchers ever table Questions on rising food prices?

But we do.

You are daft enough to do anything. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that remark. Is it because we are getting some of the most shocking answers in this House? Is the Minister aware that if he is the housewives' friend, then the British housewife is in far more trouble than she imagines? Does he not agree that by the time of the next election, whenever it may be, food prices will have risen by 50 per cent.?

The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his view. My hon. Friends have tabled many questions on this subject and they are just as concerned about rising prices as are Labour Members. In regard to the position as a whole, what the Government are doing, and have constantly sought to do, is to increase the production of food here at home, since that is the best safeguard against world shortages. If the Labour Government had done the same during their period of office, the position now might be very different.

Can my right hon. Friend give any breakdown in the rise in prices between imported food and home-grown food and any further breakdown between imported horticultural products and British horticulture? This will surely reveal the fact that the British producer is producing at a very reasonable price.

There are certain figures given in the National Food Survey which seek to break down the position. Those figures show that in recent months the increase in the imported price of produce has been slightly higher than that of home produce. This is in relation to fresh food. It is the shortage of imports and their high price which has drawn up the price of home produce. I cannot answer the question on horticulture without notice.

Is the Minister aware that every single day of the week we see substantial rises in food prices in all our shops? Is he also aware that we are getting tired of being told that this is all due to drought in Patagonia, or some other stupid reason? When will he get hold of the problem and do something about the sitation?

It is not a question of stupid reasons. These are factual reasons. So far as rises in prices are concerned, under the standstill manufactured food was controlled. During the standstill period the figures show that there was a slight drop in the price of manufactured foods. It was in fresh foods that the increase took place. Nobody pretended that these would be controlled, and they were not controlled by the Labour Government. The present Government have shown that in a country that imports a large proportion of its food, it is impossible and, indeed, impracticable, to control prices in the way suggested.

Is it not a fact that there is no identifiable wage group or pension group in respect of which the increase in income has not far exceeded the increase in food prices, with the net result that people are better off? Is there not a separate problem to which a recent survey has drawn attention—namely, that only 40 per cent. of wage earners have passed on their increased wage to their wives?

On the point about passing on wage increases, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has commented on other occasions. It is well known that there is an indication that those increases have not been passed on. As for the indices, the only fair comparison is with the all-items index, which has risen by 27·2 per cent., wages by 27·8 per cent., and pensions by 35 per cent., [HON. MEMBERS: "Before tax."] When hon. Gentlemen make the comment "Before tax", they must have in mind the fact that no Government in this country has reduced tax by as much as the present Government have reduced it.

Is the Minister aware that the people of this country bitterly resent the suggestion that the reason for the fall in the standard of living is due to husbands and wives not co-operating in their budget? It is a disgraceful suggestion to make, and I wish Conservative Members would withdraw it. Does the Minister agree that, according to his own Government's report in the Department of Employment Gazette, whereas incomes, even up to 1972—before the freeze—rose after taxation by only 10·6 per cent., all prices rose by 37 per cent.—three times the level. Will he stop this nonsense? May I take this opportunity of congratulating the Minister on managing to convince nearly 700 people in Manchester of the rightness of his policy?

The index to which the hon. Gentleman refers shows that while expenditure on food has risen substantially, expenditure on vehicles, travel, entertainment and in terms of saving has increased a great deal more in percentage terms. This indicates that the public have substantial reserves to spend, and I do not accept that there is a fall in the standard of living in terms of food.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the percentage increase in the retail price of food in the United Kingdom between the date of opening negotiations with the EEC and 1st June 1973.

The present Government confirmed the decision to open negotiations at a meeting of Ministers on 30th June 1970. The increase in the food index since June 1970 was given in my reply earlier this afternoon to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) and others.

The staggering increase that the right hon. Gentleman announced earlier this afternoon will serve only to increase the anxiety of the British housewife about the increased cost of food as a result of entering the Community. Is he aware that this was one of the major issues that was responsible for the Government's disastrous lost deposit in the Manchester, Exchange, by-election yesterday? As a result of those two facts, would he indicate what consideration the Government are now giving to the introduction of food subsidies?

If the hon. Gentleman claims that the reason for the rise in prices is due to our entry into the Community, somebody has been misleading the electors in that area very considerably. I remind him that the rise due to entry into the Community is extremely small so far. I have spelt it out on many occasions in the House. The total estimate for this year would certainly not be more than 2 per cent., allowing for the negotiations concluded in April and at the beginning of May, which allowed us to make certain subsidies on butter and other commodities. The rise in prices, as the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, is due entirely to other matters, and to world conditions of which I have reminded the House before.

Is it not a fact that this country used to enjoy cheap food prices because of a cheap world food price situation which no longer exists? Is this not emphasised today by the announcement in the United States that they are banning the export of certain animal feeding stuff raw materials, such as soya bean and cotton seed meal, which will have a considerably adverse effect on the cost of animal feeding stuffs?

My hon. Friend is right to call attention to the serious developments in the world situation. I am asking for an urgent report on the particular matter to which he referred concerning soya bean and cotton seed meal which we have seen in the Press today. I understand that it is a temporary suspension. I hope that it is not as serious as first appears, but it emphasises the extent to which we are dependent on world conditions. We should have stimulated greater production earlier. The Government are stimulating greater production and the housewife will get the benefit of it.

The Tight hon. Gentleman must know that even more staggering than the increase in food prices generally that we have experienced over the last three years has been the increase in land prices, in particular, agricultural land prices. Surely he will not suggest that the increase of 100 per cent. in the last year alone in the price of agricultural land in Britain is due to world food prices. Surely it is due to the general incompetence of the Government in dealing with inflation and, even more so, to the exact anticipation by farmers of increased prices for agricultural product as a result of joining the Common Market.

I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman on this matter. I do not like to see such high prices for agricultural land. I do not believe that it is healthy from an agricultural point of view. On the other hand, I think that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise, as I do, that prices were artificially depressed when the Labour Government depressed agriculture so much in the past.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the rise in the price of butter since the Treaty of Accession with the EEC was signed.

The Department of Employment's General Index of retail prices shows that between 18th January 1972 and 22nd May 1973, the latest date for which information is available, the average retail prices of New Zealand and Danish butter fell by 30 and 24 per cent. respectively.

I am most grateful to to the hon. Lady—[An HON. MEMBER: "No, you are not."] Yes I am, as I shall show in a moment. Is it not the case that, in the Luxembourg Agreement in May, the price of butter was effectively raised from £390 a ton to £427 a ton? Is this fact not being disguised by the subsidy, and is it not time that the Government came clean about it?

Over the transitional period, the United Kingdom intervention price will move up in steps to that of the Community. But this year, of course, in negotiations, my right hon. Friend ensured the consumer subsidy at 2p a lb. which undoubtedly has led to the reduction in the price of butter this year.

Does my hon. Friend not consider that the Opposition are spending far too much time on the price of food? [Laughter.] Although we agree —[Interruption.]

Order. If the Opposition wish to curtail the length of Question Time, they are going the right way about it.

Although we agree that it is very important, I would have thought that they would show equal concern for the farming community as a whole and the income—[Interruption.] They preach about agricultural wages. Where do they think the increased wages are going to come from unless it is from increased income for the farming community?

My hon. Friend—[Interruption.] No amount of bellowing like bulls from the back bench will get an answer for the Opposition. My hon. Friend has properly made the point that wages in agriculture, whose workers are among the lower income groups, I accept —[Interruption.] They were in fact among the lower income groups when the party opposite left Government, but the fact remains that they have had an increase in average wages of £5·75, which is far in advance of all the food prices that we have been talking about.

Will my hon. Friend consider extending to pensioners and all old people the butter subsidy that we discussed last night? Will she also consider advising our right hon. Friend to extend this system of subsidy to all food products that may be in excess as a result of the CAP, such as sugar and other commodities that may well be coming on the market in this way?

The limitations of what has come to be known as the social butter subsidy are agreed in negotiations in the Community and, of course, it is in negotiations in the Community that any extension of that subsidy or, indeed, any other can be agreed.

What steps do the Government propose to ensure that the stupidity of the butter mountain is not extended to many other foods—for instance, sugar, of which we expect a mountain soon? Will the Government take action to stop the waste of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money to bolster up this stupid Intervention Board? We want positive action on this.

The presence of the Conservative Party in the deliberations in Europe will ensure that rather more than the absence of the Labour Party.

Would the Minister reassure her hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) that the Government have just removed the subsidy on sugar? Furthermore, would she confirm that, whereas the intervention price for butter in this country is just under £400 per ton, in the original Six it is over £800 a ton, and that, on these figures, the price of butter will have to double over the next five years?

The sugar subsidy was introduced last spring with an end date of the end of last year, so it was no surprise when it finished. With regard to the comments on the intervention price, United Kingdom prices move into intervention prices over the transitional period, and what that price will be in five years is not as yet known.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he proposes to take in conjunction with the EEC to restore stable trading conditions in the United Kingdom grain market.

I am very much aware of the problems now being faced by United Kingdom grain traders. They largely reflect difficulties in the international market arising from bad harvests, high world prices and fluctuations in currency values. The transitional arrangements agreed with the Community have enabled us to import cereals at less than the EEC threshold prices but of course leave us subject to all the fluctuations in world prices.

The new system of monetary compensatory amounts introduced recently is simpler in operation and will be of some help. We are also having discussions with our partners in the Community about the prefixing of levies and of accession compensatory amounts.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that forward buying of grain on the domestic market at present is virtually impossible? Will he take urgent steps to restore the position? If forward stable buying is able to take place it will do a great deal to bring about stability in the prices of all products derived from cereals.

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for those comments. I have discussed this matter recently with representatives of the grain trade, and we shall do all that we can to facilitate an improvement here. The real problem is not only very short world harvests but difficulties of supply between countries and doubts about the availability of supplies. It is this which has led the grain market to be very uneven in recent weeks.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on foot-and-mouth disease policy in the EEC.

The differences between the foot-and-mouth disease control policies of the new member States and those of the original Six members have been recognised. We and the other new member States have the right to continue our present livestock and meat import policies, pending a review designed to arrive at mutually acceptable common policies to operate from 1st January 1978.

Does not my right hon. Friend recognise that the only mutually acceptable policy for this country is the slaughter policy, and that we have no wish to go over to the vaccination policy? Is not the present raging outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Eastern Europe and Austria underlining this?

I fully understand my hon. Friend's concern. I myself do not wish to see any change which would weaken our safeguards. I emphasise that we are not being asked at the moment to abandon our slaughter policy. I accept what my hon. Frinend says about the outbreak of the disease in Eastern Europe. However, in the original Six members of the Community, by the use of vaccines they have reduced outbreaks from 23,000 in 1965 to only 41 in 1972. So my hon. Friend will recognise that there is a case for argument here. But we have time to thrash out a concerted policy.

May we have an asurance that whatever proposals are put forward by other member countries in the Community the right hon. Gentleman will not contemplate any relaxation in the high standards of restriction now employed in this country, and that he will not contemplate a situation where, due to vaccination or otherwise, the disease is ever tolerated as endemic in Britain?

The hon. Gentleman will recall the Northumberland Committee set up by the Labour Administration, which did valuable work on this subject. That committee indicated that in certain circumstances vaccination might be desirable. Therefore, I wish to keep an open mind about it. But my own preference is certainly for a slaughter policy.

What will be the consequences for the Government of the draft decision of the Council of Ministers concerning A22 foot-and-mouth virus? Shall we be under any obligation to contribute to its production? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if we should unhappily be inflicted with an outbreak of A22-type foot-and-mouth virus we shall insist on implementing a slaughter policy?

I would wish to refresh my mind by looking again at the matter to which my hon. Friend has referred. In this country we have at Pirbright some of the best expert advice on all the different strains of the virus. Whether there is any question of producing it for vaccination purposes I do not know. But in the past we have produced a great deal to help other countries, and I should not rule that out.

As we are still an island, although part of the Common Market, is there any need, on animal health grounds, to harmonise our policy with that of the Common Market?

I see no reason why in theory we should not harmonise. I hope that we can persuade the Community that it should adopt our policy. This is what we sought to achieve long before we joined, and I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have supported me in that policy.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, to assist in his monitoring of food prices, he will compare the overall percentage increase in the United Kingdom's national spending on food since 1970 with the United Kingdom's increased expenditure under the heading personal income-current grants from public authorities and also with increased personal savings during the corresponding period.

Between 1970 and 1972, expenditure on food by consumers in the United Kingdom increased by 16·4 per cent., whereas personal income from current grants from public authorities rose by 35·4 per cent. and estimated personal savings increased by 38·6 per cent.

Does not my hon. Friend's reply prove the falseness of the claim made by the Opposition and that their crocodile tears are just so much eyewash?

The Family Expenditure Survey, published annually, shows a continuing trend towards a higher standard of living. Between 1970 and 1972 expenditure on food increased by 16·4 per cent., whereas consumer spending on radio and electrical goods rose by 45½ per cent., on cars and motor cycles by 81 per cent. as well as there being an increase in savings as my hon. Friend pointed out, which is an indication of money left after the priorities have been met in a family.

Is not it the Government's view that until last October the standard of living was going up too quickly and, as a result, the policy since then has been deliberately to make the rise in prices more than the rise in wages? Has not this been deliberate, and successful?

The cost inflation since 1970 was at too high a rate. That is why the counter-inflation policy was brought into being as well as being in order to ensure a better deal for the most vulnerable people in the community.

Surely these figures are misleading. The hon. Lady must bear in mind that the Question talks about national spending on food. According to her reply it increased by some 16 per cent. However the other day in answer to a Question I was told that the price of food went up by 36 per cent. in the period that we are considering. The hon. Lady is also ignor- ing prices in terms of rents, rates, fares and the rest. Therefore, will she be honest with the House and say that the margins of saving and spending are not true in the context that she has put them to the House?

The statistics which are quoted are those produced by the Family Expenditure Survey, an annual publication which was used heavily by the Opposition when they were in Government. I should have thought that it was a reputable statistical source.

Has the hon. Lady seen the latest edition of the Department of Employment Gazette which shows that until the end of 1972 incomes after tax were up by only 10½56 per cent., during which time food prices went up more that 20 per cent.?

Yes, because food prices represent a portion of prices as a whole. It is the retail price index as a whole at which hon. Members should be looking. I realise that for the housewife expenditure on food is a very high proportion of total expenditure, and I trust that the increase in average earnings last year went in part to the housewives, but I doubt it.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has completed his review of the evidence about the conditions under which British cattle are transported and slaughtered on the Continent; and if he will make a statement.

These disturbing reports have warranted the most careful investigation. Replies recently received from the Governments concerned show that further investigations on certain matters are desirable and these are being made. I would like to complete these before making a full statement to the House.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the patience of many hon. Members is becoming rapidly exhausted? Will he ensure that these inquiries are completed as quickly as possible in view of the overwhelming evidence that we have already of the cruelty inflicted on these unfortunate cattle?

I hope that my hon. Friend and the House will believe me when I say that I fully appreciate the public's anxiety. That is why I am determined to make the fullest investigations. However, I ask the House to believe that there is a certain conflict of evidence which must be resolved before a full statement can be made.

Should we not all be ashamed that we have connived at the type of cruelty to animals that has been exposed in this trade? Does there need to be any more evidence? Why not stop it now? If the evidence proves that we were wrong we can resume it.

The hon. Gentleman knows that when we were satisfied that the evidence about the treatment of sheep was conclusive, all sheep exports were suspended. I do not agree with him in having a ban on live exports until we have sufficient evidence. I am against cutting down on, for example, the export of store animals, for which this country is famous.

Surely there is a case for an early independent inquiry into this matter, bearing in mind the films that have been taken overseas showing not only sheep but calves being treated in a most horrible manner on export.

These inquiries have to do with the shipment of cattle. One point that we have ascertained and which causes further inquiries to be made is that on that particular day loads of cattle arrived in the same port from both Ireland and Britain, and at the moment I cannot tell the House for certain whether the photographs taken were of cattle from this country.

The hon. Gentleman must realise the deep anxiety in this country on this whole matter. Will he listen again to the view expressed by his right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton), with which the Opposition concur, that the time has come for an immediate and urgent inquiry, if necessary in public, to look into this increasing traffic which we believe should be diminished?

I must inform the House that in order to make further investigations we are sending Ministry staff to the countries concerned. I hope that the House will agree that it is right that we should try to establish the facts, after which I shall make a full report.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current rate of levy or import duty on imports of canned ham.

The levy on canned ham imported into the United Kingdom from countries outside the EEC is this week about £136 per ton.

How can the Minister of State be so brazen and barefaced as to stand at that Dispatch Box and announce such a swingeing tax on food? Is he aware that that figure represents sixpence per pound to the housewife buying canned ham in the shops? Is he further aware that in percentage terms it represents 10 per cent. on the retail price and 12½ per cent. on the wholesale price of canned ham? Does not the Government's claim that there will be no tax on food look absolutely silly and absurd?

And obscene.

And obscene, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) said. Will the hon. Gentleman do something to eradicate this tax on the housewife's purse.

The hon. Gentleman, my namesake, is totally and utterly wrong, because by far the bulk of our supplies come from within the Common Market and carry no levy at all.

If the Government claim that they are not responsible for the present high food prices, why do they not remove this and other import taxes forthwith?

The right hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that prior to joining the Community—I am quite certain that he is attempting to make a Community point—there was a 10 per cent. ad valorem tax upon this particular commodity, making the duty not very far off what it is at the moment.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make it the practice of his Administration to ensure that continuity of action is ensured when work is transferred from one division in a Ministry or department to another division.

This is already the practice.

The Prime Minister will be aware, will he not, that the Ombudsman has recently delivered a sharp rap over the knuckles to the Department of the Environment for breaking its promise to the North Watford Allotments Society because the right hand of the Department did not know what the left hand was doing? Does he realise that if this sort of muddle had occurred on his yacht "Morning Cloud" he would be at the bottom of the ocean by now? Will he undertake to have the Civil Service thoroughly spring-cleaned, so that this kind of thing does not happen again?

This was an isolated case of human error by one of the members of the Department at a point when certain work affecting the hon. Member's constituency was transferred from the head office to a regional office. It has been thoroughly investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner and I offer my apologies to the hon. Member and his constituents for the human error that was made. But this does not mean that any change is required in the procedures that Departments have for carrying out these responsibilities.

Which Department is responsible for providing this House with Parliamentary papers? Could my right hon. Friend transfer that function to another Department as quickly as possible?

My hon. Friend will recognise that, whichever Department it is under, the fact that these men are on strike would still mean that the papers were not provided.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will place a copy of his public speech at Shotover, Oxfordshire, on 2nd June on the trade unions in the Library.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on nationalisation delivered at Shotover, Oxfordshire on 2nd June.

I did so on 6th June, Sir.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in that speech he did not speak only of trade unions but also said that the people of this country were fed up with the nationalisation proposals trotted out by the penny-farthing machine of Transport House and that they were more and more fed up with the left-wing doctrines of the Labour Party? In view of what happened yesterday at Manchester Exchange, will he either call a General Election or sit there today and eat humble pie?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving so much publicity to my quotation. All he needs is to go on and quote the remarks of hon. Members on his own side about how much they dislike these proposals as well, including the repudiation by the Leader of the Opposition.

Will my right hon. Friend enlighten me as to how these nationalisation plans will encourage the prospects for investment and growth in this country which are so desperately needed in view of the rapid growth of our competitor countries, particularly in the Common Market?

In no way whatever. The only effect that they could have—I do not know whether they will, but they could—is to damage those prospects.

Since the right hon. Gentleman has shown himself capable of reading 26 words, will he now read 70,000? Does he not recognise the primary importance, as we have set it out in dealing with the problems for industry, for workers and for the consumer, of the inordinate power both of domestic and of multinational companies? Is he aware that, having condemned the unpleasant and unacceptable face of capitalism, his condemnation was rejected by a card vote of 29 million to 5 million at the shareholders' meeting? What will he do about it?

The right hon. Gentleman is a little confused. Concerning his 70,000 words, perhaps he will tell the House whether he supports them, objects to them, throws them out, or abstains.

I have made quite clear—and I did so again this morning—that this document, in my view, fully faces up to the problems that the right hon. Gentleman recognises, makes speeches about, and refuses to do anything about.

One of the main purposes of the talks with the CBI and the TUC is to deal with exactly these problems, and we are getting action on them.

Will my right hon. Friend draw to the attention of the CBI and the TUC the fact that yesterday Reuter's Commodity Index, which reflects the price movements in the 17 major international commodities, went through 1,000 for the first time, reflecting an increase in these international commodities, of 80 per cent. over the past 12 months, which is some measure of the inflationary crisis which still faces this country?

That is undoubtedly true. There has been an immense increase in the costs of basic raw materials and foodstuffs. As we have to import such a vast proportion of our raw materials for our industry and a good 50 per cent. of our foodstuffs, this is bound to affect the price levels. The right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, flatly refuses to recognise these facts of life about world prices, which makes his criticism so ineffective.

I think that there are HANSARDS available for the last Queen's Speech; it was since then that they have become unavailable. Will the right hon. Gentleman look at HANSARD for the Queen's Speech, when I drew to his attention the fact that the Economist commodity index was 40 per cent. over the previous year? I told him what it meant in terms of anti-inflation policy, which he refuses to carry out. The right hon. Gentleman made light of this point at the time, but as he is now aware of world prices, why did he ignore them in June 1970?

The figures which my hon. Friend the Member for Horn-castle (Mr. Tapsell) has just given are for the past 12 months when the rises have been taking place.

asked the Prime Minister what further plans he has to meet the CBI, and the TUC leaders; and if he will make a statement.

As I have already told the House, further meetings are planned with both the CBI and the TUC to discuss specific matters agreed upon at the meetings with the TUC on the 13th of June and with the CBI on the 18th of June.

Is the Prime Minister aware that it looks, to most of us at least, as though the 12 months' honeymoon period with the TUC is over? It seems as though the working class within the trade union movement has rumbled what the Prime Minister is up to. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] Does not the Prime Minister realise that three in a bed never works?

As these happen to be bilateral talks, the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question does not apply.

The House will see that the hon. Gentleman can scarcely conceal his pleasure at the thought that the trade union movement may be at the point of refusing to have discussions with a democratically elected Government of this country. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong. These talks will continue, because the trade union movement is infinitely more sensible than he is.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is deplorable that some trade unions are so militant and bloody-minded that they are not even prepared to talk to the Prime Minister about the issues that face us?

I am glad to say that the talks are continuing. The great majority of trade unionists in this country want their leaders to carry on discussions with the Government over the very wide aspects of affairs that have already been agreed.

In order to reach agreement with the TUC, will the Prime Minister say whether he is prepared to consider further food subsidies, even if that is not altogether the acceptable sort of face of capitalism which his hon. Friends would like?

I have already told the TUC—the TUC was told this as long ago as last summer, when we started the talks—that all these matters can be discussed and considered. This was repeated to them at our first meeting —not the second meeting—as well as the second meeting when we started this new series.

asked the Prime Minister when he next plans to meet the chairmen of the boards of the nationalised industries.

A representative of the nationalised industries takes part in the meetings between the Government and the CBI. I am always willing to meet the Chairmen collectively when it would be useful to do so but I have no plans at present for such a meeting.

Now that the Hardman Report has proposed the dispersal of 30,000 Civil Service jobs from the London area, does not my right hon. Friend consider that the chairmen of nationalised industries should now be invited to consider whether it would be appropriate to disperse their massive and growing offices in the heart of London.

I am quite prepared to ask my right hon. Friends who are departmentally responsible for dealing with the chairmen of nationalised industries to put this question to them. In fairness to the nationalised industries, I think that they have all got a considerable proportion of their staff already placed outside London and in the regions of this country. Some problems have arisen because in the process of rationalisation they have amalgamated some regional offices and this has caused anxiety, but they have taken great care to ensure that this is a gradual process which can be handled properly. I shall certainly ask my right hon. Friends to discuss this matter with the chairmen of the nationalized industries.

When the Prime Minister meets the chairmen of the nationalised industries, will he acknowledge that it is no contribution to their efficiency or their investment programmes artificially to hold down prices in publicly-owned industry when other sections of industry are allowed to increase prices?

There are very strict controls over other sections of industry. Under the code, the nationalised industries are treated in the same way as private industry. There is no point in hon. Members shaking their heads. The code is published and is public. If they go to the Price Commission, the Price Commission acts under the code. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will boldly say in public, therefore, that he believes that the nationalised industries' prices should be put up, than the consumer should pay, and that inflation should be increased in this way.

asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the coordination between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Home Department on Commonwealth immigration.

Yes, Sir.

With regard to the retrospective effect of the Immigration Act 1971, does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this has caused very deep and genuine anxiety among thousands of legally settled, coloured, new Commonwealth immigrant people in this country? In that connection, will he undertake to look at the amnesty provisions which have been carried out in France and the amnesty policy which has been carried out in West Germany, with regard to workers who have come in illegally and eventually have settled? As the Head of the Government, will he personally assure the House and the country that he will do everything he can to relieve the anxiety among the coloured portion of communities in this country?

The House debated this matter on Tuesday and my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary, explained the Government's position very clearly. I have had discussions about this policy with my colleagues frequently since the House of Lords decision. It was not retrospective, since at the time that the immigrants entered they were illegal and they are still here illegally. But the Home Secretary has assured the House that we shall deal with this matter with understanding.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is essential that our concern should be for better community relations and that nothing can do more harm to good community relations in this country than illegal immigration?

Yes, Sir, I think that this is so. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said that it is right that where there are particularly compassionate reasons he will take note of those in the case of immigrants who are here illegally. But we want good community relations and one has to think of the impact on those immigrants who came here legally, those who are waiting to come and who know that they have a right to come, and those who are not immigrants here and believe that the position can be abused by illegal immigration. To have good community relations one has to consider all three groups.

What discussions did the Prime Minister or the Home Office have on this issue with Sir Geoffrey Wilson, Chairman of the Race Relations Board, or with Mr. Mark Bonham Carter, Chairman of the Community Relations Commission? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that theirs are views worth taking into account, and is he aware that both those gentlemen, speaking with great authority in this sphere, have expressed their condemnation of the Government's policy?

I am well aware of that, but I am afraid that I completely disagree with them. In my view, they are taking into account only one aspect of this very difficult problem, and I consider that they have a responsibility also to take the other aspects into account.

Before I call upon the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), may I repeat that many hon. Members want to speak in the debate. More than 20 back benchers have already indicated to me their desire to catch my eye. With a little compression, it should be possible to call most of them. Yesterday one back bencher spoke for 25 minutes and another for 22 minutes, and the latter would not believe that he had spoken for so long. Therefore, may I ask for a degree of conciseness and an eye on the clock.

I beg to move, That the Vote be reduced by £5. We are discussing the salary of the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and his Ministers, and we are very grateful to them for being here.

I am told that the usual form is to move a reduction by £5. I do not think that many of my hon. Friends would regard that as very appropriate. Indeed, it seemed to me that, allowing for the depreciation of the value of the pound since the Government came to office, the electors of Manchester Exchange might think that £1,000 would be more appropriate. If you would allow me to move a reduction by that sum later, Mr. Speaker, I should be very happy to do so.

It was the Procedure Committee that recommended in 1965–66 that the sum should always be £5. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will comply with that procedure.

I have had to accept that I must move a reduction by that derisory sum, Mr. Speaker, but I am sure that the country will feel that it does not begin to represent the depths of its disillusionment.

I shall have harsh things to say about the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary's conduct of affairs a little later, but I am sure that my hon. Friends will agree to my felicitating him on the approach of his seventieth birthday next month. We do so genuinely. Our personal good wishes to the right hon. Gentleman are completely unaffected by what we have to say about his policy and his Administration. The right hon. Gentleman's honesty and sense of public service are a model to us all, and we gladly congratulate him on this anniversary.

The Government and the Conservative Central Office have apparently decided to make a great occasion of it, and so they should. But the naughty thought crossed my mind that perhaps they are preparing a niche for the right hon. Gentleman in the Pantheon of Conservative heroes. I seem to remember the same process of Stanley Baldwin and later Winston Churchill being enveloped in the Conservative Party's love. I can only hope for the right hon. Gentleman's sake that the same process is not now about to happen to him.

My suspicions were even greater when I heard of the great birthday party on Monday evening. I was reminded of that very amusing film "Some Like it Hot", starring Marilyn Monroe, in which the gangsters of New York had no idea how to get rid of their principal rival. So they invited him to a whacking great birthday party, in the middle of which they wheeled in a tremendous birthday cake on a trolley. As our hero went up to cut the first slice, the top of the cake flew open and a man with a Thompson machine gun emerged and sprayed him with bullets.

That was the end of our hero. If I were the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary at that birthday party on Monday, I should watch the birthday cake very closely. We hope that he will be with us for a long time to come.

The right hon. Gentleman was good enough yesterday to send me a copy of his speech, and that has given me the opportunity of reflecting on it. I am much obliged to him. He emphasised the theme of change, repeated change, widespread change. If there was another sub-theme that emerged throughout the speech, it was that of advising us all to keep calm and to keep cool. Those were the thoughts that emerged on many occasions.

The right hon. Gentleman spoke, for example, of the rather shrill rhetoric in the United States about its problems with Europe, which should give way to a calm examination of the facts. But in talking about world trade he did not refer, as I understood his speech, to the apparent exclusion of the Common Agricultural Policy from the talks and negotiations that are about to take place, particularly those that are to take place later in the GATT. The right hon. Gentleman can hardly expect the United States to approach the discussions in a calm and philosophical frame of mind if one of its principal objections to the developing policies of Europe is that of being excluded from the negotiations.

I do not think that this is a very suitable debate for us to discuss the matter in detail. What the Opposition ask from the Government is that there shall be a separate day for the discussion of the very important GATT negotiations, which will determine the future trade of the world and determine to what extent we can look for a prosperous world.

Then, according to The Times report, he advised us, in connection with the negotiations between the EEC and the developing countries to replace the present Yaoundé Convention, that:

"Here again emotions would have to be kept out of the way. Everybody realised that the Community could be of benefit".

In the case of Greece and Portugal he says that there is a need to keep calm. He asked:

"How would a drastic blow to the security of the West, exposing the Portuguese seaboard of the Atlantic Alliance and the south-east corner of Europe, result in a change of the internal policies of those two countries? Foreign policy and defence are matters too serious to be conducted on the basis of emotional reactions to aspects of other Government's policies over which we have no control."

I do not think that a little genuine indignation would come amiss in the Foreign Secretary's approach to the problems of either Greece or Portugal. Many people take the view that the combined expression of opinion and condemnation by the EEC and the NATO countries would have a considerable impact on Greek public opinion. I understand that some of our NATO allies take that stand, but we seem to be lagging behind.

In what the right hon. Gentleman said I can read nothing which expresses the views that have come from both sides, particularly from the Opposition, about the absence of democratic procedures, about the arbitrary arrests that are taking place in Greece today, or about the attitude towards the Portuguese in the celebration of the alliance. [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make my speech in my own way.

When I read the words again, and I think of them in the context of the 1930s, they seem to me to make a perfect defence for the attitude of the Government at that time:

"Foreign policy and defence are matters too serious to be conducted on the basis of emotional reactions to aspects of other Governments' policies over which we have no control."

We awoke almost too late last time when we took that line of non-intervention. I wish the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary had found it possible to express the indignation and concern felt in the West about what is going on.

In any case, even on the right hon. Gentleman's own test, I wonder whether it is true that Greece is capable of playing an effective rôle in NATO. I should be glad if the Minister who is to reply would tell me whether the information I have been given is correct. I understand that the Greek navy has a total of 34 ships, not all of them in service. Five of the captains of the 13 destroyers have been arrested, and one has sought asylum in Italy. Seven commanders of the torpedo boat fleet of 15 have been arrested, and all six commanders of the submarine fleet of six vessels have been arrested.

Leave aside the morality of the situation, leave aside the need to express an opinion about what we think of that kind of behaviour by the Greek colonels, does that sound like an effective force, in which all the submarine fleet, if not immobilised, at least has been seriously denuded of its experienced commanders? I urge the right hon. Gentleman to give an expression and to give a lead to European opinion on these matters. If my information is right I believe that we can exercise influence on Greek opinion. By no means all the means of communication have closed with that country.

We are to discuss the French nuclear tests on Monday. The China tests have come too late for the right hon. Gentleman to express an opinion about them. I regret very much that his voice has been muffled when the Commonwealth has been speaking out. It is due to a false sense of need perhaps not to keep in line with France but not to be openly antagonistic. It is a matter of great regret if we have to choose between the Commonwealth and France on this matter.

I speak for the people of this country when I say that they would prefer to hear the right hon. Gentleman speaking out openly and clearly and condemning the French nuclear tests not only on behalf of New Zealand and Australia but on behalf of those people who live and who are indigenous to that part of the world.

The right hon. Gentleman is asking us to be calm, unemotional and open-minded. I was reminded of that when I read his speech this morning. I was also reminded that a few days ago my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) took up a point which I had made and had presented to the right hon. Gentleman about the Law of the Sea Conference. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) has also raised the matter—namely, the British attitude to the Law of the Sea Conference.

Where do we stand? We are a seagoing nation with great traditions. In the past we have played a part in arranging and helping international settlement of these affairs. In fact, the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) took up the matter and not my hon.

Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland, who is also present.

I also raised the matter.

I am sure that my hon. Friend did so, and with even greater eloquence. My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sunderland, the hon. Member for Inverness and myself, if I may modestly include myself, were saying to the right hon. Gentleman, "Please tell us what the British attitude will be when you go to the Law of the Sea Conference? Shall we stick to the three mile limit or shall we go for a 12-mile limit? Shall we say that there must be an extension to a 30-mile limit?" A whole range of options is open. The right hon. Gentleman replied that he did not think that we should want to lay down a position before the International Conference on the Law of the Sea assembles. He thought that it would be better to go to the conference with a fairly open mind and to negotiate something reasonable.

That will not do. The law of the seabed, the mining of the minerals which are to be found, fishing and the degree of pollution are all matters on which Britain should take a strong position. That is especially the case when—and I remind the right hon. Gentleman once again—we have taken a lead in the past on these matters. But no, we shall be going to the conference with a fairly open mind.

Yesterday, when discussing Helsinki, the right hon. Gentleman was asked what would follow the discussions which are to take place in Helsinki and how any agreement which is reached can be consolidated. The right hon. Gentleman replied that we have an open mind on the possibilities. Calmness, coolness and open-mindedness can be taken to the point when it can be asked whether there is any opinion at all.

Let us consider Rhodesia. No doubt there is a case for saying, "Let the Rhodesians and the Africans get together. Maybe that should be so. Maybe we should sit back and wait for them to develop negotiations and the agreement which they must come to at some time. It may be right to counsel calmness, open-mindedness, patience and coolness, in relation to some problems in some areas. I am sure that is right. But it cannot be right in all cases. Other middle-ranking countries like this country have clear, active, positive policies. They do not hesitate to state their positions and to give a lead.

Whatever views hon. Members may take on France's attitude, there is a clear example of a middle-sized country which knows what it wants and where it is going. France has shown how much leverage such a country can exercise.

indicated dissent.

The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to appreciate that. Perhaps he will tell me why middle-sized countries should not try to exercise the leverage which their influence permits. If he does not choose to do so, then my proposition stands.

I am not saying and nor am I arguing about the way in which influence should be exercised. I am not claiming that France is necessarily exercising its influence in the best way. I am saying to the right hon. Gentleman that instead of being inert the French are playing a positive rôle. I am saying that a middle-sized country, if it chooses to exercise its influence, can exercise a great deal of leverage. I am complaining that apart from the one great spasm to get us into Europe we seem to have been drifting on all other fronts with an open-minded calm, and cool approach to all problems whilst others take the lead. British foreign policy under the right hon. Gentleman has the glacial coolness and inertness of Scottish salmon stretched out on the fishmonger's slab.

I shall mention two considerable areas of agreement. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's assessment of Asia. It seems that China is seeking non-alignment in South-East Asia. Recently I had the good fortune to visit that area. It is true to say that China is not employing a forward strategy. China is attempting to withdraw. It would much prefer to see Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam detached from the West but not necessarily attached to China.

On the other hand, it is true to say that the United States is actively promoting a policy of disengagement in that area. If that is so, there are better prospects for peace in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia than we have seen for many years past. Of course, the communists in Vietnam, and President Thieu, will continue with their internal struggle for power. The fact that the Chinese and, as the right hon. Gentleman says, the United States—I assume that there is no disagreement about this—are pulling back from the area does not mean that all the tensions will be removed.

It was quite clear to me when I was on the spot that President Thieu is much more durable than many people give him credit for. Further, it is clear that the communists believe that in the end President Thieu's system will collapse under the weight of its own contradictions.

There are millions of people in that area who do not support President Thieu or the communists. If only a third force could be created, such as was provided in the Paris agreement between Le Duc Tho and Dr. Kissinger, there is no doubt that it would probably represent a majority view. Although the prospects of great power involvement are much less than they were and to that extent, the prospect that the area will not become the scene of a potential war is made a little better, why has not the right hon. Gentleman made any progress so far in the recognition of North Vietnam?

I put that question to him on my return from North Vietnam with a Labour Party delegation in the early spring. He indicated that he was examining the problem and that it would arise in due time. What is the reason for the delay? Is recognition supposed to be some sort of prize for good behaviour? Is North Vietnam on trial to see whether it will live up to the Paris agreement? If so, it may be that we shall have to wait a long time. I hope that that is not the position.

Our influence at the moment with North Vietnam is negligible. I accept that we have a man stationed out there. He has been given a car in which to ride but a very small petrol allowance. He mostly uses a bicycle when he makes his reports. He does so not to the Prime Minister of North Vietnam but to the municipal authority. Perhaps the Prime Minister does not know that.

He is asleep.

I am not asleep; I am bored.

The right hon. Gentleman must not get too impatient. There are occasions when even the Prime Minister's Government is open to a little criticism. The Prime Minister need not sit here and be bored; he can go if he wants to.

I am sorry if I am boring the right hon. Gentleman but perhaps he would nevertheless like to listen and open his eyes for a second to what is happening in North Vietnam. His representative there has no official connection with the Government of North Vietnam. When the Labour Party delegation went there, we had to use the good offices of the Swedish Government to enable us to see the Prime Minister of North Vietnam because the British representative there is accredited—if that is the right word —to the municipality of the city. Is that boring? Does not the right hon. Gentleman understand the situation? Can he not see it through the eyes of people out there, such as other legations and embassies? He may laugh or think the whole thing boring but—and of course I would not want to involve his representative—no one concerned with that situation who is British comes out very well.

I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he wants to exercise influence or not. If Her Majesty's Government want to exercise influence they should recognise the accredited Government there, and when they do so perhaps they will be able to talk to the Prime Minister of North Vietnam and other leaders. That in no sense implies any moral approbation of the régime, but it implies the reality of the situation and the ability to discuss matters with a Government who can influence South-East Asia more than anyone else, except the Chinese or the Americans.

What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. That also applies to Greece.

I said earlier that I thought that the Foreign Secretary should try to get a united EEC or NATO attitude on the subject of Greece, and that if that combined attitude resulted in a withdrawal of recognition from Greece and of the ambassadors it would have the most tremendous impact upon Greek public opinion. That view is held by many exiled Greeks. What we are discussing here is the best way to get the restoration of a democratic régime in Greece and not ways to influence the régime, which is what I am discussing in the case of North Vietnam.

>rose—

No. I have already given way once.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

I have given way to the hon. and gallant Gentleman on previous occasions. He seems to make a point of asking me to give way to him. I will do so again.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Is it not a bit thick for him to lecture my right hon. Friend about lack of British influence east of Suez when the Labour Government abandoned our position east of Suez, despite what the then Foreign Secretary, Lord George-Brown, had said —that no country with a sense of international responsibility would do any such thing?

One day the hon. and gallant admiral will awaken to the fact that it is possible to exercise influence without having gunboats. The whole tenor of my argument is that in pursuing British policy we shall have to learn to exercise influence without our gunboats. I have already illustrated how France, which, as far as I know, has no troops east of Suez, manages to exercise and use a very considerable leverage.

I turn to the subject of the Middle East. The Foreign Secretary says, and no one can deny it, that the future there is depressing. I was glad to read that he still accepts the implementation of United Nations Resolution No. 242. There is no doubt that both Israel and Egypt are extremely sensitive at present, with the situation being debated in the United Nations. Our position becomes more important because, when the debate is resumed, I understand that the United Kingdom representative will be the President of the Security Council in July.

So far the debate at the United Nations has not produced any draft resolution or concrete proposal. I have not read all of it, but I believe that it demonstrates that peace in the Middle East will doubtfully be promoted by public debate and will be produced only by negotiations between the parties principally concerned. The basis for such negotiations exists already, as the right hon. Gentleman made clear again yesterday, in Resolution No. 242, sponsored by Britain, unanimously adopted by the Security Council, and accepted by both parties.

What I fear is—and my fear is shared to some extent by the Israeli representative—that the resolution could be seriously impaired, if not destroyed, if others should attempt to add to it or interpret it or otherwise tamper with it, directly or by implication. I do not wish to disturb any possibility of negotiation, even if any words of mine could. I think that perhaps the best thing we can do as a result of the United Nations debate, initiated by Egypt, is to ask once again the countries principally concerned, Egypt and Israel, to follow a step-by-step approach. This commends itself to the Opposition as the best tactic.

The United Nations could perhaps best help by providing help, as in the past, for a process which will achieve direct negotiations between the two main parties. The United States has recently called for an interim settlement. In my judgment I do not think that we can ever hope to get a one-stage settlement all tied up in pink ribbon. I believe that the process has to be achieved step by step. I hope that everything that we do will be directed to achieving that end. I do not differ from the statement of the Foreign Secretary on this point.

My right hon. Friend has given further welcome to Resolution No. 242. Is he aware that it was embodied and amplified in a General Assembly resolution last December which was passed by 86 votes including the British, to 7 votes —the 7 being Israel and 6 of the smaller Latin-American countries? Can he explain—I understand that this has been publicly stated by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—why the Opposition Front Bench opposed this resolution?

I am not proposing to go any further on the question of the Middle East. I know that there are fierce protagonists on both sides of the issue. I do not happen to be one of them. I believe that it is our task to try to ensure that there are step-by-step negotiations. Both Israel and Egypt have legitimate claims. There are arguments about words and resolutions. I repeat that too much public debate on this issue will not help the parties to come together. What they need is a period of quiet. I apply this ordinance to myself in that I restrain myself in public utterances on the issue, although I have many private views, which I will gladly discuss with my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew).

Open-minded, patient and cool, in fact.