With the general objectives of the right hon. Gentleman we have full sympathy, but will he allow me to bring him down to earth and reality to some extent? I take it that this peace-keeping committee—it is rather a grandiose title—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] I am asking the right hon. Gentleman for information.
I take it that the peace-keeping committee to which he refers in his statement is not to take the place of the Security Council, or anything like that, but is a purely advisory committee which will see whether it can make recommendations to the Secretary-General or to member States as to how to settle the financial deadlock.
The right hon. Gentleman mentions the question of earmarking. In the last Parliament we were always pressed by his party to earmark forces. As I read his statement, the forces will be earmarked "subject to our national commitments" and "if it were desirable" certain units would be placed in certain situations. How does this differ from the situation which has existed hitherto? I understand that we have always been willing and ready to do this.
Thirdly, and lastly, will the right hon. Gentleman compare the speech made by Secretary-General U Thant, 10 days ago, in the United Nations with a speech I made on the crisis of confidence in the United Nations four years ago?