H.M.S. "VICTORIOUS" (VISIT TO SOUTH AFRICA) (Hansard, 30 January 1961)

§ The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing)
It has been the practice for some years not to send coloured personnel in Her Majesty's ships visiting South Africa, except in special cases—for instance when the men have their families there. This is done to protect naval officers and men from social discrimination ashore.
The appropriate changes in the complement of H.M.S. "Victorious" were all made before the ship left the United Kingdom. Therefore, there is no question of countermanding orders.

§ Mr. Paget
Is the Civil Lord aware, first, that the story of the change-over taking place at Gibraltar broke in the Sunday newspapers yesterday, one of them making it its main lead? It has been repeated in the newspapers today, including, I think, The Times.Why is it that the Admiralty allowed that to happen if it was untrue, and why did it not issue a contradiction?
604 The second point which I understand the hon. Gentleman to make is that this apartheidprocedure has been going on in Her Majesty's ships for some years. Is he aware that when a burglar is charged it is not normally considered a very good defence if he says, "I have been at it for some years, but this is the first time I have been caught"?
Finally, will the hon. Gentleman say whether there is any port in the world, other than in South Africa, where Her Majesty's sailors, regardless of their colour and race, do not receive that courtesy which they are entitled to expect according to the comity of nations?

§ Mr. Orr-Ewing
The story arose over the weekend. We did not state specifically that six ratings would be put ashore. Thte statement issued by the Admiralty gave an account of our practice both past and present. Because the details of the scheme are left to the drafting authorities, we were not able to confirm them. That is why we did not specifically deny them. We did not have the facts over the weekend.
It is true that we have carried out this practice for some time. To be honest, if we did not carry it out we should be blamed if any ugly incident occurred in South Africa, and if we carry it out we are equally blamed. It was not done at the request of the South African Government and they were not consulted about it. The practice is followed because we recognise that when Her Majesty's ships visit any country we must comply with that country's laws and social conditions.

§ Mr. Thorpe
If the price that this country has to pay for visiting South African ports is the application of Dr. Verwoerd's racial policies on board our ships, is not the price too high, and would it not be better to maintain our principles and forgo the visit? Also, is it not a fact that there are some coloured ratings in the Royal Navy who have relatives in South Africa and are to call in at South Africa during the trip? What guarantee has the Civil Lord been able to obtain that they will not be treated like second-class citizens of the Union?

§ Mr. Orr-Ewing
It is a matter for debate whether one creates good will and 605 influences people by ostracising them. I would recall that the Prime Minister was encouraged not to go to South Africa, although I am sure that most people will now say that as a result of his trip and the speech he made there the visit did good. I feel that the same thing applies to our naval visits and the exercises that we carry out in South Africa. It is true that a few ratings who have families in South Africa are going, but I have no reason to believe that they will not be treated very fairly and will not be discriminated against.

§ Commander Courtney
is it not a fact that last October there was a most unpleasant incident involving a United States coloured naval rating which received much publicity in the South African Press? Is it not in our interests that we should avoid in so far as we can any incident of that kind which will enable mischief-makers to create trouble between ourselves and South Africa?

§ Mr. Orr-Ewing
I think that that is true. I recall a Press report about the incident. It is that sort of incident that we wish to avoid. If it is suggested, as it is, that we should stay away, I would point out that the fact that we differ, and have made it abundantly clear, with one facet of South Africa's internal policy, does not mean that we should stay away. We disagree much more profoundly with the fundamental policies of some other countries, yet we still pay visits to those countries.

§ Mr. G. Brown
Has not the hon. Gentleman missed the point? If we cannot be sure that this visit will not lead to ugly incidents, is not the right thing for us to do, as was suggested by the 'hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), to observe our principles and stay away until we can obtain such an assurance?
Secondly, since the hon. Gentleman says that he is sure that the coloured ratings who have families in South Africa will be treated fairly in every way, why is he so unsure that the others would not? Why has he made that distinction?
Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman, if I understood him aright, said that when we visit ports in other countries we always try to take account of their political and 606 social policies. Does he mean that where-ever a ship of Her Majesty's Navy goes we first vet the crew to take off anybody who may have any views which the country being visited would not like?

§ Mr. Orr-Ewing
All this is a matter for debate. it is my view, and I think the general body of opinion in the House would support me in saying this, that we are more likely to influence South Africa to the views which we have by paying visits of good will, and, incidentally, exercising and training with them, than by staying away. This is a matter of judgment. The Prime Minister was urged to stay away, but I think that most people would agree that he did an immense amount of good by going.
I did not say that we would take into account the political policy of a visited country. What I said was that we take into account, as we should, the law of the land.

§ Mr. G. Brown
Would any anti-fascist ratings have to be taken off a ship calling at Spain?

§ Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett
Is my hon. Friend aware that many of us have a great deal of sympathy with the Admiralty over the dilemma in which it has been placed by this matter, but none the less, now that this has come out, cannot the South African Government be told that if they wish to have these friendly visits in future they must agree to behave like other Governments and receive all members of British ships on equal terms even though it means recognising and treating them as if they are all white?

§ Mr. Orr-Ewing
I would say, in reply to that, that the South African Government have been extremely helpful in the past. [HON. MEMBERS: "0h."] However, I come back to the point that surely it is better to go there and try to influence them and create good will than to stay away and ostracise them.

§ Mr. Mendelson
The Civil Lord has told the House that the Prime Minister was advised not to go to South Africa, but decided to go. Would he not agree that that is not a parallel at all? What the House seems to be asking—I notice that hon. Members on both sides are beginning to get worried about this—is a question to which the Civil Lord has not 607 yet given a reply. Why can we not say as a country, or instruct the Navy as a Department to say, to the South African Government, "We want to have the best possible relations and we believe in friendly visits, but if people are good enough to risk their lives and fight for their country why cannot you accept them as equals when they come to your shores?"

Mr. On-Ewing
I am sure that the South African Government will read what has been said in the House.

§ Mr. Shinwell
Will the Civil Lord be good enough to inform the House, first, whether the lower deck ratings on H.M.S. "Victorious" were consulted about this matter? Were they asked whether they had any objection to the coloured members of the crew staying with them until they reached Cape Town? Will he also say whether the Prime Minister was consulted before the First Lord of the Admiralty took this decision, in view of the speech which the Prime Minister made when he visited South Africa, the "wind of change" speech, which, apparently, offended many people in South Africa, but afforded a great deal of satisfaction to people elsewhere?
Will the Civil Lord, at the same time, say what is the purpose of the visit of this vessel to South Africa? Has it a military purpose, and if so, what is it? If it is a good will purpose exclusively, what is the use of talking about good will when we take an action of this kind which is regarded as highly objectionable, even to the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, who, apparently, thinks he knows more about the wishes of men on H.M.S. "Victorious" than the Civil Lord himself does?

§ Mr. Orr-Ewing
This was not done after consultation with the lower deck; it was a decision taken by my noble Friend and the Board of Admiralty. As I have said, this has been our practice for some years. I should have thought that the lower deck people would have resented the fact if some of their shipmates had been singled out for special discrimination in South Africa, and I think that the well-being and harmony of the ship is better ensured by the sort of practice that we have been carrying out.
608 As to the purpose of the visit, H.M.S. "Victorious" is on her way to join the Far Eastern Fleet, and on the way she is to exercise and train with the South African Navy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is one of our Commonwealth Navies —which, incidentally, is equipped with ships built in this country. It is part of our undertaking to train and exercise with the South African Navy. We should not overlook the fact that should we be involved in war the South African ports and Navy would be of tremendous importance to the whole free world.

§ Mr. Paget
The Civil Lord has said on several occasions that this is a matter which should be debated. There is no point in debating it after the ship has arrived, because by that time the trouble would have happened. In my submission, the importance of this in the light of the Salisbury Conference, the conference in London and, indeed, the South African application to remain a member of the Commonwealth, is clear. In view of all this, I should have thought that it was profoundly important that the world should at least realise that the "wind of change" had blown through the British Admiralty and that we were aware of it.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I desire to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, to consider a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the sailing of H.M.S. "Victorious" on a courtesy visit to the Union of South Africa without obtaining from the Government of the Union assurances that, without regard to race or colour, Her Majesty's sailors will be received with that courtesy to which they are entitled in every port of the world.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, to consider a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, The sailing of H.M.S. "Victorious" on a courtesy visit to the Union of South Africa without obtaining from the Government of the Union assurances that, without regard to race or colour, Her Majesty's sailors will be received with that courtesy to which they are entitled in every port of the world.
609 I regret that I do not feel I can properly accede to this application. I do not believe the Motion to be within the Standing Order.

§ Mr. Thorpe
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I make a submission to you which, I hope, will commend itself? It is that I would wish to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, on a somewhat narrower point which, I submit, is a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the action of the Board of Admiralty in ordering the disem- barkation from H.M.S. "Victorious" at Gibraltar of six members of Her Majesty's Navy on the around of their colour.

§ Mr. Speaker
If the hon. Gentleman will bring his Motion to me I will rule upon it, but there is manifestly some difficulty.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman asks, under the terms of Standing Order No. 9, for leave to move the Adjournment of the House. In his case, the proposition urged is the action of the Board of Admiralty in ordering the disembarkation from H.M.S. "Victorious" of six members of Her Majesty's Navy on the ground of their colour.
I regret that I do not think that this falls within the Standing Order.

§ Mr. Thorpe
On a point of order. May I ask for your guidance on a matter relating to Private Notice Questions? On this particular subject of H.M.S. "Victorious", it so happened that the Liberal Party was a somewhat earlier riser than the Labour Party, and that I tabled a Private Notice Question first today. I appreciate that the selection of appropriate Questions is entirely a matter within your discretion. In this case it so happened that the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr Paget) and I are ad idem,but I am apprehending a situation in which the tone of the Question tabled could be highly material to the Answer received.
May I ask you, therefore, to give me guidance as to whether priority in submission is a relevant factor in assisting you to make up your mind as to which Question to select? Can you also say whether we may be assured that back 610 benchers are given equal priority in this matter with official Front Bench Members who submit such questions, even at a later stage? Could we have some guidance about the exercise of your discretion?

§ Mr. Speaker
I am glad that the hon. Member has raised this matter. In this instance, there was a rather odd series of events, and I was put into some difficulty in deciding, upon the factor of priority, whose, in natural justice, it was. There are a number of factors to be taken into account on these occasions. One of them certainly would be the hon. Member who first let us know he wanted to ask a Private Notice Question.
It would probably be better in the general interest, by and large, if I did not lay down a string of general principles, but held firmly to the discretion in my hands, hoping that the House will trust me to exercise natural justice between all hon. Members, according to my discretion.

§ Mr. Shinwell
While I accept your discretion in a matter of this kind, Mr. Speaker, you will observe that the Civil Lord, in the course of his replies, seemed to imply that this is a matter for a debate. As the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House has now appeared. would it be in order to ask him whether, in view of the Civil Lord's statement, a debate could be arranged?

§ Mr. Speaker
No doubt an opportunity may arise later this week, but I cannot answer the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) by saying that it would be in order, because that would not be so.

§ Mr. Shinwell
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In referring to later this week, I presume you mean Thursday afternoon, when questions may be asked about a debate during Questions to the Leader of the House about next week's business. By that time, however, this visit will have become a fait accompliand there will be no advantage in a debate. Could we not ascertain from the Leader of the House whether he would agree to a debate in the next two days?

§ Mr. Speaker
If the right hon. Gentleman asks if he would be in order in asking his question now the answer is 611 "No", but I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman's observations have been heard.

§ Mr. J. Griffiths
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Civil Lord said that this was a matter for debate. It is clear from the exchanges that have taken place that there is deep feeling about this matter on both sides of the House. Will you permit the Leader of the House to tell us now that he will take this matter up with his noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, in order to ensure that this ship does not sail for South Africa until the House has had an opportunity for debating the matter?

§ Mr. Speaker
I would not prevent the Leader of the House doing so if he so wished.

§ Mr. Griffiths
May I put my question to the Leader of the House, who has heard the exchanges? May I ask him whether he will have consultations with his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and with the First Lord of the Admiralty to ensure that this ship does not sail to South African ports until the House has had an opportunity to debate the matter?

§ The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler)
The ship has already sailed, and, therefore, I must address myself to the questions put by the right hon. Members for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) and Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths).
Naturally, every time there is an interest to the extent shown in the House today it is a matter for deliberation as to how opportunities can be taken for the matter to be further ventilated and discussed. I certainly will discuss with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister the situation created in the House today, but I must make it clear that business for the forthcoming week has already been announced and that I can give no undertaking about the result of my consultation.

§ Mr. Paget
Could not the right hon. Gentleman assure us that this ship will put into Freetown rather than into one of the South African ports unless we can get an assurance that the coloured ratings which she is still carrying will receive the 612 courtesies which we are entitled to expect? The "Victorious" is passing Freetown and could perfectly well put in there.

§ Mr. Butler
I listened to a previous question by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) in which he said that he attached no importance to the statement made by the Civil Lord that there was precedence behind this, namely, that this had been the practice in the past. We must bear in mind that there would not have been such practices unless there had been good reason. I do not want to give any assurance, either to the hon. and learned Gentleman or to the House, which would mislead them about the likelihood of the Government either diverting or stopping this ship, but, as I have said, I will discuss with my colleagues principally concerned the incident as it has arisen in the House of Commons today.

§ Mrs. Castle
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Callaghan
May I put a point—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) is rising to a point of order.

§ Mrs. Castle
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the failure of the Leader of the House to give an undertaking, I now ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, in order to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the refusal of Her Majesty's Government to cancel the courtesy visit of H,M.S. "Victorious" to South Africa, despite the fears of ill-treatment of certain members of the crew on arrival in that country and the consequent necessity to disembark them.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Lady asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9. for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the refusal of Her Majesty's Government to cancel the courtesy visit of H.M.S. "Victorious" to South Africa, despite the fears of ill-treatment of certain members of the crew on arrival in that country and the consequent necessity to disembark them.
613 In my view, the same considerations apply. I cannot hold the Motion to be within the Standing Order.

§ Mr. S. Silverman
In the interests of non-official Members, may I revert to the answer which, Mr. Speaker, you were good enough to give to the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) about priorities when more than one Member desires to put a Private Notice Question on the same subject.
Many of us believe that when notice has been given by any hon. Member that he desires to raise a certain matter which is in order, any subsequent notice by another Member to raise the same subject would normally not be entertained by the Chair, or be regarded as being in order. Would not this appear to mean that priority is really the decisive factor in this matter, rather than any consideration about in which part of the House a Member 'happens to sit?

§ Mr. Speaker
I do not quarrel with what the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) says about what normally happens. I do not want to discuss what were the particular, odd circumstances in this case. I do not think that anybody will doubt that this is a just way of dealing with what was a somewhat odd instance.

§ Mr. Bellenger
As one who was involved in a similar matter before the war, am I right in assuming that, when a Private Notice Question is presented to Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker has to rule only that it is in order, and whether he will allow it to be put, and the hon. Member concerned forthwith then puts his Question to the Minister, the normal procedure then being followed, that is to say, the Question being put at the end of Questions, as was the case today?

§ Mr. Speaker
No, I think that the Standing Order leaves discretion in the matter to Mr. Speaker. I think that we had better try that arrangement. I hope that I shall not do anything which anybody thinks unjust.

§ Mr. Callaghan
On a point of order. I wish to raise a point of order relating to what we have been discussing. Just before I came in to the Chamber, I was informed by one of the duly accredited delegates to the Northern Rhodesia Conference, Mr. Harry Nkumbula, that he had emplaned at Johannesburg in order to arrive at the conference, but had been arrested while in Johannesburg and put into a cell without charge. He had been imprisoned for 24 hours and had then been put on a plane to London. As the Leader of the House has agreed to consult his colleagues about the matter of the naval ratings going to South Africa, will you consider, Mr. Speaker, a Private Notice Question tomorrow in order to give the Leader of the House or the appropriate Minister, an opportunity to answer on this matter, too?

§ Mr. Speaker
I hope that these matters will not be handled under the guise of points of order. If the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) hands in a Private Notice Question, I will consider it with due care in the ordinary course.

§ Mr. Callaghan
This was not a case of trying to evade the rules of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the concern of the whole House if a delegate appointed to attend a constitutional conference here is imprisoned?

§ Mr. Speaker
It is not a point of order. I have no doubt that it is a matter of great concern to many people, but that does not make it into a point of order.