HC Deb 01 March 1961 vol 635 cc1575-7
30. Mr. Grimond

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty why the Marine band from H.M.S. "Victorious" gave a performance at Capetown from which all non-whites were turned away.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing

The performance was a private engagement, under Q.R. and A.I., article 3957, at a function organised by the Capetown Branch of the Royal Naval Association. It was accepted because of the close link between the Royal Navy and the Royal Naval Association.

Mr. Grimond

The Minister and the Prime Minister appear to be quite misinformed about this. I have here the advertisement of a cinema performance, to be followed by the Royal Marines Military Band from H.M.S. "Victorious". [HON. MEMBERS: "What date?" I It is of 21st February. There is no mention of any private performance. I have a cutting from the Cape Times of the next day which reads, An inter-racial party of 10 men and women were refused entrance to the Colosseum in Cape Town last night after they had reserved tickets This must be a different performance. There is nothing in this public advertisement to indicate that it was a private performance.

Mr. Orr-Ewing

Perhaps I can help the hon. Member by giving the definition from Q.R. and A.I. It is difficult to carry the book around with one. Queen's Regulations define private engagements as those which a band may be allowed to undertake, subject to the exigencies of the Service, at the request of civilian organisations. The rules are that the fees to be charged shall be not less than civilian rates; that all expenses are paid by the organisers; and that ranks are not on duty except for disciplinary purposes. It was in that sense that I used the term "private", and I am sure that my right hon. Friend did the same. I am not aware of the conditions in any cinema. This was an engagement conscientiously entered into and, as my right hon. Friend said yesterday, it was followed by the public engagement, a vast engagement, with 5,000 people present, which was open to both white and coloured people.

Mr. Paget

How could we better illustrate why our ships should not place themselves in this sort of situation? What is the point of quibbling about "private" and "public"? This is our ship and our band, and racial discrimination was applied with all that sort of unpleasantness—and we are involved in it. Why do we do it?

Mr. Orr-Ewing

I cannot get away from the fact that this is an extremely important strategic route for the British Commonwealth. It is that which dictates our visit to the Cape, not apartheid.

Mr. Strachey

Does not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that the Fleet can do far more for the Commonwealth by standing out against racial discrimination than any of these visits can possibly do?

Mr. Orr-Ewing

The Prime Minister has made it clear where Britain stands on this issue. If the right hon. Member refers to The Times he will see another very interesting letter today on that very issue.

Mr. G. R. Howard

In view of the disproportionate publicity which such Questions in the House can have throughout the world, why was H.M.S. "Victorious" sent into South African waters?

Mr. Orr-Ewing

First, the ship had to get to the Far East. She had to go either through the Suez Canal or round South Africa. We are under an obligation under the Simonstown agreement to provide exercises for the South African Navy. We carried out that obligation. That was why she went round South Africa. While she was going round, and while exercising, she also took the opportunity of paying a visit. On the whole, this was a tremendous success and created a great deal of friendship.

Mr. Shinwell

Is the Minister aware that the report to which the Leader of the Liberal Party referred relates not to a private performance but to a public performance at an ordinary cinema? Will he explain why at a public performance, at which the band of H.M.S. "Victorious" played, people who had bought tickets—some of the people coloured—were prevented from gaining entrance. Will he reply to that question?

Mr. Orr-Ewing

I have already dealt with that question.

Mr. Grimond

May I press the hon. Gentleman on this? The Prime Minister said yesterday that this was by invitation of the Royal Naval Association of South Africa and that the people refused permission were not members. This is advertised along with a public cinema performance, the same audience being present at both. There is no mention of the Royal Naval Association of South Africa. Furthermore, tickets were sold to these people. Is it supposed that they sold tickets to people who were not members of the Association?

Mr. Orr-Ewing

I cannot be responsible for what a person puts in an advertisement. The facts are that the invitation came to "Victorious" through the Royal Naval Association, Cape Town Branch, and that is what I have said and what the Prime Minister himself stated.

Mr. Nabarro

Tell him you are not the advertiser.