CAMPAIGN FOR NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT

HC Deb 13 July 1965 vol 716 cc291-357

4.5 p.m.

Mr. Neil Marten (Banbury)

I beg to move, That this House regrets the influence which the supporters and policies of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament have upon the Government's policies. Before I proceed with my Motion, may I say, Mr. Speaker, that I hope that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Raymond Fletcher) will recover very quickly and rejoin us after his collapse. I hope that it was no more than slight.

I have drawn this Motion widely so that we can have a very wide-ranging debate. My reason for choosing this subject was that before the last election, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament was "going great guns". While there was a Conservative Government in power, with no Conservative Members of Parliament members of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, as far as I am aware, then there was no pressure upon a Conservative Government by the C.N.D. In fact, the C.N.D. policy bounced off the Conservative Government.

Now that there is a Labour Government in power, there are—according to my figures; and calculations are bound to be a little rough, plus or minus a few—just under one-third of the Labour Party who have shown themselves as being sympathetic to the C.N.D. These hon. Members could clearly be quite a pressure group inside the Labour Party, acting upon the Government. This is why I feel that the situation has changed since the last election and why I thought it right that we should take this opportunity to air this subject, in a very friendly way. I do not wish to attack anyone, I want to look at this subject very objectively—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and, apparently, so do some other hon. Gentlemen opposite.

I do not wish to argue that the C.N.D. policy is right, or that the Labour Government policy is right or wrong. That is not my object, because I believe, very firmly, as I am sure most hon. Gentlemen in the House do, that the C.N.D. has the democratic right to say what it likes, to march and to speak. It has the right to carry its banners, to wave its flags and to say what it likes within the law. I would stand up for that right in this House, because that, so far as I am concerned, is what democracy is about.

I do not agree with one word of C.N.D. policy but that is quite by the way. I have constituency organisations connected with C.N.D. and occasionally, I emphasise very occasionally, they send me a resolution, and although I do not agree with what it says it is my duty, as a Member of Parliament, to pass it on to the Foreign Office, and I do so although I do not agree with it.

Within the law, C.N.D. can, and should be able to do what it likes. On 19th April, as some hon. Gentlemen opposite will recall, there was a great march from Aldermaston. I put a Question to the Home Secretary asking how many police were engaged upon, not exactly protecting the C.N.D., but seeing that the C.N.D. came to no harm. As a ratepayer, I was perfectly happy to pay that amount extra to protect the C.N.D. so that it is free to say what it likes. Likewise, it is entitled to have its Members of Parliament. We are at the moment under attack from the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife (Mr. William Hamilton), on the ground that certain Members on this side are spokesmen for certain interests. Likewise, on his side of the House, let us face it, some Members of Parliament are spokesmen for C.N.D.

Mr. Ian Mikardo (Poplar)

The difference is that they do not get paid.

Mr. Speaker

I think that we had better not have two hon. Members on their feet at once. I think that we had better stay away from the kind of topic which the Select Committee is considering, and get back to C.N.D., etc.

Mr. Marten

I think that it is clear, from what I have said, that I am a firm democrat in all this. Therefore, I was somewhat shocked when I read my monthly copy of the C.N.D. newspaper, Sanity, and found that our Prime Minister does not take the same view. He is reported in the C.N.D. leader as saying, in his May Day speech: It is easy to march around with banners demanding this or that. The right hon. Gentleman criticises members of C.N.D. for doing this. I do not criticise them for doing it.

This newspaper also said that, earlier, the Prime Minister told an Oxford reception that public protestation over Vietnam amounted to political masturbation. That language, if I understand the word aright, coming from the Prime Minister, is rather unbecoming, and I feel that, as it has been printed in this newspaper, if it is incorrect the newspaper should withdraw it, or if it is correct the Prime Minister should offer an explanation.

The leader goes on to say: When the Prime Minister sneers at M.P.s who sign critical Motions and voters who join protest marchers and carry banners, Harold Wilson is sneering at democracy". The Prime Minister and I obviously see democracy in different lights.

I may, during this debate, mention one or two Members of Parliament. When one proposes to do so, it is customary to write and tell them in advance. I have written to the Minister of Technology, because I certainly intend to mention him. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] However, I should like to explain what I have done about the other hon. Members whom I might mention. I have written to the Government Chief Whip stating: It is customary to write and inform Members if they are to be mentioned in debate. On Tuesday, I shall be speaking on the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. As I have not got the necessary secretarial help to write individually to all the many C.N.D. supporters in the Labour Party, I would be grateful if you could bring this to their notice collectively.

Mr. Frank Allaun (Salford, East)

No doubt I am on the list; I am very honoured. The hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that not one hon. Member opposite supports this movement. Does he not think it strange that at a time like this, when, according to the Gallup polls, one in three of the population believes that some initiative of this kind should be taken not one member of the Conservative Party feels this instinct for survival which is affecting so many people throughout the world?

Mr. Marten

This shows the complete sanity of the Conservative Party.

I should like to discuss the C.N.D. policy, which is part of this Motion. I have studied it as best I can and I hope that I will give a fair interpretation of it. If I do not, and if hon. Members think that I am substantially wrong, perhaps they will intervene. But if I am wrong just on the fringes, perhaps they will let it go and, when they catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, perhaps they will be able to clear up the matter. Having discussed the policy, I should like to go on to discuss the influance of C.N.D. in the Labour Party and in the Government.

Before I discuss the policy, may I say that I calculate that about 15 per cent. of the Government has been, or is, connected with C.N.D. I do not know whether they have renounced it. [An HON. MEMBER: "It may be more."] It may be more, as my hon. Friend says, but about that proportion of the Government sympathise with C.N.D. I should like hon. Members to listen to this quotation from Sanity, the C.N.D. publication, in April, 1965. This is the edition which they carried on the march from Aldermaston. It says: There has been a change of Government"—

Mrs. Anne Kerr (Rochester and Chatham)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Marten

I should like to finish this quotation. There has been a change of Government since we last marched but little change of policy. Britain still has nuclear weapons despite the fact that some who once marched"— this is the point— with us now have Government posts. Perhaps they can exercise their influence from within. We can only exercise ours by marching".

Mrs. Kerr

The march this year was not from Aldermaston. May I put that point forward, because if we are to debate this subject adequately and intelligently we should get our facts right. The hon. Gentleman has made two mistakes of fact.

Mr. Marten

Doubtless I shall be corrected on these fringe points as I go along. I recognise that it was High Wycombe and the bomber base, and that a visiting card was left at Chequers on the way and various other places like that. Perhaps it was not Aldermaston itself.

Having quoted that, I conclude that C.N.D. imagines that it has an overt Trojan horse in the Government working for its policies. Therefore, we have to decide what are its policies. Originally, C.N.D. began by advocating banning the bomb, and so on, but there have since been a variety of changes in its structure, in the personalities who have come in and been thrown out and in the causes which it has espoused, picked up and put down again. I would welcome the comments of C.N.D. Members of Parliament on this, but I would say that C.N.D. policy is an approach to international relations: it has gone much wider than "the bomb". I hope that hon. Members opposite will agree with that. But at base the driving force of the movement is the renunciation of all nuclear policies. I hope that that is a correct interpretation.

In the policies which I am about to discuss, the front runner at the moment is clearly Vietnam. I will not weary the House with this subject again, because we get daily flashes of C.N.D. from the benches opposite when the Foreign Secretary comes to the Dispatch Box. We try to defend the Foreign Secretary on these occasions. Basically, what C.N.D. wants over Vietnam is to get the United States out of South Vietnam and then to hold free elections, but for Britain, in the meantime, to dissociate herself from the United States. As I understand it, that is what C.N.D. wants.

Early in March this year there was on the Order Paper Motion No. 137, to which the leading signatories were the hon. Members for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman)—predictably—Penistone (Mr. Mendelson), Poplar (Mr. Mikardo), Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins)—he is here, too—and Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus)—he is here, too. It is quite a long Motion, as one might expect, but, basically, it said that the Government should publicly and unequivocally declare that they are unable to support the United States in the Vietnamese war. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members opposite say, "Hear, hear". That is the opposition to Her Majesty's Government. That Motion was signed by 53 hon. Members and it fits in very much with C.N.D. policy. No Conservative Member signed that Motion.

Our Foreign Secretary has stood very firm in the House and given strong support to United States policy in Vietnam in spite of a battery of Questions and comments, Motions and marches, because I believe that he wants peace, like we want peace. We all want peace, but peace is not a monopoly of C.N.D. Surely the Foreign Secretary knows better than anyone in the Labour Party how difficult are these sorts of peace negotiations.

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—

Hon. Members

Where is he?

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey (Macclesfield)

With the Prime Minister.

Mr. Marten

Doubtless they are discussing nuclear policy together.

I think that all of my hon. Friends agree—perhaps hon. Members opposite do not—that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was one of the best Foreign Secretaries we have ever had. He said that negotiations for peace needed long and careful preparation if they were to succeed.

Mr. William Hamilton (Fife, West)

Like Suez.

Mr. Marten

That is a profound and true remark. Yet we have the spectacle of the Prime Minister virtually plucking out of the air the proposal for a Commonwealth Peace Mission.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Richard Marsh)

Is the hon. Gentleman against it?

Mr. Marten

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to speak.

The Prime Minister virtually plucked that proposal from the air when he had known for months before that the Commonwealth Prime Ministers would meet. He said himself that this war was likely to escalate. Yet suddenly he plucked this proposal out of the air which had had very little preparation. It is a very fine project in many ways, but what I criticise it for is its timing. The timing was wrong because the proposal had not been prepared. Why was the timing wrong? This is where I come to the terms of the Motion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I will come to many more terms in the Motion, too.

When the Prime Minister was turning over in his mind this whole problem that faces him, he was acutely aware of the pressures from the Left wing and from the C.N.D. which were building up in this House. Therefore, it suited his convenience, as Leader of the Labour Party, to launch this idea.

I am not saying, I hasten to add, that that is the only reason why the Prime Minister did it. Of course it was not. When one takes a big step like this, there are many reasons which one puts into the scale and then balances. What I am saying is that the C.N.D. Left-wing pressures in this House were so mounting that this weighed heavily in the Prime Minister's decision, which, I think, was a wrong decision in timing—in timing only. It should have been later, with more preparation. This is one of the justifications for the Motion which I have put down.

Now, we come to the second justification concerning the Vietnam visit by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance to Hanoi.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker (Derby, South)

Before the hon. Member leaves his first point, may I put it to him that on timing the right time to propose a Commonwealth Mission is when the Commonwealth Conference is meeting. May I further put to the hon. Member that what was said by the Leader of the Opposition was really an argument for doing nothing and that the Conservative Party always thinks that it is right in a difficulty to do nothing, but that very often to do nothing is a most dangerous course?

Mr. Marten

That was a little more than an intervention. The right hon. Gentleman has, perhaps, missed the point. The Prime Minister knew that the Commonwealth Conference was coming off at least four months previously. He had those four months in which to prepare for this peace move, but he did not. He thought about it only 10 days before. That is my charge, that this was plucked out of the air because of the situation that was arising in this House. Some Members in the House may not agree with that. Others may not like it, others may like it. It is a tribute, indeed, to the pressures of the Left wing.

The next thing which I want to touch upon is this curious mission by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance to Hanoi. I am not criticising the trip so much as the way that it was plucked out of the air, again without any of the necessary preparation which normally takes place and which could have been done. For example, Mr. Murray, the Foreign Office adviser, was turned back. Had the Joint Parliamentary Secretary left 24 hours later, he would have known that Mr. Murray would not have got his visa. Then, would the Joint Parliamentary Secretary have gone without a Foreign Office official? That is one for the Government to answer. I hope, however, that in all these manoeuvres that are going on, we do not undermine the confidence of the United States of America in our Government. That is extremely important.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins (Putney)

Will the hon. Member allow me to intervene? I have to leave the Chamber shortly and I wonder whether the passing mention which is all that the hon. Member has made of my name, in spite of the rather portentous warning which he gave us at the beginning, is all that he will say about me personally, because by the time I return he will have finished his speech.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Samuel Storey)

Order. That does not seem to be an intervention for clarification.

Mr. Marten

The answer to the hon. Member's question is that I had not thought of mentioning him.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins

Jolly good.

Mr. Marten

I was talking about the trip to Hanoi of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. He is a man whom we all like. He is a very agreeable colleague in this House. Nevertheless, it is essential to look at his political background in the light of this mission.

There was an article in the Sunday Telegraph called, "Our man in Hanoi", not, I hope, to be confused with our excellent Consul, Miles Ponsonby, who is there, who happens to be a friend of mine and whose family live in my constituency. This article sets out briefly the background of our man who is, I believe, just leaving Hanoi. It states: Mr. Davies has taken part in every Left-wing revolt and has been a thorn in the side of his own party leadership. In 1946, he was one of the 15 Labour M.P.s who signed the Keep Left manifesto calling on the Attlee Government to repudiate President Truman's proposal for collective security against Communism, to give up military arrangements with the U.S.A. and to renounce the manufacture of atomic bombs. In 1947, he was ticked off for sending a telegram of support to the Russian-sponsored Unity Party. In 1948, he was one of those reprimanded for their telegram of support to Pietro Nenni, then taking part in the Communist led-Socialist Alliance in Italy. He opposed Attlee's security check on Communists and Fascists"—

Mr. John Rankin (Glasgow, Govan)

On a point of order—

The Under Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. G. W. Reynolds)

If the hon. Member—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Mr. Rankin. A point of order?

Mr. Rankin

Is it in order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to attack an hon. Member in his absence?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

There is nothing out of order at all.

Mr. Marten

I was not attacking the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. This is the history of his own actions. I have checked it up with the facts and this is largely true. If there is any—

Mr. William Baxter (West Stirlingshire)

On a point of order. In looking at the Motion that is now before the House, I wonder how this attack upon my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) comes within its ambit. As far as I am aware, he never was a member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. I cannot see how the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) should be permitted to start discussing my hon. Friend, who is in no way related to the Motion.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

It seems to me that it is entirely related to the Motion, which concerns the effect of the influence of the policies of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament on the policies of the Government.

Mr. H. Hynd (Accrington)

Further to that point of order. The hon. Member has said that he is not attacking my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. Are we to understand that he is here to bury Caesar and not to praise him?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

No point of order arises.

Mr. Marten

Thank you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am not attacking the hon. Gentleman. I am explaining to the House his factual background. If hon. Members do not like it—[An HON. MEMBER: "We do."] That is splendid.

The article goes on to say: His speeches, articles and conference resolutions in favour of withdrawing from N.A.T.O. and S.E.A.T.O. have been too frequent for individual mention. Besides marching to and from Aldermaston from the start of C.N.D., Mr. Davies has been a regular guest of Left-wing Governments, including those of Russia, China and North Vietnam. I thought that in the interest of this discussion which we are having today it would be a good thing for the House and the public to be reminded about the man who was sent to Hanoi. I hope that while he has been out there and carrying out his seven-hour marathon teach-in with the civil servants, he has been standing up—

Mr. Norman Buchan (Renfrew, West)

On a point of order. I wonder what the hon. Member thinks he is doing when a member of the Government is away on a dangerous and serious mission. This kind of attack should not be launched in the House of Commons. The hon. Member should withdraw it immediately.

Mr. Marten

I am not attacking. Hon. Members opposite should not be so sensitive about this. I was going on to say—and if the hon. Member had waited he would have heard—that I have every confidence that the hon. Gentleman who has been in Hanoi has, in spite of what I have read out for him, loyally been backing up his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and repeating the speech which he made here.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds)

Would my hon. Friend not agree that what he has read out about the background of the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) are his credentials for getting into Hanoi?

Mr. Marten

Well, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) knows a lot more about this; he wrote an excellent letter to The Times and I am sure that if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, he will be able to develop the point.

But what we ought really to ask is: why was the hon. Member sent? I believe, as I said before, that there were several factors put into the balance which made the Prime Minister make up his mind to allow him to go, and that one of the balances in the scales—and this is all I am saying, and this is the substance of my Motion—was the pressure of the Left wing building up in this House.

I see the Prime Minister's dilemma. He has got to keep his Left wing quiet till Parliament goes into Recess in mid-August, or at the end of August, or whenever it is that we shall rise for the Recess. The C.N.D. would not accept that these sorts of actions, like sending the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, are enough, because what the C.N.D. people want is for Britain to dissociate herself from the United States' policy in Vietnam. That is what they want, and as the Prime Minister looks ahead to the misty autumn he sees lying in wait for him the T.U.C. conference, where the subject of Vietnam will come up again. The Transport and General Workers' Union is bound to raise it there. Then there will be the Labour Party conference, where the rank and file of the party are bound to be very noisy about Vietnam and the Prime Minister has got to be seen to have done something about it, and it is that, I think, which has dominated his actions in this respect over Vietnam.

What we all want, of course, is peace.—[Interruption.] All I would say, despite the Paymaster-General—I know I make him sick; I being a member of the Tory Party, he hates my guts, as I think his expression is. But never mind.

The Paymaster-General (Mr. George Wigg)

Does the hon. Gentleman want the truth?

Hon. Members

Sit down.

Mr. Marten

All I would say to the right hon. Gentleman is that I am talking about peace, and the true cause of lasting peace will not, I believe, be furthered by any more of these open snubs which this country has received in diplomacy and by the apparent opportunism of the Prime Ministers. I think that these visits will be turned into a Communist propaganda exercise. Indeed, I think that that has already started. I think that in the long run, when, next year, we look back to these months, when they are past, we may see that this has not helped towards peace. So much for the pressures of the Left wing upon the Labour Party over Vietnam.

Mr. Will Griffiths (Manchester, Exchange)

I give the hon. Member credit for thinking that he has been serious in his argument so far, but may I put this to him? He said at one point that despite his analysis of how this mission came about, he nevertheless welcomed it, and he thought that the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' initiative was on the whole good and he thinks that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's visit is on the whole good, despite all his criticisms.

What I want to know from him is this. Despite the criticisms which he has voiced does he really mean that he and his colleagues on the Conservative Front Bench, despite their reservations, desire contact with Hanoi or not? Let us have a serious answer to that question.

Mr. Marten

I am not speaking for these benches. [Laughter.] I can speak only for myself. That must be clear to everyone, despite the laughter from the Paymaster-General. I can only speak for myself.

Mr. Wigg

I should have thought that if the hon. Member is right in that, and even speaking for himself, he is taking on himself a great responsibility, but if the hon. Member impugns the patriotism of my hon. Friend he needs to be reminded that it was not the Labour Party but Captain Ramsay who was interned during the war.

Mr. Marten

I shall not comment on that sort of remark.

I will say to the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. Will Griffiths) that I can only speak for myself. I think that he missed the point, which was that I approve in principle of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Peace Mission, but that I think the timing of it was wrong and that it lacked preparation. That is what I criticise.

I want briefly to go on to the other points in the policy of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. I have dealt at length with Vietnam. I will deal with the other ones literally in a sentence each.

The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament people, with whom I reckon just under one-third of the Labour Party is sympathetic about this, want to abandon our rôle east of Suez. The Government, as we know, wish to keep it. We on this side shall watch with great interest the defence review, when the results come out, to see to what extent our interests east of Suez have been abandoned. The Atlantic Nuclear Force which the Prime Minister is so keen on canvassing around the world is described by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament as a military illusion and nonsense. I think that I have correctly quoted the phraseology from C.N.D.'s leading newspaper—a military illusion and nonsense. Yet the Government are pressing on with it. I want to ask, if the Prime Minister does not succeed in selling this idea, what happens then?

The C.N.D. people want Britain to withdraw from N.A.T.O. and S.E.A.T.O. and CENTO., yet the laughing Paymaster-General knows perfectly well that those three treaties are the cornerstone of our defence. I know that he does not like this, but this is what the C.N.D. people want us to abolish. They are entitled to their views. I just happen to disagree with them.

They want to break up the Anglo-American alliance. They say that our attachment to the United States poisons our relations with the rest of the world.

Mr. Reynolds

rose—

Mr. Marten

No, I have given way to the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Reynolds

Will the hon. Member allow me on this point—

Hon. Members

Sit down.

Mr. Marten

I gave way to the right hon. Gentleman, who made an utterly frivolous and irrelevant intervention and I shall not give way any more.

Mr. Reynolds

But I am sure the hon. Gentleman wishes—

Mr. Marten

The hon. Gentleman has the right of reply: I believe that he will be winding up the debate. He can deal then with the point, whatever it is, that he has in mind. I am sorry that I cannot give way to him, but the blame for that is on his right hon. Friend, who wasted the time of the House with the sort of intervention which he made.

The C.N.D. people want us to break up the Anglo-American alliance, to which the Government remain deeply committed—in fact, more deeply committed than ever. The C.N.D. people want us to abolish—this is in their policy statement—British involvement in the Malaysia-Indonesia war. This is what the C.N.D. people want. They want Britain to withdraw her troops. What purpose would that serve? Whom would that serve? Certainly, it would not serve Britain. Certainly, it would not serve Malaysia. I do trust the Government will not yield on that one.

The C.N.D. people wanted us to end TSR2. TSR2 has been ended. They have achieved their aim, but what they did not bargain for was the fact that the Government are going to America now to buy the F111 to re-equip the Royal Air Force with it, depending more and more upon America for the defence of this country. That is the result of the C.N.D. desire for the TSR2 to be cancelled. We shall watch very carefully, of course, when the Government order the F111, to see whether they order sufficient to give the Royal Air Force a real rôle, or whether they just order a token quantity, in which case they will have once again acceded to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.

The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament wants the Polaris bases in Scotland brought to an end. The Prime Minister has said they will be retained. The C.N.D. people want Britain to withdraw from all her overseas bases. We are awaiting the Defence review with great interest to watch to see how far Britain does withdraw. The C.N.D. people want Britain to renounce her nuclear policy, they want her to renounce her nuclear weapons, and they want Britain to end her stockpile of nuclear weapons. That is the sum total, in a nutshell, of what C.N.D. policy is.

That is a very considerable catalogue of Left-wing and C.N.D. demands. Listening to it, I think that none of them would disagree with it, but it is as well that the country and this House should be reminded of what this sum total amounts to. If it was put into operation tomorrow, no one but the Communist bloc would be the gainer. That is precisely what these people want. They want a Britain disarmed, with no overseas bases, neutralised, and with no allies. They are entitled to their views. I do not criticise them for that, but I disagree with them.

I can only conclude that many C.N.D. sympathisers are being duped. Some support C.N.D., or have done, for idealism. Some support it for religious reasons. One hon. Gentleman opposite told me that he marched with it, he saw it, and he resigned from it because it did not fit in with his religious idealism. Some support it from ignorance, and some are just plain muddle-headed, but, after what I have said, I believe that a proportion of the C.N.D. supporters are so Left-wing as to be almost indistinguishable from Communists. I am not criticising them for that, because this is a democracy, and they can have their own beliefs if they want them.

I have put in a nutshell a brief outline of the C.N.D. policy. Just under 100 Members of Parliament on the benches opposite are sympathetic to it. There are members in the Government who, I believe, are sympathetic to it. In fact, I believe that the C.N.D. is more effective in the Labour Party than it is outside in the country. In the country it seems to be a little split. There is the Hampstead Committee of 100, a very militant group. There are the anarchists, who speak for themselves.

There are the people who are trying to make C.N.D. respectable, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger), who had an Adjournment debate on this the other day, described them, rather aptly, as rather fly-blown, an expression that we used to come across in the Middle East. That is what the C.N.D. is in the country.

I asked the Foreign Secretary how many letters he had received in protest about Vietnam during the three months up to the end of April. Suprisingly enough, at the time when this great farouche was going on in this House and pressure was really building up, this movement, which is described as a great national one, wrote only 39 letters, three a day, to the Foreign Office. That is an example of the steam being let off in this House, and the organisation outside being a little fly-blown.

Since the election, some Ministers with a C.N.D. background have come into the Government. Not one of them has dissociated himself publicly from his C.N.D. past. None of them has disclaimed his support for it, or the support that he gave it. It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that they are still sympathetic to the movement, partly I suppose because they are honourable Gentlemen and they hold those views sincerely, passionately and deeply, so they have said. Therefore, when they joined the Government they saw no reason to change those views and declare that they had renounced their past, and they have not done so.

The implication, therefore, is that they still support the C.N.D., and I would remind hon. Gentlemen opposite of what I said earlier about the Trojan horse. The C.N.D. has asked those supporters who can no longer march with it, but who are now in the Government to work for the C.N.D.'s policies, and I want to make my last major point on this.

What is the effect of having, say, three C.N.D. sympathisers in the Cabinet itself? Let us take a notional example of a discussion on a nuclear question. I shall not be more specific than that. If the three C.N.D. members of the Cabinet disagree, they can flounce out of the Cabinet, and the Prime Minister knows what flouncing out of the Cabinet means because he has done it himself. If they flounce out, they will become the focal point around which the Left Wing and the C.N.D. can gather. The Left Wing will then have a leader, which, apparently it does not have at the moment. The Prime Minister recognises this, so he trims his policy in order not to create a situation in which these C.N.D. members of the Cabinet will flounce out. This is a danger which the Prime Minister accepted when he brought them into the Cabinet in the first place.

Who are these people to whom I am referring? I do not want to read long lists, but I have them. Perhaps I might start on the fringe of the Government with the unpaid members, the P.P.S.s. On my list is the P.P.S. to the Prime Minister, and also the P.P.S. to the Foreign Secretary. Both are supporters of the C.N.D. Let it be known that I am not criticising them. One then comes to the next category, the junior Ministers. Among those on my list—he would hate to deny that he was a supporter of the C.N.D.—is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport. There is also the hon. Lady the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. She is a well-known nuclear disarmer. On my list there is also the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Overseas Development, I think it is.

One then comes to the senior Ministers in the Cabinet, and I suppose the best known is the Secretary of State for the Colonies. I have seen him several times on television. I do not watch television very often, but, two years ago, at Easter time, I saw his handsome face when he was leading the C.N.D. march from Aldermaston. On that occasion he said: I am implacably opposed to Britain's nuclear strategy and the presence of another nation's nuclear base on our soil. Let us remind ourselves that he is in the Cabinet. I shall not labour that point.

Next, there is the Minister for Overseas Development, and then one comes to the Minister of Technology. I know that hon. Gentlemen opposite have been waiting for this. The moment has now arrived. I excluded the right hon. Gentleman from my general round robin to the Chief Whip. I wrote a special letter to him saying that during this debate I would be mentioning his name. I am sorry that he is not here, but doubtless he has a much more important engagement.

I have no doubt that the Minister of Technology is a supporter of the C.N.D. Look at the record. At the 1961 Labour Party Conference he proposed a resolution for the complete rejection of any defence policy based on the threat of the use of strategic nuclear weapons. In December, 1961, the Transport and General Workers' Union, of which he was then the paid General Secretary, officially backed the C.N.D. In 1962, he took part in the Aldermaston march, and he wound up in Hyde Park by saying: Go back to your movement and work for unilateral disarmament. In 1962, at the Trades Union Congress, the right hon. Gentleman spoke passionately—I have re-read his speech—and called for the removal of United States Polaris bases from Scotland. He spoke deeply, sincerely and passionately about that. How deep was that passion we shall know perhaps in a few weeks' time. In October, 1964, after he had become a Minister, an interview with him was published in the Sunday papers. I do not know whether the interview was before or after he became a Minister, but that is irrelevant. He said that one of the most moving experiences every year for the Minister of Technology and his wife Nance was to walk side by side, holding hands, on the Aldermaston march. I do not criticise him for that. He is entitled to march where he likes, and I think that the picture of him and his wife holding hands is rather nice. I like it. But this right hon. Gentleman is a member of the Government who have a policy in direct contradiction to those C.N.D. sentiments. I want to know where he stands.

Last week, as the public and the House know, the Transport and General Workers' Union passed two resolutions. Let us remember that the Minister of Technology is the General Secretary, and the Transport and General Workers' Union has backed the C.N.D. I hope, therefore, that I am still in order. Last week, the union passed two resolutions, one quite simply urging the Government to dissociate themselves from United States policy in Vietnam—that is the C.N.D. line—and the other opposing the Government's incomes policy. Both are directly contrary—[HON. MEMBERS: "Out of order."] I do not believe that it is out of order. I have not been ruled out of order. Both those resolutions are directly contrary to Labour Government policy.

Mr. William Hamilton

; On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Will it be in order for hon. Members who take part in the debate to discuss the incomes policy as part of the subject matter?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

A reference to it is not out of order, but we must not discuss it in detail.

Mr. Marten

I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I shall not discuss it in detail. I have no need to. Those two resolutions, coming from a C.N.D.-backed union—that puts it in order—are both directly contrary to the Government's policy.

Mr. William Molloy (Ealing, North)

A C.N.D,-backed union?

Mr. Marten

The hon. Gentleman will find out. If he reads what the union says, he will realise that its policies are in line with the C.N.D.

Last Thursday, the Prime Minister said: … on all matters decided by the Government … there is full collective responsibility for all decisions. … All Ministers support the Government's policy on all questions which have been decided."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th July, 1965; Vol. 715, cc. 1807–8.] That is very clear and very proper. I have here a book by Sir Ivor Jennings, called "Cabinet Government". On page 281, Sir Ivor says: Cabinet Ministers are expected not merely not to oppose a Cabinet decision, but also to support it. On page 277, he says: A Minister who is not prepared to defend a Cabinet decision must, therefore, resign. I am talking about the Minister of Technology because, on Saturday, I opened my copy of The Times—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] I know what the "Ahs" and arguments will be about it, that he probably did not say it and so on. But if the right hon. Gentleman did not say what he was reported to have said, why has he not denied it? Instead of coming out in support of his Government, as, according to this book on constitutional matters, he should have done, he was reported in The Times in this way: The Minister of Technology expressed his delight that the Conference had registered some firm views on some matters of real concern. What are those matters of real concern? There were two matters of real concern to this country before that conference, namely, Vietnam and the incomes policy. Whatever legalistic little wriggle the right hon. Gentleman tries to use or his hon. Friends try to use to dodge out of it, we all know that he was, in fact, referring to both those issues, and, of course, he was endorsing what his union had said. He was not backing up his own Government, according to constitutional history, and I therefore call for his resignation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am not criticising the Minister—[Laughter.] Wait for it. I am not criticising the Minister of Technology at this moment for his views of on Vietnam, or for his views on the incomes policy. He is entitled to those views. But what I do criticise him for—this is a serious point—is speaking with two voices.

As a result of all this, the right hon. Gentleman has little respect left on this side of the House. There is little honour left in his politics. But what really matters about his performance is the effect on the good name of politics of behaving in this way. I know that the right hon. Gentleman finds attendance in the House difficult at this moment. I am quite certain that that is why he is away now. But, had he been here, I should have asked him five questions. He is not here, but I shall, nevertheless, ask him those questions, because I am sure that he will read HANSARD and, to cover the matter, I shall later this week write an open letter repeating these five questions and hope to have an open reply because we are anxious and concerned when a Cabinet Minister speaks with two voices.

The five questions are these. Does the Minister of Technology now agree with the United States Polaris base remaining in Scotland? Does he now agree with the build-up of our arsenal of Polaris missiles? Does he agree with the retention of our nuclear force and our stockpile of nuclear weapons? Does he agree with the Transport and General Workers' Union resolution on Vietnam or with his Government's policy on Vietnam? Does he agree with the Transport and General Workers' resolution on the incomes policy or with his Government's policy?

Mr. Mikardo

Very clever.

Mr. Marten

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will answer these clever questions, as the hon. Gentleman calls them. Perhaps he will answer the last one in the debate on technology tomorrow. I think that it would be in order to do so, and I sincerely hope that he will.

Hon. Members opposite will be glad to know that I am coming to an end. I hope I have made the point that the Left wing and the C.N.D. have got an influence on this Government, and they will continue to have an influence so long as they are in the Labour Party. I must say that, if I were a member of the C.N.D., I should be proud of what it has achieved. It has achieved a degree of—I do not mean it in a nasty way—influence in the Labour Party which is a great credit to the subtlety with which it has proceeded. It puts the train robbers' escape organisation to the shade.

Finally, I throw out this challenge to the C.N.D. I disagree with the C.N.D. and its policies, but I think that, in the interests of democracy, we should all know quite clearly where everyone stands and how big the C.N.D. movement is in this country. The C.N.D. should put up its own parliamentary candidates, in selected places if it likes, to test how much it is supported. More than that, I challenge all Labour Members of Parliament who are supporters of the C.N.D. to stand at the next election as "Labour and C.N.D."

4.58 p.m.

Mr. K. Zilliacus (Manchester, Gorton)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) for initiating this debate and for drawing his Motion in terms wide enough to enable us to get to the heart of the problem. I shall not, however, follow him into all the ramifications of what he said because I think that he did rather anticipate the foreign affairs debate next week. I shall try to stick to the C.N.D. and its relation to the Labour Party.

The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right in saying that there is a great deal of overlapping between the C.N.D. and the Left of the Labour Party. A good many members of the C.N.D. are members of the Labour Party. Many leaders of it are leading figures in the Labour Party. But basically, the C.N.D. is a non-party movement, an organised moral protest against the prospect of genocide by the use of nuclear weapons. It is true that it has broadened into a general approach to international affairs, but, in my view, one of the faults and weaknesses of the C.N.D. is that it has stuck too closely to the issue of nuclear weapons, which I regard as a symptom rather than a cause of something basically wrong in the whole of our post-war policy.

However, I will not go into that, because that belongs to the realm of foreign affairs. I want to stick to the field which the C.N.D. has made peculiarly its own, where I believe it has rendered a signal service to the nation, and I am only sorry that, partly owing to its own faults, its influence has not been greater on the policies of the Government, let alone those of the Opposition. Unfortunately, the handful of Conservative C.N.D. supporters have had no influence on their party leaders.

I will state what I regard as the basic issue, not in terms of what the C.N.D. said, but in terms of what an illustrious leader of the Labour Party said from the Front Bench when he was Shadow Foreign Secretary. That was the late Aneurin Bevan, who said in the House on 20th February, 1958: I do not believe that the possession of the hydrogen bomb is worth while from the point of view of negotiation … An instrument of suicide can never be an instrument of negotiation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1958; Vol. 582, c. 1409.] I would also quote what one of the founders of N.A.T.O., G. F. Kennan, at that time head of the Policy Planning Staff of the U.S. State Department, said in his broadcast Reith Lectures in November-December, 1959: The weapon of mass destruction is a sterile and hopeless weapon … which cannot in any way serve the purposes of a constructive and hopeful foreign policy. The suicidal nature of this weapon renders it unsuitable both as a sanction of diplomacy and as the basis of an alliance. A little earlier, on 23rd July, 1957, again in the House, Aneurin Bevan put what I thought was the real issue as a lot of us in the Labour Party understand it and on which the C.N.D. has done a good deal to educate public opinion. He said: Ordinary men and women are becoming impatient of all of us when we are dealing with this problem. The fact is—let us face it—that most of the speeches that are made on both sides of the Committee on this subject"— that is, of nuclear weapons and nuclear deterrent strategy, the ideological conflict, and the rest of it— make no sense at all to ordinary men and women. … The fact is that the ends which are served by national defence and the means adopted for defence are so far apart from each other today as to add up to no sense at all. No one really believes that weapons which are weapons of mutual suicide are any longer means of national self-defence. We can talk about the subject as much as we like, but that is how the ordinary man and woman look at it. … It just makes no sense. The other day I heard a railwayman say that, having tried to follow the discussions on the subject on the radio, he had been reduced to the situation that he would now rather be defeated in a conventional war than victorious in a nuclear war, because, he said, 'I should be alive maybe to endure the one, but I should not be alive to rejoice over the other.' May I remind the House that in the last defence debate on 4th March, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Defence observed that within three days of the outbreak of a nuclear war, life would be extinct on this island. That is not an unimportant point, which the C.N.D. is striving in vain to draw to the attention of the party opposite.

Aneurin Bevan went on: If we abandoned flatulent generalisations about the wide differences that separate the Soviet system from our own, most hon. Members would privately agree with that opinion. There cannot be any differences about social systems so profound that we are prepared to run the risk of wiping out the whole of human society over them. … After all, the primary condition for arguing about different social systems is that one should be alive to argue about them. But if the argument results in the extinction of all social systems, it seems rather absurd to be worrying about which particular one one is going to live under."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd July, 1957; Vol. 574, c. 334.] The C.N.D. has had, I think, a substantial success in the course of time in making public opinion aware of this literally vital, in the sense of life and death, truth. In proof of that, I should like to point out that some years ago my own party, I am sorry to say, officially took the same line as the party opposite is still taking; that is, it believed in the mythology of the British independent deterrent. There was a semiofficial pamphlet published at that time, the author of which was John Strachey, which argued the case for it in very much the same terms as the argument is still being put forward from the other side. The author clinched his argument by pointing out that a Gallup poll in 1958 had shown that, by a majority of no less than three to one the British people were against Britain scrapping the hydrogen bomb on her own. If the Labour Party adopted such a policy it would neither receive nor deserve the confidence of the British people. Between 1958 and 1964, quite a process of education went on, powerfully aided by the failure of the Blue Streak missile. However, those changes and developments in the situation had passed by the party opposite, and the Prime Minister at the time of the last election chose to make a central issue in his election campaign of the retention of the so-called independent British deterrent. As a result, he is today the Leader of the Opposition and likely to remain so until his loyal supporters can agree on a successor without an unseemly brawl.

It was not because he had not had warnings. There was for instance, the warning of the Sunday Telegraph in July, 1963. It had a sad little editorial entitled, "Nuclear Boomerang", and pointed out that a recent Gallup poll showed that 24 per cent. took the straight C.N.D. position on nuclear weapons, about a third took the Lib-Lab position of renouncing British bombs and relying on American bombs, which I regard as an illogical half-way house, and less than two-fifths supported the Conservative make-believe pseudo-Gaulism about an independent British deterrent made in the United States.

The Times, a few months later, concluded a nation-wide survey of the position of the electorate on the issues coming before them in the election and said, in an article published on 16th February, 1964: It is argued that the defence issue may sway many votes to the Conservatives. If so, the feeling has yet to be aroused in the areas I visited: compared with 1962, the uncommitted middle class voter is much more likely to argue today that the so called independent deterrent is neither independent nor a deterrent. So many people have a deep-seated loathing of the bomb. Then came the historic debate on 16th and 17th December, when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister mercilessly dispatched the myth of the independent British deterrent and, in the words of the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), on television: Chewed up the right hon. Leader of the Opposition into very small fragments and left them strewn on the carpet. But there is no sign that this lesson has sunk in, nor even that the remark of The Times subsequently has been taken to heart, namely that it was time the Tory Party gave up the charade and faced reality. As far as I can make out, the Leader of the Opposition, who is blessedly free from any C.N.D. influences, sticks to the point he made in another place on 26th June, 1963, when he was Foreign Secretary. He said: We are the sole judges … as to when, if at all, we might want to use our own deterrent in the supreme national interest. which apparently does not include staying alive. This is a recognition of the fact that we are a world Power and that threats to our vital interests might occur outside Europe and outside the N.A.T.O. area."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 26th June, 1963; Vol. 251, c. 278–9.] This was expanded in an article in the Conservative Central Office weekly newsletter on 11th January last year, which pointed out that we might feel it necessary to resort to force to preserve our interests if they were threatened in some corner of the world, that we might then be threatened with nuclear weapons unless we gave up this resort to conventional forces, and the Americans might be unwilling to sacrifice their cities and population to support us, and that unless we had nuclear weapons of our own we should then have to submit to the nuclear blackmail of the other side.

What that means is that Britain, which is in American terms a 2 per cent. nuclear Power and in Soviet terms perhaps a 6–8 per cent. nuclear Power, would be undeterred by a deterrent more than ten times as great as ours, but we would face the other side and expect to impose our nuclear blackmail on it. Honestly, that kind of thing strikes me as rather remote from reality or even from sanity.

But perhaps I am a little unjust in my summary of the position of the party opposite and its leaders, though it seems to me a perfectly fair summary. At any rate, I hope it will not be denied that the Leader of the Opposition, whom the hon. Member for Banbury described as the best Foreign Secretary we have had, is slightly old-fashioned in his approach to the problems of Britain in the age of nuclear weapons and the ideological conflict. I am thinking, of course, of a pamphlet which he wrote on British foreign policy when he was Foreign Secretary. It was issued by the Conservative Central Office in April, 1961. It began with the following most impressive and striking passage: Palaeolithic man, dressed in his skin and armed with his club, had two main jobs: to protect his family from its foes and to hunt for the family's food supplies. When I took over the Foreign Office it seemed to me that, despite the lapse of time, the needs of man had changed very little and that the functions of the Foreign Secretary were very close to those of his Stone Age ancestors. After reading that remarkable passage I fell into a reverie and conjured up a vision of the right hon. Gentleman hunting the nation's food supplies armed with his independent deterrent. Seriously, I do not think it can be denied that this approach is slightly behind the times—roughly about 10,000 years.

The appalling thing is that I believe that the right hon. Gentleman really believes this. When he addressed the Young Conservatives on 15th February, 1964, he said: I must tell them where British safety and the prospect of peace really lies. It is not in some woolly Socialist get-together, where all agree on a pink peaceful coexistence. It is in an overwhelming deterrent to war. That is "overwhelming" meaning 2–8 per cent. of what the other side has, on the "go it alone" principle, to which the right hon. Gentleman adheres.

I am disappointed with and critical of the policy of my own Government. I do not think that they go nearly far enough. But I am hopeful that they will evolve, and I am glad that they are taking initiatives and trying. The idea that really fills me with black despair is the thought that in some moment of aberration the people of this country might be insane enough once more to entrust their leadership to an Old Etonian Neanderthaler and the political primitives who shamble out of their caves, and jump up and down and bark approval of his Stone Age sentiments.

As for the C.N.D., I say that those concerned in it are an honour to the youth of this country. They show that there are young people who care desperately about the future of the human race, who object to being slaughtered by their purblind and insane elders. They are people who make a moral protest. They are people who care. I can assure hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House that they have made a deep impression on the public opinion of the world. The symbol of the C.N.D. has spread throughout the world. It is the symbol of marchers in many lands.

Mr. Marten

Will the hon. Gentleman say how many marches take place in, for example, Russia, protesting against Russian missile bases in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania?

Mr. Zilliacus

In any case, I am concerned with the so-called free world. The whole idea of this protest is to say that we do not need nuclear weapons to regulate our relations with the other side, and whether they have marches there or not is quite irrelevant to the question.

Mr. Marten

Is the hon. Gentleman implying that Russia is not a free country?

Mr. Zilliacus

Of course it has not political freedom in our sense, but it wants peace, and that is the point. I am sick of this hypocrisy about political freedom from people who support the revolting dictatorship in Vietnam or the evil dictatorships set-up elsewhere by the Americans, or who appeased Hitler and Mussolini before the war. I am certain that the Tory Party cares nothing at all for the defence of democracy and freedom in other countries. The best we can hope for is some respect for democracy in this country.

Mr. R. T. Paget (Northampton)

My hon. Friend says that he is convinced that Russia wants peace. Is that why the Rusisans have nuclear armaments?

Mr. Zilliacus

Considering that the United States has a four-to-one superiority of nuclear arms over the Soviet Union, which forbore to build more when it could have done so, considering that the Russians have offered again and again policies of peaceful co-existence, which, incidentally, coincide with the policies on which the Labour Party was returned to power and on which we could negotiate an agreement, and remembering the Americans are the people who have not accepted peaceful co-existence and who are still pursuing an anti-Communist crusade which is assuming genocidal forms in Vietnam at the moment, I think that that question is somewhat irrelevant.

Finally, what C.N.D. stands for is the idea that the people should take a hand in the settlement of their affairs. It was Clemenceau who said that war was too serious a matter to be entrusted to generals. I believe that peace is too serious a matter to be entrusted to politicians. In the C.N.D., and for the rank and file of the Labour Party, through the trades unions, and at the annual party conference, we have a manifestation of what the people think about these issues of peace and war. I am glad that the Labour Government are open to the influence of these currents and these feelings of the people. I am glad that the debate is showing that the one party which is utterly isolated from these feelings is the Tory Party, which is the party which stands for the cold war and the arms race until the bombs come home.

The Second Clerk Assistant at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. SPEAKER from the remainder of this day's Sitting.

Whereupon Dr. HORACE KING, The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, took the Chair as DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.

5.18 p.m.

Mr. Cranley Onslow (Woking)

The speech that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus) had a somewhat familiar ring. It seemed to repeat most of what had been said by him in practically every foreign affairs debate in which he has spoken, as well as to anticipate what he will no doubt say in the next foreign affairs debate in which he takes part.

The speech was constructed very largely from carefully chosen and selected quotations. It was a sort of patchwork of comments taken out of context, to which the answer could, I believe, well be contained in yet one other quotation from the late Aneurin Bevan, when he said that he was not prepared to see the Foreign Secretary of this country go naked into the conference chamber, a quotation for which he is likely to be remembered much longer than the hon. Member for Gorton for anything which he has said now or on previous occasions.

Mr. Zilliacus

I knew that this would be coming. That speech by Aneurin Bevan was one of the most unfortunate and unsuccessful that he ever made. He delivered it in an attempt to rally the party behind the official policy at Brighton. In a later speech, in February, 1958—which I quoted—he took back all of that and said that one could not use the H-bomb in negotiations.

Mr. Onslow

I will concede to the hon. Gentleman that, unlike some leaders of the Labour Party at the moment, the late Aneurin Bevan was sometimes big enough to admit that he might be wrong.

This is not an attack by us on the C.N.D. and its supporters. Many hon. Members on this side of the House are grateful to the local chapters or whatever they are for the constant support they give to us and the way in which they enliven our election meetings. This is an attack on the Government as a whole and the Prime Minister in particular for allowing supporters of C.N.D., knowing what their policy is, to serve in his Administration and unduly influence the policy of the Government.

They have done so already, particularly in the case of the TRS2. This will not be forgotten in a hurry. It may interest the Paymaster-General, who is having his usual giggle, that I am wearing a tie given to me by some of my constituents who worked for the British Aircraft Corporation on the TSR2. This is the emblem of those who worked on the machine. The tie is black in mourning for the TSR2, killed by the Government, and the Government are portrayed, I imagine, by the yellow streak in the tie.

The substance of the Motion depends upon what is known of the attitudes and efforts of supporters of C.N.D. I have no wish to repeat at length the points already made by my hon. Friends. I do not wish to refer at all to the views of the right hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Cousins). He is having a bad enough week. Let us give him a moment of peace. I want particularly to quote from some remarks made in the past by another member of the Government, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Lady the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart). I have notified her that I would mention her name and she has thanked me for so doing. I am sure that she is occupied by some important business elsewhere.

The hon. Lady, now a member of the Government, is no longer a member of the Committee of C.N.D. nor, I understand, of the Anti-Apartheid Committee. We have no reason to suppose—and I know of no statement by her to suggest it—that her resignation came because she disagreed with the views of these two bodies. It is, however, worth mentioning that she still remains as vice-chairman of the Movement for Colonial Freedom—a body with which the Prime Minister was connected and whose chairman is Lord Brockway, who is also chairman of the British Council for Peace in Vietnam. One of the sponsors of this Council is—surprise, surprise—the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.

This merry-go-round reveals one thing which may strike hon. Members, and that is the monopolistic tendencies of the British protest industry. They are all interconnected, with interlocking directorships. There is the Movement for Colonial Freedom, C.N.D. and the Anti-Apartheid Committee, and no doubt the next 16 protest movements to spring up spontaneously will all be interlocking with these three movements. We shall have the same old names again.

Mr. Bernard Floud (Acton)

Would the hon. Gentleman make clear whether or not he is in favour of apartheid?

Mr. Onslow

I am not a member and I have no intention of belonging to the Anti-Apartheid Movement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] That does not mean that I am in favour of apartheid. I am not in favour of apartheid. But I will not lend my name—and others would do well to consider this—in favour of a cause in which I believe to an organisation which will exploit it cynically for purposes to our detriment and danger.

Mrs. Anne Kerr

rose—

Mr. Onslow

No. I shall never get on. We are aware of the hon. Lady's views. I want to quote what has been said by the hon. Lady the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland in the past. In 1960, at a C.N.D. rally in Glasgow, she said: What we are demanding is that Britain by giving up nuclear weapons should be allowed to exercise her influence in bringing about unilateral disarmament. In 1961, at a Labour Party conference, she said: Through the use of Polaris missiles Britain is inviting obliteration without representation.

Mr. Mikardo

Perfectly true.

Mr. Onslow

In 1962, at the time of the Cuba crisis, the hon. Lady said: Britain should make it clear that we were not willing to be militarily committed on the side of America whatever happened in Cuba. In 1963, she said: We must cease forthwith the attempt to remain an independent nuclear power. We should seek to ensure that N.A.T.O. itself is not dependent on nuclear stategy. This would involve the abandonment of any attempt to create a European nuclear deterrent in any form and the removal of American bases in Britain.

Hon. Members

Hear, hear.

Mr. Onslow

I note the approval of hon. Members opposite. All these are points of view that the hon. Lady is entitled to express but it is notable, of course, that the Government have not yet given up nuclear weapons—and so far they show no sign of intending to do so They do not seem to have taken any particular steps towards not acquiring polaris submarines. They do not seem to have become any less committed to America whatever happens in Vietnam. They do not seem, in particular, to be anxious to hasten the demise of N.A.T.O. which the hon. Lady in 1963 was so anxious to see.

Mr. Mikardo

I am trying hard to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. He seems to be saying two contrary things. First, he points out that the Government have not followed the views of my hon. Friend the 'Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, thereby arguing that the supporters of C.N.D. who are in the Government have had no influence on the Government. Why, therefore, is the hon. Gentleman speaking in support of a Motion which complains that they have influence on the Government?

Mr. Onslow

I shall be delighted to to explain. The hon. Gentleman is not showing his customary patience and restraint. I have already said that I believe the cancellation of the TSR2 was a direct result of the influence of C.N.D. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".]. I believe that to be so. It is a point of view and I am just as entitled to it as others are entitled to disagree. I mention these points to show what influence the C.N.D. has and to show what its supporters may well be able to do in persuading the Government to do what they want so long as they remain in the Cabinet.

Let us get this plain. The C.N.D. policy is quite comprehensive. The dynamic and instant reactionaries opposite have only had a few short months to bring their influence into play and we must consider what is to come. We have seen what has already come—the cancellation of the TSR2 and the way in which the proper balance of diplomatic negotion in South-East Asia has been upset by pressures from C.N.D.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson (Montgomery)

When the Conservative Government cancelled Blue Streak, was that the result of the influence of C.N.D?

Mr. Onslow

Even for an hon. Member sitting on that bench I find that rather a silly question.

Mr. Wigg

Answer it.

Mr. Onslow

I know how anxious many hon. Members opposite are to have time to express their views. I will not be provoked by the right hon. Gentleman the Paymaster-General into wasting time. I want to talk seriously about the British Council for Peace in Vietnam, whose chairman is Lord Brockway.

A leaflet, distributed at a meeting in Glasgow on 30th June, 1965, when the speakers included the hon. Member for Glasgow, Woodside (Mr. Carmichael) and the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), said: Progressive people throughout the world, outraged by U.S. actions, have condemned the U.S. war. De Gaulle too has made his opposition clear. Hon. Members will note the somewhat interesting distinction there. But to Britain's shame the Labour Government has from the outset backed the U.S. action to the full. Never in recent years have British statesmen been so servile, such stooges, to the U.S. Wilson and Stewart kow-tow to the American Government over Vietnam, because they want U.S. support for the colonial war in Malaysia. This leaflet was distributed at a meeting called by the British Council for Peace in Vietnam one of whose sponsors is the C.N.D. On this occasion I must absolve the C.N.D. directly, because this leaflet—and hon. Members opposite will be surprised to hear this—was published by the Communist Party.

Mr. Neil Carmichael (Glasgow, Woodside)

rose—

Mr. Onslow

I will not give way.

Mr. Carmichael

I am the hon. Member for Woodside.

Mr. Onslow

In that case, I will give way.

Mr. Carmichael

This was a meeting called by Tribune and many leaflets were handed out outside the meeting. I do not know that leaflet myself, but many leaflets are handed out at many meetings all over the country. The people inside a meeting do not necessarily agree with those who happen to be distributing the leaflets outside.

Mr. Onslow

I accept that this was a meeting about Vietnam, but the leaflet was headed: Join the National Lobby to Parliament. Called by the British Council for Peace in Vietnam.—(Chairman Lord Brockway.) The C.N.D. is a sponsor of the British Council for Peace in Vietnam, as is the Communist Party, and my point in mentioning the leaflet is to stress the danger—

Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton)

rose—

Mr. Onslow

I think that I will continue.

Mr. Heffer

It is a smear.

Mr. Onslow

I know how anxious hon. Members opposite are to distort my views, but on this occasion I am not suggesting that those who hold the views of the C.N.D., or the Communist Party, or even the Socialist Party are necessarily fools or knaves. That is not my case. My case is that we must know what views are held and we must know why it is that those who hold those views are yet given the positions which they now have.

To digress for a moment, I would attack the Government's economic advisers not because they come from Hungary, or have children in the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, but because their views are mistaken and wrong and dangerous for this country and because they should not be employed by a Government of this country. I hope that hon. Members opposite will listen to that and will stop trying to divert the force of our attacks on gentlemen of this kind by smearing our arguments.

Mr. Archie Manuel (Central Ayrshire)

rose—

Mr. Onslow

No. I have already taken longer than I intended and it would be only fair to allow hon. Members opposite to compete to catch your eye in due course, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

Why do we have in the Government known supporters of the C.N.D.? Because the Prime Minister put them there. Why did he put them there? Because he shares their views? Because he sees the force of the criticisms which they level against him? Because it was expedient that he should do so? Because he is practising some duplicity? Why? "You pays your money and you takes your choice"—a four-way accumulator, or whatever it is. We do not know the answer and we should like to know it.

The present situation destroys the Government's credibility at home and overseas. It undermines the confidence of our allies in the British Government's intentions in South-East Asia. It may well undermine the confidence of those with whom we have to negotiate in the firmness with which the Government will hold to the opinions which the Foreign Secretary has publicly expressed. This situation is dangerous to us all.

Finally, in the House of Commons we have and we know we have a number of Members who are supporters of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.

Mr. Manuel

And a few Fascists, too.

Mr. Onslow

But looking across the Chamber I cannot see anyone who is displaying his badge. The advice which we should give to hon. Members who support the C.N.D. and to members of the Cabinet who support the C.N.D. is, "Wear your badge; fly your colours; let us see you. What are you afraid of? Are you afraid that you are wrong? Are you afraid that you have an influence which you would lose if your colours were truly known?" That is the challenge. [Interruption.] I am delighted to see that the hon. Lady the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Anne Kerr) has accepted the challenge and has shamed her male colleagues. Perhaps other hon. Members opposite will be able to go out of the Chamber and get their badges in a minute. I hope that other and more eminent hon. Members will answer this challenge. Let us see them at the next Cabinet meeting showing these nice little badges—

Mr. Eric Ogden (Liverpool, West Derby)

On a point of order. So far as I can see, the suggestion is that those who are not wearing badges on this side of the House are not wearing them because they are ashamed of a certain membership of a certain party. I happen to be wearing my badge. Will the hon. Gentleman take back that slur?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

That is not a point of order.

Mr. Onslow

I am sorry that my eyes deceived me as I looked across the Chamber and led me to malign the hon. Member. I gladly accept his confession that he is a member of the C.N.D.

I repeat: let them come into the open; let them come out of the Cabinet room and be photographed outside No. 10 wearing their badges, and then we shall not need to have another Motion like this for a long time, because the fresh air of the publicity will put an end to what might otherwise well become a sinister and dangerous conspiracy.

5.38 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Edelman (Coventry, North)

The last time I followed the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) I congratulated him on his maiden speech. I am sorry that I cannot congratulate him this time. His speech was contemptible and followed the general tone, the general ignoble and somewhat squalid tone, with which the debate was initiated by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten). I say that because the whole of the debate has been conceived and developed in a mood of chicanery. As we all know, it was the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) who won the Ballot and who should have introduced a debate on Europe. Hon. Members opposite pay lip-service to the idea of a united Europe.

Mr. Marten

rose—

Mr. Manuel

He did not give way to me. Do not give way.

Mr. Edelman

There was an opportunity for the House to discuss the vitally important matter of Europe, which is especially important at this moment where there seemed to be so many divisive tendencies in Europe itself. Despite that, hon. Members opposite threw away the opportunity to debate Europe in order to engage in a debate which I probably over-value by describing as one of the worst examples of malevolence which I have heard in this Chamber in the 20 years that I have been a Member of the House.

The hon. Member for Banbury is the victim of a kind of political schizophrenia. Personally, I find him a most amiable person. I have played tennis with him and, as a junior Minister, he always showed himself able to appreciate matters objectively. He is a person who has not one but two King Charles's heads—the Paymaster-General and the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. He has propounded those two themes in the course of many debates.

Today I was bitterly disappointed in the mood, attitude and form in which he expressed himself, because his references to supporters, past and present, of C.N.D. reminded me of nothing more than the McCarthy technique of spreading guilt by association. What is that technique? It is the vague allegation; the miasma of suspicion; the attribution of base motives; the designation of the unpopular as the villainous. That is the technique of McCarthyism, and I thought it remarkable that not only was this tone set by him in his introduction but it was immediately followed by his hon. Friend.

Mr. Marten

This is not McCarthyism, because they are proud of it. McCarthyism was rather the opposite. It was uncovering Communism. This is explaining what is quite on the surface, and is well known, because the newspaper published by C.N.D. contains lists of all the people who support it.

Mr. Edelman

The hon. Member should not have wasted the time of the House by that interruption. The essence of McCarthyism is the attribution of guilt by association. The essence of McCarythism is to create a vague aura of suspicion and then to ask those who are accused to deny that they are people who are guilty of a crime of which they were not guilty in the first place. That is the essence of the technique of McCarthyism, and that is the technique which the hon. Member and his follower used today. That is what the whole House must deplore.

If we are to use that technique in this House—I say this not as a threat but with deep regret—it will be possible for all sorts of people to use the technique of the attribution of guilt of all kinds to hon. Members. It is a characteristic of this honourable House not to conduct its debates in this way. I profoundly regret that on this occasion the debate should have been initiated in this form. I tell the hon. Member not only was he prepared to deliver this attack against hon. Members on this side of the House—[Interruption.] He now says that he did not attack, but it seems to me that the method he used was, in the words of the poet, such that he was willing to strike but afraid to wound. Why was he afraid to wound? It was because he knew that if he wounded too much the reposte would be so sharp that many hon. Members opposite—including himself—would not recover from it.

Captain Walter Elliot (Carshalton)

The hon. Member has accused my hon. Friend of using the technique of McCarthyism. As I understand it, McCarthyism dealt with Communism. [HON. MEMBERS: "It did not."] This debate is about C.N.D.

Mr. Mikardo

That is the one thing McCarthyism did not do.

Captain Elliot

Is the hon. Member suggesting that both are the same—or is there a smear attached to association with C.N.D.?

Mr. Edelman

The hon. Member is seconding his friend in his McCarthyism technique. He is doing precisely the same by equating the two things. He is asking the rhetorical question whether I associate membership of C.N.D. with membership of the Communist Party. That is putting it simply for him. The answer is that I do not, as I shall show in the course of my remarks. I re-emphasise that to try to smear an issue which is and should be clear by suggesting that hon. Members who supported the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament were Communists—because that is what it is, put baldly—is an unworthy smear and a lie.

Mr. Marten

rose—

Hon. Members

No. You spoke for an hour.

Mr. Edelman

At this stage, after my preamble, I should like to say a few words about myself. I marched twice at Aldermaston, and I am glad that I did. The march was a demonstration of political and moral protest in the great tradition not just of the Labour movement but of all those movements of popular protest throughout British history when the people have come to lead the Governments. The first march was only one step. The nuclear disarmers in their time instructed the whole nation and the whole world. They protested against the bomb being considered as an instrument of war. They created a climate of opinion in which Governments agreed to abandon nuclear testing with which they were polluting the atmosphere. They created a mood in which Britain recognised that the world's peril grew rather than diminished with the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

My part in the genesis of the campaign was to give my name as a sponsor and to march with those who went to Aldermaston. I took no part in its direction, and I withdrew my name after a relatively short time simply because I was not prepared to sponsor a movement whose direction appeared to me to be arbitrary and whose policies later on went beyond its original terms of reference. Nor did I believe, in the developing context of world events, that uni-laterialism was practical politics. In a world where the bomb was multiplying it seemed to me that only concerted action by the bomb owners could save the world from the doom to which seemed to be hurrying.

In a sense I could be described as a premature multilateralist. I do not want to quote my own speeches—I do not think that I have ever done so in this House—but I hope that I may refer to a speech that I made on 5th November, 1953, because it illustrates my own concern with the bomb and my own motives for marching to Aldermaston. No doubt the hon. Member for Banbury will do me the honour of reading my speech in full. When I spoke I had just returned from the United States, where I had heard of the hydrogen bomb and its potentialities, and also that the Soviet Union was about to explode a hydrogen bomb. I had heard of Professor Einstein's statement that with the development of the hydrogen bomb the radio-active poisoning of the atmosphere and hence annihilation of any life on earth has been brought within the range of technical possibility. I then said: I wished to try to discover what was meant by ^* poisoning the atmosphere'."— In 1953 this was a fairly novel concept— Apparently it means that following the explosion of a hydrogen bomb tremendous quantities of neutrons which can enter any substance in nature, are liberated and can make these substances radioactive. According to the published statements of leading scientists who have taken part in the development of the atomic bomb, if a cobalt casing is used for a bomb of adequate size it would be possible … for all life on earth to be destroyed by these radio-active substances. Then I quoted the late Professor Szilard, whom I had met shortly after the war—one of the leading scientists responsible for the development of the atomic bomb—who had said: Four hundred tons of heavy hydrogen or deuterium could produce 50 tons of neutrons which, in turn, could generate a radio-active element capable, if released in the air, of surviving for five years, killing the whole of mankind. In those days all that seemed like science fiction, and too remote for anybody to know anything about. When I spoke in this sense I was heard with a certain detachment by those hon. Members who were present. I went on to say: it is illusory to imagine that there exists any absolute form of protection against the atomic and the hydrogen bomb, and any country which imagines that it can with immunity take part in a war with which such weapons of mass destruction will be used is living in a fool's paradise. We in this country know how exposed we are. It may be that America, with her vast spaces, and the Soviet Union with its enormous expanse, might, perhaps, extract themselves from the ultimate disaster of atomic warfare. It may be that, in the great areas of those countries, some people might survive a war of that kind, but we know that, placed as we are between the hammer and the anvil, if there were to be an atomic war we should be the receiving base for the most intense form of attack. It is we who would suffer the worst disasters of such a war."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th November. 1953; Vol. 520, c. 408–10.] I spoke in those terms and I called on the Government to try to see, if they could not carry out the original Baruch-Lilienthal proposals for the control of atomic bombs from which the Soviet Union had withdrawn after it had developed the atomic bomb, that there should be a summit meeting in which this terrible danger weighing over the heads of mankind might be considered and proposals made for its removal.

The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Dodds-Parker), with whom I hope shortly to go on a journey, followed me and said that he found the problems which I mentioned difficult to apprehend. I have some sympathy with him, because in 1953 these were important problems, difficult to apprehend, difficult to conceive of and to understand. If it was difficult for the hon. Gentleman, who is a highly intelligent and experienced Member of this House, it must have been an even greater problem for a layman elsewhere to understand. As knowledge of what the atomic bomb meant grew and spread men like Kingsley Martin, Ritchie Calder and J. B. Priestley, who did apprehend the problem, came together in order to try to instruct the public in the meaning of nuclear weapons, the atomic and hydrogen bombs.

I want to revert to a point which I made at the beginning of my speech, because the "Communists" smear has been repetitiously introduced into the debate and we can expect that it will be repeated very often before it ends. The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament owed nothing in its origins to Communist inspiration. In the early stages, the Communists opposed the Campaign. In their contorted way, they argued—as the Conservatives seem to be arguing today—that British nuclear weapons made Britain less dependent on American nuclear policies and that, somehow or other, if Britain had nuclear weapons, it would automatically be divided from the United States because it could follow an independent line. That was the sophism used in those days and up to 1958 in order to oppose the aims of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, this radical movement.

It was only later on that the Communists, in the ways they have always used, the technique of "boring from within", tried to capture the Campaign, when they saw that it was a great political force which enlisted the energies, the enthusiasms and moral purposes of vast numbers of people, of a young generation which wanted to have hope and to look forward to life, which did not want to suffer from the fact that their elders had invented this evil thing. As one who, in 1958, marched to Aldermaston, I know that people were concerned. The C.N.D. movement in which they were engaged was a heart cry and not a policy. It was for politicians to make policies. The marchers were, for the most part, very young people, among whom I was slightly embarrassed to find myself. They were protesting—perhaps unjustly—against the men of my generation who had left them the legacy of the nuclear problem. They did not know how it happened. All they knew was that it was there and hanging over them. They felt that a generation with a past had denied them a future.

As the hon. Member for Banbury was speaking, in my mind's eye I saw the great processions of people marching to Aldermaston. I thought that it was not an accident that there were so many thousands of young women carrying children. The infants in their turn were carrying strontium in their bones, strontium released by the atomic blasts which were part of the heritage which had been bequeathed to them by those people who had discovered the atomic bomb and who still regarded it as a potential weapon of war. They were a doomed generation crying out for mercy. That was the nature of the marchers in 1958.

I will not pretend that disreputable people did not attach themselves to the march. I think it is well-known that every movement of social protest attracts the worst as well as the best in a society. Nor is it surprising that these protests were often disfigured at the outset by people who were trying to serve other ends. When one considers how many tens of thousands of people squelched through the slush, trudged through the snow and the rain in order to demonstrate their beliefs, no one can then say that the Aldermaston marchers were the sinister rabble of the witch-hunter's imagination. They were ordinary, worth-while men and women, non-political for the most part, exercising the traditional right of procession in order to declare their views.

The hon. Member's Motion makes no mention of the Committee of 100. At one time regarded as a part of C.N.D., the Committee of 100, led by Lord Russell, was in constant conflict with the views of the Campaign. To my knowledge, no member of the Government who is indicted in the Motion had any connection with the Committee of 100. I deplore the technique of the "sit-down" It was a technique which put gross strains and burdens on a police force which, by any standards, was patient, tolerant and understanding. Those people made a laughing stock of the serious purpose of protest. They gave undue opportunities to exhibitionists.

While I do not doubt the bona fides of many who take part in these unattractive demonstrations, I still believe that the activism of the Committee of 100, reaching out into other spheres of activity and policies with no relevance to those of the originators of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, did a disservice both to the cause of nuclear disarmament and Parliamentary democracy. I thought that the hon. Member went out of his way to try to identify the Aldermaston marchers and their supporters in the Government as members of a sinister conspiracy. I speak now of those members of the Government who have been pilloried on these lines.

As the hon. Gentleman read out the list in the attitude of a commissar or gauleiter, I thought that he was going to conclude by saying, "Off to the salt mines." This method of nomination for the pillory by list is something novel in British politics and something to be deplored. When it comes to drawing up lists, we are beginning to imitate the totalitarian techniques the hon. Gentleman so rightly deplores—

Mr. Marten

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was here at the beginning of my speech—

Mr. Edelman indicated assent.

Mr. Marten

He was. He must have heard me say that I was not criticising the C.N.D. at all.

Mr. Edelman

I was here at the beginning of the hon. Gentleman's speech, and its opening had no relevance to its conclusion. I cannot help feeling that somewhere along the way he must have been incited by the applause and sniggers of those beside him.

Those of us on this side of the House who know the members of the Government who were members of the Campaign know their reality as distinct from the caricature which the hon. Gentleman presented. At a time when it was very unpopular to support the cause even of banning nuclear testing, they were ready to stick their necks out. They put self-interest behind them. They were ready to advance a cause at first obscure and long unpopular which, in many areas, now has general acceptance, and I mean specifically in the ban on nuclear tests. They deserve the praise and not the deprecation of the House.

I began by giving my views and I hope that hon. Members will bear with me if I develop them a little further. None of us, unlike hon. Gentlemen opposite, is congealed in his views. Having said that, and speaking for myself alone, the Cuba confrontation was a watershed in my thinking. I cannot help feeling that when it happened a new era, perhaps a temporary one but certainly a new one, entered into the relationship between the great Powers. Khrushchev backed down to President Kennedy's determination because in that context of power Khrushchev decided that Cuba was not worth a nuclear war.

We must recognise, however, that power considerations tend to change. We are for the time being protected by a deterrent which must of its nature become more complex, more multifaceted and more final with each day's new scientific discoveries and developments and as minor Powers assemble nuclear armouries. This is not a time for petty recrimination and abuse. I therefore regret that the hon. Member for Banbury should have taken this vast subject which so deeply concerns every man, woman and child in this country down from the height where it should have been discussed and dragged it in the gutter.

We live in an anxious world which constantly sees monsters giving birth to monsters. We see fear of Russia being replaced by a super fear of China and bombs so big that they cannot be used except as nuclear boomerangs for suicide. The C.N.D. has had its day of protest. Perhaps it has other tasks, in which I will not take part. Those who took part in the Aldermaston march have no reason for regret or shame, but every reason for pride and honour for having helped to alert the world to the disasters confronting it.

If our generation can find a solution to the nuclear problem and if we can achieve multilateral nuclear disarmament, then I believe that among those who posterity will thank will be in the very first place my hon. and right hon. Friends who are so unfairly indicted today.

6.3 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds)

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman), who put his views succinctly and with the agreement of many hon. Gentlemen opposite. I honour him for having done that.

I first saw the C.N.D. in its march to Aldermaston on American television. At that time I felt proud in a sense that the tradition of dissent in Britain was being pursued by those who went on that march. I say that with all sincerity. I felt it right to say to the many Americans with whom I discussed the C.N.D. that I was glad, as an Englishman living in their country, that we had dissent and protest. I also pointed out the great care with which the British police managed the whole business. In the United States in those days there was less dissent and protest.

Further to the remarks of the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus), I hope that it will be recognised by hon. Gentlemen opposite in the same sincere fashion that not only the young men and women who marched to Aldermaston felt sincerely for peace. There were at the R.A.F. station in my constituency, to which protests were made, many men in uniform flying our nuclear bombers who held just as sincere views for peace and who were as concerned as certain hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite and members of the C.N.D. for the maintenance of peace in the world. Views differ and I hope that we will not challenge too much the motives which lead us to them.

My impressions of the C.N.D. in this country were formed very much as a result of a visit which I paid to Bertrand Russell on his high farm in North Wales. I spoke with him there for several hours about the C.N.D. because I was perplexed. I was not sure just where I stood in the matter. I have as a proud possession a tape recording of the three-hour conversation we had.

I have, with some doubt, come to the feeling that I must support all the way the retention of the British deterrent. That is the view to which I have finally come, but I have reached it with some misgivings and in a difficult fashion because this is a problem on which no man can lightly make a decision. However, this is the decision I now hold and I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will recognise that if they are sincere in their campaign for nuclear disarmament, we on our side may be equally sincere and patriotic in our desire to maintain the nuclear deterrent. I am, therefore, glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) has tabled the Motion because there is here a matter fundamental to the constitutional Government of this country.

This debate seeks to establish the influence of the C.N.D. on the conduct of the affairs of this country. As such, it is a perfectly proper debate for the House to be having. I take this question to be highly relevant because the British people as a whole have been led to believe that the present Administration have given up their connections with the C.N.D. This impression was given in the Labour Party's manifesto and in the statements of senior members of the Government.

In so far as the Government have severed their affiliations with the C.N.D., I am extremely glad that they have done so. [Interruption.] However, I am bound to confess to a great deal of puzzlement about this because while the Government say, and appear to mean, that they accept the Polaris bases in Scotland, the C.N.D. opposes those bases. Some members of the Government are members of the C.N.D. and I want to know whether or not they support the Polaris bases there. The country is entitled to an answer.

Equally, the Government are in favour of and, by their actions, support the rearmament of West Germany. The Prime Minister made it clear during his visit to West Germany where he stood. The C.N.D., on the other hand, opposes the rearmament of Germany. I want to know where members of the Government who are, or have been, members of the C.N.D. stand on this issue. The country is entitled to an answer to that question, too.

The Government have made it clear that they are in favour of maintaining the British nuclear deterrent. There are now, as we sit here, British bombs in British aircraft east of Suez and, I hope, west of Suez, too. This is the Government's policy, but the C.N.D. is opposed to it. Are the members of the Government who are or were members of the C.N.D. in favour of it? This is another question to which the country should be given an answer.

The situation appears to be that on this whole range of nuclear and foreign policy questions some right hon. Gentlemen in the Cabinet support the Government's policy and—

Mr. Manuel

rose—

Mr. Griffiths

I will not give way just yet.

Hon. Members

Give way.

Mr. Manuel

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises that in all Cabinets and in all Governments the Cabinet responsibility is the ultimate rule. In the former Administration there were divisions of opinion and disagreements. He is bound to recognise that in any Government such divisions of opinion are bound to arise. Would he not agree that it is the Cabinet responsibility which is all important? Would he not also agree—although I will not mention names—that during the Suez crisis, for example, my hon. Friends and I could have raised this sort of matter, although doing so would not and could not have taken us very far?

Mr. Griffiths

I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. There are, of course, divisions of opinion within all Cabinets and I agree that there is collective responsibility in the end. However, today's debate is trying to discover how far these differences of opinion in the present Cabinet are affecting the conduct of this country's policies. I maintain, I think with evidence, that they are very much affecting the conduct of British affairs.

I want to ask hon. Members opposite how those members of the C.N.D. who are now members of the Government have been able to square their consciences, as they have changed their opposition in many important speeches. In opposition, Members on the Front Bench opposite opposed the bomb; in Government they are maintaining it. In Opposition they opposed the Royal Air Force playing its part in the Western deterrent; in Government they are supporting it. How have they been able to square their consciences in making this change of front?

When I consider the question of squaring one's conscience, there seem to me to be only three possible explanations; they were not very sincere in their original support of the C.N.D., or they were sincere in that support, but are even more sincere about wanting jobs in the Government, or they were not very serious about the C.N.D. in the first place and do not really much mind either way about the particular policies I have been discussing.

Let us look at the three possibilities, the first being that they were not very sincere in their attachment to the C.N.D. in the first place. They marched, but they are not prepared to vote against the Government. They were against the bomb in 1964, but they are not against it in 1965. Surely, these are men of little faith. They are political changelings. We all know that it happens, but I ask hon. Members opposite to explain how they have been able to square their consciences.

The second possibility is that they were very sincere when they marched with the C.N.D., and I accept that—sitting on a wet newspaper is no light matter for an elderly Labour politician—but if they were sincere it is quite evident by this change of front that they are more sincere in their desire to sit on the Treasury Bench. These are not the men of little faith but the men of great ambition. No one in this House will blame them for that, but let us be spared the humbug and the hypocrisy of saying that what they say today is the same as what they said a year ago. It is quite plain that it is not, and the Left wing of the Labour Party knows perfectly well that it is not but that they have changed their front. Let them not pretend that they are being consistent.

The last of the three possibilities is that these people were not very sincere but simply floated on what they thought was the trend or tide of political advantage. It may well be that they are in the majority, but, if they are, let us not be told that we owe them the respect due to great seekers after peace. They are no more great seekers after peace than the rest of us. What I confess to finding personally objectionable is the seizing and monopolising of the issue of peace and wrapping it around as if it belonged to them, and to no one else. They have no right to seek that monopoly, and in their hearts they know it.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson (Montgomery)

To relate what the hon. Gentleman has so far been saying on the Motion, which regrets the influence of the C.N.D. on the Government in relation to the bomb, what I understood the hon. Member to say was that the Government were against the bomb before they came to power and in favour of it since. Does not this show that the C.N.D. have had no influence on their policy but that the Tory Policy really led them to do something else?

Mr. Griffiths

The hon. and learned Gentleman's intervention is precisely the same as that which has been made from the other side of the Chamber. It is a good point. My answer is that I simply do not know whether they have changed their policy or not. The purpose of this debate is to find out.

I am reminded that I must continue to look at the relation of the C.N.D. to Government policies, and I will do so. I do not doubt that some 70 or 80 hon. Members opposite have been or are members of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. I do not blame them for that—in some respects I respect them for it—but let us face it as a fact. I will mention only one, and I have given him prior notice—the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme). In 1958, the hon. Member wrote a pamphlet in which he said: My hope is to convert Labour to C.N.D.—partly by the C.N.D. challenge to Westminster. The hon. Member for Salford, West went on: But you do not change the policy of the Labour Party overnight. I estimate it will take us about 18 months"—

Mr. Stanley Orme (Salford, West)

I am very sorry, but I must point out that the hon. Member is referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun).

Mr. Griffiths

I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I mean the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun).

A few months later the hon. Member for Salford, East, was brought into the Government, and in the light of his earlier remarks it was perfectly plain that he would sincerely seek to change the Government to the C.N.D. Quite obviously, he failed. He resigned, and I honour him for that, but I did not—

Mr. Frank Allaun

The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are objecting to the influence of the C.N.D.-ers in the Labour ranks. Why did he and his hon. Friends not object to the far greater influence of the Institute of Directors and the financial interests in the Conservative Government?

Mr. Griffiths

I shall not attempt to go into that.

I want now to refer to the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies). I am sorry that I have not been able to give him prior notice, because communications with Hanoi are not satisfactory—

Mr. Manuel

Cheap.

Mr. Griffiths

The hon. Member for Leek is conducting a major—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King)

Order. Hon. Members must by now have learned to listen to hon. Members whose views they do not share.

Mr. Griffiths

The hon. Member for Leek is conducting, or attempting to conduct, an extremely diplomatic mission on behalf of the Prime Minister. He was, I understand, a member of the C.N.D.—it may be that he still is, but I understood an hon. Member opposite to say that he has now resigned. If so, I am very glad to hear it. Presumably, however, his attitude to foreign affairs has been influenced by the C.N.D., of which he was a very ardent and sincere member.

He made his attitude clear in a debate on the Polaris missile base on 16th December—and I hope hon. Members opposite will listen to this. The hon. Member made a ringing declaration—and hon. Members opposite will enjoy this: … this party of ours is still the most powerful in the world"— He was immediately interrupted by his hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy) with a remark that hon. Members opposite may savour even more. He said: It will not be if the hon. Gentleman has anything to do with it. I may say that that is my view today.

The hon. Member for Leek then spoke of some items of British foreign policy. Let us bear in mind all the time that this is said by a Minister conducting the affairs of Britain in Hanoi. He said of America: … the military élite are dominating the United States of America … they are trying to prevent any conclusions that would lead to disarmament successes. That was the hon. Gentleman's view of America.

Mr. Mikardo

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Griffiths

I am sorry, no.

The hon. Member for Leek said of our German allies, whom the Prime Minister recently visited: Once we agree to the rearmament of Germany and … to Polaris bases, we are doomed to be puppets, with Panzer divisions on our soil …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th December, 1960; Vol. 632, cc. 740–752.] That is what the hon. Gentleman said about Germany—and he is now conducting British policy. He referred to S.E.A.T.O. and CENTO as "piddling pacts"—

Mr. Buchan

On a point of order, Mr Deputy-Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to attack another hon. Member who, in the circumstances of the case, could not be given notice of the attack, as he is seeking to put forward the policy of the Government and the nation at the present time?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I am afraid that it is not a question of order. I cannot rule on courtesy.

Mr. Griffiths

May I make clear to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that I do not attack the hon. Member for Leek? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am stating what is on the record as his own words. I propose to continue to do so. He said of CENTO and S.E.A.T.O. that they were "piddling pacts". That was the statement of a man who is now representing his country abroad. He said of N.A.T.O.: We need to make it clear that N.A.T.O. is not to be a permanent feature of our foreign policy. Now he is representing this country abroad. In his peroration he said: I hope … that hon. Members on my side of the House will fight, fight, fight again …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th December, 1960; Vol. 632, c. 753–4.] That was the statement of the hon. Member for Leek. At the end of that debate the House divided on the proposal that the Polaris base should be removed from this country. He was supported in the Division Lobby by a very large number of hon. Members who are now Her Majesty's Ministers. Among them, we find from HANSARD, was the Secretary of State for the Colonies. Does he support the statements of the hon. Member for Leek now? If so, will he say so?

There was the Minister for Overseas Development who supported the hon. Member on the question of pushing out the Polaris base. Does she support that proposal now? If so, will she say so? The Minister of Housing and Local Government also voted with the hon. Member for Leek. Does he support that policy and will he say so? The challenge is there. There was the Joint Under-Secretary to the Ministry of Education. Does she support the policy now? There was the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport. Where does he stand now? They made it clear by going into the Lobby with the hon. Member for Leek where they stood then. I do not quarrel with their sincerity, but they have not made clear where they stand now and the country is entitled to know.

Mrs. Anne Kerr

Has it occurred to the hon. Member that they may well be using their influence within the Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and representing a large body of opinion of the people of Britain?

Mr. Griffiths

The hon. Lady took the words out of my mouth for my next note says, "We can take it that their influence is still at work, supporting policies which out of one side of the mouth of the Government they agree with and out of the other side they disagree with." Quietly, secretly and furtively they are seeking to destroy the policies of those Right Wing members of the Government with whom they profoundly disagree and are damaging the firm stand which the Foreign Secretary has taken on some issues.

This is the reason above all else why this debate is being held in the House today. Foreign nations accept that the policy of Her Majesty's Government is that stated by the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister, yet they know that in the Cabinet are men who disagree and who on their record are opposed to those very policies. Can it be wondered that foreign countries wonder out of which side of their mouths the present Government are speaking? There is here a lack of confidence. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is not influenced by C.N.D. I am glad to say, said: For Britain to renounce nuclear weapons of her own would be as useless a gesture as spitting against the wind. He said that in London on 23rd September, 1960, but what did the Secretary of State for the Colonies say at almost the same time? He said: I believe it is morally wrong for us to have or to manufacture or to stockpile nuclear weapons. Does he stand for that now while Her Majesty's Government are manufacturing and stockpiling nuclear weapons in this country? The Minister of Labour, a very firm stander for love of this country in public, said: Unilateral disarmament of Britain would seriously upset the balance of power. I believe that to be true, but what did the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland say? He said: If giving up the bomb means getting out of N.A.T.O., then we have to get out of N.A.T.O. The only one of the Ministers who managed to say two things at the same time was, of course, the right hon. Gentleman the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs. He managed to span the whole issue. He said: Should we have an H-bomb? I answer that one by saying that we should retain it. But not long afterwards he wrote in Tribune: We should long have ceased to argue let alone to maintain, an independent nuclear deterrent. Other Ministers contradict one another, but he contradicted himself.

This situation is not good enough. The people of this country have been led to believe that the Government have put aside C.N.D. policies. Have they or have they not? We cannot be sure and I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate he will give precise answers to three questions. Will he on behalf of the Government reject the policies of the C.N.D. and, as the Foreign Secretary has already done, say straight out that they are not in favour of unilateral British disarmament? Will he say that on behalf of the British Government? Will he say on the subject of Vietnam that he is not in favour of policies as advocated by the C.N.D. which would lead to the United States being pushed out and a Communist Vietnam established to quieten those who oppose it?

Will he convey to the Prime Minister this question? Will the Prime Minister cause his Cabinet Ministers to say clearly and out loud that they support the Foreign Secretary's position on Vietnam, that they support the policy of the Minister of Defence on Polaris and the Minister for the R.A.F. in their policy east of Suez? Will he say that these are the views of the Government and that he has no time for the views of the C.N.D. and its 80 supporters in this House? If he says that, he will go a long way to reestablish the confidence which his Government need but which I am afraid they have not got.

6.26 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. G. W. Reynolds)

The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) started his speech in a very reasonable manner. Unfortunately, as he went along he descended to a lower and lower level of sneer and abuse against my hon. and right hon. Friends inside the Government and on the back benches of this side of the House. In the way in which he put his final questions I shall treat them, I will ignore them for the rest of this speech. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]

I shall ignore them because Ministers speaking from this Bench, the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and other right hon. Friends, have made perfectly clear the Government's policy ever since October last year on the various points made by the hon. Member. If he wishes to find what the Government's policy is, it is in the pages of HANSARD for him to read. When the mover of a Motion of this nature takes 55 minutes it does not give me the time to go into all the factors I should like to discuss on this occasion.

When the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament was formed in 1958, it had many aims and fears which most hon. Members would accept justified setting up the organisation to foster comment on this subject. Whether one agreed with it or not is another matter, but particularly in the period 1960 to 1963 there was a mass of discussion and argument of the problems which were being put before the country by members of the Campaign, culminating in a meeting of 50,000 people in Trafalgar Square in 1960, 1961, 1962 and 1963.

During that whole period, I do not remember the then Prime Minister or Foreign Secretary or Secretary of State for Defence or hardly any hon. Member opposite taking any part in that debate. They sat still and said nothing hoping that because some of us in the Labour Party were participating in the debate on both sides the Labour Party would tear itself to pieces. They sat back and said not a word on that important subject during that period. Fortunately they were not correct in their assumption for the Labour Party did not tear itself to pieces. The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr Marten) asked Questions on 29th March, the 17th May and 6th June, 1962, about the expense involved in policing those meetings. That was the extent of his interest in the problem at that time.

Her Majesty's Government share the desire of supporters of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament that ways must be found of saving mankind from the horrors of nuclear war. We differ from them on the methods, but these are differences of view which can be genuinely held by individuals themselves. Her Majesty's Government are working at the moment for an agreement to prevent the further spread of nuclear weapons; for an extension to the nuclear test ban treaty to cover underground tests; for a freeze in the numbers and characteristics of delivery vehicles; and for the first time there is in Her Majesty's Government at the moment a Minister working full-time on this particular problem of trying to get agreement in the international field. We believe that it is possible to diminish the prospects of nuclear war and at the same time properly discharge the responsibilities of the Government for the security of the nation.

I am sure that many of the things that the Government are now trying to do in the international field will be supported individually by supporters of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. I am equally certain that they are also the views of the United States Government; but presumably, In the eyes of some hon. Members opposite, if some things which the United States Government are trying to do happen to agree with the views of C.N.D., that shows that the C.N.D. is influencing the United States Government as well. These are the lengths to which hon. Members opposite have tried to push some of their arguments this afternoon. Nevertheless, the Government are trying to do these things.

In the Motion and in the speeches to which we have listened there is an implication that this country's defences and the lives of British soldiers are being put at risk because of the pressure by the C.N.D. on Her Majesty's Government at present. This is the implication in the Motion. I maintain that since October of last year the defences of this country, the defensive position of this country, and the action of this country in the world to try to secure a lasting peace are considerably better and brighter than they were in October, 1964.

The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, so we are told by the hon. Member for Banbury, wants to see Britain disarmed. The hon. Gentleman was in part responsible for some of the things which we found when we entered office at the Ministry of Defence in 1964. I cannot help feeling that some members of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament must have felt that they had some supporters in the last Government, in view of some of the mess-ups we found on taking office. We found infantry battalions 6 per cent. under-manned; that is an average of 60 men short in each battalion. This was after 13½ years of Tory Government. We found that treaties we had with European countries to have a certain number of troops in Germany had been completely ignored and we were some 3,000 to 4,000 men short in B.A.O.R.

We found that, after spending £20,000 million, hon. Members opposite had provided us with helicopters which were being used in the Middle East and the Far East whose engines were not reliable and which were causing operational difficulties to our troops out there. We found that our troops in Aden had 81 millimetre mortars and, at that time, no 81 millimetre bombs. So our troops had to use 3-in. bombs. They were out-ranged by the forces deployed against them. We have managed to put that right since 15th October last. In the Far East the Navy was being forced to use 12 knot Second World War Minesweepers to try to catch Indonesian 20 knot and faster boats. This was the situation in which these men were left by hon. Members opposite.

We found the aircraft programme so far behind in development that planes which were at that time still under development would not be ready to replace the Canberras and other planes, which were supposed to be due for replacement, for years and years and the Air Force and the Navy would have been left without air cover. We were forced to buy American aircraft.

Mr. Marten

rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) knows that if the Minister does not give way he must resume his seat.

Mr. Reynolds

The hon. Member for Banbury would not give way to me. We found a situation where there was a shortage of tyres—the rubber things which go on the wheels of vehicles—which at one stage meant that we were dangerously near to having to restrict the operational use of vehicles in theatres where they were in operation. We found that at one stage it might have been necessary even to call off some territorial army training this year because of a shortage of tyres. This is the situation we found after 13½ years. That, I may say, has now been put right due to a lot of hard work by a number of people.

We found a situation in confrontation in Malaysia where Indonesian troops coming across the border were armed with better jungle rifles than our own troops had. There again, we had to buy American, and that problem has been solved. This was after the Tories had spent £20,000 million on defence in a matter of 13 years. Now they have the audacity to table Motions such as this one which seem to indicate that the present Government are not capable of dealing with defence problems but that they were so efficient at it. I have mentioned only a few of the things. I have mentioned only the things we have dealt with. There are many others which we will mention in due course when we have solved the problem left us on 15th October of last year.

Mr. Hooson

rose—

Mr. Reynolds

I will not give way at all—I am sorry. I thought that the hon. Member for Banbury, in moving the Motion, would give us some examples of C.N.D. influence on the Government's policy. I submit that he did not give any example at all in moving the Motion, nor has any other hon. Member opposite, where C.N.D. has in fact influenced the Government since 15th October of last year. The hon. Member quoted from Sanity—this was the only quote he gave—to the effect that the Prime Minister had, according to the quote, given the brush-off to a C.N.D. demonstration. I did not find that very convincing evidence of C.N.D. pressure and influence on the Government at that time. The hon. Gentleman said that he himself had asked the Prime Minister a Question dealing with defence policy, suggesting that it was leaning on or going over to the views of C.N.D., but the Prime Minister had not changed the policy at all.

The hon. Gentleman then stated the C.N.D. policy with regard to Vietnam and congratulated my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary for the stand he had been taking on this problem. The hon. Gentleman criticised, or tried to criticise, the Prime Minister and said that he was being influenced by C.N.D. in connection with our policy in Vietnam However, if I remember rightly, the Leader of the Opposition has supported my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on all the main aspects of the Government's attitude and policy on Vietnam. Does this mean that the Leader of the Opposition is also influenced by C.N.D., or does it mean that there is no real proof in this matter at all?

The hon. Gentleman criticised—I do not quite see where the influence of C.N.D. came in on this—the setting up of the Commonwealth Mission and the sending of my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance to Vietnam, not in themselves, but just on timing. So the hon. Gentleman's criticism of this Mission is not the decision itself. He is merely criticising the timing, which apparently C.N.D. has had an influence over in some way which I have not yet been able to—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Order. The hon. Member for Banbury, who addressed the House at length, must contain himself while the Minister is speaking.

Mr. Reynolds

The hon. Gentleman went on to say that C.N.D. wants the Polaris bases closed. He continued by saying that the Prime Minister has told him that he does not intend to do this. How does this show that C.N.D. is influencing what the Prime Minister and the Government are doing? The hon. Gentleman did not bring forward one single matter which could be taken as convincing proof that the terms of his Motion are correct and should be supported by the House.

The hon. Gentleman had a bit of fun over my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology. The hon. Gentleman seemed to be criticising something that my right hon. Friend said at the conference of the Transport and General Workers' Union at the Guildhall, Portsmouth, Hampshire, on Friday, 9th July, 1965. I, too, am a member of the Transport and General Workers' Union. I completely agree with the statement that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology made and which was criticised by the hon. Gentleman when my right hon. Friend said: I was delighted that you have this week registered your firm views about some matters of real concern. That is what my right hon. Friend said to the conference. I completely agree with that statement. I would be horrified to think that an organisation like the Transport and General Workers' Union did not meet in annual conference and give consideration to problems of international and national affairs which are of real concern to the people of this country and to its own members. I completely agree with my right hon. Friend on that point.

We must now look at the record of the hon. Member for Banbury. He said that C.N.D. policy was to get out of some of our overseas bases. I do not believe I am wrong in saying that he said that this was C.N.D. policy. Perhaps he would care to have a look after this debate is over at a speech he made in the House on 5th March, 1962, c. 138. Referring to the balance of payment difficulties, he suggested that we withdraw some of our troops from Germany. That is C.N.D. policy, I understand.

The hon. Gentleman went on a little later in his speech today to say that it was C.N.D. policy to get out of Aden and Singapore. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to look at c. 137 of 5th March, 1962, when, speaking of Aden and Singapore, he said: If we were to withdraw on our own initiative without being forced out, I believe that we should maintain the good will of the countries concerned. He also described C.N.D. policy as wanting to get rid of our nuclear deterrent. May I suggest that he looks at that speech of his in column 142 where, talking about the possibility of handing over control of United Kingdom nuclear weapons to N.A.T.O., he said: I know that defence changes from year to year, and it may be inevitable that some such arrangement will have to be made ultimately …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th March, 1962; Vol. 655, cc. 137 and 142.] That is what Her Majesty's Government are trying to do. He said that in 1962. His actual words were: … defence changes from year to year … That is what the hon. Gentleman said six months before he was invited to become Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation. As these things were then not the policy of the Government, did he completely change his views and disavow the views that he put forward, that we should get out of Aden and Singapore, that we should bring home British troops from Germany and some time in the future hand over control of our weapons to N.A.T.O.? That is what he said a few months before he entered the Government. Did he change his views?

Mr. Marten

The hon. Gentleman must recognise that if these speeches are read—I do not know whether he has read them, or whether extracts have been given to him by his staff—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I am answering. The hon. Gentleman must recognise that in debates one thinks aloud—[Laughter.]

Mr. Mikardo

Sit down.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The hon. Member must be allowed to intervene.

Mr. Marten

Surely the essence of debate is that we are thinking aloud. [Laughter.] What is so funny about that? If the hon. Member reads that speech he will find that that quotation, which presumably he has been given and was taken out of context, was not at variance with the Government's views.

Mr. Reynolds

The hon. Member should know that I was not given that quotation. He spoke to me in the Library yesterday when I was reading his speech. What the hon. Gentleman is saying is that he was thinking aloud at the time. Is he saying that it is all right for a Tory Member of this House to put forward policies before he is in Government and then to enter a Government which does not accept those policies, but that it is not right for my hon. Friends to advocate policies some of which may not be advocated by the present Government? What is good for one side of the House is good for the other.

The Motion also hints at the existence of pressure groups. We all know that pressure groups exist. We all accept that they are perfectly legitimate in any field that one likes to think of. The main thing that we have to be concerned with is what real effect those pressure groups have, and no instance has been given this afternoon of any effect that C.N.D. has had on Her Majesty's Government since 15th October last year—so much so that some of my hon. Friends must have been disappointed at some of the stuff that has come out in the debate this afternoon.

It was the brewers' lobby which had such a terrific effect on hon. Members opposite that the first piece of legislation they introduced in 1951–52 was the freeing of public houses in new towns. It was the road haulage and steel lobbies which influenced them to denationalise road haulage and steel. It was the so-called Cliveden set before the war who tried to influence the Conservatives' defence policy in the years before 1939. It was the commercial television lobby which forced hon. Members opposite, when they were in government, to set up the Independent Television Authority, and that lobby has been very well documented. One can read everything about it. It was the property company lobby which led to the Rent Act. 1957. We have had government by pressure group during the last 13 years and the time has now come to bring it to an end.

But there is a pressure group still remaining on the other side of the House. It has been working hard under the hon. Member for Banbury, directed against his hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall). We could have spent three hours this afternoon having a useful discussion on the future of Europe and the position of this country related to Europe. Instead, we have wasted three hours of the time of this House.

6.45 p.m.

Captain Walter Elliot (Carshalton)

I have listened to the Minister with considerable interest. He attacked my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), and I am sure my hon. Friend is well able to look after himself. We have spent a lot of time listening to the deficiencies which the hon. Gentleman alleges his Government inherited from the previous Government. I suppose that attack is the best form of defence, and I can only attribute the nature of his speech to the fact that he was working on that theory. I do not propose to waste any time on that matter.

I want to take up straight away a point which the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) mentioned, because it is important. He cast doubts—other hon. Members have done so, too—on the motives for initiating this debate. I think the hon. Member for Coventry, North suggested that by discussing the purposes of C.N.D. there was some object of smearing hon. Members who are connected with it, or members of the movement itself, as being Communists. He went on to say that various persons and bodies—disreputable cranks and others—had attached themselves to it. Of course, I go along with him on that point. But I do not think my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury, in moving the Motion, had any intention of smearing either hon. Members or the movement with Communism in the sense of McCarthyism.

What my hon. Friend did, as I remember, was to give the objects for which C.N.D. stands, and which have been published. I want to repeat those because this is an important point. He said, first, that members of C.N.D. want to abandon our rôle east of Suez. If any hon. Members wish to contradict me I will give way. Secondly, he said they want to abandon our nuclear policy. They want to withdraw from N.A.T.O., S.E.A.T.O. and CENTO. They want to break up the Anglo-American alliance and to end British involvement in Malaysia and Indonesia. They want to get rid of TSR2, and the American Polaris base. They want the British to withdraw from overseas bases and they want to get rid of nuclear weapons. I believe that is what he said, and I agree that that would assist the Communists.

Mrs. Anne Kerr

One of the points in the creed of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament is that the United Nations should become the cornerstone of our foreign policy. This policy happens to be part of the Labour Party's foreign policy.

Captain Elliot

I accept that from the hon. Lady. I mentioned the eight points which my hon. Friend put forward—and I agree with him—that it would assist the Communists if those policies were carried out. I believe my hon. Friend has done a great service in raising this matter, and giving us the opportunity to discuss the objects and the motives of C.N.D.

I am very sorry in some ways that the debate has developed as it has. Surely this was the very opportunity for hon. Members opposite to put before us the objects and motives of the C.N.D. I did not hear all the speeches, because unfortunately I had to go out to an engagement which I could not miss, but I should have thought that this was an excellent opportunity to put forward these objectives in a calm and factual manner. I am sorry that the debate raised a good deal of heat and attacks from hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Mikardo

rose—

Captain Elliot

I cannot give way. I have only a short time to speak and think that the hon. Member has already spoken.

Mr. Mikardo

No.

Captain Elliot

In that event I will give way.

Mr. Mikardo

I merely wanted to say that it is a pity that the hon. and gallant Member missed the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus) and my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman), the only two back-bencher speeches made on this side of the House. Both were serious political analyses of the policies of this country, in contrast with three speeches from hon. Members opposite which were full of attacks on named individuals.

Captain Elliot

I heard the speech of the hon. Member for Coventry, North.

I repeat that I am sorry that the debate has developed in this way. I should like in the few remaining minutes to delve a little more deeply into one or two points and the effects of some aspects of C.N.D. policy on the defence of this country. I should have thought that, apart from a few hon. Members opposite and possibly one or two on this side of the House, most of us accept the need for a Western nuclear deterrent. Does the C.N.D. advocate Western unilateral disarmament? I am not sure whether or not that is what it advocates.

Mr. Mikardo

No.

Captain Elliot

The hon. Member says "No", but I am not at all certain. If supporters of C.N.D. do advocate that, it raises some important questions.

Mr. Mikardo

It would if they did, but they do not.

Captain Elliot

I do not want to go through again the eight objectives of the C.N.D., but it is pretty well-known that the C.N.D. wishes us to get rid of our nuclear weapons. If members of the C.N.D. want Western unilateral disarmament that raises some important questions. Is it conceivable that a world composed only of Communist Powers on the one hand, armed with nuclear weapons, and a group of uncommitted, unarmed neutrals on the other would long remain in equilibrium? I do not believe that it would. The influence which the neutrals possess today is a by-product of the Western Alliance. I believe that the neutrals survive only in that part of the world left free by the existence of the strength of the West. There are no Switzerlands in the Communist orbit.

Does C.N.D. want the abandonment of the deterrent policy? This raises other questions. In the first place, it takes only about twelve months from scratch to make a bomb, and whether or not there are bombs already in existence at a particular moment of time is not very important. The menace is always there. If our nuclear armaments were scrapped, would hon. Members opposite who support the C.N.D. say that our civil defence organisation should not continue to train in case of a nuclear attack? At present if the West were to abandon its deterrent policy we should be left with the worst of both worlds. It would mean an enormous increase in our conventional weapons at great additional cost. The idea would grow that differences could be settled by conventional war and I believe that if we abandoned the deterrent policy we would substitute conventional war, for the virtual certainty of eventual nuclear war. I believe that this is one of the things to which C.N.D. policy might lead us. If the supporters of C.N.D. advocate the abandonment of nuclear weapons by this country—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but he must link his remarks to the Motion.

Captain Elliot

I am endeavouring to call attention to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the sort of objects at which it is aiming and I intend to lead on to the question of the effects which the campaign, if successful, will have on Government policy.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Order. I am sorry to interrupt again but I am asking the hon. and gallant Member to lead on to the Motion now.

Captain Elliot

In any case I am bringing my remarks to a close. If the C.N.D. objectives are the eight which I have described and if supporters of C.N.D. exert the influence on the Government which we assert is likely, I believe that the effects which I have described are likely and that Members of the Government who support C.N.D. should declare unequivocally that they support the Government policy described by the Foreign Secretary or else resign from the Government.

6.58 p.m.

Mr. Stanley Orme (Salford, West)

The debate initiated by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) three or four hours ago has blown up in the hon. Member's face and in the faces of his hon. Friends. The party opposite sought on this Motion to denigrate individuals who cannot answer back for themselves. They did not seek to deal with the basic issues involved. They treated the debate purely as a means of smearing individuals and that is something which is detestable in this House.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison (Chigwell)

rose—

Hon. Members

Sit down.

Mr. Orme

I only hope that the people of this country, and the young people in particular, who read this debate and observe the contemptuous manner in which it has been dealt with by the party opposite will realise which is the party that is concerned about saving the world from annihilation and the party which discusses this matter and will continue to discuss it as it has in recent years.

Mr. Biggs-Davison

rose—

Hon. Members

Sit down.

Mr. Orme

The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament is an honourable organisation which is supported by a vast cross-section of the people of this country. The only section of the country which does not support it is the Tories. It is significant that no debate has taken place inside the Tory Party when the rest of the nation and the world have been discussing nuclear policy over the past six or seven years.

When the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament began in 1958, during the sterile years of Tory leadership in this country, and when people started to discuss these basic issues—

It being Seven o'clock, the proceedings on the Motion lapsed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 5 (Precedence of Government Business).